§ Mr. Goronwy RobertsI beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 19, line 4, after 'by', insert 'members of'.
§ Mr. SpeakerI suggest that, with this Amendment, we take Amendment No. 29, in page 19, line 11, after 'by', insert 'members of'.
§ Mr. RobertsThese are Amendments which are designed to clarify the Clause so as to refer to members of ship's disciplinary committees so that the regulations under which these committees will be set up may provide for flexibility in the membership of the committee according to the type of case under consideration. Thus, we may wish to provide, as the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) suggested in Committee when quoting, I think, from National Maritime Board proposals, that one rating should come from the department in which the seaman about whom there is a complaint works.
These Amendments will enable regulations to cover such arrangements and, without going into more detail, might provide a very useful basis for the vertical and horizontal rotation of members of a crew to serve on the committee from time to time.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. SpeakerWe now come to Amendment No. 27, which I decided late in the day to select, with which I suggest that we take Amendment No. 28, in page 19, line 6, at end insert:
(2) The functions mentioned in subsection (1) above shall be the taking of evidence, and the determination of any question of facts (including the question of whether or not a disciplinary offence has been committed) but shall not include the imposition of any fine or other penalty which shall remain within the execusive power of the master.
§ Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen)I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 19, line 5, leave out
'of all or any of the powers of'and insert'of certain functions, contained in the next following subsection, otherwise exercisable by'.1467 We are grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting this important Amendment because it deals with perhaps the central Clause of the Bill relating to the novel experiment of ship's committees exercising the disciplinary powers which formerly were the exclusive prerogative of the master.The House on Second Reading and the Committee upstairs certainly accepted the principle of this experiment. We do not seek to go back on that, because we do not go back on what has been accepted in principle by the House and the Committee. Nevertheless, there are obvious dangers to which the Pearson Report drew attention in this novel experiment.
The dangers which Lord Pearson and his distinguished colleagues saw were twofold. They saw the danger that there might be a difference of opinion on such a committee, composed not only of officers but also of the lower deck, which might spread antagonism throughout the two sides of the ship's company and do great damage to morale. Secondly, the Pearson Inquiry thought that some of the lower deck might feel resentment against the ratings' representative who had concurred in an unpopular decision.
It is to avoid those objections, while accepting the principle, that we suggest, by the combination of the two Amendments, that the master's function should remain exclusively in the matter of sentencing, whereas the committee, tribunal or whatever word one uses should be the judges of fact—rather as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink) said in Committee, that the committee should be the jury and the master shoud be the judge. The parallel is not exact, but it is not a bad one. The danger of resentment by the rating from being found guilty on a question of fact by his fellows is not as great as the danger of resentment if he receives a sentence, if that be the right word, which he regards as unduly savage from his fellow ratings. That might produce a situation of bad morale.
9.45 p.m.
Furthermore, sentencing is a very specialised art. A jury, or laymen, or persons who perhaps deal with these matters for the first and only time in their lives, are just as good judges of fact as anybody who is an expert in the matter. 1468 and that is the principle of the jury system in this country. Many judges, when they do not have a jury, say that they wish they had the assistance of a jury for the purpose of deciding questions of fact. Therefore, it seems to us very appropriate, if we are to have these committees, that they should be the judges of fact.
When it comes to the penalty, somewhat different considerations apply, considerations not only of morale and of putting rating against rating in the way that Pearson feared, but also in the way suggested by the Joint Committee of the National Maritime Board in the document that was much discussed in Committee. The National Maritime Board, to whom great tributes have been paid, not only by the Treasury bench but by hon. Gentlemen behind, said this in paragraph 20 of that document:
The penalty to be imposed shall be decided by the master who will take into consideration any views expressed by members of the tribunal.That puts better even than our Amendment the division of function that we suggest. We suggest that the master, after no doubt listening to advice and assistance from the committee, shall be the ultimate judge of the penalty, even though the committee itself shall be the judge of fact, a distinction well known throughout the law.In this matter of the ships' committees we should proceed cautiously. I do not believe that the Minister would dissent from that. There was a lot of discussion in Committee about exactly what Pearson recommended. It was an almost theological or semantic dissection of the tenets of Pearson which, like the Codex Bezae or some other mediaeval document was not entirely consistent. I must remind the Minister that one phrase of Pearson seemed to go against the whole proposal. It was that:
jurisdiction, for the time being at any rate, remain vested in the master.That is a clear sentence amid a penumbra of dubiety, but that has not been accepted as holy writ by the Minister. We do not blame him at this stage for that because, as I said when I opened my remarks on the Amendment, we accept the policy of experimental committees in discipline.Not all my hon. Friends accept it, but we have accepted that as part of an 1469 understanding which we think should be adhered to, whatever one's private views may be. We do adhere to it, but we say that it was quite clear from these rather delphic words of Pearson that he wished to proceed cautiously, and so does the National Maritime Board.
The document says that the master should have the ultimate and sole responsibility for deciding the penalty. That is all that these Amendments seek to do. It is what my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South forcefully urged in Committee and the Minister in columns 386 and 387 seemed to welcome this. Referring to my hon. Friend, he said that in his view the word
assist' could cover a division of function: that is, the disciplinary committee might decide the facts and the master might decide the fine. The word 'assist' in that sense is an exercise of power: if we decide on the facts—if we say that this man has done it—that is power. If the issue is a division of power on those lines it is open to whoever drafts the Regulations to do it in that way." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 5th February. 1970; c. 386.]We wish to help the Minister to make that distinction by making clear in the Statute that that is what ought to be done in the regulations. I am sure that it should be done in that way. There is no doubt that there is an important difference in the law, which any lawyer knows, between finding a fact and deciding a penalty. It is the decision of the penalty which provokes the most amount of discussion, and perhaps the worst blood. We do not wish to see these committees bogged down by feuds which are likely to arise if rating is casting sentence upon rating.There is no doubt that to be tried by one's fellow men is much more severe than to be tried by a judge since one's fellow men are more ruthless. Anyone who has appeared before professional committees will know that the fiercest tribunals are those composed of one's fellows. In the long term if the penalty is reserved to the master, it is likely to be more in the interests of the rating than if it is decided by a tribunal or committee or synod, whatever one choose to call it.
§ Mr. Goronwy RobertsThe hon. Gentleman did me the honour of quoting extensively from what I said in Committee. However, his quotation was not as 1470 extensive as it might have been because he got a little tired when he got to the top of column 387 or he would have continued to quote what I said afterwards. I then went on to say:
… I do not want to prejudge the extensive consultations that must take place with industry before regulations are tabled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 5th February, 1970; c. 387.]I thought that I was being helpful to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee upstairs when I canvassed in an open-minded way possible forms such committees might take and I carefully chose to say, in case anybody thought I was imposing my views on the industry, that I did not wish to prejudge what might emerge from discussions. This is my reply tonight.I feel that it is essential that these committees, which are a novel development in the history of the merchant fleet and an original departure from previous practice, need to be considered very carefully by the industry and by my Department. I do not want to prejudge the shape of things to come. We wish to consult the industry and to set up careful experiments and we do not want to be tied down by a special provision of this sort.
I repeat what I said in Committee. It may be that, after discussion and consultation, a division of function as between fact and fine, or however it is defined, may prove to be acceptable to all sides of the industry. We must see. Let us go on to consultation, and then frame the regulations as to composition and procedure in the light of what is said in the consultations.
§ Mr. Patrick JenkinI understand and have some sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the desire to consult. However, there seems to be a principle which should stand above all, and that is that the supreme authority of the master should not be eroded.
Earlier today, we heard a powerful contribution from the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) which differed considerably from the views of the Treasury Bench. I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman stand firm by the principle that on board ship it is the master's authority which must be supreme. The disciplinary function ultimately is that of imposing a penalty.
1471 Therefore, we should not leave it to the industry to decide that that function could be exercised by a committee.
This House of Commons should stand by the principle that the master should be the supreme authority on board ship and we should lay down in the Statute that it is the master and only the master who should have power to declare any penalty.
Most of us are happy to go along with the idea of ship's disciplinary committees, but not the power to fine or im-
§ pose penalties. That should stay with the master. However, the Minister has made it clear that he is not prepared to accept that. In view of that, I can only ask my hon. Friends to declare their adherence to the principle that I have enunciated by joining me in the Division Lobby to vote in favour of our Amendment.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 166.
1473| Division No. 82.] | AYES | [9.58 p.m. |
| Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) | Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) | Nott, John |
| Baker, Kenneth (Acton) | Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. | Osborn, John (Hallam) |
| Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) | Goodhew, Victor | Page, Graham (Crosby) |
| Beamish, col. Sir Tufton | Gower, Raymond | Peel, John |
| Biffen, John | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Percival, Ian |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere | Pike, Miss Mervyn |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Harvie Anderson, Miss | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch |
| Blaker, Peter | Hawkins, Paul | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) | Hiley, Joseph | Pym, Francis |
| Body, Richard | Hill, J. E. B. | Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James |
| Brewis, John | Holland, Philip | Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David |
| Brinton, Sir Tatton | Hordern, Peter | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) |
| Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Hornby, Richard | Scott, Nicholas |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N & M) | Hunt, John | Sharples, Richard |
| Buck, Antony (Colchester) | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Smith, John (London & W'minster) |
| Bulius, Sir Eric | Iremonger, T. L. | Stodart, Anthony |
| Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) | Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. |
| Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | Jopling, Michael | Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Catheart) |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Kaberry, Sir Donald | Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) |
| Clegg, Walter | Kimball, Marcus | Temple, John M. |
| Crouch, David | Kirk, Peter | Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. |
| Crowder, F. P. | Knight, Mrs. Jill | Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Lane, David | Waddington, David |
| Dalkeith, Earl Of | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | wall, Patrick |
| Dance, James | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Walters, Dennis |
| Dean, Paul | Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) | MacArthur, Ian | Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William |
| Digby, Simon Wingfieid | Maclean, Sir Fitzroy | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Dodds-Parker, Douglas | McMaster, Stanley | Williams, Donald (Dudley) |
| Drayson, G. B. | McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest) | wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Eden, Sir John | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Elliot, Capt. walter (Carshalton) | Miscampbell, Norman | Worsley, Marcus |
| Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) | Monro, Hector | Wylie, N. R. |
| Farr, John | Montgomery, Fergus | Younger, Hn. George |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | More, Jasper | |
| Fortescue, Tim | Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Fry, Peter | Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. | Mr. Timothy Kitson and |
| Gibson-Watt, David | Nabarro, Sir Gerald | Mr. Anthony Grant. |
| NOES | ||
| Abse, Leo | Buchan, Norman | Doig, Peter |
| Allen, Scholefield | Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) | Dunn, James A. |
| Anderson, Donald | Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Dun woody, Mrs- Gwyneth (Exeter) |
| Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis & Tipt'n) | Chapman, Donald | Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Concannon, J. D. | Edwards, Robert (Bilston) |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) | Contan, Bernard | Ellis, John |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) |
| Beaney, Alan | Crawshaw, Richard | Fernyhough, E. |
| Bishop, E. S. | Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Finch, Harold |
| Blackburn, F. | Dalyell, Tom | Fitch, Alan (Wigan) |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) | Fraser, John (Norwood) |
| Boardman, H. (Leigh) | Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.) | Galpern, Sir Myer |
| Booth, Albert | Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Golding, John |
| Boston, Terence | Davits, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek) | Grey, Charles (Durham) |
| Boyden, James | Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. |
| Broughton, Sir Alfred | Delargy, H. J. | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) |
| Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Dewar, Donald | Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) |
| Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) | Dickens, James | Harper, Joseph |
| Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) | Dobson, Ray | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) |
| Haseldine, Norman | McNamara, J. Kevin | Rhodes, Geoffrey |
| Hazell, Bert | Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) | Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy |
| Heffer, Erie S. | Mahon, Simon (Bootle) | Robertson, John (Paisley) |
| Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Rose, Paul |
| Hooley, Frank | Marks, Kenneth | Ross, Rt. Hn. William |
| Hooson, Emlyn | Marquand, David | Rowlands, E. |
| Horner, John | Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard | Shaw, Arnold (IIford, S.) |
| Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas | Mendelson, John | Sheldon, Robert |
| Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) | Millan, Bruce | Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) |
| Howell, Denis (Small Heath) | Miller, Dr. M. S. | Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.) |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Milne Edward (Blyth) | Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) |
| Hunter, Adam | Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) | Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) |
| Hynd, John | Molloy, William | Silverman, Julius |
| Janner, Sir Barnett | Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) | Slater, Joseph |
| Jeger, George (Goole) | Morris, Alfred (wythenshawe) | Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.) |
| Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John |
| Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Moyle, Roland | summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley |
| Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) | Ogden, Eric | Taverne, Dick |
| Judd, Frank | O'Halloran, Michael | Urwin, T. W. |
| Lawson, George | O'Malley, Brian | Varley, Eric G. |
| Leadbitter, Ted | Oswald, Thomas | Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley) |
| Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) | Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) | page Derek (King's Lynn) | Wallace, George |
| Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Paget, R. T. | Watkins, David (Consett) |
| Loughlin, Charles | Palmer, Arthur | Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor) |
| Luard, Evan | Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles | Whitaker, Ben |
| Lubbock, Eric | Parker, John (Dagenham) | Whitlock, William |
| Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) | Pavitt, Laurence | Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick |
| Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) | Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch) |
| McCann, John | Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Macdonald, A. H. | Pentland, Norman | Winstanley, Dr. M. P. |
| McElthone, Frank | Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) | Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A. |
| McGuire, Michael | Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) | Woof, Robert |
| Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty) | Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg | |
| Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) | Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Mackie, John | Rankin, John | Mr. Neil McBride and |
| Maclennan, Robert | Rees, Merlyn | Mr. Ioan L. Evans. |
§ It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
§
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Merchant Shipping Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the Provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Goronwy Roberts.]
§ Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
§ Amendment made: No. 29, in page 19, line 11, after 'by', insert 'members of'. —[Mr. Goronwy Roberts.]
§ Mr. Goronwy RobertsI beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 19, line 18, at end insert:
(4) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
§ Mr. SpeakerWith this Amendment, I suggest that we take the following Amendments: No. 31, in page 19, line 18, at end insert:
(4) Regulations made under this section shall not be effective except after affirmative resolution of Parliament.and No. 51, in page 45, line 13, after 'under', insert 'section 37 of this Act or'.
§ Mr. RobertsMy hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) urged in Committee that the regulations made under this Clause should be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure. He was supported on both sides of the Committee. I undertook to examine this proposal. In fact, I indicated that I had great sympathy with what my hon. Friend was saying. I have examined it. I have tabled this Amendment which, I am sure, will commend itself to both sides of the House.
§ Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles (Winchester)I am glad, on this occasion, to agree with the Minister of State that the regulations should become effective only after an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The Minister's Amendment is a recognition of the fact that the whole idea of these ships' diciplinary committees is a completely new departure from anything that has ever gone before.
It is not too much to say that during all the centuries during which the British have depended for their safety and their prosperity upon sea power and overseas trade, the master has had disciplinary power in the last resort over all on board any British ship. If this system, which 1475 has worked well, is to be changed at the request of the National Union of Seamen, with the other side of the industry, and particularly the Honourable Company of Master Mariners, having grave misgivings about it, and with the Pearson Report having decided on balance of advantages against it—not a delphic utterance, as has been said from this Front Bench, but a definite decision on balance of advantages—it is essential for Parliament to give approval for any regulations which might be made even for experimental committees.
If and when such regulations are presented to Parliament, it must be clear that they are for limited experiments only, as referred to in paragraph 296 of the Pearson Report, and not for general introduction of disciplinary committees as a matter of course.
As I think the House knows, Mr. Speaker, I am very much opposed to the Clause, and I hope to have the good fortune to catch your eye on Third Reading.
§ Mr. SpeakerI notice, but make no promise to the hon. and gallant Admiral.
§ Amendment agreed to.