HC Deb 01 July 1914 vol 64 cc357-9
51. Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the Royal Commission on the Civil Service have refused permission to Sir Charles Bruce, G.C.M.G., to give evidence on the question of the security of tenure for Civil servants on the ground that the evidence proffered would not come within the scope of the Commission's inquiry; and, if so, whether, in view of the experience possessed by Sir Charles Bruce of the conditions obtaining in the Civil Service, he will consider the desirability of extending the scope of the inquiry of the Commission?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)

The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I am informed that on 7th May last Sir Charles Bruce requested permission to tender certain evidence to the Royal Commission, after the publica- tion of the fourth Report of the Commission, and that permission was refused on the ground that the evidence in question did not appear to have any direct bearing upon the questions then under consideration. I see no ground for extending the scope of the Comission's inquiry.

Mr. HALL

If the Government are desirous of obtaining all the information which is to the advantage of the Civil Service, will not the right hon. Gentleman follow the suggestion contained in the last part of the question and enlarge the scope of the inquiry?

Mr. McKENNA

There is no relevancy between the two parts of the hon. Member's question.

Mr. HALL

Are the Government desirous of hushing up all these matters, by giving such replies as that which the right hon. Gentleman has just given?

Mr. McKENNA

No, I am not desirous of hushing up anything. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that there is any desire to hush up anything in refusing to enlarge the scope of the inquiry.

Mr. HALL

May I ask the Prime Minister, seeing I can get no satisfaction from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, whether he will consider, in view of the statements made in the House of Commons yesterday, the desirability of increasing the scope of the inquiry as suggested in the last part of my question?

The PRIME MINISTER

No, Sir.

Mr. SNOWDEN

Is it not a fact that Sir Charles Bruce made his recommendation to the Civil Service Commission after their inquiry upon that branch of the Civil Service had been completed and their Report issued, and therefore it was impossible to deal with it?

Mr. McKENNA

Yes, Sir, that is so.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE

Arising out of the last answer of the right hon. Gentleman, does he intend the House to believe that the correspondence to which his attention has been called is only the correspondence that has been placed before him?

Mr. McKENNA

Oh, no, Sir; for many years I have been familiar with correspondence with Sir Charles Bruce—

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE

On this subject?

Mr. McKENNA

On this subject I do not think the hon. Gentleman is as familiar with the whole of the facts of the case as I am.