HC Deb 07 November 1962 vol 666 cc1114-22

10.3 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington (Aldershot)

This is a case in which it is open to question whether justice has been done and even more whether it has seemed to have been done. I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the case which concerns Mr. G. F. Harrison who is a career police officer who has spent thirty-one years in the service of the Crown. Twenty of those years were in India, culminating in an award of the M.B.E. as well of the Indian Police Medal for his services as a policeman. He spent a further five years with the Sudan Police and six years with the Uganda police.

The contract which was made with him was one for thirty-six months from 17th September, 1959, and the contract contained a clause, 9 (1), which said that the Government might at any time terminate the engagement of the person engaged on giving him three months' notice in writing or on paying him one month's salary. This gentleman was paid one month's salary. It would appear from the fact that the action was taken under that clause that Mr. Harrison had been guilty of serious misconduct, but the facts are otherwise.

Since these matters have been investigated, it appears that before August, 1960, there had been no complaints in writing. A letter from the Colonial Office states that there were criticisms in inspectors' reports, but none of those reports is available. There is a suggestion, too, that confidential reports contained qualifications on the efficiency of Mr. Harrison, though he has never seen any confidential report of that character. If there were criticisms in a confidential report, it should surely have been made available to him. It is even harder to see how there could be complaints as he was appointed to Masaka in April, 1959, which was a larger and, in fact, a key station in Uganda, he having previously been in charge of less important stations.

The first written complaint was on 15th August. 1960. It could not be described as a serious complaint, the suggestion being that there was a "country cousin" air about the station, and there was a complaint that the cycle suspension bar had not been placed in the right place. The action taken could not be justified on that sort of thing.

The situation did not end on 15th August, because there was a letter from the Senior Superintendent, of Police of the Buganda area, which was the area in which Mr. Harrison was, containing the following passage: There have been numerous improvements since my last inspection of about six months ago. A statement was then made in the report about additional help in connection with both traffic and crime, but the report ended with the following words: Many of the numerous improvements can be put down to the recent thorough inspections carried out by Mr. Harrison. As the letter of dismissal was dated 7th February, 1961, it becomes very relevant to note that a letter from the Senior Assistant Commissioner of Buganda was written on the following day, 8th February, 1961, saying: This is a large and onerous command which, until the past six weeks, has been working at pressure under disturbed conditions. Generally, I find the command in satisfactory shape. It was expected that Buganda would declare independence on 1st January, 1961. The final trouble arose a day or so before, at the end of 1960, when Mr. Harrison found himself superseded informally and without any explanation being given. Subsequently, without any explanation, the officer who superseded him left in the same way as he came, without any statement as to the position.

Mr. Harrison unwisely wrote a letter on 1st January, being confronted with this position, which may be the real reason for his subsequent dismissal on payment of one month's salary. I propose to read the paragraph which he unwisely wrote, because it sets out the situation: The suddenness and manner of my present supersession in a time of impending trouble and the fact that I am now in ignorance of any scheme in force to meet any threat of disturbance in the district, following so soon after events referred to… has caused me to reach the conclusion that my immediate superiors have no confidence in my ability to deal with events in the district. It seems, therefore, not unreasonable on my part to state that I have lost confidence in my immediate superiors and to assume that I have forfeited any confidence reposed in me by my junior officers and by the Senior Assistant Resident at Masaka and by the members of the Committee set up under the terms of the Masaka Defence Scheme. That was an unwise letter to write, but 'there was, at any rate, some degree of justification for writing it.

The next thing which happened was that Mr. Harrison received an intimation from the Chief Secretary's Office of Uganda, dated 7th February, 1961: I am directed to inform you that it has been decided on the advice of the Public Service Commission to determine your engagement. Never at any time during the occurrence Of these matters has there been any statement at all as to why action was taken under this contract in the most harsh way that it was possible for it to be taken. I say at once that under the contract there may be a legal right to take the action which was taken. But it is not the action of a good employer.

No reason was given at any time for the examination either by the police authorities or the Police Service Commission which, apparently, is a body composed of a chairman and three members who consider these matters, or ought to do so. Not in any way was any opportunity given for the case of Mr. Harrison, with his thirty-two years of service, to be put and his version given of what occurred.

As I have said, the most abrupt dismissal that it was possible to give was given to this gentleman who had, by agreement, already arranged with the authorities that he would retire in October, 1961. The position is even worse, because the Colonial Office states that contract officers are judged by the same standards as are applied to pensionable officers. In fact, there seems to be, legally speaking, no procedure, though morally there ought to be, which coincides with the requirements for pensionable officers under Section 68 of the Colonial Regulations.

This provides, in effect— here. I paraphrase— that if the Governor considers that an officer holding an office appointment should be required to retire from the Service on grounds which cannot suitably be dealt with by specific charges he shall submit a full report upon the case to the Secretary of State who, having considered the case, may require the man to retire, and his service shall in the ordinary way determine on such a date as the Secretary of State shall specify. That means that every possible opportunity which ought to have been given to Mr. Harrison to put his point of view has not been given to him.

It is very difficult to get evidence, but, in that connection, I would say that the Colonial Office has been a little less than frank when, in reply to a question raised by me, it wrote on 16th July, 1962: In the absence from Uganda of the officers mainly concerned in this affair the Governor is unable to comment on the apparent lack of liaison with the Senior Assistant Resident. Although a senior assistant resident is not a police officer, there is a requirement that the police and the Senior Assistant Resident should work together, and, in fact, they are both concerned with the maintenance of law and order where they have themselves, from their different points of view, to deal with problems that arise. In fact, of the two Residents who were concerned, one was in Uganda until September this year and was easily available, and another is still in Uganda, and is also available.

Fortunately, Mr. Harrison has had the opportunity of getting in touch with one of the Senior Assistant Residents at Masaka, and just to indicate the sort of reputation that Mr. Harrison had with the civil side of the administration I should like to read an extract from a letter that that person has written. It reads: When Tennent was sent down in December, 1960, to take over from you both another Resident and myself were astounded that this should have been done without warning or reference to the other Resident as the officer responsible for law and order in the district. I am quite certain that he had no cause to ask that this should have been done. The result of this sudden change in police command badly affected European morale and it is my impression it badly shook the morale of the police rank and file in Masaka as they did not know who to turn to as their master, and if things had blown up, I feel sure any enquiry afterwards would have strongly criticised such a change in command immediately before trouble was expected. I hope that in cutting short this quotation, because of the time, I am not leaving out anything which is contrary to what I have said.

The letter goes on: I know the other resident had no cause for complaint about your work, and certainly I had none after I took over. Your long experience under similar conditions in India and the Sudan were invaluable, always in my opinion resulting in a correct appreciation of the situation being taken, and the correct deployment of available forces being made, and I fail to understand how your senior officers, at a considerable distance, could be fully in the picture. Those words, at any rate, raise a prima faciecase for an inquiry, but an inquiry has so far been refused.

If I am asked what could be done, I would suggest first, that the whole case should be reopened so that it might be properly gone into into, because I think I have said sufficient to indicate that there is, at any rate, another side to be considered. But even if the Government are not prepared to do that, the least that in the circumstances they can do is to treat the position as though Mr. Harrison had retired in October, 1961, instead of being summarily dismissed in February, 1961, and to treat him on the terms agreed by them prior to his dismissal.

10.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Nigel Fisher)

Perhaps before replying to the points which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) has raised, I should make it clear that the events to which he has referred occurred early in 1961 before Uganda achieved self-government and independence.

Mr. Harrison was appointed a Superintendent of Police in Uganda in February, 1955, on contract, for one tour in the first instance. His contract was renewed in January, 1958, and again in October, 1959. He was posted to Masaka, where these events took place in, according to my information, October, 1959, although my hon. Friend says that it was April.

In December, 1960, a serious security situation was impending in this district for which Mr. Harrison was responsible. His superior officers were not confident that he would be able to cope with the situation satisfactorily, and they therefore felt it necessary to send Mr. Harrison's immediate superior to the district to assume operational command.

I do not want to be unfair to Mr. Harrison in what I am saying. I am advised— and I must be quite frank about this— that he was the sort of officer who was satisfactory in a quiet job but who, it was thought, would not be satisfactory under emergency conditions—and these were the conditions in which the district then was. He was, I have been told, too desk-bound. He was not an energetic leader of men in a tough and exacting operational command. I do not want to criticise him. I am really in rather an invidious position. It is a very distasteful duty to have to say these things. I want it to be quite clear that he was not an unsatisfactory officer in normal conditions, but equally he was not up to the standard which, I am informed, became necessary in this job at this time.

My hon. Friend may say, "Why was he not sent to a quieter area to finish peacefully the last few months of an admittedly long career overseas?" I myself asked that question in the office when I came to look at this case, but the plain fact is that the Commissioner considered that there was no suitable post in his rank available at that time in Uganda. Under these circumstances he recommended the termination of Mr. Harrison's contract before it was due to expire in mid-1962 but in fact only four months before Mr. Harrison himself had asked for his contract to be terminated.

My hon. Friend has referred to the effect that this had upon morale among other officers, but I have no information, and the Governor had no information, about any trepidation that might have been felt among other officers as a result of the termination of Mr. Harrison's services.

The Commissioner's recommendation was referred to the Police Service Commission, which is an independent body existing at that time precisely for the purpose of giving impartial advice on police staff matters. The case was very carefully and fully considered by the Commission, which advised that Mr. Harrison's contract should be terminated, and, as my hon. Friend said, it was in fact open to the Uganda Government to terminate the engagement at any time on three months notice, or on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice.

The Commission's advice, which the Governor accepted, was that Mr. Harrison's services should be terminated straight away on payment of one month's notice. Mr. Harrison, in fact, lost no terminal benefits as a result of this decision. He was granted the leave for which he was eligible and the gratuity which he had of course earned. He was also granted return passages to the United Kingdom, and although he would normally have been required to make use of this passage entitlement within two months of ceasing duty, he was given special permission to avail himself of the passages at any time between 28th February, 1961, and 31st October, 1961, when he had originally planned, with Government approval, to terminate his employment with the Uganda Government.

Sir E. Errington

I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend if I can avoid it, but is he saying that the Police Service Commission makes decisions when it has heard only one side?

Mr. Fisher

I am coming to that point, naturally. I would not dream of omitting it. In fact, neither Mr. Harrison's contract nor the Uganda Police Service Commission's regulations make any provision at all for a contract officer whose contract has been properly terminated to make representations against the action proposed. I must emphasise that he was not at this time an established civil servant. He was merely serving on contract— and the terms of that contract he fully understood— just as he might have been in any business or professional job. He had already written to the Commissioner of Police protesting against the reorganisation of his command and of his own supercession, and his letter, together with all his confidential reports, were available to the Police Service Commission when the case was being considered. The Governor has reported to me that he was fully satisfied that in those circumstances there was no point in asking for further representations before the matter was submitted to the Commission for its advice.

Frankly, the decision to relieve Mr. Harrison should not really have come as a great shock to him. He must have read the inspection reports criticising his command, particularly those in July and August, 1960. There were also a number of verbal warnings at various times that he showed a negative, un-enthusiastic, uninspired and uninspiring approach to his duties. On one occasion a letter of criticism was sent personally to him by his provincial commander. The fact is that he was not a leader and he was not at all close to his men as one has to be when a job becomes operational.

My hon. Friend has referred to improvements, but honestly, although I would have preferred not to say this, there was really room for improvement in that particular command at that time. It was properly a matter for the Commissioner of Police, in the light of his responsibility for the operational control of the police force and the maintenance of law and order, to consider whether he could leave any particular officer in any particular job at any given time.

My hon. Friend referred to the District Resident, but I must be quite clear that the District Administration had no responsibility whatever for police postings. There was no necessity for the Commissioner to consult them about the operational control of his own force.

The criticism that I make of Mr. Harrison— and I did not want to have to go into this very much— is, on the advice which I have received, of his leadership and his executive capacity. He might perhaps make very good plans and dispositions. That I am not questioning. That is not the point. But I am questioning whether he was the right man to carry out those plans under the circumstances at Masaka at that time. At any rate, I can only say that his superior officers did not think so. There is no doubt whatever that his superior officers had lost confidence in his ability to deal with this sort of situation which was threatening at that time.

It is also clear, as my hon. Friend pointed out, from the letter which Mr. Harrison himself addressed to the Commissioner of Police in January, 1961, that he had himself lost confidence in his superior officers. In those circum-stances, I honestly must say that I think it is difficult to see how he could have continued to serve in the Uganda Police Force at that time and in those circumstances. The decision, though, to deter- mine this contract was not taken by the Commissioner of Police on his own responsibility. Indeed, that decision was not his to take. It was, as I say, taken by the Police Service Commission, and, in the light of their independent and perfectly impartial advice, the Governor decided that this was the only action he could take.

The Police Service Commission was there for that very purpose to hear cases of this sort, and its decision was taken entirety within the terms of Mr. Harrison's contract of service and involved no loss of terminal benefits or anything of that sort. I can well appreciate that Mr. Harrison must feel very unhappy about all this, but I am unable to agree that he has been wrongfully treated or that he has any case for redress. I do not believe that there is any question of financial loss in this matter. At any rate, my hon. Friend has not referred to it.

Sir E. Errington

To put the position shortly, the effect of what has been done is the worst form of dismissal of the man, and it is his reputation that must suffer.

Mr. Fisher

I was just coming to that point. When I said I did not think that there was any financial loss, I was about to say that I thought that perhaps it was his pride and self-respect which had been hurt. I fully understand that, and I should have felt exactly the same. I appreciate my hon. Friend's motives in raising this matter. He is concerned to try to vindicate the professional reputation of his constituent. But I feel a little sorry that the matter has been raised in this way, because it has inevitably involved whoever was replying for my Office in the unpleasant task of having to criticise publicly the work of an officer with a long career in the Overseas Service. I would have preferred not to have done that, and I am sorry that I have had to do it in order to explain the circumstances in Which he had to retire. I have tried to look at this matter as sympathetically as possible, but in the light of all the circumstances I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that there is really no action I can take which would be of any help to Mr. Harrison.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.