HC Deb 05 March 1873 vol 214 cc1366-73

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Rathbone.)

MR. FIELDEN

moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The system of pensions had for a long time been universally condemned by public writers, such as Cobbett; but of late the term "pension" had been changed to the milder form of "superannuation allowances." The system was most pernicious; for public servants, instead of acting as free men on receiving a fair remuneration for their services, trusted to being provided for in their old age, instead of providing for themselves. They were, in fact, what Dr. Johnson had described them, "hirelings of the State." If they looked at the way in which the Superannuation Fund had grown of late years, and to the effect of the superannuation or pension system—for they were identical—with regard to the nation, they would feel that it was not desirable to extend it further, but rather that they should give their attention to the best mode of striking at its root. The superannuation allowance of the State amounted in 1845 to £80,300 per annum; in 1850, it had increased to £108,768; in 1860, to £177,713; in 1870, to £338,377; and in 1872, according to the Estimates of last year, it had increased to the enormous amount of £1415,677. The tendency of all Governments on coming into power was to find places for their hangers-on — those who voted steadily for them—and the mode of operation was by reconstructing offices, when the holders of office who were in the prime of life and capable of discharging their duties efficiently to the State, instead of being transferred to some other Department, were compensated for the loss of their emoluments. The increase in the Superannuation Fund from 1845 was—in 1850, 35 per cent; in 1860, 121 per cent; in 1870, 300 per cent; and in 1872, 420 per cent. The House ought to pause before they did anything to- wards introducing this vicious system to municipal corporations. If this Bill passed, municipal corporations would reduce the salaries of their officers, and, of course, would be worse served; and if, in addition to the £500,000 already spent per year in pensioning public servants, we were to spend money in pensioning municipal officers also, the burden would soon become unbearable and intolerable. Such a burden would tend to reduce the poorer ratepayers to actual paupers. And if the principle of this Bill were generally adopted, would it not be consistent to pension our agricultural labourers who had no means of providing for old age, and who, in the time of their strength, had conferred great benefits upon the country? The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment.

MR. MELLOR,

in seconding the Amendment, said, that he believed if such a Bill as this should come fully into operation it would increase the burden on account of pensions by one-third. The Estimates of last year showed that the sum voted for pensions amounted to 25 per cent upon the whole amount paid for services rendered in the Departments. In the Paymaster General's Office, indeed, the state of affairs was still worse, because there the amount paid for salaries as compared with that paid for pensions was as 12s. 9d. was to 7s. It would be most unfortunate that a system which had worked so badly in the public service should be introduced into every borough in the kingdom.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Joshua Fielden.)

MR. J. B. SMITH

said, he thought that municipal officers should be well paid for their services as long as they continued in office; but that when they retired they should be expected to provide for themselves. That was the principle upon which he acted himself, and he saw no necessity for changing it.

MR. RATHBONE

said, his Bill was only permissive; but he believed that the superannuation of municipal officers would be beneficial to the public by preventing losses arising from the retention of office in cases in which retirement was desirable. The Bill contained a provision enabling the municipal autho- rities, in the case of new appointments, to arrange with the officers that they should lay by a certain proportion of their salaries to go towards providing superannuation allowances. He hoped the House would be of opinion that these large bodies, to whom such important duties were entrusted, understood their business, and that they might safely be entrusted with a power which was already vested in a great many public Departments in the country. He brought forward the Bill in the interests of the taxpayers at large, believing that if it was carried, its effect would be materially to reduce the rates.

MR. WYKEHAM-MARTIN

said, he should vote for the second reading. The Bill was extremely well drawn, and he did not see how any job could possibly be perpetrated in the event of its becoming law.

MR. LOPES

said, it was not to the details, but to the principle of the measure that he objected. It was a most dangerous principle to introduce, as it would be found impossible to restrict its application to municipal bodies. He feared that if the Bill should become law it would augment the heavy burdens already cast upon the ratepayers. He should therefore vote against the second reading.

MR. RYLANDS,

while admitting that the Amendments he had proposed in the Bill last year had been introduced into it, said, his objection to it remained almost as strong as ever, because the principle which it laid down was a vicious one. As the question of superannuation allowances generally was likely to form the subject of investigation by the Select Committee on Civil Service Expenditure, he hoped the Government would not give its support to a measure of this character, which would only add to the difficulty of dealing with the general question. He believed that the system of granting retiring allowances would have, sooner or later, to be uprooted, because it was unjust to the taxpayers and vicious in the influence it exerted on public officers. No additional burden ought to be placed upon the taxpayers unless it was for the advantage of the taxpayers.

MR. SALT

considered that, on the whole, the arguments were in favour of the second reading; but he thought, if there was to be a superannuation fund for municipal officers, it should come out of the local rates. The measure would be a very useful one if it were modified.

MR. DICKINSON

believed that no preceding Parliament had done so much in the way of providing pensions for retiring officers as the present so-called economical one. He had no objection to a person retiring from office after long and faithful services, either from old age or ill health, having a moderate pension allowed him, having regard to his condition of life and the nature of his office. But it appeared to him that the pensions provided under this Bill, which adopted the Civil Service scale of pensions, were far too high, and encouraged a want of thrift in the officials to whom it applied. He objected to the permissive character of the Bill. If a man earned a pension let him have it. But a service of 10 years was too short to entitle a man to a pension, though he had become infirm. It was said that part of the Bill which enabled municipal corporations to grant to their officers pensions amounting to two-thirds of their salaries was justified by the conduct of private employers towards their servants; but private employers did not grant pensions at all approaching that amount. He viewed the superannuation system proposed by this Bill as one framed in the interest of the rich, or as a kind of Poor Law for the higher class of officials.

MR. E. WELLS

supported the Amendment, on the ground that the Bill was likely to increase the burdens of the already heavily-taxed ratepayers.

MR. ASSIIETON CROSS

denied that the measure would have the effect of increasing the burdens of the ratepayers. The question really involved was one which no hon. Gentleman had as yet alluded to—namely, how they could secure on the part of the ratepayers the best possible services for the smallest amount of money. They must select one of two courses—either to give their officials larger salaries, and tell them that when they become unable to perform their duties they should retire without any allowance, or to give them lower salaries, and let them know that if they performed their duties faithfully, and were obliged to retire from old age or ill-health, they would be allowed a certain pension. Now, he believed that the latter course was by far the more preferable one, that by pursuing it they would get better men, and that in the end it would be the more economical one, both as regarded the Government and the ratepayers. In many cases, in consequence of death or retirement from service, no pension would have to be paid. It appeared to him to be absurd to suppose that this measure would prove an incentive to men to abstain from work or act improvidently. In his mind it would produce the very contrary effects. In consequence of the high price of all commodities the Government would either be compelled to increase considerably the salaries of all their officials, or to provide pensions for them on their retirement.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

remarked that no pension could be given under this Bill, unless the restraints which it imposed were observed and the Home Secretary gave his approval. Municipal corporations were the representatives of the ratepayers, and they might well be trusted with reference to the employment and the reward of the municipal officers. In the interest of local self-government it was highly important that municipal corporations should be vested with the power proposed to be given to them by this Bill.

MR. BRUCE,

in supporting the second reading, said, that the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) had argued that no increase should be made in the burdens of the taxpayers that was not for the public advantage; but that was an argument which begged the question. The question was, whether the principle of superannuation was not for the public advantage? The promoters of the Bill had come forward simply in the interests of the public, and all would agree that there was no economy more spurious or more misdirected than that which interfered with the efficient performance of public duties by public officers or by the officers of corporations. The hon. Members who had opposed the Bill had all, with one exception, been consistent enough in their opposition, because they were opposed to superannuation under all, or nearly all, circumstances; but the majority of the House had shown in recent legislation, that they were in favour of the system, and that they believed it to be conducive to the efficiency of the public service. The House could not assume that the whole system of superannuation would be set aside by the recently appointed Financial Committee, though no doubt the conditions and amount of pensions in various cases would form a legitimate subject of inquiry before that Committee. There was a strong pressure upon the Government from every part of the country to place the superannuation of the police forces on a firmer footing; and this, coming from such public authorities as justices in quarter sessions and watch committees, showed how general was the opinion that superannuation was a means of obtaining efficient service. It might be true in the abstract that when a man proved no longer efficient his employers would not hesitate to get rid of him; but they must take questions of this kind in the light that had been thrown upon them ever since men's characters were observed, and they would find that, even in private establishments, where profit was the first consideration, even there men were kept from motives of compassion when they were no longer equal to their position. He remembered once in early life, when he was a trustee in an important matter, the pleasure it gave him to superannuate an old servant who had outlived his efficiency, by giving him a handsome retiring pension. Municipal corporations were called upon to perform important functions, and it was the duty of Parliament to invest them with those powers which would enable them to get persons who would discharge their duties efficiently, and would not tempt them to retain those persons after they had ceased to be efficient. Without binding himself to the details of the measure, and agreeing to some of the objections which had been raised to some portions of it, he would give his hearty vote in support of the second reading.

MR. HERMON

said, that having heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that applications for superannuation allowance were being made by almost all classes of public servants—a principle which he disapproved in all cases, except those where duties were performed which were dangerous to life or person—he should deem it his duty to oppose the second reading.

MR. COLMAN,

believing that the arrangement contemplated by the Bill would be conducive to the efficient dis- charge of public duties in towns, would support the second reading.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

opposed the second reading. Looking at the empty benches, it was evident that the House took no interest in the Bill; but if a measure of this kind was to pass at all, it should go much further than the present Bill. There were other important bodies besides the municipal authorities who had an equal claim to be invested with power to superannuate their officers; and why did the Bill not deal with them also? As to the police, they were doing what all public bodies ought to do—namely, they were providing themselves with a superannuation allowance out of their pay. But with what justice could Government do away with the pensions of soldiers—men who defended their country throughout the whole world, by the Short Service Enlistment Act, in order that the country should not be burdened, and yet support this Bill? That was a strong argument against the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. In fact, the less they multiplied pension-lists the better for the whole country. He believed that the Bill would add considerably to the weight of local burdens without conferring any corresponding benefit, and he should therefore vote against the second reading.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

supported the Bill, and thought that the injustice done to soldiers was no argument for doing an injustice to municipal officers.

MR. WHEELHOUSE

opposed the Bill, and argued that it was a fallacy to imagine that municipal corporations represented the ratepayers. The aldermen were a stationary body, and offices were almost invariably given, in a particular way, to the political friends of the members of the town council. Not an atom of power should be given to such bodies more than could be helped. The hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) asked why it was proposed to deal with municipal officers only. Well, he (Mr. Wheelhouse) asked the same question. There were Boards of Guardians and other parties, who ought to have the same powers as municipal officers. Upon these principles he opposed the Bill.

MR. PEASE

approved the measure. The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheel- house) must be aware that his own corporation had special powers to pension their superannuated officers. That a corporation had been badly managed was no reason for refusing all superannuation allowances to old and meritorious officers. The real point of the case was this—if a man served for a salary and a pension, his salary was so much lower; if a man served without a pension the salary was so much higher.

MR. COLLINS

said, he thought that advantage would have arisen from the substitution of 20 years for 10 years. In some respects doubtless the Bill would be an improvement upon that of last year; for the Bill contained the provision that no pension should be granted to anyone whose whole time had not been occupied in the discharge of the duties of his office. Care, however, must be taken that a young man meeting with an accident should not be a pensioner for the whole of a long life. He had known cases of eminent Judges seized with illness after a few years' service, and who received pensions for 30 or 40 years. He hoped the Bill would not be passed this year.

MR. EASTWICK

said, he thought it would be unwise economy to reject the Bill.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 44: Majority 57.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.