HC Deb 16 September 1886 vol 309 cc604-14

(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £5,126, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of the Registrar General of Births, &c, and the Expenses of the Collection of Agricultural and other Statistics in Ireland.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I regret, Sir, that I was not quite able to complete the observations which I wished to make on this Vote at a previous Sitting, the Rules of the House making me under the necessity to ask the Committee to allow me to detain it a little longer while I state my case. Well, Sir, this Vote for the Registrar General's Office is a Vote for £16,126—precisely the same amount, to a single sovereign, that it was last year. I propose to move the reduction of it by the sum of £20, and that £20 will be found at page 195 of these Estimates, being an addition to the existing rate of pay of the Secretary, Mr. Matthison. Now, Sir, this increased rate of pay is taken in connection with the reorganization of the Office. The figures set forth in the page I have mentioned would show what the old organization was, and also what the new establishment is to be. There is the Registrar General at the head of the Office with a salary of £1,000 a-year. Under him there are a Secretary at £600 a-year; one Superintendent of Records, with a maximum of £450; two first-class clerks going up to a maximum salary of £400; five second-class clerk going up to a maximum of £300; and eight third-class clerks going up to a maximum of only £200; besides 13 Lower Division clerks also going up to a maximum of £200. Now, the alteration which has been made is this—the first-class clerks and the Superintendent of Records are hereafter to be called Superintendents, and instead of having £450 or £400 a-year, they are to go up to a maximum of £500. The second-class clerks, or such of them as remain, are to be called Deputy Superintendents, and they are to have a maximum of £330 instead of £300; but the extra £30 is only to be personal to those now holding the posts. With regard to the third-class clerks, there is absolutely no change whatever, and all these men are men of very long service—so much so that even the third-class clerks have had service varying from 17 to 23 or 24 years. They have been for a very long time at their maximum, and have no prospect of promotion, and altogether their case is exceedingly hard. They are also the only third-class clerks now left in any Office in Ireland. The Office has been from time to time examined or inquired into by Commissions, and these Commissions have uniformally reported in favour of improvement in the status and pay of the juniors of the establishment; but whatever benefit is secured to anyone under the present reorganization is entirely monopolized by men in superior positions, and those in need of improvement in their position get nothing at all. Well, Sir, the explanation of it is to be found, I presume, in the fact that though the Treasury were willing to assent to a reorganization of the Office, they were not willing to assent to any additional expenditure in connection with it. The thing had to be done, if done at all, on a sum not exceeding the previous Vote, and it was done, and the fact that it was done is a very startling illustration of the extraordinary things which maybe done with figures in these Estimates and with a staff of men in these Public Departments—that is to say, whenever any personal influence or personal interest makes it worth the while of an individual to set himself about the work. Now, Sir, how was this reorganization carried out, and how were some men's positions improved without increasing the total of the Vote? It was done by a very simple expedient—by sacrificing the juniors in a very disgraceful manner—those of the third-class and those of the Lower Division—and taking their pay to augment the salaries of the better paid portion of the staff. The money so saved has gone to increase the salaries of the Secretary and the new Superintendents and Deputy Superintendents, and of the third-class clerks—the most numerous portion of the whole Office on the old establishment—not one single man has been benefited. Not one has received any increase of pay. Not one has had his maximum salary raised, and not one has had his position improved in any way whatever, but the status of every one of them has been materially injured in this way—that the number of posts to which the third-class clerks look forward with a prospect, which is a very thin one, of promotion has been diminished, and their prospects of promotion diminished also. But besides that, by an arrangement which is altogether anomalous in the Service, at any rate in regard to such Offices as these, these posts are now above the third-class clerks, and are to be filled, not by promotion in due course as in other Offices, but at the discretion of the Head of the Office, the Registrar General, from outsiders—men who have had no official experience and no position, and who, coming in, will take away those better positions which ought to be given in due course to the juniors of the establishment. Well, Sir, not only that, but these third-class clerks have been injured in their status, because they have been now associated, for all practical purposes, with the Lower Division clerks, who before were recognized as having a lower official status. They are to be left with them, and the Lower Division clerks, who had no prospect before of passing over the heads of the third-class clerks, are now to be made equal with them, and eligible for such promotion as may be going in the Office. Well, Sir, the general result of this reorganization, when looked at from a financial point of view, is rather remarkable, and comes out in this way. Whereas the nine men in the upper part of the Office divide between them £4,257 a-year, 26 men in the lower part of the Office divide between them only the sum of £2,912. A more inequitable distribution of a money Vote, or of the administration of an Office, cannot be conceived. I regret to say that those who had this matter in hand are able to appeal to the sanction given to the arrangement by Sir Robert Hamilton, who is a very able, a very courageous, and a very fair-minded public servant. I have not a word to say against him, and I regret that he has been led into sanctioning this scheme, which he would never have originated himself. If he had had the work to do the result would have been very different from what it has been. He would have remembered the very great difficulty which the clerical staff of his own old Office, the Admiralty, had at the hands of the Government when reorganized seven or eight years ago. On that occasion nobody's interests were injured. Those who were affected at all were affected beneficially. They had their status as well as their pay improved, and those clerks who retired, retired on exceptionally favourable terms, in striking contrast with the stingy, unjust, and sorry terms on which some men, at any rate, in this Office have been treated. Well, Sir, I do not attach very much importance to the fact that Sir Robert Hamilton sanctioned this scheme, because it is a matter of notoriety that he has had his hands very full of a multiplicity of affairs for the last 12 months. Very few men in the Public Service had such difficult, responsible, and sustained work to do as he, and it is impossible to believe that he could have given that careful attention and scrutiny to the routine and internal de- tails of this Office which would be absolutely necessary in order to do justice to the parties concerned. I, therefore, do not complain of him. Neither do I complain of the last Administration or of the present Administration. I should not be prepared to hold either Government responsible for this. But I do hold responsible the Secretary of the Office, who, I believe, has entirely mystified both the present and the last Administrations. That Secretary is Mr. Mathison. The history of that gentleman is very remarkable. I have a good deal of information on the subject, but I shall not bring it forward now because it would not be fair to him—and I desire to treat him fairly, as everybody else—unless he personally had an opportunity of replying to the complaints which might be made. I, therefore, abstain from going into any details with regard to Mr. Mathison's rise. His father used to be Clerk of the Council in the Castle at Dublin. There is a very strong feeling that there ought to be a very careful and independent inquiry into the scheme of reorganization by some persons who would not be at all afraid of high placed officials either at Dublin Castle or at Whitehall—who would examine everything on its merits, and entirely without any dread lest they should in cur the displeasure of the Departments in Dublin, or of the Treasury. So far with regard to the reorganization. Now with regard to the particular reduction which I propose to move, it is a very small reduction of only £20, and it is on the salary of the Secretary to the Office. There is no earthly reason why that Secretary should have his pay increased. Mr. Trevelyan, when Chief Secretary, on the 7th of March, 1884, in reply to Mr. Dawson, then Member for Carlow, stated that it was not intended to increase the pay of Mr. Mathison at all, and there was no reason for doing so. Well, now, his pay is increased. He gets £20 more out of identically the same total Vote, and out of a Vote for salaries which is £105 less than it used to be. He gets it at somebody's expense. I have shown how the thing has been brought about. This evidently requires some justification, and the attempted justification is explained in a note. There is an asterisk against the total of £800, the proposed maximum of the Office, and the note says—"This salary includes remuneration for Census duties." Now, it does not include that remuneration in connection with the Census of 1881—that was paid for, and very liberally paid for, Mr. Mathison receiving an allowance of £1,000, which I am sorry to say he did not share with the men who did the work. But it was found by the Treasury, after the £1,000 was paid, that the work in connection with the Census was so quickly got rid of—all that remained which was supposed to be so very heavy was so quickly despatched—that the Treasury would not be very much inclined to devote £1,000 for the same purpose again. But what is now done is this: Mr. Mathison's salary is to be raised by an annual increment up to a maximum of £800 a-year on the strength of Census duties. Now, there will be no Census again until the year 1891; they are, therefore, proposing, at the instigation of Mr. Mathison, to give him pay for duties which possibly he may never live to discharge. It is perfectly absurd to begin in 1886 to give a man pay for duties which he will not undertake until 1891. That item, therefore, appears to be perfectly indefensible; and, though I should like to be able to move a reduction of the Vote which would signalize the sense of the Committee on the whole scheme of re-organization which has been adopted in the Department, I must, as I am unable to do that, content myself by moving this reduction of £20 on the salary of Mr. Mathison.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £5,106, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of the Registrar General of Births, &c, and the Expenses of the Collection of Agricultural and other Statistics in Ireland."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

The hon. Member who has moved this reduction (Mr. A. O'Connor) has pointed out that there is a certain coincidence in the amount asked for this year and the amount asked for last year—that the two amounts are precisely the same. But I think he did not point out that that circumstance is not due to the fact that the salaries are exactly the same, be- cause there is a reduction in the amount of the salaries of £105; and therefore the sum is made up in other ways, which do not affect the question that he has brought forward. Sir, I am in a position to say that this re-organization scheme was most carefully gone into by independent officers. As I understand the hon. Member, he desires to have an inquiry into this re-organization made by somebody independently of the Office in Dublin. Now, Sir, if that is the object which the hon. Member has in view, that object has already been attained; because, when the re-organization was effected, it was inquired into not only by Mr. Holmes, but also by an officer sent over from the Treasury who had no connection whatever with the Irish Office, and who is an officer in whom the Treasury have great confidence. He was sent for the special purpose of examining into the question of re-organization, and it was most carefully considered at the time; and the decision arrived at is one which I believe received the approval, not only of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary (Mr. John Morley), but also of my immediate Predecessor (Mr. Henry H. Fowler). Sir, the financial results will be, I believe, as follows:—The salaries, which in 1885–6 were £7,535, will, in 1886–7, be £7,419, showing a decrease of £116; but the future amount of these salaries will be £6,803, showing a saving of £732. The hon. Member has referred to the Secretary, and to the increase which has been made to his salary; and he has mentioned also the fact that he received a gratuity of £1,000 on the occasion of the last Census. I believe the facts are that this salary, as it existed before, was under an arrangement by which the Secretary was entitled to £1,000 every 10 years. That arrangement was not thought to be a useful one; and, as the hon. Member says, it has been arranged that the £1,000 shall be spread over the period, and, therefore, as regards the work for which the Secretary got £1,000 at the end of every 10 years, he will, in future, do it without the payment of the gratuity which he has hitherto received for it, and of course for the payment which his salary is now to be made to cover. Sir, I do not think that I can usefully occupy the time of the Committee by going further into this question. I am assured by those who have the best means of judging that the work of the Office is exceedingly well done. I believe the hon. Member himself made no complaints whatever as to the way in which the work is performed. I am told the work is well done; and, with regard to the question of the second and third-class clerks, the hon. Gentleman has said it is not intended to replace the second-class clerks by the existing third-class clerks, or men called by that name; but those positions will be opened to the Lower Division clerks, and, therefore, it is an injury to the third-class clerks, as it will sooner or later benefit, not them, but those who fill the Lower Divisions. But, according to the result of the examination made into it, the work done by these clerks is work done by what is known as the Lower Division clerks. I do not think that I can add anything more. I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that the question was most carefully considered, and that the re-organization was approved, not only by the Lord Lieutenant, and also by Sir Robert Hamilton, of whom the hon. Member has most fairly spoken as being a man in whom we must have confidence, but by Mr. Holmes, our officer in Dublin, as well, and also by the special officer who was sent over by the Treasury; and, therefore, the Treasury could hardly have taken more complete means to secure that the reorganization should be carried out in the best possible manner at their disposal.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

Notwithstanding the explanation which has just been given by the Secretary to the Treasury, I hope the hon. Member who has raised this question will press his Motion to a division. Before I at all thought of becoming a Member of this House I paid attention to this very question, and I have come to the conclusion that it is a matter that ought seriously to be inquired into by this House, and that this Vote ought to be resisted. Now, I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee unnecessarily. Hon. Members opposite will bear me out in saying that I have not wasted much time as yet, and I have no desire to do so. But I want to point out that the re-organization of this office was not initiated by the Executive, and there were no complaints of inefficiency, or that the Office did not work properly. The re- organization was the work of the Secretary, and of no other person. Now, no inquiry was held. It is the rule to reorganize offices after an inquiry has been held into their working; but no inquiry was held into the working of this Office. I repeat that this re-organization scheme is the work of the Secretary of the Office, and of no other person. The result of it, no matter what may be said, is simply this—that Mr. Mathison has succeeded in promoting some special favourites of his own to higher positions and higher salaries; and he has succeeded in throwing on the world, with much smaller pensions than they would otherwise have had, several men who were not so popular with him as they might have been. The Secretary to the Treasury says that this gratuity of £1,000 is to be discontinued, and that in lieu of it Mr. Mathison is to get £20 of salary added each year. But he has got his £1,000 for the last Census. Why, then, should you give him the increase before the next Census is taken? If the hon. Member goes to a division on this Motion I shall support him; and I would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to seriously look into this question, get to the root of the matter, and have it out with Mr. Mathison.

MR. MUEPHY (Dublin, St. Patrick's)

I also would support this Motion, Sir. I am well acquainted with the circumstances of the re-organization of this Office, and I have no hesitation in saying that it is a thing which has caused a great deal of dissatisfaction among the officials in the Registrar General's Department, and a general belief, which I have no doubt is well founded, that the whole scheme proceeded from one mind, which appears to be that of the only person who has received any benefit; whereas, on the other hand, some men who are most deserving have been thrown upon the world after 20 years of labour with very trifling salaries. I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will really look into this case again, and have it reconsidered, with the view of admitting in some practical sense the injustice that has, no doubt, been done. I will support the hon. Member in a division on this subject.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA (Monaghan, S.)

I also will vote with the hon. Member who has moved this reduction to mark my sense of the injustice that has been done. I do not believe that anyone in this House or out of it believes that the Secretary to the Treasury contemplates doing any injustice; but the figures show that injustice is being done somewhere. Any reform or economy generally presses upon someone or other, and there is generally a more lavish expenditure in some direction or other. The people of the Department feel that an injustice has been done, not by public inquiry or pressure from without, but by pressure from within; and I hope the hon. Gentleman will go to a division, as the only way of marking our sense of the injustice that has been done.

MR. ARTHUE O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I should like the Secretary to the Treasury to tell us the details of this extraordinary arrangement by which one man is recognized as having obtained a sum of £1,000 every 10 years. That is what I think he told us—that there was a special arrangement for the allowance of the Secretary to the Registrar General's Office whereby he was to get £1,000 every 10 years.

MR. JACKSON

I do not know the details of the arrangement. I merely stated what is the fact—that in addition to his salary he had attached to it a gratuity amounting to £1,000 for each 10 years, and that £1,000 was paid practically when the work was done. As the hon. Member knows, the work of the Census extends over a period of years—I will not say over 10 years, but over two or three or four years—and it was thought better to make the arrangement now made. No doubt, a great deal of increased work is thrown upon the Secretary by the Census, and he will not get increased pay in a lump sum, but extended over the whole period by an increased salary, and he will not be entitled to £1,000 in a lump sum again. That is done away with, and whatever extra work may be thrown upon him will be included in his ordinary salary.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

Surely the hon. Gentleman must see the significance of this. This officer is entitled to £1,000 every 10 years for work done. [Mr. JACKSON: Was entitled.] Well, was entitled. There has been no work done for this increase of salary yet, and there cannot be any done for the next three or four years at any rate. Why not delay the payment until the work is done, and not begin to pay it at once? There is another point that the Committee should take special notice of—that when the maximum of £800 a-year is reached, this gentleman will be drawing £200 a-year more than he draws now, and that in 10 years will make £2,000 instead of £1,000; and where as before it was a gratuity, now it is turned into salary; and when a Civil servant retires his pension would be calculated, not upon the salary of £600, but upon the salary of £800, £200 of which ought to be gratuity, on which, according to the Rules of the Service, no pension should be granted at all.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

Suppose anything were to happen to him before the next Census is taken—he would have been drawing this money absolutely for nothing. This is a very small matter; but it should be carefully considered.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 136: Majority 60.—(Div. List, No. 36.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.