HC Deb 02 May 1892 vol 3 cc1853-60

Order for Second Reading read.

*(11.25.) THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. GORST,) Chatham

In moving the Second Reading of this Bill I shall have to explain to the House that it is not a General Superannuation Bill. It is a proposal to do away with two distinct difficulties which have arisen in the administration of the Acts. There are many branches of the Public Service which are regulated by special, distinct Acts. They provide for pensions on retirement through sickness or long service to officers of those Departments, but no provision is made in the case of a transfer from one branch of the Public Service to another, and it thus happens that in the transfer from one branch to another the individual may lose the whole right to the pension which has accrued in consequence of his earlier service. Therefore, when he comes to retire, in consequence of sickness or age, the Treasury is unable to include, in estimating the amount of his pension, the earlier service which has been performed by him in another branch of the Service. That is one matter which is dealt with in this Bill. The other is an extension of the 6th section of the Act of 1887. That section provides that rules should be made as to the conditions under which military and naval officers drawing non-effective pay may be employed in the Civil branch of the Public Service. This Bill enables similar rules to be made as to the officers drawing Indian non-effective pay—that is non-effective pay from Indian, and not from Imperial, funds. Those are the only two points in the Bill, and I hope the House will read it a second time.

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

*(11.38.) MR. MORTON (Peterborough)

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow the Second Reading of this Bill to be postponed, because it was not at all expected that it would come on to-night. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton that the Bill is altogether opposed to the recommendations of the Royal Commission that sat on this matter, and that, therefore, it is objectionable. Unless the right hon. Gentleman consents to postpone the Bill in order to give the Member for Wolverhampton an opportunity of discussing it, I shall have to go into its merits now. So far as I am personally concerned, I object to this Bill, because I object to pensions altogether. There is no doubt at all that the time is coming when this question of pensions will have to be considered not only by Parliament, but by all other authorities in the country, because, if you are going to pension one class of men, you will have presently to pension all your servants, whether they are working men or not. Therefore, before we go on increasing the pensions of a particular class, the country ought to have an opportunity of considering the whole question. I believe our system of pensions, as well as doing harm to the taxpayers, does great harm to the officials and servants, as it teaches them to be improvident and prevents them saving when they have the opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of this Bill has given us very little explanation, if any at all. He has not told us, so far as I can understand, why this Bill is to be passed, or why it has not been passed before if it is necessary. Probably it is that there are some favourites of the Government for whom arrangements are being made by this Bill. That it is not an unusual thing. I have known within my own recollection Acts of Parliament passed almost purposely to give pensions to particular individuals, and this appears to be a Bill for the purpose of increasing the pensions of certain individuals. No one thought the Bill would come on to-night, and I know it is the wish of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) that it should be postponed; but the Secretary to the Treasury seems determined to push the Bill through. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton that those who are interested in this matter desire to follow the recommendations of the Royal Commission as a whole, and not to deal with the question piecemeal in this way. I think I am justified in opposing the Bill until the House has the whole question before it. What on earth is the good of appointing a Royal Commission and going to the trouble and expense of an inquiry if we do not make use of the work of the Commission? As I understand, the recommendations of the Commission are utterly ignored, and I must say I think we want some better evidence than we have had to-night before we rashly pass the Second Reading of this Bill. I know, unfortunately, that at times Bills of this nature, unexplained and not understood by the bulk of Members, have been allowed to pass at a late hour; and subsequently, when attention has been called to them, our constituents have complained of our allowing such Bills to be rushed through without discussion. I do not wish to waste time. I suggest that we should at once postpone the Bill, and proceed with other business to which the same objection does not arise; but that proposition is refused. I will not myself take up more time, but I trust that other Members will take this opportunity of letting the right hon. Gentleman know their opinions respecting the Bill itself, and respecting this unfortunate attempt to push it through at a late hour, when there can be no discussion, and when it was not anticipated that the Bill would be taken. I have to confess that I do not properly understand this Bill; and, though that confession may raise a laugh, let me observe that the right hon. Gentleman has not given us an explanation, and the only fact I gather from the Bill itself is that it is a proposal to take more money from the taxpayers. I think it would be only right that some deference should be paid to the wish of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton—who was a Member of the Royal Commission that reported in 1888—that the Bill should be postponed.

SIR J. GORST

I may be allowed to remark, upon these references of the hon. Member, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton has been in the House this evening, and that neither to-night nor at any time has the right hon. Gentleman expressed any desire that the Bill should be postponed. Had he expressed such a desire I should have been quite willing to accede to it.

* MR. MORTON

I can at once settle that point. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton requested me to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to agree to postpone it, so I may take the right hon. Gentleman's own words and expect it will be postponed. I say distinctly the right hon. Gentleman desired me, if the Bill came on at a late hour, to ask that it should be postponed, so that we may have a proper opportunity of hearing all about it. Therefore I claim, on the Secretary of the Treasury's own words, that the Bill shall be now deferred.

*(11.45.) MR. SEYMOUR KEAY (Elgin and Nairn)

I do not at all wonder that many Members on this side of the House are inclined to view with some suspicion the bringing forward of a Bill like this at such an hour. I may instance a case that occurred only a few nights ago, when the Government brought forward another mysterious Bill called the Accumulations Bill, and it turned out upon examination that the Bill was introduced for no other purpose than that of relieving the finances of certain individuals belonging to this and the other House. Under the circumstances, and as the Bill deals with pensions, I feel impelled myself to attach some sort of suspicion to the proceeding when the Government move the Second Reading at this hour of the night. The right hon. Gentleman in charge has certainly discussed one or two provisions of the Bill to which no objection can be taken, For instance, he has told us that under certain Acts of Parliament public servants, if they change their offices, lose the pension which would attach to the offices they formerly filled, and I do not suppose that any Member on either side of the House will raise any objection to such a just provision of the Bill, which merely provides for the pension being calculated on the continuous service. The right hon. Gentleman said, or so I understood him, that there will be a certain amount of relief to the taxpayers of the country, inasmuch as services of certain officers drawing non-effective pay will be utilised in employment for the State. I have not had time to read the Acts referred to, but, anyhow, I do not object to that provision. Then I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, or imply, that in his speech he had exhausted the provisions of the Bill. But, so far as I could gather, he did not even touch in a sentence that part of the Bill which appears to me—I speak under all correction, not having thoroughly examined the subject—to be a matter of major importance. I mean Sub-section 2 of the first clause, wherein it is provided that there shall be rules— For reckoning services according to the rules under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1837, and for granting the same superannuation allowance or gratuity to any person as might have been granted to him if his whole service had been in the public office from which he ultimately retires. Now, this Bill is especially framed to extend to India, and we all know that offices are held there by public servants, some of whose salaries for the time are enormous. I am not going to say whether these salaries are, in my judgment, too high or not, but there is no question about it that some appointments of enormous profit are held under the Government of India. Now, the right hon. Gentleman, so far as I could gather, did not give the least hint as to how this Subsection 2 would apply with regard to the higher offices held for short periods by Members of the Government of India Service. For example—

SIR J. GORST

It does not apply at all.

* MR. SEYMOUR KEAY

The right hon. Gentleman says it does not apply at all, and, of course, if he says that, I must accept his statement. But I read the heading of the Bill, and find that the Bill is described as to Amend the Acts relating to Superannuation. Allowances and Gratuities to persons in the Public Service"— which, I fancy, may be otherwise called pensions— so far as respects the computation of successive service in different offices where not all subject to the Superannuation Acts. And then it goes on to say— And as respects the application of Section 6 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, to employments of profit under the Government of India. I have not recently read the Superannuation Act, 1887, and it is possible that it does not embrace these high offices. If I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that, I will accept his statement, and say no more on that subject. I desire to condense what I have to say, and I ask him specifically—will he kindly say whether or no, or to what extent, if any, this Sub-section 2 will affect, for example, pensions, gratuities and allowances which will be received on retirement by Indian officers of high standing, say, by Lord Roberts, now Commander-in-Chief in India?

SIR J. GORST

If the hon. Member desires an answer, I may say at once the Bill does not in any way affect any pensions payable from the Revenues of India. It will only affect such pensions as are payable out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

* MR. SEYMOUR KEAY

Then I may ask in what respect the financial part of the Bill applies to India? In the Definition Clause (3) the Revenues of India are distinctly mentioned, and reference is made to the grant of a superannuation allowance or gratuity, the remuneration of which may be paid out of— (a) the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom: or (b) moneys provided by Parliament, or dealt with as appropriations in aid, or (c) the Revenue of India"— and so forth.

MR. MORTON

May I also ask what is meant by the words at the end of Clause 1, Provided that in cases affecting the Revenue of India, the Secretary of State in Council of India shall determine the amount to be paid therefrom"?

* SIR J. GORST

Those questions are reserved for the Secretary of State in Council only, on points affecting the Revenues of India. As I have said, the Bill does not apply to officers whose entire service has been under the Indian Government, but only to those whose service has been divided between the Indian and Imperial Governments, and who are pensionable from the Revenues of the United Kingdom. The rules under Section 6 of the Superannuation Act of 1887 relate to officers retired from the Army and Navy who are employed in the Civil Service of the United Kingdom, and the object is to enable the Treasury to make rules respecting the retirement of those officers.

MR. MORTON

But how about sub-section 3 of Clause 1?

(11.55.) DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

I object on principle, and as an Irishman, to this Bill. How comes it to pass that this responsible Government is trying in this shame-faced way to buy the services of men who have behaved so shamefully in the Public Service in my native land? The Government are evidently trying on a fin de siècle boom; if the House will pardon a popular allusion, the Government are trying by this Bill to pay the men who have done dirty work for them in Ireland. The Bill is to buy off men of the Colonel Caddell type, and so I challenge the Bill, and I sincerely trust that every Irish Member in the House will join me in condemning this attempt. This is not merely a question of pensions, it is a question of rewarding unworthy men for actions unworthy of the Public Service, and awarding still further pensions to the richer pensioned classes. The Government adhere to the old Tory principle of rewarding the rich. They had a premonition yesterday in Hyde Park of the verdict they will receive at the General Election near at hand. The Bill, I say, is for paying the instruments of injustice in our native land. As a matter of fact, every sensible man in the House is against the system of pensions. Let the State pay its servants according to the value of services rendered, a sufficiency to enable them to make provision for themselves and families for old age and failing powers. This Bill is to enable the Government to select chosen individuals whose actions may have pleased the Government of the day, men such as Colonel Caddell and others, who fill the office of Removable Magistrates in Ireland, men brought from the Army and Navy, men who as my hon. Friend says have received large salaries in India.

It being midnight, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the Business.

Whereupon Sir J. GORST rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put.

MR. SPEAKER

The Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill has only been discussed for half an hour, but having regard to the manner in which the opposition has been conducted, I feel justified in putting the Question.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

(12.0.) The House divided:—Ayes 142: Noes 65.—(Div. List, No. 98.)

Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be now read a second, time."

(12.15.) The House divided:—Ayes 149; Noes 51.—(Div. List, No. 99.)

Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow at Two of the clock.