HC Deb 03 May 1963 vol 676 cc1586-98

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. G. Campbell.]

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

I wish to raise on the Motion for the Adjournment today the case of my constituent, Mr. Robert Samuel Embley, who was employed as an assistant inspector at the Bootle Post Office. He was suspended from duty without pay on 24th May, 1962, on suspicion of theft, and on 18th August, 1962, he was dismissed from the service as from 24th May. That is but one of the astonishing features of this case. He was suspended without pay in May but he was still held to his employment in the Post Office and therefore had no power to seek other employment. He therefore had no pay for a matter of three months. He was then dismissed summarily and restrospectively.

This was done to a man who was an assistant inspector and who had thirty-two years' employment in the service of the Post Office. It is a thing which a private employer could not do. A private employer cannot hold a man to his employment without pay while he makes up his mind whether he shall sack him. A private employer must either pay him or dismiss him and let him go and find another job. I understand that the Post Office claims a right to hold a man unpaid for as long as it chooses while it carries on a one-sided investigation which takes about three months. I claim that this man ought to have had an opportunity of putting his side of the story in some sort of proper inquiry or, on the other hand, if he were accused of theft he ought to have been prosecuted and to have been given the chance to clear himself and a chance to cross-examine the Post Office witnesses against him and to call his own witnesses.

On a short Adjournment debate it is impossible for me to give the full facts in this case, but I must give a few facts briefly in order to provide the background of the events which followed. The facts, briefly, are that Mr. Embley was an assistant inspector who had general supervision of the sorting office at Bootle where about seventy men are employed. Under his supervision at any one time there would be about a couple of dozen men. For the past five years reports of a fairly large number of thefts of letters, banknotes and postal orders have been received from that office, and from time to time wrongly opened letters have been found in the building behind a cupboard or behind lockers.

This has been under investigation for some considerable time by investigation branch officers of the Post Office, but they have been unsuccessful in discovering the culprit. One can imagine that when something of this kind is under investigation in that way, the investigation officers become a little exasperated after a time at their own failure. These are just the sort of circumstances when, as one knows from police action from time to time, enthusiasm or determination to catch the culprit results perhaps in some distortion of the facts. Moreover, the risk of over-enthusiasm in apprehension is particularly prevalent when, as in this case, it is decided to set a trap for the culprit. Setting a trap must be about last resort in investigation, and if it goes off without catching anything the trappers are apt to look pretty stupid.

Mr. Embley's duties at the sorting office were such that when he checked over at night, locking up the building, he would be there alone for a matter of perhaps ten minutes between about five past nine and a quarter past nine. Let me take the description of the trap which was set for him at that time of night as given by an official of the Post Office in a statement which was delivered to Mr. Embley some time later. It involved the posting of a test letter containing six 10s. notes posted in a post box to which Mr. Embley and others had access. The statement describes what happened between 8.41 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. on 23rd May, 1962. First, two officers of the investigation branch went into the watching gallery over the sorting office where they could observe what was happening without being seen themselves. They described various comings and goings of about six or seven of the staff between 8.41 and 9.5, some of them going in and out of the building. By 9.5 Mr. Embley was on his own in the building. At 8.50, about a quarter of an hour before, an investigation branch officer had posted the test letter in the box, which had been cleared about five minutes before that.

The statement by a Post Office official says this: Between 9.5 p.m. and 9.10 p.m. observation was kept upon your movements"— that is, Mr. Embley's movements— in the sorting office from the watching gallery and at the latter time you were observed by the two officers of the Investigation Branch to go to the posting box and although your movements were obscure the officers heard the movements of letters being disturbed in the posting box. This seems rather an extraordinary suggestion, that he was selecting just this test letter.

The statement goes on in this way: You were seen to emerge from the posting box with your right hand in your jacket pocket, and enter the assistant inspector's office …". The statement then describes him making some telephone calls and going out of the room to the first floor. I quote again: … and after switching off the lights you then left the sorting office. The officers of the Investigation Branch heard the street door of the office in Oriel Street being closed and at 9.20 p.m. approximately you were seen to drive off in your private car. I question here why the officers let Mr. Embley drive away. If their statement be true, it seems that they might have caught him red-handed with the test letter in his pocket. This is the sort of question which would have been asked in cross-examination if there had been an inquiry. It would be reasonable in such an inquiry, if the witnesses had been subjected to cross-examination, for it to have been suggested to them that it seemed that they wanted him out of the way at that time.

They had in fact posted an investigation branch officer at his home, which was only five minutes away. This is what happened: At 9.25 p.m."— five minutes after he had left the post office— … as you drew up in your car before your house you were spoken to by an officer of the Investigation Branch and invited to return with him to the Bootle P.D.O., which you agreed to do and you drove your car back to the office accompanied by the officer, arriving there at 9.30 p.m. You were then interviewed by an officer of the Investigation Branch", and so on. In the meantime, while Mr. Embley had been out of the office, those investigation branch officers who had remained in the office— found lying on top of waste paper in a bag in the passageway torn fragments of a letter which they identified as part of the 'test' letter. There was, however, no trace of the six 10s. Bank of England notes. Again, I cannot help but ask: why did they not stop Mr. Embley before he left? If their story is right, he had the test letter in his pocket.

When the statement states, as I have read out, "You were then interviewed", what happened was that when Mr. Embley returned to the Post Office he was confronted by a Mr. Kerr, one of the Investigation Branch officers, whose first words were: I placed a letter in that box. Where are my bloody ten bob notes? This so-called interview proceeded rather on those lines, with the Investigation Branch officers trying to persuade Mr. Embly that he ought to own up, and that it would be better if he did so.

When he was asked if he desired a friend to be present, Mr. Embley said that he did, and a Mr. Coleman arrived at about 11 p.m. The questioning continued all through the night until 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning. Mr. Embley was personally searched, the building was searched, his car was searched. An investigation Branch officer went off and searched his home, but the 10s. notes were not found. What was found was £249 10s. in cash, which the Investigation Branch officers took away, but returned to him the next day. These were Mr. Embley's perfectly legitimate savings, and the Post Office has never been able to assert otherwise.

Mr. Embley having been allowed to go home at 5 o'clock in the morning of 24th May, he was directed to report at the Liverpool Post Office at 10 o'clock on the same morning. He did so, and was told that he was suspended from duty without pay.

He then consulted his solicitor—that, apparently, is something of a crime in itself in the eyes of the Post Office, as I shall show later. He was asked to attend the Post Office again on 5th June. On the way, he called on his solicitor, who telephoned the Post Office and asked the purpose of the summons of Mr. Embley to the Post Office. There is a conflict of evidence whether the solicitor was told that there was to be no questioning, or that there was to be questioning. At any rate, the solicitor decided not to attend.

Mr. Embley went alone. He was immediately taken to the Investigation Branch officers, and when he realised that he was to be questioned he asked for his solicitor to be present. He was told that he was not entitled to have his solicitor there, because he was still a Post Office servant. Here I come to the most serious and grave aspect of the case.

I propose to quote paragraph K 6.1 in the Post Office Staff Handbook, headed "Representation through Persons outside the Service". It reads: Until an appeal has been made to the Regional director … and the appeal has been decided, any application or other communication to, or through, Members of Parliament or other persons outside the Service is strictly forbidden. This rule applies not only to appeals against punishment, but also to representation of any kind, whether for promotion or transfer or with any other object. Applications to or through Members of Parliament or other persons outside the Service may not be made in respect of punishments against which no appeal lies. 6.2. This rules does not debar an officer from obtaining advice from an outside person, for example, a solicitor, but should an application be received irregularly from a solicitor or from any other outside person, the officer at whose instance it is made will be liable to censure or other punishment. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you or any other hon. Member knew of this purported prohibition of a citizen's right of access to his Member of Parliament, or the limitation of his right to the services of a solicitor?

On that occasion, 5th June, Mr. Embley was questioned about his cash savings of £249 10s. that had been found. On 11th July, his solicitors were informed that no proceedings were to be taken against him. On 13th July, he received a long written statement going over incidents for a matter of five years, and he was invited to say why he should not be dismissed from the service. Mr. Embley wrote denying the charges and inferences in that statement. He was dismissed on 17th August, 1962, as from 24th May, 1962.

In September the solicitors inquired about an appeal. It was discovered that the form of appeal was merely that Mr.

Embley wrote a latter to the head postmaster, who replied by letter—no sort of inquiry at all. The result of the appeal was a letter from the head postmaster to Mr. Embley, dated 29th October, 1962, which stated: … further, inquiries were made, but nothing came to light to persuade the Minister that there was any substance in your allegations or that your treatment had not been fair and just. Regarding your claim that you should have been prosecuted for the incident of the 23rd May, it cannot be accepted that because it was decided not to do so, the evidence available should not have been taken into account in deciding whether you should be allowed to continue in the employment of the Post Office. Moreover I must emphasise that the case against you does not rest solely on that particular incident, but on a series of incidents over a number of years, and this was made quite clear in the comprehensive statement put to you on the 13th July, 1962. If in fact he was dismissed not for one particular incident but for a series of incidents over a matter of five years, surely there should have been a proper inquiry or else he should have been prosecuted. There should have been some occasion on which he could have called his own witnesses in proof of his denial of these charges brought against him, or he should have had the opportunity of cross-examining witnesses brought by the Post Office.

Here is a man with thirty-two years apparently honest and faithful service to the Post Office. He is suspended for three months, without pay, before he is dismissed. He is given before his dismissal only these opportunities of clearing himself: first, an all-night grilling—I can only call it that—from ten o'clock in the evening until five o'clock the next morning; secondly, there was the head office questioning in which he was refused the assistance of his solicitor; and thirdly, a long written statement of incidents covering five years, with which he was invited to reply in writing; and then he was dismissed.

Then there was an appeal in writing answered by the statement that further inquiries had been made—not, of course, in the presence of the man himself. He has never had a chance to refute what was said against him and he is denied that opportunity now except that of bringing his case to his Member of Parliament and getting it aired in this way. Not least important of all the facts brought to light in the investigation of this case is the fact that a Post Office employee is denied, by the staff rules, access to his M.P. He has to go through some form of procedure and he has to look after himself for a period of time without any assistance from anyone, his Member of Parliament, solicitor or other persons, and this seems to me to be most reprehensible conduct on the part of the officials of the Post Office.

4.18 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Ray Mawby)

In this case which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has raised, the simple fact is that Mr. Embley was dismissed the service because the Postmaster-General had lost confidence in him. While I regret that the details of the case have to be discussed in public, it is necessary in order to put matters in their right perspective. The time available will permit of only a summary of the facts.

Almost immediately Mr. Embley took up duty in the Bootle office there was a marked increase in the losses of inward letters containing banknotes. A few months later, the finding of mutilated envelopes in the Bootle office suggested that some of the losses could be attributed to thefts by someone employed there.

It was established that some of the thefts were being carried out in the evenings when a comparatively small number of staff was on duty. Mr. Embley was often in charge of the office in the evenings. Mr. Embley was taken into confidence by the Post Office investigating officers who were trying to track down the culprit or culprits and knew when these officers were watching. These watches produced no result and eventually a series of circumstances led the investigating officers to suspect that Mr. Embley himself was responsible for the losses, and they ceased to take him into confidence.

The facts I spoke of were these. A special analysis going back ten months showed that no losses of letters posted in Bootle to be delivered in Bootle had occurred when Mr. Embley was on sick or annual leave. When Mr. Embley had been told in confidence that the police were separately investigating the loss of letters addressed to a particular firm, these losses ceased abruptly.

It was established by watches, not disclosed to Mr. Embley, that on three separate occasions he went into the posting box enclosure after the remainder of the staff had left the office for the night and he was left to lock up. Of course, all this did no more than raise suspicion against Mr. Embley and, as my hon. Friend said, it was decided to put his honesty to a specific test. It may be of help to the House if I describe the way in which this was done.

As my hon. Friend said, a test letter containing six 10s. notes addressed to a local firm which receives a large number of payments in cash by post was posted in the box at the Bootle Office at 8.50 p.m. after the box had been cleared for the last time that day. The box could be opened from either outside or inside the office. A watch was kept from both inside and outside the office, the watching inside being done from a concealed watching gallery.

Only seven men, apart from Mr. Embley, were in the office after the letter was posted. All seven had left by 9.5 p.m. and none went near the posting box. Watchers outside confirmed that no one opened the box from the street side. Mr. Embley went into the enclosure containing the posting box at 9.10 p.m. The box itself could not be seen by the watchers, but he was heard to turn over the letters. He came out with his hand in his jacket pocket and went out of the sorting office for a short while. During this period he was heard to unlock one of the doors in the ground floor corridor not in view of the watchers.

He returned to the sorting office a few minutes later, locked up and left the office at 9.20 p.m., and the watchers immediately examined the contents of the letter box and found that the test letter was no longer there. A few minutes later they found the torn up envelope in a waste paper bag which was standing in the corridor on Mr. Embley's route out of the office.

It is true that the six 10s. notes were not found on Mr. Embley when he was asked to return to the office and agreed to be searched, but about six months later they were found hidden in a store room in the basement when special fittings used at Christmas times only were brought out, the door of which leads off the ground floor corridor.

Mr. Graham Page

The Assistant Postmaster-General has produced some completely new facts, unknown to Mr. Embley and myself; that is, that the notes have now been found in the basement.

Mr. Mawby

If I have introduced any new facts my main point in replying to this debate is to leave no facts untold. What I have described is one of the facts I found during my investigation of this case since my hon. Friend took the matter up with me. I am seeking to give all the facts and to conceal none.

When questioned, Mr. Embley not only refused to offer any explanation about the missing letter and notes but also to account for his visit to the posting box. All he would say in reply to the important questions was, "I know nothing about it". My hon. Friend said that we relied solely upon the word of the watchers against that of Mr. Embley for what happened on the occasion of the test. This is, of course, true, but it is not a case of balancing one man's word against another. Tests of honesty of the kind I have described have to be approved by Post Office Headquarters; and approval is not given lightly.

The evidence against Mr. Embley which was judged to justify the making of the test came from six officers of the Post Office, three of whom were members of the special investigating force. Five officers were involved in the test itself, three of whom were members of that force. I for my part am satisfied that the officers who are specially selected for these duties, and from whom the highest standards are always demanded, acted quite impartially and fairly in an endeavour to get to the truth.

My hon. Friend made a number of points, one of which was that Mr. Embley was told that he could not have a solicitor present because he was a Post Office servant. It is important to point out that when questioning takes place there is a standard practice that any man is allowed to have a friend present, and in this case, as my hon. Friend said, on the evening of questioning he had a friend present. But the following morning was, I think, the occasion to which my hon. Friend particularly referred. I find that the officer conducting the interview on that morning said that at no time did Mr. Embley request the presence of a solicitor. This is confirmed by a sergeant of the Metropolitan Police who was present. The notes of the interview, which were initialled by Mr. Embley, state only that he was asked if he wished to have a friend present and that he elected to have present as a friend a Post Office inspector.

As is normal practice in cases where an officer has not admitted to the offences and has not been prosecuted to conviction, Mr. Embley was presented with a statement of facts about the series of losses and, of course, about the loss of the test letter, and this is the statement of facts to which my hon. Friend has referred. In that statement of facts were included the inferences which the Post Office had drawn from them. The whole case, including Mr. Embley's reply to the statement of facts, was examined closely and independently by officials and by my predecessor the present Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who authorised the dismissal on the grounds that those facts as a whole left no reasonable room for doubt that Mr. Embley was responsible for the losses.

After Mr. Embley had been dismissed, my hon. Friend asked my predecessor to re-examine the case and she complied with his request, and still remained satisfied that Mr. Embley had not been unfairly treated. I have since, as I said before, examined the case myself and I, too, am satisfied that there was nothing unfair in the treatment of Mr. Embley. In my view also the evidence leaves no room for doubt about the conclusions previously reached.

Like any other good employer, the Post Office does not dismiss a member of its staff without good reason. My hon. Friend suggested that if the man was felt to be guilty of a criminal offence the matter ought to be pushed to prosecution. On this matter many Postmasters-General in the past have taken the view that there may be occasions on which it is right and proper not to proceed to prosecution in the case of a man where there is suspicion of theft, but the Post Office, like any other employer, and particularly in view of the duty which the Post Office has to the general public and the community as a whole for the safe transmission of mails of all kinds, has a special duty which is that the Postmaster-General and I must make certain that we only retain in our employment people in whom we can repose full confidence. This is the reason why—

Mr. Graham Page

May I ask my hon. Friend this question? Since he has disclosed a new fact—the finding of the 10s. notes in a part of the building which Mr. Embley could not possibly have reached according to the facts given in his own Post Office official statement—would my hon. Friend now think that the facts justify a proper full inquiry at which witnesses can be called and cross-examined and at which Mr. Embley can give evidence? It seems to me that new evidence has only now today been produced, which would justify an inquiry being made. I ask my hon. Friend whether he will direct that such an inquiry be made.

Mr. Mawby

I do not think my hon. Friend really got the point. The point is that the place where the notes were found was, in fact, a place to which the watchers were suspicious Mr. Embley had gone. As I said, he was heard to unlock one of the doors in the ground floor corridor, suggesting that he was going to the basement. This is, in fact, the area in which the 10s. notes were found.

Mr. Page

No, my hon. Friend is wrong. In the statement it is said that they heard him going to the first floor. The statement says: After attempting to make a telephone call you were seen to leave the sorting office and your footsteps were heard to lead towards the first floor. At 9.16 p.m. you were seen to reenter the sorting office. Now it is said that the notes were found in the basement. These are new facts.

Mr. Mawby

I have stated my understanding of the situation. As I say, I have investigated this matter completely. My information is that the place where the notes were found coincided with the place where the watchers were suspicious—I will not put it any higher than that—that Mr. Embley had visited. In those circumstances—

The Question having been proposed after Four o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Five o'clock.