§ 1. Mr. Fellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent it is the normal procedure for the Board of Inland Revenue, in the event of their taking criminal proceedings against an employee, to dismiss the employee before the trial; and if he will list the precedents.
§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke)The Board of Inland Revenue generally feels compelled to dismiss an officer where a Departmental offence which warrants dismissal is established, notwithstanding that proceedings may also be instituted for an alleged criminal offence. There have been fourteen cases of this kind during the past five years.
§ Mr. FellIs my right hon. Friend aware that the only case I know of as a precedent happened about a year ago when a man called Notley was in a similar position, and was treated not in this way but in the exactly opposite way; in other words, he was suspended pending proceedings being taken and dismissed after the criminal proceedings had taken place?
§ Mr. BrookeThere were, in fact, fourteen cases in the last five years where a man was dismissed in advance of criminal proceedings being taken. In the case to which my hon. Friend refers, the man unquestionably admitted the offences for which he was dismissed.
§ Mr. BrookeNo, Sir, not without notice.
§ Commander AgnewIs there anything in the nature of a Departmental inquiry in cases of this kind before the action is taken of dismissing a man?
§ Mr. BrookeThis case has been very thoroughly investigated. The officer in question admitted in court that he had done the things for which he was dismissed.
§ Mr. FellOn that last point, is it not also true that Mr. Coldham never admitted that he had taken any money by false pretences or anything else? He was cleared of all charges, as my right hon. Friend well knows.
§ Mr. BrookeHe was charged with a criminal offence about false pretences. He was acquitted on that charge, but he has not denied the Departmental offences for which he was dismissed.
§ 2. Mr. Fellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set up an independent inquiry into the case of Mr. C. M. Coldham who was dismissed by the Board of Inland Revenue in March, 1955, and subsequently proceeded against by the Board for the offences for which he had been dismissed but was cleared of all charges by the court.
§ Mr. H. BrookeNo, Sir.
§ Mr. FellIn view of the serious nature of the case and of the fact that the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue said to me quite definitely and admitted to me that the punishment which this man had received was out of all relation to the facts of the case, and that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer also had that feeling quite obviously about this case and expressed the view to me that he would see whether there was some way in which Mr. Coldham could be helped, will not my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary now really seriously consider this matter, which is one I cannot leave until I am satisfied?
§ Mr. BrookeMy hon. Friend has had the opportunity of discussing this matter with the Chairman of the Board of Inland 2323 Revenue and with the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. I find difficulty in accepting his statement that either of those two were as sympathetic towards him and towards Mr. Coldham as his question suggests. He did, in November, give notice that he would raise this matter on the Adjournment. I really do not think we can carry it further at Question Time.
§ Mr. H. HyndAs a matter of principle, would it not be better, when an officer is involved in a case of this kind, to suspend him pending court proceedings?
§ Mr. BrookeNo, Sir. When we have a case, such as in another of the fourteen cases to which I referred, where an officer admits that he has helped a member of the public to prepare a false Income Tax return, one cannot suspend a man like that pending proceedings.
§ Mr. FellIn view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory way in which this case has been handled, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.