CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 10 September 1887)

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)
said, he rose to move the omission of words from the clause, which provided that the particulars of a civil servant's inability to discharge efficiently the duties of his office should beset forth in the Treasury Minute granting an allowance.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 6, to leave out the words "the particulars of his inability to discharge inefficiently the duties of his office."—(Mr. Jackson.)

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,
said, he strongly objected to this Amendment. He thought it was only reasonable that these particulars should be given. This was a Bill to give the Treasury a discretion which hitherto had been exercised in. an illegal and irregular manner. If public servants made themselves sufficiently disagreeable, they wore got rid of in the prime of life with large superannuation, allowances, the result being that their services were lost to the public, while an additional burden was imposed upon the 163 taxpayer. He had no doubt that both the First Lord of the Treasury and the Secretary to the Treasury were vigilant guardians of the public purse, but they had pressure put upon them, and, as the old proverb had it, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? He had been for some years sitting in the House, but it was only lately he had come to understand that the Auditor General was no real check. It was true that the Auditor General often reported that certain grants of pensions and other grants were illegal, irregular, and unauthorized, but they were got through by the Committee of Public Accounts. That Committee was no doubt an excellent body, but it was composed of Members of that House, and the Government had great influence over them. He did not remember one single case in which the Public Accounts Committee proposed that these illegal and irregular payments should be refused by the House. The words proposed to be left out were allowed to remain in the Bill during its two previous stages, and he now made an appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober of the Treasury rot to strike them out.

§ MR. JACKSON
said, the matter was really a very trivial one.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
Not at all.

§ MR. JACKSON
said, that the hon. Member appeared to be under the impression that since the Bill passed the second reading and the Committee stage some pressure had been put upon the Government to strike out these words. That was not the fact. He was not aware that the words had been left in the Bill. He admitted that was his own fault, because he agreed when the Bill first came before the House to strike out the words, as he thought them unnecessary and needlessly offensive.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
With whom was the agreement made?

§ MR. JACKSON
said, it was made with those who thought their interests were affected. The hon. Gentleman complained that in discharging a disagreeable duty the Treasury sought to discharge it in a manner as little disagreeable as possible. If a man was given a certificate of inability it was entirely unnecessary to give the particulars and set them forth to the world. So far as knowledge of the circumstances was desirable full and complete 164 security was taken under the clause as it stood, because it provided that the Treasury Minute granting the allowance should set forth the amount of the allowance and the reasons for granting it and should be laid before Parliament.

§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)
said, that the Bill, which was of considerable importance and very long, had never been discussed except in the small hours of the morning. There was one particular point connected with the general question of superannuation which he thought ought to be considered by the House.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Gentleman must not discuss the provisions of the Bill, but must confine himself to the Amendment.

§ DR. TANNER
I had not the slightest intention of doing so.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Gentleman was certainly doing so.

§ DR. TANNER
said, his only object was to lead up to the Amendment of the Secretary to the Treasury, which struck out of the clause the words "the particulars of his inability to discharge efficiently the duties of his office." His own opinion was that whenever a civil servant was superannuated, whether from accident, old age, inefficiency, or disease, the cause should be clearly stated. He hoped the House would divide against the Amendment, as he believed it would destroy the whole gist of the clause.

§ MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)
said, that there was reason to complain that at the last moment this change, which was a most important one, should have been sprung upon the House. He asked for the retention of the words in the interests of the civil servants. If there was security that the civil servant should know the precise grounds upon which he was discharged his objection would be met. He did not understand what security there was that the civil servant would be able to ascertain the precise grounds.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Sir HENRY HOLLAND) (Hampstead)
said, that under Section 2 the Secretary to the Treasury was required to state the amount of the allowance granted to a discharged civil servant, and the reasons for such allowance. The only point was whether it was necessary to go further and state the par- 165 ticulars of the officer's inability to discharge efficiently the duties of his office. To do that would, it appeared to him, be both unnecessary and mischievous to the officer, especially as the particulars could always be ascertained.

§ MR. PICKERSGILL
said, that did not meet his objection; the reasons for the allowance were perfectly distinct from the reasons for which the officer was discharged.

§ GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY (Hammersmith)
said, he should support the Amendment. He agreed with the Secretary to the Treasury that the proposed alteration in the Bill was a kindly concession to the civil servants. He thought all the information that was necessary would be contained in the certificate.

§ THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)
said, he regretted that the omission of these words had been proposed. They were a defence and protection to the Treasury. While the House, as a rule, looked to the Treasury to prevent extravagance, the Treasury itself was not so strong that it could afford to throw away a protection if it could obtain it, and that protection was being thrown away out of delicacy to the feelings of the officer himself. He thought they were carrying that delicacy too far in refusing to put in the Minute the reasons why the officer was discharged. The Treasury were occasionally pressed to allow retirements of which they did not approve; and if they were able to put in the certificate the reasons for the discharge, they would find in that a protection which they were now, for reasons which appeared to him totally inadequate, going to throw away.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)
said, if he thought the hon. Gentleman was right in the view he had taken of the words he would support his contention. But he ventured to think that, as the words stood, they were sufficient protection to the Treasury. There were cases in which it was very desirable to state, and the Treasury would state, the reasons for the dismissal if it was necessary to protect themselves; but, on the other hand, there were cases in which it would not be necessary to do so in order to protect the Treasury, and yet if those words were retained they would be compelled to do it, and therefore, as the 166 Treasury could do it in every case, he thought the words were not necessary.

§ DR. TANNER
No!

§ MR. SPEAKER
Does the hon. Member name a Teller?

§ DR. TANNER
I name the hon. Member for North Kildare (Mr. Carew).

§ MR. SPEAKER
Will the hon. Member tell?

§ MR. CAREW (Kildare, N.)
Yes, Sir.