WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS. (Hansard, 28 February 1929)

§ Mr. KELLY
On this Vote I want to bring to the notice of the Committee the question of the officers of the Department and the treatment that they receive, and I can best bring it out by dealing with a particular case. The individual concerned is Mr. H. Toms, of Woolwich. He was in the Service at Woolwich for some 28 years, and, during the whole of that time, he had a record of which any man might well be proud, there being no mark of any kind against him, either in regard to his professional capacity or in regard to his conduct in dealing with the stores of the War Department. So successful was he that he was appointed to a position in charge at Jamaica. He took up that position at a time when, at any rate, there was considerable disorganisation in the War Office methods, and he was told that the stores which were handed over to him must be accepted by him as of the quantity, quality and value—

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am in some doubt as to whether any money is taken for this gentleman's salary in this Vote. If the hon. Member can show that any sum taken in the Vote is relevant to the matter to which he is referring, he can go on.

§ Mr. KELLY
You will find, on page 186 of the Estimates an item for Pay, etc., of Staff for Works and Engineer Services and of Land Agents," who all come into this.

§ The CHAIRMAN
What was the position of this officer?

§ Mr. KELLY
It was that of a storeholder, under the control of these people and, of course, under the control of the War Office itself. At a particular moment it was stated by his officer that there was something wrong with the stores, and, without his having any opportunity of defending himself, without any opportunity of inquiry, he has been dismissed from the Service without any compensation of any kind. Although he has 28 years' service, and although three weeks prior to this complaint being raised he was recommended for a pension, the War Department has dispensed with his services and he has been for the last 12 months without income of any kind and without an opportunity of receiving unemployment pay, poor as it is.

§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
On a point of Order. This officer, of course, is not now in the Army and, therefore, there is no Vote for him. There is a Vote for those who control him, and it would be in order, no doubt, if that Vote were under discussion, to call attention to their want of control or improper action. The salaries of the officers controlling him are covered by Vote 8, and not by Vote 10.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I must try to get to the bottom of this. What exactly was the office this man held, and under whose control was he?

§ Mr. KELLY
He was under the control of the Ordnance Department at Jamaica.

§ The CHAIRMAN
This Vote is for engineering works, buildings, and lands, and not for stores. I do not think any money for himself or for his superiors comes under the engineering part of the 2315 works and buildings. If he was in charge of stores, that would not be under this Vote.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
We have been used to the common term "works," including all relative things such as engineering.

§ The CHAIRMAN
It might be so were it not that there are Votes 8, for general stores, and 9, for warlike stores. Whether it comes under Vote 8 or Vote 9, I cannot new say, but it cannot come under Vote 10.

§ Mr. CRAWFURD
It is an ill wind that blows no one any good, and, though I regret that the hon. Member has not been able to contribute what he wished to—

§ Mr. LAWSON
Do we understand quite clearly that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity of raising this matter on either Vote 8 or Vote 9?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I cannot say which it is without further research, but I think it must be one or the other.

§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
It is Vote 8.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I must take that provisionally from the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
Will my hon. Friend be able to raise the point on Vote 8?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think there is no doubt that he will. If there is money taken for anyone who is responsible for his treatment, he will.

§ Mr. CRAWFURD
You have pointed out, Sir, that this Vote is in part for those who are engaged in engineering work, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question which arose over a personal matter with which I was asked to deal some weeks ago. A day or two ago at Question Time I was told by the Minister of Labour that the conditions under which a man is deprived of benefit because he is not genuinely seeking work have nothing to do with the Minister, but are only for the statutory authorities. In a supplementary question I reminded the right hon. Gentleman of an answer I had from the War Office a few weeks ago to the effect that it was not their habit to give employment to men over the age of 55.
2316 I have been given several oases of men who have applied for employment at War Office establishments. They are engineers and they have been told that there is need for particular work which they are qualified to do, but because they are to or more, they will not be given employment. The Government in all their Departments are supposed to be model employers, and what the Government are not prepared to do you cannot expect a private employer to do. The Government should set an example in their treatment of their employés. Here you have a man of 55 years of age who has been an engineer all his life and has every qualification for the particular kind or work, and on applying at a Government establishment he is told he cannot be given employment, the only reason given being that he has reached that age. What is he to do between that age and the age when he gets his old age pension? On the showing of the Government authority he is not competent to be employed, because he has reached a certain age. There seems to me to be very great hardship. These statements can be substantiated. This has been sprung upon the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not expect him to be able to answer off-hand in regard to particular cases, but I should like an assurance that he will go into the suggestion have made that this is the practice with a view to using his influence to secure some amelioration of the conditions of men of a somewhat advanced age who seek employment under the Government.

§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
Of course, I will go into any case the hon. Member brings to my notice. If he wants to know the general policy I can tell him now that if we were taking on new men in work which is to be of a permanent nature, you have to have your balance of men of different ages throughout the factory. You do not want them all to run out at the same time, but subject to the balance of ages there would be no bar. But unfortunately the case is not that we are taking on new men, but that we are having great difficulty in keeping in employment those we are now employing, and if it should happen that any particular class of skill is required which is not now represented in the factory, the balance of ages in the factory would be the first consideration, so it is 2317 possible that at any given moment a man of 55 might be told he was not the right age to obtain employment. He would not be told that the balance would be thrown out, but that would be the guiding principle that would operate.