HC Deb 25 January 1949 vol 460 cc785-99

1. The Postmaster General shall, on suspending the authority, serve on the person to whom it was issued a notice informing him of the suspension, of the grounds thereof and of his rights under the subsequent provisions of this Schedule, and further informing him that if he does not avail himself of those rights the Postmaster General may revoke the authority:

Provided that where it appears to the Postmaster General that it is not reasonably practicable to serve the notice on the said person, the Postmaster General, in lieu of serving the notice on him, shall take such steps, by advertisement or otherwise, to bring the notice to his knowledge as appear to the Postmaster General to be reasonable in the circumstances.

2.—(1) If, within such time and in such manner as may be specified in the notice, the person to whom the authority was issued requests that the question whether the authority should be revoked or the suspension thereof continued or terminated should be referred to an advisory committee, the Postmaster General, unless he terminates the suspension, shall refer that question to an advisory committee accordingly.

(2) Every such advisory committee shall consist of three persons appointed by the Postmaster General, of whom one shall be an independent chairman selected by the Postmaster General and two shall be persons nominated respectively by such body or bodies representing employers of wireless operators and such association or associations representing wireless operators as seem to the Postmaster General to be appropriate for the purpose.

(3) Where a question is referred to an advisory committee under this paragraph, the committee shall inquire into the matter, shall consider any representations made by the person to whom the authority was issued, and shall then make a report to the Postmaster General stating the facts as found by them and the action which, in their opinion, ought to be taken as respects the revocation of the authority or the continuation or termination of the suspension thereof, and the Postmaster General shall consider the report.

(4) After considering the report of the advisory committee or, as the case may be, on the expiration of the time referred to in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph without the person to whom the authority was issued having required in the manner therein referred to that the question should be referred to an advisory committee, the Postmaster General shall, as he thinks fit, either revoke the authority, or terminate the suspension thereof, or continue the suspension thereof for such period as he thinks fit.

3. Any expenses incurred by an advisory committee under this Schedule, to such extent as may be determined by the Postmaster General with the consent of the Treasury, including such sums in respect of the expenses of the members of the committee as may he so determined, shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.—[Mr. Paling.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time.

Mr. Grimston

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed now Schedule, at the end of paragraph 2 (4) to insert: and if he revokes the authority or continues the suspension he shall on demand by the person to whom the notice was issued, communicate to him the report of the Advisory Committee. The new Schedule provides for the setting up of a tribunal before whom anyone who has had his licence suspended can ask that the matter should be placed. That tribunal must report to the Postmaster-General. Paragraph (4) says: After considering the report of the advisory committee . . the Postmaster-General shall, as he thinks fit, either revoke the authority, or terminate the suspension thereof, or continue the suspension thereof for such period as he thinks fit. The point is that the Postmaster-General may receive a report from this advisory committee, but there is absolutely nothing mandatory in the Bill about how he is to act on that report. I agree that the Postmaster-General issues these certificaes of competence, and it must be in his discretion whether he takes one away; but he has conceded the point that there should be an appeal, which we think is right. Having done that, he takes power in the new Schedule to make it clear that he need take no notice whatever of what the advisory committee says unless he thinks fit.

In a case where the Postmaster-General departs from the advice he may get from the committee and revokes a licence or does not remove the suspension, this Amendment would make it obligatory for the appellant to have the right to see the report of the Committee. That is only fair on the appellant. I can think of no reason why he so should not have that right. There may be cases where perhaps the Postmaster-General has made a mistake which is pointed out by the advisory committee on appeal, and he revokes a suspension and the matter ends satisfactorily. But there may be cases where there is a difference of opinion between the Postmaster-General and the advisory committee. The Postmaster-General will have the last word anyway, but in those cases I maintain that the appellant ought to be allowed to see the report. We do not put in the hands of the committee the power of saying what the Postmaster-General shall do as is done in another part of the Bill in the case of an appeal to a tribunal on a notice with regard to apparatus. We do not do that, but we seek to make it obligatory on the Postmaster-General to show the report to the appellant if it is demanded. In view of the fact that the Postmaster-General is retaining entire discretion on the question of revocation or not, that right should be allowed to the appellant. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to grant it.

Mr. Hobson

The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) has put forward a most appealing case which it is difficult to resist. Nevertheless, after giving most careful consideration to the matter, we are unable to accept the Amendment. We feel that if it was accepted it may be an embarrassment to the Committee in so far as they would be most careful what was stated in their report. They may not speak with the same frankness if it was known that the report would be made public. We think that there would be a tendency for them to be restricted. Then there is a third consideration which in certain circumstances may be paramount. There are matters of security which might arise in a case of this sort of revocation.

5.15 p.m.

It is for those reasons that we are unable to agree to the Amendment. We have gone a long way towards meeting the hon. Gentleman. There is no question of "hiring and firing" at will. A properly constituted advisory committee will be appointed as a result of the requests of hon. Members opposite with which we are in complete and perfect agreement. We feel that the interests of the appellant can be well safeguarded by this independent committee which will consist of an independent chairman, a representative, say, of the shipowners, and a representative of the radio officers' guild or association. I regret very much, particularly because of the logic with which the hon. Member stated the case, that my right hon. Friend is unable to accept the Amendment.

Colonel Haughton (Antrim)

I for one am very sorry indeed that the Minister has not accepted this Amendment. It appears to me that he is putting the embarrassment of members of the tribunal before justice to the men from whom the authority to work has been taken away. There is an added reason why persons in that position should be told quite plainly what is the finding of the tribunal. In certain circumstances —and in life I have seen this happen—where a person knows where he has gone wrong——

Mr. Hobson

The appellant will be told of the findings of the committee.

Colonel Haughton

I am aware of that. The mere fact that his authority is taken away is confirmation of a finding, but the reason why it was taken away is most important. What I was about to say was that there are cases in which if the person knows where he has erred he has a chance to get back again. As far as I know, the taking away of the authority is not for all time. It might be restored to him. I support the Amendment most sincerely.

Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Moseley)

I hesitate to intervene because, as the Postmaster-General knows, I am a member of the Advisory Council of the Post Office. I have the greatest admiration for the efficiency with which the whole staff of the Post Office discharge their obligations to the public. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Antrim (Colonel Haughton) that this matter should receive reconsideration. There is a good sound reason why the person whose means of livelihood is taken away should have a statement of the reasons why. I would be slow to suggest anything that would not be perfectly fair to both sides. I cannot imagine an independent tribunal being embarrassed by the knowledge that the reason for depriving a man of his certificate and taking away his means of living —that is what it amounts to—is to be included in a report to the Postmaster-General. I do not think that would influence them in arriving at a correct decision on the merits of the case.

I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General if he can introduce some modification in the rigidity of this provision which would enable a measure of fair play to be shown so that a man may realise that the reason underlying the loss of his certificate is sound and wholesome. It is a serious matter to deprive a man of his means of living. I think that the Postmaster-General himself, with the experience of his long public career, would always defend the advisability of dealing with a case of this kind on the ground of justice.

Mr. Marlowe (Brighton)

I think the answer which the Assistant Postmaster-General gave on this matter was very unsatisfactory. He put it under three heads. Firstly, he said that it would make the advisory panel very careful. I hope they are going to be careful in any event, and I hope it is not suggested that if the report is not published they will be any less careful. I imagine that they will be just as careful whether the report is published or not. Therefore, that is not a very good reason, because they will be careful anyhow. His second reason was that it would be restrictive. I do not quite understand what he means by that, but, surely, where a man's livelihood is being affected in this way, the matter would receive proper and careful consideration, which should not be affected by any consideration whether the reasons are to be made available to the person holding the authority or not.

The third reason was based on the question of security. if there is anything in that point, and I doubt whether there is, I rather suspect that the hon. Gentleman has been affected by the advice so often given and rather overdone on this question of security. He could quite easily safeguard it by a suitable phrase if he accepts the principle of the Amendment. He can protect the position by saying that those reasons shall not be given where the Postmaster-General certifies that, in the interests of security, it is undesirable. He could easily protect himself on that point.

I do not think it is sufficiently realised that, as the matter stands, it would be possible for this advisory committee to overrule the Postmaster-General and for the Postmaster-General, nevertheless, to ignore their advice and for the holder of the authority never to know whether his case has been allowed or not. That is the position at the moment. The Postmaster-General revokes the authority, the matter goes before the committee, which advises the Postmaster-General that, in their view, he was wrong, yet it will be competent for the Postmaster-General to ignore the advice given by the committee, and for the person whose case had been upheld by the committee never to know that he had been vindicated by them and entitled to have his authority back. That is a most unsatisfactory position, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reexamine the matter.

Mr. Tolley

If I thought that the Amendment would achieve anything of the nature or character suggested, I would support it, but, even assuming that the person who is affected by the decision is allowed to see the report, I think it will in no way affect the decision as it stands. It will merely give him a right to see the report. I should like to ask the Postmaster-General if it is not also laid down conclusively already that, while the person concerned is not allowed to see the full report in detail, at least the findings are conveyed to him, giving the reasons why the suspension is carried into effect? If that is so, the person concerned who finds himself in difficulty has a safeguard in that direction, although I want to be certain on that point.

I hope the Minister will give me an assurance, with which I should be satisfied, that the people affected by the decision shall at least be given the opportunity to put things right, but I want to be assured first by the Minister that the persons concerned shall be told the reasons why the findings in the report are against them, even if they are not able to see the full report.

Mr. Grimston

I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member opposite, who seeks the same assurance as we do. although we want it included in the Bill. A man may have his certificate suspended and appeal to the Postmaster-General for the matter to go before the tribunal. The matter then goes before the tribunal, and it may well be that the tribunal advises the Postmaster-General that he has wrongly suspended the man's certificate. Under this Clause, the Postmaster-General may take no notice whatever, or, at any rate, he need not act on the advice of the tribunal. There is nothing in the Bill compelling him to tell the man whether the advisory committee found in his favour or against him. We do not ask for the whole report to be published if questions of security arise, but the findings of the tribunal should at least be communicated to the appellant, particularly in cases where the Postmaster-General may adhere to his decision in spite of contrary advice from the tribunal. Such cases may not often occur, but they may occur.

The hon. Member who spoke last suggested that the man will not be any better off, but I am not so sure about that. It will be open for him to go to his Member of Parliament, and for that Member to put a Question to the Postmaster-General asking why he had not followed the advice of the tribunal. In the end, the individual concerned would have the right of bringing any injustice before the House, and that right would be preserved. The wording of the Amendment may not meet the point, and it may be that the findings of the advisory committee should be substituted, but we do want something in the Bill to make it obligatory on the Postmaster-General to advise the appellant how the committee has reported. I think we have general agreement on the principle behind the Amendment, and the matter resolves itself into a question of what is the best way of putting it into the Bill.

Mr. Hobson

It is very difficult to take up the negative attitude which my right hon. Friend and I are adopting on this Amendment. Both of us, I suppose, were brought up in the school where "hiring and firing" at will without reason was the order of the day. We have departed from that now, and we have now heard from the other side, with a little amazement but with great approval, a defence of the right of a person who is sacked to be given the reasons, and we realise to what extent we have now progressed. Nevertheless, we cannot accept the Amendment.

Let me answer the point made in detail. The person concerned is first made aware why he has had his licence revoked. He then appeals, and, while it is true that there is no provision in the Bill specifically stating that the findings must be made known to the individual, I assure the Committee that, in practice, those findings will be made known to him. A further point which has not been mentioned is that he will have the right to take a legal representative to the advisory committee. I think that we have given all the safeguards that we reasonably could give to the individual concerned, and I regret that my right hon. Friend does not see his way to approve of the Amendment.

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, Central)

Will my hon. Friend explain to the Committee how he can give an assurance that, in practice, this information will be given, while, for some reason, it must not be done in writing? I must confess that I am rather confused on that point.

Mr. Tolley

Could I make an appeal to the Minister? Even though he is not prepared to make any concrete offer at this stage, will he take the matter back for reconsideration and see if he can find words which would meet the wishes of the Committee?

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Viant (Willesden, West)

There does not appear to be a great deal of difference between the two sides of the Committee. The difficulty that the Postmaster-General contemplates is that he should be expected to show the report of the tribunal to the person concerned. I think he is reluctant to accept that proposal. The hon. Member for Westbury has somewhat changed the complexion of the Amendment in the sense that he is prepared to have it altered in such a way as to ask that the findings of the tribunal shall be conveyed to the person concerned. That is quite a different thing. I am somewhat in sympathy with the Postmaster-General's objections to showing the report of the tribunal to the person concerned. I do not think that would be wise. There have been occasions, of course, when Members of Parliament have been enabled to see the report of a certain committee. That has been done in order to ensure, and to persuade the Member of Parliament who raised the matter in this House, that justice has been done. There is not a great deal of difference between any of the hon. Members who have been speaking this afternoon. If the Postmaster-General will be prepared to compromise and to agree that the findings of the tribunal should be conveyed to the person concerned, I think that would meet the case.

Mr. Harry Wallace (Walthamstow, East)

I wish to raise two points. The Assistant Postmaster-General referred to a legal representative. Is representation restricted to a legal representative, or does it include other accredited agents?

Mr. Hobson

Or a friend.

Mr. Wallace

The second point is, could not my right hon. Friend consider the question of intimating to the House that regulations in a suitable form will be drafted so that there can be some assurance that the point raised by my hon. Friend will be met?

Mr. Turner-Samuels

I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber when this Amendment was moved. It was a matter which had already caught my eye, and 1 was very anxious to be present in order to oppose it, and to explain my reason for so doing. It is an extraordinary Amendment, and I challenge the mover, or anyone else, to find a similar provision in any Statute. I put the handicap as high as that. There are quite a number of instances where there have been reports of this kind. I think it will be found that the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act is a Measure which comes into this category. Hon. Members will recollect that within the lifetime of the present Parliament this topic has been raised before for the same purpose and with the same result as, I am sure, it is going to have this afternoon. It is most inadvisable that a report of this kind should be submitted or divulged to anyone other than the Minister.

Mr. Marlowe rose——

Mr. Turner-Samuels

The hon. and learned Member can speak when I have finished. Here is a matter which involves the Minister exercising his discretion. The matter is then sent to this particular body provided by the Bill to be investigated. It may be that the matter has elements of the greatest secrecy and of the greatest national importance or at least contain something which should not be disclosed to a private individual. The suggestion that such a document should be open, without any restriction or reservation of any kind, to anyone other than the Minister is therefore something which is not only surprising, but in my view unique. Therefore, in my opinion the Minister is perfectly justified in resisting it. The reason why the position has been left as it is, is because it follows a long line of traditional practice. To depart from that line would not only be wrong, but might be open to very great objection and even risk.

Mr. Marlowe

As the hon. and learned Member said, he was not present when the Amendment was moved, and, therefore, did not hear the subsequent discussion. I would point out to him that it has been generally accepted by the Committee that there may be a case for not disclosing the report, and we were discussing the matter in the spirit of whether or not the person affected should be given the findings. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman was aware of that. We want to know what is the case against letting the person concerned have the evidence, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has not addressed himself to that point.

Mr. Turner-Samuels

I readily concede that that modifies the impact of this proposal in the Amendment. At the same time, any such provision would have to be very heavily hedged around, because it might have the effect of divulging just as much as the report itself. If it is merely a matter of giving the person the findings without the prejudice which I have in mind, and which might accrue from a disclosure of the report, then I do not think there could be any objection to it. At the same time, I think it ought to be left to the Minister to decide, in the proper exercise of his discretion, whether the divulgence of such findings would really disclose the contents of the report.

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

My view is that if the tribunal's findings are not to be communicated to the person concerned, the tribunal might as well not exist. There seems to be a tendency on the part of Ministers to transfer what is their proper responsibility to the tribunal. Hon. Members will remember that we had a similar discussion last evening. It seems to me that if Ministers in a nationalised State are going to pass on their proper responsibilities to tribunals or committees of one kind or another, the status of a Minister is going to be substantially reduced. I think the argument is irresistible.

If the Postmaster-General decides to pass on his responsibility to a tribunal, he must necessarily divulge the findings of that tribunal to the person concerned. I should prefer that he carried out his own duties, and personally decided whether or not a person should be suspended. He would then open himself to the attack—and the proper attack—of hon. Members of this House. But when he stands behind a tribunal and the proceedings are not divulged, not only is the House of Commons weakened, but the individual who has been suspended may be denied justice. If the Minister does not accept this Amendment, he should dispense with the tribunal. How many of these tribunals are we going to have?

Mr. Hobson

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. If he was present when the Financial Resolution (No. 2) was before the House, he will appreciate that the sum involved was £250. That is a very small amount. If he will look up the record of revocations in the last few years, he will find that it is infinitesimal.

Sir W. Darling

I remember many occasions in the past when estimates have been exceeded. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the amount is only going to be in the nature of £250, then it seems to me that he would be well advised to accept my advice and dispense with the tribunal altogether. If the Postmaster-General is unable to suspend a delinquent of this character without the expense and trouble of an advisory committee, then it seems to me that he is not equal to his responsibilities. This is either an important matter, in which case the Amendment should be accepted, or it is an unimportant matter. I am inclined to think it is an unimportant matter, and that the Minister should accept responsibility and dispense with the tribunal.

Mr. Keenan

It seems to me that the argument on this Amendment is an extension of an argument we had earlier this afternoon. The Committee should be told to what particular grade this matter applies. Does it extend beyond the wireless operator? If it only applies to him, then I can understand why the estimate was no larger than that stated by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Hobson

It is the person who operates the wireless set; whether he is a first-class operator or a second-class operator I do not know. It will be those who have a certificate of competency from my right hon. Friend for the purpose of operating a wireless set.

Mr. Keenan

There is a little confusion about the extent of its operation and the people whom it will affect. I think the Debate has been concerned with the question of the dismissal of individuals not necessarily for wireless offences—the question of desertion of ship and that kind of thing. It was suggested that a man might be penalised, as a wireless operator, by having his licence revoked when the offence was not necessarily in connection with his profession at all. I could not altogether agree with the Opposition when they were arguing on this point in an earlier Clause, because it seems to me that the same sort of thing could apply to an officer of a ship with a Board of Trade certificate. He might be in the same position. I want to know this: when an offence is committed, does the individual concerned receive two penalties? As well as losing the opportunity to continue his livelihood, is he also penalised in a civil court for an offence which eventually is the cause of his losing his employment? That is what has been discussed and I do not see how we get out of it except by the suggestion which has been made that the individual is entitled at any rate to the findings, if not to the report.

Mr. G. Thomas

My hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General has spoken in reasonable terms tonight, but when he points out that very few appeals will be made to the tribunal, I think he should be reminded that it is not of the least importance to this House whether there are 10,000 appeals to the tribunal or whether there is one appeal. Justice for one individual is all-important to this House. Injustice to any person who has been tried or who has appealed to a tribunal and is refused the findings cannot conceivably be defended, particularly since so many of my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends are accustomed, as trade unionists, to ask that whenever there has been a hearing, at least the findings shall be made known to the individual. We are not being unreasonable in asking my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend, who is so silent beside him, to give us at least this assurance—that when we reach the Report Stage they will look at the matter again to see if they can meet the wishes of the House.

Sir W. Darling

Why not now?

Mr. Thomas

The hon. Gentleman is forgetting that we have a progressive Government. We should have a little co-operation from him. I believe my hon. Friend cannot justify his attitude on any single ground. He has told us that, in practice, the findings of this tribunal will be submitted to the wireless operator or whoever it is who has appeared before the tribunal. If that is the intention, I ask him again what difficulty is there in inserting that in the Bill? I am thirsting for information on this point because I cannot find any adequate reason for my hon. Friend's attitude and he has not given one.

Mr. Grimston

We seem to have reached a point which those who have heard the whole of this discussion will appreciate. I think everyone is in favour of the intention of the Amendment, that all appellants should be informed of the findings of the tribunal. The Postmaster-General or the Assistant Postmaster-General has informed us that, in practice, that will be done, without exception. At the same time he has refused to put it into the Bill and has refused to consider any other form of words to be inserted in another place. In the face of that, there is only one thing we can do. We must take the matter to a Division. It is really not good enough simply to have a Ministerial assurance that something will always be done and at the same time to have a refusal to put it in an Act of Parliament. I think that is a matter of principle on which this House should stand. If the right hon Gentleman persists in this attitude we shall have no other alternative but to seek a Division.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Wilfred Paling

Hon. Members seem to be asking now for something rather different from the words of the Amendment. The Amendment says: communicate to him the report of the Advisory Committee.

Mr. Grimston

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I said I did not stand on the report. The important thing is the findings, and it is on that basis that we have been discussing the subject for the last half-hour.

Mr. Paling

We have said we have no objection to indicating the findings to the person concerned and how far I am being pressed beyond that I do not know. I do not know what is meant by "the findings." If it is "yes" or "no," that is one thing; but does it mean anything in addition to that? Does it mean reasons in addition? That is my difficulty at the moment. I have listened very carefully to the Debate and there seems to be a fair consensus of opinion that something should be done about it. I shall look at it in view of what has been said.

Mr. G. Thomas

I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman very much.

Mr. Grimston

We shall not have a chance to discuss this again in this House and, while I am obliged to the Postmaster-General for saying he will look at this again, if he looks at it unsuccessfully there is nothing more we can do about it. Would he give an undertaking that he will definitely find some form of words to cover the intentions of the Amendment? Would he give a pledge that that form of words will be inserted in another place? If he would give an assurance that a form of words to carry out our intentions, which he understands, will be found and will be inserted in another place, I think we should accept that.

Mr. Paling

I promise to put something in.

Mr. Grimston

On the understanding that that something covers the point I have raised, I would be prepared to accept that assurance. In the circumstances, as the Postmaster-General has said that he will find a form of words to meet our purpose, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in Committee and on recommittal), considered.