§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £233,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of civil superannuation, compensation, and additional allowances, gratuities, injury grants, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930.
§ Mr. KELLYI wish to refer again to the case of Mr. Toms, whom I mentioned previously. Is any of the money that is being granted under this Vote being granted with the intention of paying Mr. Toms superannuation or gratuity? This man served for 28 years without a single blemish against his work. In fact he was recommended for pension, and why it was not paid at that time, a little over 12 months ago, I am unable to understand. He is in this country penniless, with his wife and children at Woolwich, and they are not receiving an allowance of any kind. Can the Secretary of State say why it is that this man, after serving all these years, is denied a pension? It may be that he is being held responsible for some faults of his superior officers, but at least, if there is anything wrong, the matter should be investigated, and the Man ought to have an opportunity or presenting his case.
§ The CHAIRMANDo I understand that this man is a non-commissioned officer?
§ Mr. KELLYNo, he was a civilian employed by the War Office in the Army Ordnance Department, and engaged in their stores. He has had control for many years of hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of material, and nothing has been found wrong, until now there appears to have been some charge made, as I judge by an interjection of the right hon. Gentleman. I submit that, even if there was something wrong, 28 years' service calls for some recognition from the War Department, and in view of the fact that Captain Coleman is in this country now, I suggest that the papers regarding all his work should be brought to this country and investigated.
§ The CHAIRMANIf he is a civilian, how is it that he has a commission with the rank of captain?
§ Mr. KELLYHe was entitled, in respect of 28 years' service, to superannuation as a civilian employé of the War Department. I take it we are dealing under this Vote with superannuation gratuities and amounts paid for compensation for injury in respect of civilians in the employment of the Department and it is under that heading that I am submitting this case.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI cannot say that, if a gratuity were payable in this case, it would come under this Vote, but as you, Sir, have given the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt in allowing him to raise the case I will deal with it. The hon. Member gave me notice about two hours ago that he was going to raise this case. Had he given me a little more notice I would have had all the information available here, and I could then have answered him in detail. I have here, however, a letter which I wrote to the hon. Member on 27th September last on this subject. Therefore he has not been feeling about in the dark. He knows perfectly well why Mr. Toms' employment was terminated and why he is not getting a gratuity. I do not myself wish to put on official record the reasons which I stated to the hon. Member in that letter. I am prepared to do it, but, surely, it is not to the interests of Mr. Toms that this case should be further discussed here.
§ Mr. KELLYThat statement, if left there, would be worse for Mr. Toms than if the whole matter were stated. I am dependent on the evidence which he gives to me to enable me to bring this case forward. If what I am told is not correct, I am not to blame should something else come out.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI wrote to the hon. Member stating that I had investigated the case and had looked into all the papers in connection with it. I told him that I found no ground for reversing the decision which had been arrived at. Mr. Toms was employed in the clothing store at Jamaica. He was a foreman. Deficiencies amounting to over £500 were discovered. The cause of the loss was very fully investigated on the spot.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSBy the officers on the spot and Mr. Toms was given every opportunity of representing his case. The officer commanding the troops at Jamaica decided that Mr. Toms, on account of the negligent manner in which he carried out his duty, could not be held free from blame. Accordingly, his service was terminated under the ad hoc agreement under which he was then serving. Mr. Toms appealed to the War Office on the ground that the stock sheet was incorrect when he took over the stores, and he claimed that he was not responsible for the deficiencies. All of that claim by him and the statements that he made were investigated on the spot in Jamaica, and from what I can see I do not feel that I am justified in reversing the decision that has been come to.
§ Mr. KELLYWas Mr. Toms beard in regard to this case? Was not the case tried without him having the chance of putting the whole of the facts before them, and has the right hon. Gentleman himself seen the stock sheets and the tally in order that he might satisfy himself with regard to the investigation?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSOf course I have not examined the stock sheet and the tally. That is not my duty. I must rely upon the officers on the spot. I have to see that their procedure is correct and that they have the means of coming to a judgment, and if I do not see anything that is obviously wrong, it is my duty to confirm their decision. That I have done. The lion. Member asked me a specific question, whether Mr. Toms gave evidence or had the opportunity of giving evidence. If the hon. Member had given me further notice, I could have had all the papers here, and I could have told him whether he did, but my impression is that he did.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSIf the hon. Gentleman says he did not. I will look into it and see whether he did, in fact, and I will communicate with the hon. Member.
§ Question put, and agreed to.