HC Deb 07 March 1889 vol 333 cc1143-4
MR. DIXON-HARTLAND (Middlesex, Uxbridge)

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if it is a fact that Richard Holland, a man of good character, and appointed by the First Commissioner of Works as foreman in Hampton Court Gardens, has been deprived of the pension he was entitled to under the system in force when he entered the service 36 years ago; whether he is aware that Richard Holland after such long service, and relying on such pension, is now penniless and depending on public charity; what is the cause of the inequality which exists in still giving park and gate keepers pensions, whilst the foreman, who is their superior officer, and requires an amount of technical knowledge, is from no fault of his own, deprived of one; and whether it is a fact that had Richard Holland retired a year ago he would have been entitled to a pension of at least £20 per annum; and, if so, whether he is prepared to take any and what steps to rectify a manifest injustice?

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,) Dublin University

The foremen in the Royal Parks have never been legally entitled to pensions, as they do not hold Civil Service certificates. In practice they have, as a rule, received pensions under the title of compassionate allowances; and, if Foreman Holland had retired before 1887 he might no doubt have been awarded such an allowance; but the power of the Treasury to giant these compassionate allowances was taken away by the Superannuation Act of 1887, and consequently Holland was awarded only a gratuity. Park and gate keepers are entitled to superannuation because they are appointed with Civil Service certificates.

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

Can the right hon. Gentleman do anything in this very sad case?

MR. PLUNKET

I am not officially aware of the circumstances, but I am afraid it is a case in which it would be very difficult to get over the Rules.