CIVIL SUPERANNUATION, COMPENSATION, AND GRATUITIES. (Hansard, 10 March 1931)

§ Mr. O. LEWIS
I want to call the attention of the Committee to the system of compassionate gratuities which are set up under Sub-head (d), and to how civilian employés in the Ordnance Department are affected under this arrangement. I think it will be generally agreed that, broadly speaking, one of the compensating advantages of the State as an employer, as against the private employer, is that, although the emoluments may not be so great, there is continuous employment and some consideration when employment ceases from old age, or some similar cause; in other words, usually some pension. The position with regard to these civilian employés with the Ordnance Department is that no matter how long they have been employed, and no matter how satisfactory their services may be, there is no provision for any pension in their case. They are supposed to 1148 be covered by this system of compassionate gratuities. These are not acquired as a right. It is merely laid down that after service for a certain period they may be granted at the discretion of the authorities.
I want to show the Committee how it works and to mention a case to which I have already drawn the attention of the Secretary of State for War. This is the case of a man retired from the Ordnance Department on the ground of age on 3rd December last. I should explain to the Committee that under the paragraph of the regulations governing this matter it is stated that when retirement takes place it shall be carried out with due regard to the effect of such discharge when the employé requires only a short period of the 15 years necessary to entitle him to consideration in the matter of this gratuity. He has to complete this period of 15 years, and if, under the age limit, his service ends near that period it shall be considered whether it shall go on to qualify for the gratuity.
This man was retired on the ground of age. He was 65. He required only 10 months to complete 15 years' service—that is to say he had served for 14 years and two months. His character was in every way exemplary. His work had been excellent. He was described as a hard-working storeman whose services his commanding officer was sorry to lose. He applied to be allowed to work for another 10 months. I brought the case to the notice of the Secretary of State for War, and, in response to a question I put to him on 16th December, the right hon. Gentleman replied that this permission could not be granted. I questioned the right hon. Gentleman as to whether he had any discretion, and his reply was that this case was certainly beyond any discretion which had ever been exercised—meaning that 10 months was too long a period. It is exceedingly hard that a man who has worked for 14 years and two months and given the most complete satisfaction as a storeman should be denied the right to carry on. He could not even apply as a right for a gratuity; he could not even be considered for a compassionate gratuity. That is not a very satisfactory state of affairs.
The matter might be got over by applying this regulation a little less severely, so that in any such case a man 1149 might get a compassionate grant after 14 years and two months or be allowed to work 10 months more. The other possibility, which is rather wider, is whether it would not be possible to devise some scheme of contributory pensions covering the case of these men. I consider the case is very hard, because, generally, the position with regard to these men is that even after 15 years they are not entitled as a right to a gratuity or pension. That compares unsatisfactorily with ordinary conditions of employment in this country. The Secretary of State for War should endeavour to see that the regulations are administered in a less hard and fast manner, or he should came forward, at some later stage, with some better proposals for either a gratuity or pension.

§ Major GLYN
I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £10.
There is in my constituency a large number of unestablished employés at the Royal Army Ordnance and the Didcot military depôt, and this question of gratuities has been a standing disgrace. The Act under which these compassionate grants are made was passed in 1807. The situation has completely changed. The Government now make use of civilians at not excessively high rates of pay, and, when they finish, they have no pension. They are turned adrift without any consideration, except under very exceptional circumstances. I have had several cases brought to my notice where officers responsible are particularly anxious to see that men get a fair chance. Something should also be done by the Government about the housing question. If the Government gets the advantage of a factory in a rural district at low rates something should be done about housing. Some men have to bicycle 10 or 15 miles to their work. We want to have economy, but under this Vote there is an actual reduction of what can be paid. In 1930 it was £21,500. This year it is £21,100, a decrease of £400. At a moment when men find it difficult to get employment on leaving Government service it is not opportune to cut down this Vote.

§ The CHAIRMAN
It is unusual to move a reduction of such a small sum on such a large Vote.

§ Major GLYN
I do not want to move a reduction if it is to take away still further 1150 from the advantage of these men, but I want to call attention to their case.

§ Mr. SANDERS
I just want to say that, in addition to the advantages of State employment which have been referred to, there is also the advantage that the men are not paid lower wages than outside.

§ Major GLYN
They do not get the same privileges as they do at Woolwich.

§ Mr. SANDERS
They may not get all of the privileges, but they are paid trade union rates. If they can demonstrate that they are not, they have a legitimate claim to ask for them. I know very well that it has exercised the attention of Governments for a long time, whether men who are engaged without any definite agreement and can be discharged at any time should be put on a permanent and pensionable basis. I know the late Government went into it. We found that the proposals put forward were not capable of being worked on a proper actuarial basis, but we are hoping that as a result of the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission we shall get some basis to put up to the Treasury which will give these men an opportunity of getting a pension.
With regard to this particular case, the difficulty is that there is a strict and rigid rule that men must retire from the Civil Service at 65. The question is whether this man, instead of retiring at 65, should not have his service extended by 10 months in order to give him 15 years' service and allow him to receive a compassionate gratuity. But there is a strict and rigid rule that we cannot extend the service beyond that period.

§ Mr. O. LEWIS
Might I call the hon. Gentleman's attention to paragraph 243A of the regulations, which permits extension for a short period?

§ Mr. SANDERS
It does not always means 65 years of age. A man may be discharged as over age under 65. There are many in the War Office discharged at 60. We sometimes give them a period over that in order that they may get an increased pension, but, when it comes to 65, the regulations are extremely rigid. I will inquire into the question of the extension of service over 65, but 1151 it is only fair to assume that men cannot be extended beyond that age. We have continuous complaints from people below that age that extension of service prevents promotion. We have to work on a balance of advantage and disadvantage. I admit that that does bring about cases of hardship, but, as far as the Secretary of State and myself are concerned, we have tried to deal with these cases as generously as we possibly can, and there has only been one or two hard cases such as that which has been mentioned.

§ Mr. O. LEWIS
The Financial Secretary says that a man has to retire at 65, but the regulations do not say so. There is nothing to prevent a man working on for three or five months.

§ Mr. SANDERS
I am not so sure about that, but I will see if that is the case. I do not recollect a case of permitting a man to work beyond 65. At 61 or 62 yes, but not beyond 65.

§ Major GLYN
May I say that that is not an answer to the point which I made. It seems to me that, until the matter is satisfactorily settled, it would be better to keep the amount of the Estimate as it was for 1930 instead of reducing it by £400. Could not the hon. Gentleman agree to that?

§ Mr. SANDERS
I do not know that I could promise to have the amount 1152 raised. The amount is only £400 lower and with the small reduction of about 200 men at Woolwich that makes it possible to do as much good work as with the slightly larger sum of last year.

§ Major GLYN
As I understand that this matter is to be gone into either on a superannuation or some other basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Mr. SHAW
I do not think the hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that. There was no promise at all of that kind. We are always willing to look into cases to try to improve matters, but it must not be taken that we have given a promise that we never have given.