HC Deb 02 April 1935 vol 300 cc300-4

9.2 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT

I beg to move, in page 124, line 23, to leave out from "rank," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert: otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Seventeenth Schedule to this Act. The object of this Amendment is one to which very considerable importance is attached, and I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to accept it. Associated with it there will be found on page 1298 of the Order Paper a new Schedule standing in my name and that of my friends, the whole purpose of which is to carry out to the full extent rule 55 of the "Civil Service, Classification, Control and Appeal." I would briefly refer to the words of these rules as corrected up to 1st September, 1935. The three points in the rules which I hope will be included refer to the right of an officer to an inquiry, the formulation of grounds of dismissal in writing and the cross-examination of witnesses. These words actually occur in the rules, though in somewhat different order. On page 14 of the rule referred to, these words occur: If he so desires or if the authority concerned shall direct, an oral inquiry shall be held. On page 13 of the rules we read Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants Inquiries Act, no order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank shall be passed on a member of the Civil Service unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds upon which it is proposed to take action. Then on page 14 he is entitled to cross-examine the witnesses. It would have been a cumbersome Amendment if we had attempted to embrace those words here.

9.5 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE

The proposed Schedule to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers consists of part of the rules known as the classification rules. These rules are very long and complicated. Hitherto they have been drawn up by the Secretary of State acting with his council, that council being, as the Committee will remember, definitely charged with the duty of watching over the interests of the services. It is proposed that the Secretary of State should have similar advisers in future and that it should be the duty of those advisers to watch over the safeguards necessary for the services just as the present council does. There will therefore continue to be the same safeguard as that which exists now, namely, the Secretary of State, acting in this case with the majority of his advisers.

The question then arises whether, in view of that fact, it is necessary to put part of these rules either into the Statute itself or into a Schedule. I suggest to the Committee that it is not necessary and that there is a good deal of objection to putting into a Schedule a part of these classification rules. There are several other rules just as important as this. In any case they are very voluminous, and to put them into the Bill would mean tying up a number of service conditions, some important and some not important, with statutory red tape and making it impossible to change them at all without an amending Act. I suggest that that would be to go too far. I submit that in the first place the safeguard of the Secretary of State, acting with his advisers, is sufficient, and, secondly, that we have already in Clause 229 met one of the chief points urged by my hon. and gallant Friend. If he will look at that Clause he will see set out explicitly in statutory form the rights which the ser- vices have in these matters. I suggest to him, particularly in view of Sub-section (3) and the safeguard which I have already mentioned, it is unnecessary to 'add a Schedule of this kind. There is also the serious objection of including details of this kind, with the result that they can only be altered in future by amending Acts.

9.9 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT

I am obliged to the Secretary of State for the courteous way in which he has answered my proposal. Sub-section (3) to which he has referred provides: No such person … shall be dismissed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to ho taken. "Reasonable opportunity" is not very definite and although it would be absurd to suggest that all these various rules should be embraced in the Statute I think my right hon. Friend will agree that the particular points referred to in my proposed Schedule are of great importance. If these words could be included it would give a feeling of confidence to the people concerned. I think I am entitled to mention, as an instance, the kind of cases which a during the War. In cases where there was some criticim of an officer these points were regarded as vital and I think the Civil Service in India would be better satisfied if they knew that the three main points dealt with in the Schedule were included.

In the circumstances contemplated in the Bill when we are setting up this new machinery it seems to me that any person who is in trouble should have the opportunity of receiving a formulation in writing of the grounds of his dismissal and should be allowed the opportunity of cross-examining witnesses. There have been some critical cases in India in the past and, as I say, great importance is attached to the three main heads dealt with in the proposed Schedule. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give me some encouragement to believe that he will look into the question further. I know it is a subject on which many civil servants feel very keenly. They are not able to express their views but one learns privately that this proposal if accepted, would give a greater feeling of confidence to gentlemen whose careers may be at stake under the new regime than they now have.

9.12 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE

I necessarily approach a proposition of this kind with great sympathy but again I say to my hon. and gallant Friend that I do not believe it to be necessary. First, the Sub-section I have mentioned to a great extent covers the point. Second the proposed Schedule would add nothing to the security of the Secretary of State having to give his approval to any change in the rules. Thirdly, this is only one of many other important rules. There are rules with reference to the right of appeal just as important as this one. Fourthly, this proposed Schedule itself does not appear to be the kind of watertight safeguard which my hon. and gallant Friend imagines because in the last paragraph it says that exceptions may be made in carrying it out. For those reasons, I think it better to keep the rules in the hands of the Secretary of State and his advisers. What I will do is to look into the paragraphs about the Public Service Commission to see if we could introduce there some reference which would ensure a proper bearing being given to a case before the case actually comes to the Secretary of State. I will look into the matter from that aspect but I do not think it would be a good plan to attach this Schedule to the Bill.

9.14 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK

I am very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is still prepared to give some consideration to this point and I would ask him whether this Clause could not be slightly expanded so as to include a reference to Rule 55 on these particular heads. I am familiar with the rules of the Government of India and of the Provincial Government dealing with what are called departmental inquiries into the alleged shortcomings of Government servants, however humble they may be. It is most desirable that nothing should be left vague. One of the most important of these instructions is that specific charges must be brought against a person against whom complaint is made. The opportunity of giving an answer in writing or orally to specific charges is a prime con- sideration of departmental inquiries, so that if we are to have the provisions contained in Clause 229 this particular Sub-section, at all events, should be included, unless you follow the practice which was followed in the case of the White Paper of putting all the rights into a schedule or a list. That has not been done here. In some respects, it might have been more satisfactory if it had been done, because otherwise it will take a man a long time to fathom out what his rights are. It is not a thing which he can keep in his head, and the next time he wants to look up his rights he will have to go through the list again. There is a good deal to be said for putting the principal rights in a schedule, but if that is not considered suitable the essential points should be included in the Clause.

Sir H. CROFT

Suppose some future Secretary of State decided to alter these rules, there would appear to be nothing to prevent him. The trouble is that this is a changing world, and that while we may feel happy and contented to-day about the rules, the rules might be varied in future.

9.17 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE

This is a changing world and we have changing Governments. They make many Acts, just as changing Secretaries of State may have different policies. There has, however, been a great continuity of policy in the Services question, and I think that one of the safeguards is that the Secretary of State will not be able to act without his advisers in a question of this kind. It is intended that the Services shall be represented among the Secretary of State's advisers and shall be there to watch over points of this kind. However, I will look into what both my hon. Friends have said to see whether it will be possible to put anything more into the body of the Bill. I will look into it sympathetically, but I am against the Schedule.

Sir H. CROFT

In these circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.