HC Deb 18 November 1948 vol 458 cc620-3

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Grimston

I beg to move, in page 7, line 27, at the end, to insert: Regulations shall provide that any person whose authority granted under the last preceding subsection is revoked by the Postmaster-General may require the Postmaster-General to give reasons in writing and may appeal to the tribunal established by section nine of this Act and the tribunal on any such appeal shall hear the Postmaster-General and the person at whose instance the appeal is made and the decision of the tribunal shall be final. Regulations may also provide for suspending the person to whom the authority refers from duty until the decision of the tribunal is known. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we also discussed the two consequential Amendments, in page 8, lines 3 and 8, to leave out "Part of this." Under this Clause the Postmaster-General takes power to hold examinations and to issue certificates of competence to people who are to be employed in wireless stations. There is little doubt that people who obtain these jobs will want to have a certificate of competence, and that such a certificate will be of great importance to a person who takes up this career. The certificate will be a very important thing, and quite rightly so, but I see that the Postmaster-General takes power at any time to revoke these certificates of competence. I think that he has to have the power of revocation, but it seems very unfair to the individual that this power should be completely arbitrary without any right of appeal. The Postmaster-General will have the power virtually to take away a person's livelihood.

I am sure that there would be no intention of using this power in any wrong spirit, but mistakes may be made, and I think it is wrong that the power should reside in the hands of the Postmaster-General without any possibility of appeal. That is the reason why we have put down this Amendment, which provides that a person whose certificate of competence is revoked has the right of appeal to the appeal tribunal set up under Part II of the Bill.

It will be observed that we give the power to suspend while an appeal is being heard, to cover the case where there ought not to be an appeal or where the defence of the realm is involved. It will be generally agreed that this is a matter of common justice, and I very much hope that the Postmaster-General will accept this Amendment, or if it is not acceptable, will give some indication that he has in mind proposing some similar Amendment. The two subsequent Amendments are in order to bring the functions of the appeal tribunal within Part I of the Bill, as at present they are confined to Part II.

Mr. Cobb

I think the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) is getting a little too apprehensive. The Attorney-General has just told us that he listens to Radio Luxembourg, and I should like to tell the Committee that I have held a certificate of competence since 1917, which has never been cancelled by any Government. I know many hundreds of people who have held certificates of competence since 1917, and not one has had his certificate arbitrarily cancelled. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he has had any representations on this subject from the association which represents wireless operators at sea, or from any other body, because I do not know of any representations on this point.

Mr. Hollis

Surely what the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb) has said strengthens the case for the Amendment. If it is true that no certificate has been cancelled, then there is no point in having this provision in the Bill. If it is extremely rare, then it ought not to create any inconvenience by allowing the machinery of appeal. If it is extremely common, then the fact that there is no appeal might be very deleterious for some of the persons concerned.

Mr. Wilfred Paling

I agree that where a person has his certificate of competence revoked, it would probably make all the difference to his livelihood, but I doubt whether the tribunal set up under this Bill will be the right tribunal to consider an appeal. This is a tribunal set up to deal with highly technical questions. I have some sympathy, however, with the purpose of the Amendment, but I am sure that the wording will not do what the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) wants. I promise to look at this between now and Report stage and give sympathetic consideration to the object the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

The right hon. Gentleman has gone some way towards meeting the point; but I should like to ask him to go a little further. I am not clear what he means by "sympathetic consideration." Does he mean that he will try to devise some machinery whereby, in the event of revocation, there will be power for the person concerned to appeal to an independent tribunal of some kind? If the right hon. Gentleman means that, then I think my hon. Friends will be satisfied. While this power has not been exercised in an arbitrary fashion by previous Postmaster-Generals, the fact remains that it is possible for it to be exercised in a very arbitrary fashion in the future, and as we are tidying this up we should put in some form of protection against that happening.

Mr. Paling

I have it in mind tidying it up in that way.

Mr. Grimston

In view of the way in which the Postmaster-General has met our point—and I am obliged to him for his undertaking—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, in page 7, line 39, at the end, to add: Provided that no charge exceeding the sum of twenty shillings shall be made under this subsection. This is somewhat similar to the Amendment previously under discussion because it is the same sum of 20s. which we are seeking to provide here as a ceiling which the Postmaster-General may make on applicants for a certificate or authority issued by him under this Clause. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to meet us by accepting this Amendment, because it looks as if under present circumstances, it is the intention of the Postmaster-General either now or in the future to demand more than 20s. for a certificate or authority which he gives. If that is not the intention of the Subsection, then the Postmaster-General can have no objection to accepting this very innocent Amendment which puts a ceiling on the amount he can charge.

Mr. Hobson

While appreciating the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I should like to point out that the present scale of charges for this examination has not been altered for nearly 20 years. What we hope to do is to fix an amount which bears some relation to the cost of holding the examination. That is the principle on which the charge is based. Therefore, my right hon. Friend sees no reason for accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

Does the hon. Gentleman say that in no case will the charge exceed 20s.?

Mr. Hobson

No, Sir. What I did say was that the charges which are made at present have not been altered for nearly 20 years and that the charges we propose to make must bear some relation to the cost of holding the examinations. The hon. and learned Gentleman might like to know that the highest charge made for a first-class certificate is £3.

Mr. Erroll

Is it contemplated that the charges in future will go up, in view of what was said that they must approximate to the general cost of holding the examinations?

Mr. Hobson

Not necessarily.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.