§ MR. PULESTON (Devonport)called attention to the case of the Civil Service clerks and writers, and requested the Secretary to the Treasury to inform the House what had been done in the matter. He understood that a scheme with regard to the Lower Division clerks was in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and it was desirable that hon. Members should be put in posses- 66 sion of any information that was to be given on the subject.
§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (Wigton)said, he desired to refer to another class of the Civil Service—the Inland Revenue officials. Previous to the last lection, the present Secretary to the Treasury had acknowledged that this class had grievances which ought to be remedied.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. HENRY H. FOWLER) (Wolverhampton, E.)said, he had not made any statement to that effect.
§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, that was the impression he left on a deputation that waited upon him. Out of 4,000 Inland Revenue officials, 3,900 had petitioned for a Parliamentary inquiry into their grievances, and that inquiry ought to be granted.
§ MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)called attention to the case of the writers specifically, which, he said, was one of real and great grievance. With regard to the Lower Division clerks, he understood there still existed an insuperable bar to their promotion, and he thought that was unjust, and ought to be removed.
§ MR. GREGORY (Sussex, East Grinstead)commended the case of the clerks of the Chancery Division to the favourable consideration of the Secretary to the Treasury.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLAND (Hampstead)wished to say a few words on this subject before the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) rose to answer. He desired to express his hope that the hon. Gentleman would be able to give a full and satisfactory statement, and especially that he would be able to promise an inquiry, such as asked for, into the questions which affected so materially so large a body of men. As regarded the Civil Service writers, he understood that their case had been inquired into, and that a scheme had been prepared which was now under the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER dissented.] Then he would only express an earnest hope that a speedy decision would be arrived at by the Departmental Committee which, he believed, was sitting upon the question. As regarded the case of the Lower Division clerks, he desired, speaking for himself, to express his individual opinion 67 in favour of a Parliamentary Inquiry into the working of the Playfair Scheme, which was based upon the Report of a Royal Commission, so far, at all events, as it bore upon those clerks. He thought such an inquiry would create no bad precedent, because 10 years had elapsed since the Playfair Scheme came into operation; and it was not an unfair demand to make that after that lapse of time any scheme of that kind should be revised, if complaints of a substantial character were made by those who were mainly affected by it. He wished it to be understood that he was stating his own personal opinion; but his right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), when in Office, had shown no disinclination to such an inquiry. In reply to a Question on the 11th of August, 1885, the right hon. Gentleman said—
I am sorry to say that I have not yet been able to give to this important subject the attention it deserves; and, therefore, I should not like to give a definite promise with reference to the appointment of a Committee next year to inquire into the working of the Playfair Scheme; but I am disposed to think that such an inquiry would he desirable. It is proposed to obtain Reports from the different departments as to the working of the scheme, so that the replies received would form a basis for the investigation of such a Committee if appointed."—(3 Hansard, [300] 1734.)He (Sir Henry Holland) would be glad to learn if those Reports had been called for and made, as they would, undoubtedly, prove most useful if a Committee was appointed. As regarded the point raised by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill), he would not believe for a moment that any new scheme would place any bar to promotion. If it did, it would be entirely contrary to the principle of the Playfair Scheme, which allowed promotion after 10 years to the Lower Division clerks. There must be some complete misapprehension in the mind of the person who wrote the paragraph referred to. In conclusion, he hoped that the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to meet the wishes of this numerous body of men who were engaged in the Public Service, and whose grievances well founded, should be redressed.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. HENRY H. FOWLER) (Wolverhampton, E.)said, that of course 68 any Reports with reference to the administration of any public Department would carry great weight; but he was surprised to hear the right hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland) give the sanction of his high authority to the principle of Parliamentary Committees being the best tribunal for the investigation of the internal working of any public Department of the State.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that what he stated was that the Playfair Scheme, which applied to all Departments of the State, was the result of a Commission; and, therefore, it might fairly be inquired into by a Committee or a Commission.
§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that was the result of a Royal Commission, not of a Parliamentary Committee. He thought they must all admit, however, that it was not possible for a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into the present Parliament, and he could only deal with the matter as it now stood. He did not desire to detract from the great importance of this matter; but he could not agree to place it in the first class of public questions. This was a question affecting something under 2,500 gentlemen, not 1,000 of whom had been in the Public Service for a period of five years. The Playfair Scheme had been established 10 years, and he admitted that it wanted reconsideration and amendment. He frankly admitted that inquiry was absolutely necessary, and from the results arrived at he had no doubt that a considerable grievance existed under the working of the scheme. Whether it could be best adjusted by the Treasury itself or by a Parliamentary Committee was not the question now before the House. He had given, the question his best consideration; but it was a very important one, and he was desirous of receiving, before the matter was finally adjusted, the advice and counsel of many of those gentlemen who formed part of the Playfair Royal Commission, and who had had long and valuable experience of the Public Service. At present the question was sub judice, and if he attempted to argue it he would be intimating the views of the Treasury, which he could not do. The position of the matter was this—the Treasury, after careful consideration, had suggested certain alterations of the Playfair Scheme, and those 69 suggestions were now under the consideration of the authorities to whom he had alluded. When a final decision had been come to it would be embodied in a Minute, which would then have to receive the sanction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after which it would be made public. His desire was, consistently with the efficiency of the Public Service, to give every man in the Queen's Service a chance of promotion, no matter in what Department he might be engaged. That was the case of the Lower Division clerks. The case of the Civil Service writers was a totally different matter. There was unquestionably a very great grievance in their case, and he had thought it best that a Departmental Committee should be appointed, consisting of representatives of the various great Departments where they were employed, to consider and provide the most efficient, economical, fair, and just scheme of dealing with them. That Committee was giving their very best attention to the matter. With reference to the officers of the Inland Revenue, he was assured, on the part of the Inland Revenue, that the Department did not recognize the existence of the great grievance alleged to exist, nor the existence of any great dissatisfaction, in the Service. If there were any grievance, of course it ought to be investigated; and if the hon. Baronet opposite would bring forward the matter in the form of a Motion he would be in a position to state what wore the facts of the case. As to the Chancery clerks referred to by the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Gregory), in his opinion they were a most deserving class of men, as they performed a large portion of the administrative business in Chancery, and it was only due to a prejudice of the late Lord St. Leonards that they were termed Judges' clerks. He could only assure the hon. Gentleman that their case would receive the best attention. His desire was that these questions should be settled to the satisfaction of all concerned, because where there existed friction in any Department that Department was sure to work badly.
§ MR. PULESTON (Devonport)asked whether any broad lines had been laid down for the guidance of those who were considering the case of the Lower Division clerks and writers?
§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he could hardly answer the question. The Treasury pointed out that they were dissatisfied with the present working of the Playfair Scheme, and were of opinion that the time had arrived when it was desirable to considerably alter that branch of the Public Service, and the Treasury had referred that to the Committee.
§ THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir LYON PLAYFAIR) (Leeds, S.)said, that he would be entirely in favour of an examination by the next Parliament into the working of the scheme for the Civil Service which had been adopted on the recommendation of the Royal Commission over which he had presided. He thought that full inquiry should be made, not only into the working of the scheme as adopted by the Government, but also into the more important parts of the scheme which had not been adopted by the Government.