§ 9. Mr. DAGGARasked the Secretary for Mines if he will explain the circumstances and conditions in which the chairman of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission surrendered or commuted pension rights accruing to him; and whether any consideration in his salary of £7,000 a year was accorded to him in return for that surrender or commutation?
§ Mr. SHINWELLI refrained from answering similar questions asked by several hon. Members on 3rd and 5th March because the Supplementary Estimate for my Department was on the Order Paper for the days on which the questions were put down, and also because an answer involved a statement which would necessarily be much longer than an ordinary answer to a question. Now that the Supplementary Estimate cannot be taken on Report until Friday next at the earliest, I do not propose any longer to delay a reply if I may have your indulgence, Sir, for a rather long statement.
Sir Ernest Cowers' appointment as chairman of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission is for a period of seven years, terminable by either side at the end of five years. Before this appointment, Sir Ernest Cowers held the important office of chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue. He was receiving a salary of £3,000 a year. As an established civil servant he reckoned his service for pension, and, had he remained in that office, he would have been eligible on retirement for age or on account of ill health, to a pension at the rate of one-eightieth of his salary, and to a lump sum allowance at the rate of one-thirtieth of his salary, for each year of his service as a civil servant. After 40 years' service in all, he would have become eligible to retire on a pension equivalent to half his salary and with a lump sum allowance of more than £4,000.
His appointment as Chairman of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission 964 involved the surrender of his appointment as Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue. He was taken right out of the Civil Service. The post to which he has been appointed is not a Civil Service post, and Sir Ernest's tenure of it has been treated as "approved employment" in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Superannuation Act, 1914. One effect of these provisions is that the period of his employment as Chairman of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission cannot in any circumstances be reckoned for pension. A second consequence is that if Sir Ernest Gowers were to die in the course of that employment, a substantial death gratuity which, had he remained in the Civil Service would have been payable to his legal personal representatives, would not be payable. Thirdly, if Sir Ernest Gowers, after completion of his service on the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission, were to resume employment in the Civil Service, he would be eligible on final retirement to a pension calculated with reference only to the years of his service in the Civil Service and his final Civil Service salary. Fourthly, if, during his employment as Chairman of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission he were to reach the age of 60 or to become permanently incapacitated by ill-health, Sir Ernest would be eligible under the provisions of the Superannuation Act to receive a pension related only to the period of his service in the Civil Service prior to his transfer to the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission and to the Civil Service salary he was then receiving.
In accordance with practice, Sir Ernest is eligible for further employment in the Civil Service. But if he does not return to the Civil Service when his work on the Coal Commission comes to an end, as may well be the case, he forfeits inevitably the whole of his Civil Service pension.
§ Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTERHaving now given the House a very complicated but full statement in regard to Sir Ernest Gowers' position and emoluments, does not the hon. Gentleman consider that the Committee would have been in a much better position to consider this matter had that statement been made when the question was raised in the Committee and, having made a 965 statement after the Committee stage of the Vote has been closed, would he agree to a proposal that the Vote should be re-committed in order that we might discuss whatever is necessary in the appropriate place to discuss it, namely, in Committee of Supply?
§ Mr. SHINWELLI cannot agree to re-committing the Vote, because in any event the information that has been asked for is now available and Members can be fully armed with the facts in the Debate on Friday. I agree that the Committee would have been much better equipped for the purposes of Debate if the information had been at their disposal, but I was not myself aware that the pension rights question was to be raised and I had not the information at my command at that moment, but I took the first available opportunity of arming myself with the facts and would have given them to the House earlier than to-day if an opportunity had been provided.
Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELLWill the hon. Gentleman consider this? It is evident that the Committee was not aware of the facts of the case when this matter should have been discussed in Committee. The Government have met us very fully in putting down the Report stage as first order for Friday. All my right hon. Friend asks is that he will re-commit the Vote and let us discuss it in Committee, which gives us a much better opportunity of dealing with the facts of the case and—I think I can answer for my friends—we would allow the Report stage to be quite formal and the Government would lose no time whatever.
§ Mr. SHINWELLA full opportunity will be afforded of discussing the matter on Friday. It is true that, unlike the Committee stage, Members will be confined to one speech, but I can hardly regard that as a hardship.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe hon. Gentleman has some Parliamentary experience. Is he not aware that the Committee stage is essentially a stage in which Members can put questions on these elaborate, detailed points and, without any waste of time, the Minister can make a series of replies, giving the information that the Committee requires, whereas on Report we shall have 966 a much more formal Debate in which the Minister can only speak once. I would ask him, therefore, to consult the President of the Board of Trade and urge him to give us an opportunity of discussing the real facts in Committee, in return for which we promise him that we will not occupy any further time than would have been occupied on Report.
§ Mr. SHINWELLThe right hon. Gentleman has put a simple point to me, but it appears that ample opportunity will be afforded for putting interpellations to me on Report. I presume that I might have, in that event, the leave of the House to reply to such questions.
§ Mr. TINKERDo I take it that the Opposition prefer to take both Committee and Report on Friday if consent is given?
§ Mr. SHINWELLThat does not arise at all. The Committee stage has been disposed of. Hon. Members wished to have some information on pension rights. As far as I can recall the circumstances, they confined themselves to that simple point. I have given full information on it, and they have the remainder of the time between now and Friday to consider the reply that I have given.