HC Deb 01 March 1944 vol 397 cc1445-7
Mr. McCorquodale

I beg to move, in page 8, line 14, after "leave," to insert: and an application for leave is made within the prescribed time to the umpire or a deputy umpire, with the leave. In moving this Amendment I should like at the same time to deal with a small consequential Amendment which follows:

"In page 8, line 15, to leave out 'in any other case'."

These two Amendments follow the pledge which was given during the Committee stage to allow an individual applicant who has been to a Reinstatement Committee to ask leave to appeal to the umpire from the decision of the Reinstatement Committee. That was in line with the general feeling in the committee.

Mr. Naylor (Southwark, South-East)

I am not opposing this Amendment, because I can see that it is necessary in order that the application shall be made within the prescribed time, but I should like the Minister to explain just how this Sub-section will operate. In the Unemployment Act an appeal is made to the umpire only on questions of general principle. Here it is different, because the appeal is on the facts of the case. We may presume that the umpire or deputy-umpire will decide the issue of giving leave to appeal upon the facts of the case. What follows? If the umpire has given permission to appeal he has heard all the facts of the case. What object, then, can be served by having another hearing to decide the appeal on the facts of the case as previously decided by the Reinstate- ment Committee? Are there to be two hearings by the umpire, one to decide whether he will give permission to appeal and another to decide whether the decision of the Reinstatment Committee was correct? I submit that in both cases the evidence will be the same, because permission to appeal is only granted after the facts of the case have been considered by the umpire. Does the umpire, having given leave to appeal, proceed at once to give a decision for or against the decision of the Reinstatement Committee on the facts which he has already considered in relation to the application for permission to appeal? Unless we are clear on how this sub-section actually works we shall be causing umpires to sit twice instead of once to decide issues which are to be determined on the same set of facts.

Mr. Bevin

In the case of this Bill, I find myself in a difficulty because under the hardship procedure, notwithstanding the Appeals Committee refusing leave to appeal, I, as Minister, can refer a case to the umpire if circumstances warrant it. Hon. Members know that in many hundreds of cases where leave to appeal has been refused, I have on re-examination of the case come to the conclusion that a further hearing ought to be given, and the case has gone to the umpire. The Minister does not come into this Bill at all and, therefore, when the argument was put up in Committee I felt that here was a dead end and the man concerned might feel a grievance. Therefore, I turned to what I understand to be a well-known practice in the Court of Criminal Appeal by which the request to appeal is allowed and then you proceed to a hearing. Now all the umpire will do in this case will be to review what happened before the Reinstatement Committee. The case will be put to him in writing and he will make up his mind whether, notwithstanding the unanimity of the Reinstatement Committee, this case, after all, ought to be reheard. He will come to that conclusion without prejudice to his final decision, after hearing the facts restated. I understand that is the best alternative to the system, which does not appear in this Bill at all, but which applies under all the National Service Acts. Really what it means is that leave to appeal in the last analysis, is given here to the umpire instead of to the Minister.

Mr. Ballenger

I think it is quite clear now what the Minister is aiming at. The only point about which I should like to know is this: When the umpire gives leave to appeal, he will probably hear the appeal and the evidence including, I take it, any new evidence that the applicant may be able to submit?

Mr. Bevin

That is so.

Sir I. Albery

I want to be clear about this point. After looking into the case the umpire can decide whether he thinks there is sufficient doubt in the case to go into it fully as an appeal. But I understand he also has the right to say that there shall be no hearing.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 15, leave out "in any other case." [Mr. Bevin.]