HC Deb 29 March 1945 vol 409 cc1617-30

3.12 p.m.

Mr. Driberg (Maldon)

I want to raise quite briefly one special aspect of the general question of the right of Servicemen, and in particular naval personnel, to communicate with their Members of Parliament about Service grievances or any other matter. The general question is not at issue to-day. The First Lord gave most satisfactory reassurances to this House some weeks ago that, of course, naval personnel, officers and ratings, share fully with all other Servicemen, in this citizen right. But the particular point I want to make this afternoon is one that I raised at Question time on 21st February, when I asked the First Lord of the Admiralty: If he is aware that Form S.272, revised July, 1943, posted in all ships of the Royal Navy, states that the use of any methods of seeking redress or ventilating a grievance other than by the usual Service channels, is a breach Of discipline, and if he will cause this notice to be reworded, so that it does not appear to debar officers and ratings from communicating with their Members of Parliament about Service matters which have been taken up through the usual channels without success. The First Lord of the Admiralty replied: As I informed the hon. Member in correspondence, the procedure for securing redress of grievances in the Navy is defined in Article 10 of K.R. and A.I., which is summarised in the form mentioned. I do not consider that it would be desirable to make any specific exception to the rule that complaints should be represented through Service channels, but as I assured the House on 7th February in practice, no disciplinary action would be taken against officers or ratings for making representations to their Members of Parliament, after having attempted, without success, to ventilate a genuine grievance through the usual channels."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1945; Vol. 408, c. 789.] Here at once emerges a small but real anomaly, a quite clear contradiction. The First Lord assures the House that of course naval seamen have got the right to write to their Members of Parliament about grievances after having tried the usual channels; nevertheless, in all H.M. ships and shore establishments a notice is put up which says, in effect, that it is a breach of discipline for them to do so. Then again the First Lord comes to the House and says, "Oh well, in practice no disciplinary action would be taken against a man guilty of such a breach of discipline in one of H.M. ships." This is rather a loose situation and not quite in accordance with the punctilio which one usually associates with their Lordships. I suggest that a modest rewording of the notice might help to resolve this real contradiction. I might, in passing, say that since I raised the matter at Question time I have met two officers in the Royal Navy, both in command of ships, who were.both, in conversation, firmly convinced that no such right existed and that it was absolutely forbidden for any seaman to write to his Member of Parliament about a Service matter. If, therefore, as I have found before, there is this widespread misapprehension among officers commanding ships, how much more natural is it that ratings do not know that they are entitled to do this.

Let me make two points which I hope may reassure my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary a little. Like, I suppose, all other Members of this House, I agree entirely with the First Lord in preferring that the usual channels should be used, or at any rate should be tried first. That is necessary for discipline. It might have a very adverse effect on discipline if there were a widespread disregard of the usual channels, and also on the happy relationships which should exist, and which do exist in most cases, between officers and other ranks in all the Services. I think it would be right to say that probably 99 per cent. of H.M. ships are what is known as "happy ships." I believe and I hope that they are. But there may be a very small percentage which are otherwise, in which there is some quite legitimate small or great grievance that the men cannot ventilate properly through the usual channels in order to get redress. A small percentage of the total personnel of the Royal Navy as it is to-day might represent a considerable number of men—some hundreds of thousands—and it is on behalf of this minority that I am appealing to-day.

There is also this point—and I think that hon, Members who have had experience of the Services, and of Government Departments generally, will agree—that the usual channels can sometimes get clogged. If I may illustrate this point a little more clearly, I would like to quote from a letter which is not related to the Navy—it happens to be from the Air Ministry—but which is the most recent and the clearest illustration of the particular point I am now making. Incidentally, it was signed by the late hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Commander Brabner), whose tragic loss we all so deeply deplore, and it is, I think, typical of the frankness and thoroughness which he applied to his job. I am most grateful to him and to the Air Ministry for having sent me such a frank letter. I will quote two paragraphs from it. It is not, as I say, strictly relevant to naval matters, but it illustrates my point that the usual channels do get clogged: I write with reference to the approach made to you by AC2 H—, who made a number of applications through the usual channels for transfer to the Royal Navy, but without success. I have made inquiries concerning this airman's case and find that it was referred to the Air Ministry at the beginning of April last year "— that is, just a year ago— when action was taken to transfer AC2 H— to the Navy. By an unfortunate mis- chance, for which I can only express my regret, the necessary action to transfer him was not followed up. I have ascertained from R.A.F. Records Office that the airman made a renewed application to his Comanding Officer in September last. Again, this application was not proceeded with, as it was then decided that the airman was not eligible to be transferred, and no further action was taken. I have asked for a full explanation of the reason for this and will ensure that such a thing does not happen again. Following your approach to me, the matter was referred to the Admiralty, and I am sure you will be glad to know that they are willing to accept AC2 H—… This is a case of a man who made repeated applications—not just one application—through the usual channels, and for some reason was not able to get the satisfaction to which, as it turned out in the end, he was entitled. Subject, however, to the absolute preservation of this constitutional right of all Service men, as of other citizens, to write to their Members of Parliament, I agree that it is infinitely preferable and, indeed, essential that the usual channels should be tried first.

The other point I want to make, which may help to reassure my hon. Friend, is that of course I do not want, and no Member wants, to be inundated with letters from naval personnel more than we are already. Goodness knows, we get enough. I certainly do not want him to amend the notices in H.M. ships so that they will be covered with great staring headlines, "Write to your M.P. about it," or anything like that. That would be an appalling suggestion. I do claim, however, that the notice in its present form is positively misleading, and I cannot believe that the First Lord and their Lordships, now that they have had time to consider the matter, would wish to disseminate positively misleading information about such an important matter.

A few weeks ago we were thrilled by the account which the First Lord gave—a worthy account, if I may say so—of the exploits of the. Royal Navy in the past year. A few days ago the nation was thrilled once more to hear of the latest and most astonishing exploit of the Royal Navy, many miles inland, inside Germany, up the Rhine. I feel that, besides paying tribute to these gallant men and giving them something in the nature of a gratuity afterwards, we ought to do all we can to give them, among other things, the sense of full citizenship in this country, even if it is only in this quite small matter—in which, as I contend, they are debarred from knowing their full citizen rights. I hope my hon. Friend will tell us that he can do something about amending this notice, in quite a small, modest way, so that it is not actually misleading. If he does have it revised, he will presumably have to circulate the revised notice to all H.M. ships and shore establishments, and perhaps he could include with the revised notice a covering letter, addressed privately to the commanding officers of ships and shore establishments, reminding them that naval personnel are permitted, as a last resort, to write to their Members of Parliament about Service matters or anything else, and that no punishment should be inflicted, in any circumstances,. on any man who avails himself of this absolute, fundamental, constitutional right.

3.25 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas)

My hon. Friend reminded us that my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty had informed the House that no disciplinary action would be taken against an officer or rating for making representations to his Member of Parliament after having attempted, without success, to ventilate a genuine Service grievance through the usual channels. I too recall to the House that statement to-day because I would like to emphasise once more what the hon. Member has said that an officer or rating should first use the channels which are provided by the King's Regulations and Admiralty instructions for presenting Service complaints. This first step—as I am sure the House realises and I am glad that the hon. Member agrees with me in this—is really vital and essential in a disciplined Service. But he went on to point out that poster S.272 displayed in all His Majesty's ships and naval shore establishments would seem to contradict the statement of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. The words of which he complains are to be found at the beginning of the last paragraph of that poster. The paragraph is headed: "Communications to the Press, etc.," and it reads: Any other method of seeking redress or ventilating a grievance than that provided for in King's Regulations and Admiralty instructions is an offence against naval discipline. In particular it is an offence for any member of the Fleet to solicit the influence of persons in positions of authority or to write to newspapers or other periodicals on such matters. I think that, as Members of Parliament, we can claim, without flattering ourselves unduly, that we come under the heading of "persons in positions of authority." My right hon. Friend the First Lord and I and our colleagues on the Board of Admiralty immediately concerned, have therefore given a great deal of consideration to this appearance of inconsistency and have decided that these two sentences should be amended so that the words in question are omitted. In future this paragraph will read as follows: Other methods of seeking redress or ventilating a grievance than those provided for in King's Regulations or Admiralty Instructions such as writing to newspapers or other periodicals on such matters are forbidden. That I think meets the hon. Member's point.

Mr. Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

This is such a satisfactory statement that I hate to be unduly critical of it, but even in that amended form might not a naval rating say, "I had better not write to my M.P. about it because that would be an offence"?

Mr. Thomas

I think the hon. Member need have no fear of that. It is perfectly clear that there is nothing in the amended notice that can make a rating feel that when he has put his complaint unsuccessfully through the usual Service channels he may not write to his M.P.

The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) also asked me whether these changes will be conveyed clearly and in full to those in command of His Majesty's ships and naval shore establishments. I can assure him that this will be done both in regard to the statement by the First Lord, which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, and also in regard to Poster S.272 which he has brought before the House to-day.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

do not like to be the one to point out the fly in the ointment, when congratulations are being exchanged between ray hon. Friend who has fought so gallant and apparently successful a fight and the Government, but I am afraid I am not quite satisfied. I cannot for the life of me see why, if it is accepted, as it appears to be, that a naval rating, like any other citizen of this country, who feels a sense of grievance, is entitled to write to his Member of Parliament any doubt which has been cast upon that right in the past should not now be completely cleared away by the plain statement that it is not an offence, after he has pursued all the other remedies open to him, to write to his Member of Parliament. There does not sewn to be any reason in principle against it, and there seems to be a good deal of reason for it. It mould not be an invitation to a man to write to his Member of Parliament about every case and every trivial thing that had occurred. No one is claiming that. The men are responsible people, and are not likely to seek to make a first-class issue out of every grievance on board ship.

The position is that posters have been displayed and answers have been given in this House that would lead a reasonable member of His Majesty's Navy to suppose that if he had tried and failed every method open to him under Service Regulations he would be committing an offence and would be proceeded against if he wrote to his Member of Parliament. That was the position in the past. I should have thought the simplest way of rectifying it was to say in so many words that it was not an offence to do so, and anything else could be added by way of discouragement or exhortation to a man not to write to his Member of Parliament until the channels open to him under the Regulations had been followed. But as I say, since the doubt has been cast on the man's right in the past, the simplest way of removing it is now to say that it is not an offence for him to write to his Member of Parliament.

While I am on my feet I should like to make one more point. Reference was made in the answer given by the First Lord to the question put by my hon. Friend, in which it was made clear that after the proper methods under the Regulations had been exhausted it was not an offence to write to an M.P. about a genuine Service grievance. What is the meaning of the word "genuine" and who judges the genuineness of the grievance? Surely the word "genuine" is unnecessary. It may turn out on inquiry that the reasons which led to the protest show that it was not a real grievance and that the man's complaint was unfounded, or that no cause of complaint existed at all, and that the grievance was imaginary. Does it then become not a genuine Service grievance? Looking at the words in the answer with a microscope, I suppose the man would then.be liable to prosecution for an offence under the Regulations, but I feel that that cannot really be intended. If it is not, what is the word "genuine" there for?

Surely we ought to say quite simply that a man who, in good faith, writes to his M.P. about a grievance, real or fancy, does not commit an offence. I cannot see what the effect is of introducing the word "genuine" into the sentence, unless it is to provide a method whereby a man who has tried and failed with his M.P. shall become liable, to a disciplinary charge of some kind, on the ground of having raised a trivial or unfounded grievance instead of a real grievance.

The Admiralty obviously means to do the right thing about this matter, and I would therefore suggest that in making the correction which has been proposed they should adopt a form of words or procedure which would leave the matter in no doubt. They should say quite plainly to a man: "If you have a grievance, or think you have, you must pursue the remedies open to you under the Regulations. If you still fail, you are not entitled to complain of it anywhere else, except that nothing in the Regulations or elsewhere should be taken as depriving you of your right to write to the Member of Parliament who represents you in the House of Commons, about any matter under the sun on which you require assistance." I think that would put an end to all doubt once and for all.

3.27 p.m.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby (Epsom)

I apologise to the House, but circumstances made it impossible for me to be present at the beginning of this Debate. I have been one of those who in the past have asked questions on this subject and I understood that it had been accepted by all three Services that nothing could take away from any citizen, no matter where he is serving or how he is placed, his inalienable right to cornmunicate with his own Member of Parliament on any subject, where he thinks his Member of Parliament can properly and usefully help him with advice. I deny the right of any Regulation to deprive a man of that right. Of course, he can only write to his own Member of Parliament. I think we ought to accept that.

Mr. Driberg

Might I interrupt the hon. and gallant Member for one second? I entirely agree that a man ought to write to his own Member of Parliament, but there might be exceptional cases, as where his own Member was overseas on active service, or even dead.

Sir A. Southby

I meant his own Member of Parliament or alternatively whatever Member was accepting responsibility for that particular constituency.

Mr. Driberģ

Yes. Constitutionally, I do not think we can limit it.

Sir A. Southby

It would be wrong for a man to write all round to a number of Members of Parliament. No one wants to defend that because it would be indefensible.

Mr. Driberģ

Yes.

Sir A. Southby

It would be better for the three Service Departments if they made it quite,clear to a man that he has the right to write to his Member of Parliament while stressing as strongly as possible that adequate Service channels exist, and that every man in the Service should go through those proper Service channels. At the same time it is the duty of the Member of Parliament also to advise his constituent that Service channels are there and should be used. It is not the function of Members of Parliament to usurp the Service channels. I am only too glad to try to solve a man's difficulties. Once the man has gone through the Service channel—or even if he has not done so—there is no reason why he should not write to his Member of Parliament to ask for help and advice. The answers which have been received in the past—I have had them from other Ministers—have made it clear that it was accepted that a man had an inalienable right of communicating with his own elected representative on any matter.

It would be a very good thing if that were made plain to men in the Services because I have had a number of letters from men who have written to me expressing the fear that in writing to me they had done something for which they could be punished. That is not so and if any constituent of mine is punished for writing to me I shall have something very pungent to say about it on the Floor of this House. I feel that it is my duty to write to a constituent, if I think I can be helpful by so doing or to write to his commanding officer so that he will know what the home circumstances and difficulties are. At the same time it would be a bad day if we allowed to go out from this House to the men in the Services, even by a mistaken idea, that there was any bar upon their communicating with us who represent them. Perhaps it would be better if there was a definite Order issued to all the three Services, pointing out to a man quite clearly that he must use the Service channels and that they are the proper means of redress of grievance—they are, of course, reinforced by periodic inspections, when a man can see the inspecting officer privately and state a grievance, even against his own commanding officer,—but that if he fails to secure redress his Member of Parliament may help him with advice. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Viant (Willesden, West)

I think most of those who are present are appreciative of the proposal that has been made, but a point of some substance has been raised which is: Why does the Admiralty suggest that the word "genuine" should be inserted? I can see a good deal of difficulty arising over that word. First, the ordinary man in the Service is appreciative of the fact that he has to obey King's Regulations, and he knows that if he has a grievance, he must, in the ordinary course of events, raise it with his commanding officer. What we are concerned with this afternoon is that after he has exhausted the ordinary channels, and failed to get satisfaction, he shall then be free to raise the subject with his Member of Parliament. A man reading this amended Regulation will be dubious about writing to his. Member of Parliament, because he is naturally going to say to himself, "Who is now the authority, to determine whether my grievance is a genuine one or not?" And he will be very doubtful about exercising his right. If the man exhausts the ordinary channels he is undoubtedly persuaded in his mind se far that he has a genuine grievance.

I would prefer to see the word "genuine" left out, because if the man is quite convinced he has a grievance, and has failed to get satisfaction, we ought to put no bar in the way of his taking it right through to an impartial tribunal. Rightly or wrongly, it seems to me that the Admiralty are prepared to give with the One hand and take away with the other. Why not remove the word "genuine," and if the man feels he has a grievance give him an opportunity, and his rights as a citizen, to approach his Member of Parliament? His Member of Parliament will be capable, as a result of his experience, of advising him as to whether he considers the grievance to be a genuine one or not. We have doubtful grievances raised with us from time to time, and fancied grievances but as a result of our experience we write back and say, "Are you quite sure these are the facts? Is it not so and so?" and on second thoughts many of the assumed grievances are not pursued further. Let us be genuine in this matter. I will go further and say, "Let us be honest. "Remove the word "genuine" and allow the man in the Services to have the opportunity, if he feels he has a grievance, to bring it before his Member of Parliament. They have already exhausted the other channels, and I know of nothing that rankles more in the breast of a man or woman than to feel that they have been done out of a square deal. Let us remove the barriers, and let them feel conscious of the fact that their grievances of any description will receive the consideration of an impartial authority.

3.47 p.m.

Commander Bower (Cleveland)

The matter we are discussing this afternoon is one of the greatest importance for the principal reason that we are not now dealing with small professional Forces of the Crown, but with a citizen Army, Navy and Air Force. Also, I think there is a lack of co-ordination between the three Services in this particular respect. I say that from my own experience. In addition to serving in the Navy, I have had two prolonged periods of service with the R.A.F., and I am perfectly certain that the R.A.F. give a great deal more latitude in this particular respect than the Admiralty seem inclined to do. I think my hon. Friend's statement to-day has removed a great deal of anxiety, but somehow or other, I feel that the Admiralty are still "pulling their punches," that they are not quite giving what we all want. Surely it could be made quite unequivocally clear that a man having exhausted the possibilities of the usual channels, should then have access, without any fear of punishment, to his own Member of Parliament. I think that can be put in almost the same words as I have used, instead of in those somewhat ambiguous terms suggested by my hon. Friend.

Surely, it can almost be described as "outrageous," that it should be in doubt for one moment that a man who has a grievance which he himself considers genuine, should be denied access to his Member of Parliament. Everyone with a grievance thinks it is perfectly genuine, and I suggest there should be a little latitude in these matters. If a man who has a silly grievance sometimes writes to his M.P., is much harm done? The Member can write to the Minister and the Minister can reply, as he often does, that the man's grievance is without any basis whatever, and the matter could be dealt with in a friendly human way, instead of in the way in which the Admiralty are treating it at the moment—as I said, "pulling their punches" and not making it perfectly clear that the men have this particular right. After all, we are coming, in the near future, into troublesome days, and these boys and girls of the Services have done a wonderful job of work. So has Parliament. Why should there be any barrier between them and Parliament?

Mr. Guy (Poplar, South)

If the proper channel were functioning properly, we should not get the grievances that we are getting, for instance, the genuine complaint of lower-deck promotion. Obviously that is a matter that ought not to come to a Member of Parliament to be ventilated on the Floor of the House, as I have to do year after year. If the proper Service channels are functioning properly, and there is a proper welfare organisation on board ship, we should not have half the grievances that come to us.

Commander Bower

I have had as much experience of the usual channels of the Services as anybody in the House and, on the whole, I think they work extraordinarily well. I think the system of discipline, of law, and of justice in the Services is unmatched, even in the civil sphere. But things sometimes go wrong, and I suggest that when things do go wrong, and the usual channels do not function quite as they should—and the usual channels are made up of human beings, subject to human error—it should be a friendly matter between the man aggrieved, his Member of, Parliament, and the Ministry. I cannot see that in one case out of a thousand there would be any serious trouble, if it were made clear that they have an inalienable right, as citizens, to have access to their Members of Parliament.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas

With the leave of the House, I should like to reply. Two or three Members have begged the Board of Admiralty to remove the word "genuine," before the word "grievance," in this amended paragraph that I read to-day to the House. I cannot do it, because the word "genuine" is not there —it never was there. It appeared in the First Lord's reply at Question Time last month, and I used it again, in repeating that reply to-day. But as far as the poster, as amended, is concerned, that word is not there. I will put forward the views of hon. Members to-day about the word "genuine" to my right hon. Friend, but I must say that this Debate is taking a queer turn. It appears to be a case of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) and myself versus the rest on all sides of the House.

Mr. Driberģ

I am in rather a difficult position. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his concession, but I should be happy, in view of what has been said by hon. Members on all sides, if he could go a little further.

Mr. Thomas

Then I stand alone. Surely we have to find some commonsense modus vivendi between this House and a disciplined Service. I have, on behalf of the Board of Admiralty, to-day removed those words, about which the hon. Member complained, from this poster; and I cannot go further than that. Nor have I any wish to go further than that at any time. The Admiralty provide these Service channels for complaints from the Captain of the ship right up to the Board of Admiralty itself, and I do not think it reasonable to suggest that we could go on, and point out, in a poster of this kind, to officers and ratings how they may appeal from the Board's own decisions. That would be going a little too far.

Mr. Silverman

I think the origin of the suggestion is what is admitted by the Admiralty, that what took place before cast some reasonable doubt on the man's rights; and that that ought to be cleared up. I want to draw the hon. Member's attention to an answer given by the First Lord, on this very point of "genuine." He was asked by the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Walter Edwards): Will he inform the House exactly what he means by genuine' complaints? The First Lord answered: I should say that a genuine complaint is a complaint of a real injustice."—[OFFLCIAL. REPORT, 2 1St February, 1945; Vol. 408, c. 789.90.] That is what frightens me. Suppose it turns out, when the grievance is investigated, that the man made a mistake, so that he had not suffered a real injustice. Obviously, on that answer, he would be liable to prosecution for a disciplinary offence. That would be unfair, because you do not know until the investigation is over whether the man has suffered a real injustice or not.

Mr. Thomas

As I have said, several hon. Members have made speeches about this word "genuine"; and I have assured hon. Members that I shall bring their remarks on this point to my right hon. Friend. Further than that I cannot go this afternoon.

Sir A. Southby

From what my hon. Friend said just now, it seems that he gathered that there was a desire that the Admiralty should inform the man that he had a right to appeal to his own Member of Parliament. My contention is that that right exists, and cannot be taken away. What hon. Members wanted to press was that the Admiralty should take steps to remove any doubt, which might have arisen in a man's mind, that he did possess that right.

Mr. Thomas

I understand my hon. and gallant Friend's point, but I think I answered it in my previous reply, which was that I cannot, for reasons I have given, include those words in the amended poster. I said that the answer of the First Lord, and the poster as amended by me this afternoon, will be brought very fully before the necessary authorities, so that they may have all information in their hands of the changes that have been made.