FAMILIES OF CIVIL SERVANTS OF THE CROWN.—OBSERVATIONS.

HC Deb 17 April 1874 vol 218 cc718-24

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

, in rising, to call the attention of the House to the circumstance that there is no power to grant any pensions to the widows and families of those civil servants of the Crown who die while in the performance of their duties, whatever may have been the duration of their public service, and more especially with reference to the Foreign and Colonial Services; and to move— That, in the opinion of this House, the alleged grievances of the widows and orphans of those civil servants of the Crown who die in the service of the Country are worthy of the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, said, he believed that was the only country in Europe in which no provision was made for the widows and children of men who died in the service of the Crown in the performance of their duties. In contra-distinction to that practice, there was a provision for widows and for orphan children in Franco, in Austria, and in Prussia. The necessity of what he asked for, was shown by the fact that Mr. Farr, of the Registrar General's department, stated in 185G, that there were then living about 2,300 widows of deceased Civil Servants, and an unknown number of fatherless children. Beyond that there was the further consideration that the children of persons of property were naturally provided for, and the children of those whose income was derived from their industry generally enjoyed the same privilege, while the source of income depending on the Civil Servant's life, the children were liable at any time to be thrown on the community, which was in the highest degree pernicious. There were many cases of gentlemen who had died after considerable service in public departments, in which applications had been made to the Treasury for pensions for the families; but those applications had been invariably refused, the answer being that there was no fund in existence out of which such pensions could be granted. He would instance some of these cases. Mr. Keith E. Abbott, who had been 35 years in the service of the Crown—for 27 years in Persia, and afterwards for five years as Consul General at Odessa—died in 1872, leaving a widow and eight children entirely unprovided for; but he believed nothing had been done for that family. Mr. Erskine, senior clerk of the Accountant General's department, served for 35 years. He died in 1872, after a brief illness, caused by overwork. The application of the Admiralty to the Treasury for an allowance to the widow and a large number of children—who, he believed, were left unprovided for—was immediately rejected he had for 17 years paid his contribution to the Superannuation Fund, but, notwithstanding that, nothing was done for the widow and children. In the case of Governor Keate, who, after having been 30 years in the employment of the Government, was sent out to the Coast of Africa, and died within seven days, no provision had been made for his family. Then there was the case of Mr. Tomline, who was a clerk at Devonport Dockyard for 25 years. He died after six weeks' illness, caused by overwork, and not a single sixpence was given to his wife or family. Many years ago it was the custom to make some allowance in these cases; but in 1829 an alteration was made, and members of the Civil Service had to contribute out of their salaries towards a superannuation fund. Salaries under £100 paid 2½ per cent. and salaries above that sum 5 per cent. and the former system was entirely abolished. Perhaps the House would allow him to give the opinion of the late Sir Robert Peel, who, on being examined before the Select Committee of 1856, said— It was some time ago the practice in the Civil Service of this country to allot pensions to the widows and female relatives of public servants who died in the discharge of their public duties: but that practice, speaking generally, had for some, time passed into desuetude. In the whole range of the Revenue Service of this country, no pensions were allotted to the widows or female relatives of public officers who died in the discharge of their duty; in the case of clerks in public offices, men who performed the greatest service to the country, and who died in the public service, after continuing in it 30, 40, or 50 years, Parliament had allotted no means of making provisions for their widows or female relatives. In the Army and Navy pensions were given in many instances; in the Civil Service men were cut off in the prime of life, and no means existed of making provisions.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

pointed out that Sir Robert Peel died before the year 1856.

MR. BAILLIE-COCHRANE

explained that the extract he had just read was from a letter of Sir Robert Peel, which was submitted to the Committee of 1856. The French law enacted, in Section 3 of the Act of 1853, that— The considerations of justice and public utility which have regulated the pensions in the State Establishment are not less important in all Establishments, and this rule should be applied to the Departments and Communes as well as to the State itself; the Government, therefore, invites the Departments and Communes to set aside funds for the families of the Civil Servants. The House would feel, he hoped, that there were strong reasons why he should ask attention to the subject, for it must be well aware that the cost of living had greatly increased of late years, and that consequently Civil Servants were unable to make provision out of their salaries for their wives and families. That was more than ever the case at the present time, when, although everything was doubled in price, their pay remained the same, and he thought, therefore, that the country could not do better, seeing that it was in so prosperous a condition, than to sot aside a sufficient sum to meet these cases. There were no more meritorious class of men than the Civil Servants of the Crown, and he believed their case ought to be fairly considered; he therefore left the matter in the hands of the Government in the hope that they would give their attention to the subject.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Sir, the question to which my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) has directed the attention of the House is one of great interest, and everybody must feel that the motives which induce him to bring it forward are of an excellent character. At the same time, it leads us into very extensive questions, because a proposal to provide pensions for the widows and families of all Civil Servants who may die in the service of the Crown is a proposal either very considerably to increase the remuneration which the Civil Servants now receive, or else it is a proposal to modify and alter the terms upon which they receive their remuneration. Of course, it is clear that if you give a man a certain salary, and attach to it a grant of a superannuation pension, you are doing something more for him than if you gave him a simple salary only as long as he is employed, and told him he must make provision for his own superannuation. Again, if you say "We will give a pension to your wife and family after your death "you are materially in- creasing his remuneration. It would seem at first sight to be far the simplest manner of remunerating our officers to pay them for the time they actually devote to the public service, and to let them make provision for themselves in their old age and for their wives and families; but for reasons which I hold to be sound and good reasons, that is not the system which is adopted in this country. Instead of giving a man a certain amount of pay for the time during which he serves the country, and then sending him adrift when he is no longer able to serve, we provide that he shall be entitled, after a certain term of service, to a certain pension for his life. That is a matter which has been repeatedly considered by Parliament in various forms. For instance, there was the Select Committee to which my hon. Friend refers. I then only recently had the honour of a seat in this House, but I was a Member of that Committee, and I remember some of the proceedings before it. I do not, however, remember the quotation he refers to as having been made from the opinions of the late Sir Robert Peel, though I have no doubt the quotation is a correct one. At the same time, I should hardly like to say what amount of authority that opinion would bear with reference to the question in the form in which it is now submitted to us; for one would like to see under what circumstances Sir Robert Peel delivered the opinion which has been quoted. I would remind my hon. Friend that besides that Committee which sat in 1856, there was appointed a Royal Commission, also in 1856, to inquire into the whole subject of superannuations. The Commissioners presented a Report in which they went very carefully into the subject, and they decidedly recommended the continuance of the system of superannuation to Civil Servants, and they at the same time made some remarks upon the point to which my hon. Friend has drawn our attention. But before I state what those remarks were, let me state that the Civil Servants of the Crown then received, as they now do, superannuation allowances after a certain number of years' service, but not over and above the nominal salaries attached to their appointments. The nominal salaries attached to their appointments, however, were at that time, subject to a reduction of a certain percentage, which was supposed to be carried to a fund out of which their subsequent superannuation allowances were supposed to be provided. At the time when the Royal Commission sat, that system was in operation. That being so, and the Royal Commissioners having given it as their opinion that it was desirable to maintain the system of superannuation allowances on three grounds, they proceed to consider how far those three grounds could apply to the case of pensions to widows and families. The first ground was, that it must be recollected that incapacity caused by illness or other infirmity cannot be provided against by means of insurance, and that it was important that a Civil Servant should be set at case in his mind as to his position in case his health unexpectedly broke down. The second ground was, that supposing an assiduous and devoted public servant who had spent the best part of his life in the service of the State became suddenly incapacitated, public opinion would not allow such a man to starve. The third ground was, that in many cases the hardship of removing a public servant, if no provision were made for him, might lead to men being retained in the public service when they were no longer fit for it. Then the Commissioners go on to say, that in some countries the provision which is made by the State for its servants has been carried still further, and has included widows and children. The Commissioners proceed to say that, none of the three reasons apply to this case. In the first place, widows and children can be provided for by means of insurance. Secondly, they say that the difficulty which would arise from the pressure of public opinion if Civil Servants were allowed to starve, would not apply to the family and widow as a general rule, although they admit that in certain cases there would be a pressure of public opinion. Under the system I have mentioned, the Civil Servant's superannuation was supposed to be provided out of a fund formed by the reduction of his own salary, and it is always to some extent an equitable ground of complaint, that in some cases, after contributing to this fund for a length of time, men died and their families derived no benefit from it. But that ground of complaint has been removed by the alterations soon after made. Very shortly after that Commission reported, a Motion was carried in the House by the late Lord Mayo which dealt with the system of deductions to which I have referred, and from that time the superannuation allowance of Civil Servants has been provided out of the public funds, in addition to their salaries. Under those circumstances, the case, which did not appear to be a strong one to that Commission, is decidedly much weaker than it was then, because there is no doubt it is perfectly competent for a Civil Servant to make an assurance on his life for the benefit of his widow and family, if he have any. There is the further consideration, that if you adopt the system of giving pensions to the widows and families of your Civil Servants who may leave widows and families, and alter the scale of salaries with a view to that object, you would be doing an injustice to those who have no families, because you would have to regulate the whole scale of salaries on that system. The result would be, you would have to give smaller salaries than you would otherwise give, because you would be providing by a Post mortem system for the families of Civil Servants who might survive them. I do not think that a good mode of making provision for Civil Servants, or that it would be acceptable to them. There are, no doubt, exceptional cases—cases in which a Civil Servant is called upon for service of peculiar danger—and then it is desirable and right that his mind should be set at case by the assurance that if he loses his life in the performance of that peculiar service, some consideration will be shown to his widow and family. That is a case which it has been attempted to meet by a Treasury Minute, one as late as the 22nd of December last year, applying to particular classes—persons employed in the Convict Service and other departments, in which, if a Civil Servant should meet with death, either directly or indirectly, from injuries received in the discharge of his duty, power is given to the Treasury to make some allowance to his widow and children. I do not think you could carry the matter beyond that, or that you could fairly adopt the general principle of giving allowances to the widows and families of all your Civil Servants. [Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE: Does that also apply to ill health?] It only applies to injuries received during the service. The terms of the Minute are these:—"Special pensions in the case of severe bodily injury occasioned, without his own default, in discharge of his public duty." In the case of death from exposure to unhealthy climate no provision is made or can be made; it would introduce a great difficulty if you were to attempt it, because you would have not only to provide for the cases to which my hon. Friend has referred, but to apply the principle to all Civil Servants, to police, postmen, Customs officers, and so on, so that the proposal of my hon. Friend would both lead to a great deal of expense, a point I need not dwell upon, and would occasion dissatisfaction in the Service itself. What I think a proper system to adopt is to pay our servants fairly and liberally for the work they are called upon to do, and leave them to make their own provision for those they leave behind them.