PRISON OFFICERS (PENSIONS) BILL. (Hansard, 5 June 1902)

§ *(7.0.) MR. JESSE COLLINGS
said this Bill affected prison warders who were in the service before the prisons were taken over from the local authorities by the Homo Office under the Act of 1877. There was a clause in that measure which provided that prison warders under the old authorities should not, when transferred to the Prison Board under the Government, be in a worse position as regarded superannuation than they were under the local authorities whom they served before the year 1877. The position was that the local authorities had power to give superannuation up to the extent of two-thirds of the salary. That was not always exercised by the local authorities, but they had the option. When the control of the prisons was taken over by the Government these warders were subject to the ordinary Civil Service scale. There was a provision in the 36th clause of the Act of 1877 which provided that the amount of pension might be raised, but not to exceed two-thirds, as regarded this limited number of warders in 1614 the service before 1877. There was some difficulty or difference with regard to the interpretation of that clause, but the Treasury interpretation was that the pension should be apportioned between the local authority and the Treasury. That was the interpretation placed upon it at that time, and it was adopted and acquiesced in by the Home Office. The practice had worked extremely well for the last twenty-three years, and when a warder left the service the local authority, which was the old prison authority, recommended to the Treasury that he should have two-thirds of his salary as pension, and that they would undertake to pay the difference between the Civil Service allowance scale and the two-thirds pension. That practice had worked well, and the local authorities had worked upon that principle. That was the interpretation placed upon the law, and the Treasury had always responded to the wishes of the local authorities by granting the two-thirds pension under those conditions in all cases where the local authorities recommended it. About three years ago, in the case of a warder in Carmarthenshire, the auditors of the Local Government Board disallowed that part of the pension which was supplied by the local authority, and consequently the case was brought before the House by the hon. Member for West Carmarthenshire, and undoubtedly it was a case of great hardship. This decision applied not only to this case, but to all the warders who were similarly situated, and who were on the pension list under the condition of two-thirds of their salary, the main part of which was supplied by the Treasury under the Civil Service scale and the remainder by the local authority. This referred to comparatively few, and the number was evidently diminishing continually, because it only applied to those warders who were in the prison service before 1877. This decision of the Local Government Board to surcharge this money led the local authorities to see that what they had supposed to be legal, and the practice which they had thought legal since 1877, was now in doubt. The difficulty had been got over by the Local Government Board agreeing that, pending the introduction of a Bill such as this, they would 1615 not enforce the surcharges, as otherwise it would entail a great hardship to these men and women, many of whom were now advanced in years, and who by the action of the Local Government Board would have their very moderate pension greatly reduced. The pension in this case was about £51, and the surcharge, which had hitherto been contributed by the local authority, was about £10. Therefore, it would be seen that without this Bill this small superannuation allowance would have been reduced to such an extent as to constitute a great hardship. Therefore, this Bill was simply to make the law quite clear upon this point. It could hardly be said to be fresh legislation, for it was only a proposal to make plain the meaning of Clause 36 of the Act of 1877, about which doubts had arisen, and this Bill would simply allow the local authorities to do legally what they had been doing up to the present time. He hoped the House would pass this measure.

§ (7.10.) MR. DILLON
said he had vainly endeavoured to follow what the right hon. Gentleman had said in regard to the object of this Bill. It seemed to him that after the local authorities had successfully broken the law for a great many years, the Local Government Board had just found out that the law was being broken, and they had disallowed those pensions which the Treasury had fixed illegally. Upon being remonstrated with, the Local Government Board had entered into an agreement with the Treasury to still allow the law to be broken. After going to sleep for three or four years, the right hon. Gentleman came forward with a Bill of indemnity to enable these pensions to be charged upon the local authorities, in spite of the fact that the law as it stood did not permit this to be done. In moving the adoption of a Bill of this kind, he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to have given a little more information. They ought to have been told whether the local authorities approved of this Bill.

§ * MR. JESSE COLLINGS
Yes, they do.

§ MR. DILLON
thought some vague idea of the amount of liability involved ought to have been stated to the House, and he wished to have some explanation why in 1902 it was necessary to pass a Bill in order to legalise a system which had been going on ever since the Act of 1877 was passed. Why should it be necessary, after twenty-five years, to legalise this practice? Those were points upon which information was due to the House, and they were entitled to have some rough idea of the amount of the charge which it was proposed to cast upon local authorities. He also wished to know whether the Act would apply to Ireland.

§ MR. JESSE COLLINGS
It does not apply to Ireland.

§ MR. CALDWELL
thought the House would do well to discard altogether the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill, if they wished to understand it. Before 1877 the prisons were managed by the local authorities, and at that time there was a proviso in the Prisons Act that pensions might be given to the warders who had completed twenty years service and who were above the age of sixty years, and it was provided that the pensions should be granted at the discretion of the local authority up to the amount of two-thirds of the salary. That was the position of matters before 1877. In 1877 the prisons were transferred to the State. Clause 36 of the Pensions Act, which placed these warders under the control of the Treasury, was word for word the same, with the exception that "the Treasury" was substituted for "the local authority," as Section 15 of the Act of 1865. So that when these men were transferred from the service of the local authorities to that of the Treasury, the scale of prices was exactly the same, the only difference being that the Treasury had to pay the pension in the future. Then came the further provision that the responsibility for the payment of the pension was to be divided between the local authority and the State, each to pay an amount proportionate to the amount 1617 of service of the warders. That was to say, the period of time which these men served prior to the transfer was to be debited to the local authority, and the State was to pay in respect to services rendered to the State after the transfer. The whole difficulty arose after the passing of the Superannuations Act. Assuming that there was a grievance so far as these men were concerned, assuming they were prejudiced by the passing of this Superannuations Act, and that they had a just claim to have their discretion fully exercised so far as the Treasury was concerned, up to two-thirds of their pay, the question was—Who should pay the money? It would be admitted by everybody that the local authorities were not responsible for more than their share up to the time when they ceased to exist, but this Bill said that for services rendered to the State since 1872 the pay was to be split into parts, of which the local authorities, who certainly for the last twenty-five years had had nothing to do with it, were to pay a portion of the deficit which the State would not pay for service which had been rendered to the State. A pension was, after all, nothing but deferred pay, and the Government were not prepared to pay it themselves, so went to the local authorities, and said, "We will give you the authority to pay it out of the local rates." Could anything be more monstrous and unjust? If these men were entitled to the money, the people who employed them were bound to pay them. It was very easy for the Government to say, "We will pass this Bill, and enable the local authorities to pay money they have no right to pay now." There was no reason whatever why this should be paid by the local authority.

§ * MR. RITCHIE
said he would like the House to understand that this was not a matter which concerned the Government in any way. This was a Bill asked for by the local authorities. When the prisons were transferred to the Government, there were a certain number of warders whose services the Government took over on the same conditions as those previously fixed by the local authorities. Under the Treasury scheme of pension of one-sixtieth of the pay for every year's 1618 service after these men came into the service of the State, they came in too late in life to earn the 40/60 or ⅔ pension upon their service. The men having served the local authorities for so many years, the local authorities were willing to, and did, pay the difference between the pension paid by the State and two-thirds of these men's pay up to comparatively recently—when the Local Government Board disallowed the charge. This Bill was brought in to make legal an act which the local authorities had performed before, and which they proposed to perform again.