HC Deb 19 January 1954 vol 522 cc969-78

10.48 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir Cedric Drewe.]

Mr. Michael Foot (Plymouth, Devonport)

I wish to raise a subject concerned with the direction of the Royal Dockyards, and my complaint is that the Admiralty have taken action in dealing with certain individuals which offends against the spirit of British justice. It may be that the number of persons concerned is not very large, but I believe that the issue of principle concerned is important. Before I turn to deal with the case I am concerned about, and to put the Civil Lord in a good mind and accommodating temper, although I am sure that that is his normal state and I would like to assist it, I want to start by paying some compliments to his Department and to the Admiralty.

There have been great improvements in the administration and general conduct of the Royal Dockyards during the past seven years. I think most of those are due to representations made by the trade unions, but if one considers the progress made in that period it has been considerable. What I shall be asking later is that the Admiralty shall take another step forward in trying to improve the conditions of employment in the dockyards. I remember that in 1945, when I first spoke in the House about dockyard matters, I referred to the workmen's handbook which existed then, and which may fairly have been described as a charter of industrial feudalism. In the past five or six years there have been many steps taken to remove that old feudal atmosphere in the dockyards, and much improvement has been made in the establishment scheme and in other respects. So I hope that the Admiralty will view with some understanding and sympathy the case I am putting.

I hope the Admiralty will also consider very seriously another question which has been raised with them by the trade unions in the last few months. The Admiralty have apparently decided to abolish the system of staggered holidays and to have them taken during the one period. I hope the Civil Lord will still be prepared to re-consider this matter for this year, but, if not for this year, I hope he will take into account the representations of the trade unions for the next year.

It has long been the practice that anyone convicted in a court case was liable to instant dismissal. That was the procedure laid down in the old workmen's handbook, and although that manual has been altered and improved in recent years, it is still the fact that anyone convicted in a court case is liable to instant dismissal. Since 1945 I have raised with the Admiralty some 30 or 40 cases, and some years ago, in some of the cases I took up where men had been discharged, the Admiralty relented and took them back. But, in the last few years, they have been growing more severe and rigid in the enforcement of this rule. Obviously there must be cases in which that is the right course, and obviously one cannot lay down a hard and fast rule.

Each case has got to be judged on its merits, but my charge in this respect is that is what the Admiralty are not doing at present. In a serious case of embezzlement, obviously the Admiralty have good grounds for discharging a person convicted of stealing Admiralty property. In that case the Admiralty may be acting in exactly the same way as any other employer. Clearly also in the case of sexual offences, which is the type of offence concerned in the three examples I shall give, the Admiralty have a duty to protect their other employees, and they have to consider the cases very carefully from that point of view. But it is notoriously the fact that it is difficult to base a judgment in such cases, and I hope to show that the Admiralty in these matters are very much more severe than the courts. In one respect, I could claim in the cases which I am raising the Admiralty have offended, not only against the spirit of justice, but also against the recommendations which were made to the Admiralty by the courts in which these cases were tried.

The Civil Lord has all the details about these cases. In the first case, Mr. X pleaded guilty to a charge of gross indecency, saying that he was drunk at the time. The Recorder placed him on probation for three years, and orderd him to contribute five guineas costs. He also said that he hoped the dockyard would not discharge Mr. X. This man had 20 years' service. He was established. He not only lost his job, but his claim to about £100 gratuity. For a period of several weeks he was on half-pay while the Admiralty were making up their mind. He could not apply for another job, and, even on the strict monetary calculation, he has suffered at the hands of the Admiralty a penalty very much more severe than the court decided to inflict upon him.

Let me take the case of Y. He also pleaded guilty to a charge of gross indecency. He was discharged, as the court felt there were mitigating circumstances. He was 42 years old. He also had a long and clean record of service in the dockyard, and it was the first time he had been involved in such a charge. The court considering the case took the view that the other person involved was really the guilty party. That man had, in fact, been guilty on many previous occasions. I think it is fair to say, in this case, that Mr. Y was guilty of a momentary aberration. That is not my opinion only, but the opinion of the judge considering the case, who said in court, "Get back to work and behave yourself." But the Admiralty said, "Oh, no; we are going to inflict a more severe penalty than the court." The man has lost his gratuity, and he has small chance of getting another job.

In the third case, Z also pleaded guilty to the same offence. He was put on probation for three years. Again, the Recorder dealing with the case asked that the man should be taken back, and expressed the hope that the dockyard would not discharge him. He had had 25 years' service in the dockyard, and was an established man. He had a good record. His appeal was backed fully by his trade union. As a result of his discharge from the dockyard he has lost £200 in gratuity, and cannot get another job.

I take these three examples partly because they are among the most recent ones I have had, and partly because in each case what I am asking for is backed by the court which judged the case; and each of the men, apart from this offence, had had, as far as I know, an excellent record at the dockyard, and in every other respect. The community, and not only the dockyard, has to protect itself against these crimes; but that is primarily the business of the courts. Sometimes the courts impose heavy sentences. But the court examines all the facts. In the courts proper weight is given to mitigating circumstances. The Recorder is able to make up his mind after hearing all the facts, and after hearing the case for the accused. The Admiralty are not able to carry out the same function.

An astonishing state of affairs appears from the correspondence I have had with the Civil Lord of the Admiralty on these matters. In one case about which I wrote to him recently, I was told that the Admiralty had not been informed about the Recorders appeal that one man should not be dismissed.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Wingfield Digby) indicated assent.

Mr. Foot

The Civil Lord nods his head. How do the Admiralty make up their mind whether they will discharge a man? Did they get a full account of the court case?

Mr. Digby

In most cases there is an official communication; in others there is not. In one of these cases there was an official communication; in the other there was not.

Mr. Foot

I am grateful to the Civil Lord. If the Admiralty are going to make up their mind whether to discharge a man they ought at least to examine the evidence given to the court. If they did examine the evidence, how was it that they did not have the appeal of the Recorder, or the Deputy Recorder, that the man should not be discharged?

Mr. Digby

We did know that; but the point is that the Recorder, or the Deputy Recorder, did not feel sufficiently about it to send representations to us in the one case: in the other case, he did.

Mr. Foot

There must still be a misunderstanding. If before deciding to discharge a man the Admiralty went through the evidence of the court case, then I should have thought that in each case the Admiralty would be aware of the appeal made by the Recorder. At any rate, in all these three cases the court came to the conclusion that no fine should be imposed and that the best chance of the individual making himself a decent citizen again was for him to go back to employment. The Admiralty step in and impose a penalty far more severe than the court contemplated, a penalty which may dog these men for the rest of their lives.

It should be taken into account in dockyard towns like Plymouth that, if a man is sacked from the dockyard, it may be that he will have great difficulty in finding another job. The reasons given on a man's card for his discharge from the dockyard may condemn him to a life sentence of unemployment. It is therefore a very serious action on the part of the Admiralty.

I have seen all these men whose cases I have mentioned, and indeed others, some of them concerned with other kinds of offences. Some of them are the most pitiful people that I have seen in my constituency, because they have no hope of getting another job. I have come away from these interviews filled with a sense of fury at the bureaucratic inhumanity which I believe has been applied in these cases. I hope that I have stated my case tonight as coolly as I can. I believe that the Admiralty should reconsider the whole way in which they are dealing with these cases, because they are imposing sentences which may ruin a man's life and in imposing them over-riding in some cases the decisions of the law and leaving the man utterly defenceless. He may not state his case to the Admiralty in the same way as he does to the court, and his defence in the last resort is to bring the matter to the House of Commons and see if the Admiralty will change their mind.

I ask the Civil Lord if he will look at the whole question again and review not only the particular cases which I have mentioned, but also others which we have had in the past year or so. I hope that in future the Admiralty will pay much greater regard to what is said by the Recorder and the judge, because they have more experience in these matters than the Admiralty are ever likely to have. I ask the Admiralty to stop what appears to be becoming the practice of making almost automatic the discharge of a man from the dockyard if he happens to have been involved in a court case. I hope that the Admiralty will revert to what appeared to be the slightly better practice which was followed just after the war.

It is repugnant to our sense of justice that a man should be tried twice for the same offence, but I should have thought that it is even more repugnant that a man whom the court deliberately decides should not be punished should be punished by the Admiralty for the same alleged offence. In all the Royal Dockyards this question may concern only a dozen or so people a year, but, whatever the number may be, certainly the consequences for the individual are very serious. I ask the Admiralty to reconsider the issue as a matter of simple justice.

11.4 p.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Wingfield Digby)

The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) has confined himself almost entirely to the cases of those who have been convicted of civil offences. At the beginning of his remarks he also made a number of references to the closed fortnight which will take place in Admiralty establishments and dockyards next year. That is really outside the terms of the notice which the hon. Member gave me, but that decision was only reached after careful thought and in view of overwhelming arguments in favour of that course. It is indeed only a restoration of the pre-war practice, because before the war the dockyards were closed for the holiday period.

The main question with which the hon. Gentleman dealt was that of workpeople who are convicted of civil offences of one kind or another. I am glad to take the chance to tell the House that only recently I have looked into the whole of our practice in this question. We have reached certain decisions about it which may slightly modify the practice in coming years. I should like to deal with the question as a whole and not confine myself entirely to the types of case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, because all three types he mentioned have been homosexual offences.

Our aim in all these cases is to be as humane as we can and to assist rehabilitation without overlooking the interests of our other employees. The kind of question we must ask ourselves after men unfortunately have been convicted of offences of one kind or another is, "Can the man be relied upon to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and without risk to other employees?" The case of the hon. Member, as I understand it, is that we should be more lenient in all types of case, but particularly in the three to which he referred; that the time has come for more lenient treatment for them, and that where the court expresses an opinion the Admiralty should inevitably follow that opinion. Then he said that nobody should be punished twice for the same offence.

The short answer to those points is that, of course, there is at the moment some public anxiety about sexual offences of this nature and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is considering the matter. I admit that there have been rather a lot of cases of this kind down at Devonport. They have been more numerous there in recent years than they have been elsewhere in other Naval establishments. With regard to the opinions expressed by the Recorders and others after convictions have been made for these offences, I must point out that the magistrate cannot know the full circumstances of a certain man's employment as do the naval authorities.

With reference to the point about no man being punished twice for the same offence, of course that is not the intention, but we know that in many branches of life when people are convicted of a civil offence that may have unfortunate consequences for them in their employment. For example, some people are convicted of offences which result in their being deprived of their driving licences. In some cases that must mean the loss of the type of livelihood to which they have been accustomed.

I come to a somewhat longer answer to these various points. As the hon. Member said, Home Dockyard Regulations Article 40 lays down perfectly clearly that those convicted of any serious offence against the law will be liable to immediate dismissal. Of course, we attempt to look very carefully into the individual circumstances in each case in applying this rule. It is not applied blindly but, in regard to established men in particular, it is regarded as one of the conditions of their establishment that they should follow good conduct.

As a result of the review which we recently had, fresh guidance has now been sent out to the various establishments about the attitude towards the different types of offence, although every case will have to be judged on its merits. The main considerations which I think must apply are such as these: whether the offence was committed in the yard or place of work or whether it was committed outside working hours; whether it was a first offence or whether offences of this nature had been committed before; also the nature of the offence, and whether it is liable to make a man a bad influence or a risk to other workpeople in the yard. Those are very relevant points in connection with the three cases which the hon. Member has raised. In the dockyard at Devonport we have over 2,100 apprentices and yard boys, a very large number of juveniles, and we cannot be indifferent to the consequences of continuing to employ those who have been convicted of this kind of offence in the yards. Indeed, I very much doubt if the parents of these boys would like it if we were to continue so to do.

Another point which we take into account when considering these cases is the length of service of the man concerned and his good conduct up to the time of the offence. But first and foremost, I think the Admiralty have a duty to consider their obligation to look after the interests of the other workpeople, and particularly the juveniles in the establishment. Even then we are prepared in some circumstances to consider a transfer to another establishment where that might get over the difficulty. I think that probably as a result of this review, and the fresh guidance which has gone out to the establishments, in the future it may be found in some general cases—I am not now referring to the one type of case—that treatment may be more lenient than in the past.

With regard to the three individual cases which have been mentioned, I think the hon. Member was under a misunderstanding, because he spoke of one of the men having been discharged. My understanding is that in fact all three were convicted. Although they were put on probation for three different periods they were all three convicted of the offence.

Mr. Foot

I understood that all three of them pleaded guilty, but that none of them had a fine imposed.

Mr. Digby

But they were convicted of the offence and two out of the three committed the offence in the yard. So that in each case there were circumstances which it was difficult to overlook. I think it is correct to say that they were working in the main dockyard establishment, with a large number of juveniles, and where supervision is difficult.

Mr. Foot

But could not they have been sent to some other part of the dockyard, as the hon. Gentleman himself suggested? All these men were people with first-class records. In each case the Recorder made a special plea because of the policy pursued by the Admiralty. Surely that should weigh with the Admiralty? It is very strange that the hon. Gentleman should say that the Admiralty know better than the court. If there is any information which should have been revealed, it certainly has not been revealed to me.

Mr. Digby

I am not sure that the court would have understood the situation in which these men worked. I can assure the hon. Member that I looked at these cases personally and I came to the conclusion that, in the circumstances, it was not practicable to keep them on in that dockyard. Indeed, it was not found desirable to move them to other establishments, if that had been possible, taking their trade into account.

I must stress again that it is impossible to lay down any hard and fast rules where men are convicted of civil offences. The bearing of the particular offence on their work must be taken fully into account in each case. The nature of the offence is important—for example, the theft of property in the dockyard. We are here, of course, dealing with public property, and we feel that it is our duty to do everything we can to discourage the theft of public property.

Let me say once again that we feel we have a special responsibility towards the very large number of juveniles we have in all home dockyards. Where these men have obviously made only one mistake we are anxious to do all we can for their rehabilitation, butin a number of circumstances we have to appear to be rather severe. We have looked at all three cases very carefully. I have looked at them again since the hon. Member announced that he would raise the matter on the Adjournment, but I very much regret that I cannot hold out any hope of reversing our decision in any of these three cases.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes past Eleven o'Clock