HC Deb 21 May 1935 vol 302 cc1013-8
Mr. BUTLER

I beg to move, in page 136, line 25, after "service," to insert "or a civil post."

This is to make it clear that men appointed by the Secretary of State to isolated posts shall have the same protection as other men. A doubt arose as to whether isolated appointments were covered by the terms of the Bill, and the Amendment is to make this point clear.

Amendment agreed to.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER

I beg to move, in page 136, line 27, after "pensions," to insert: and general rights in regard to medical attendance. The Clause as it stands says: The conditions of service of all persons appointed to a civil service by the Secretary of State shall as respects pay, leave and pensions, be such as may be prescribed by rules to be made by the Secretary of State.? During our discussions in Committee there was a request that certain other matters should be added to those which may be prescribed by rules to be made by the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend has considered with great sympathy the proposals that were made, and has decided that there is a case for adding general rights in regard to medical attendance. The question of medical attendance is one on which the civil ser vice feel very much. They have certain rights by which they themselves are entitled to treatment, and, in certain conditions, their wives and families as well. The availability of a British medical Officer in a station in which there is a substantial body of civilians is a right to which they attach great importance. In view of their conditions of service and of the special problems which arise under medical attendance, and in view of the rights which they have hitherto enjoyed, I think the House will regard it as legitimate that we should add to the general rights that of "general rights in regard to medical attendance, "besides those condi- tions of service which are referred to in the Clause.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

He would be a very foolish man to oppose a proposal of this kind, but the Under-Secretary has not made it clear whether it is intended to extend these medical rights to all persons involved. I hope he will tell us whether it is intended to give an extension or whether it is merely to legalise the status quo.

Sir S. HOARE

The provision has nothing to do with an extension or limitation of medical rights. All it does is to say that the rules affecting medical treatment of civilians must be made by the Secretary of State. It does not prejudice the question of what the rules shall be. It brings them into the category where the rules must be made by the Secretary of State, and cannot be dele gated to anybody else.

Amendment agreed to.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER

I beg to move, in page 137, line 6, at the end, to insert: (2) Any promotion of any person appointed to a civil service or a civil post by the Secretary of State shall, if he is serving in connection with the affairs of the Federation, be made by the Governor-General exercising his individual judgment and, if he is serving in connection with the affairs of a Province, be made by the Governor exercising his individual judgment. (3) If any such person as aforesaid is suspended from Office, his remuneration shall not during the period of his suspension be reduced except to such extent, if any, as may be directed by the Governor-General exercising his individual judgment or, as the case may be, by the Governor exercising his individual judgment.? The object of this Amendment is to safeguard the promotion of a particular Officer. Originally, the posting of officers was safeguarded, but there is thought to be a slight gap, that promotion which did not involve a change of posting may not be covered by the Bill. It is in order to cover the case of an Officer receiving promotion when there is no change in posting, that the Amendment is moved.

6.41 p.m.

Sir B. PETO

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after "promotion," to insert "or any order relating to leave."

While the service is grateful to the Secretary of State for dealing with the question of promotion in this Amendment there is still a gap which has not been filled, on a matter to which the Civil service regard as of almost equal importance to those matters which have already received attention. That is the question of leave. If my Amendment to the Amendment is accepted, it will read: Any promotion or any order relating to Leave of any person appointed to a civil service or a civil post by the Secretary of State shall, if he is serving in connection with the affairs of the Federation, be made by the Governor-General exercising his individual judgment and, if he is serving in connection with the affairs of a Province, be made by the Governor exercising his individual judgment.? The Civil service attach great importance to this matter. It was mentioned during the Committee stage but not discussed, and I want to ask the Secretary of State if he will not now take this simple concession, and thus cover all the points connected with service promotions and postings, and all other vital matters connected with the service, which will thus have the protection of being dealt with by the Governor-General himself in the exercise of his individual judgment, which means after consultation with his Ministers. I can see no reason why questions of leave which are so essential to Englishmen serving in India should be left out, and I hope that the Secretary of State will add to the general satisfaction by accepting my Amendment. It will not add to the cost, or do anybody any injustice, but will give protection to servants of the Crown in India in a matter of vital moment to them.

6.44 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK

I desire to support the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. The Civil Service attach great importance to the question of leave, which they think should rank with the other points upon which the intervention of the Governor-General is pro vided. The question of leave is of ten a serious point to decide as against an Officer who is anxious for leave, and in all the governments with which I have been connected the question of leave was one which always came before the Governor, and was not disposed of by a lower authority. I do not think that any trouble or difficulty can possibly arise if the words proposed by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) are accepted by the Government.

6.45 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT

I wish to support the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. The Secretary of State accused me about three nights ago of bringing up the matter of Ceylon like King Charles's head, and I accepted the rebuke with due humility. The only reason, when we are considering such a vital question as this, for mentioning Ceylon, is that it seems to me the only comparable situation that we have. This question of leave has been raised again and again by the State Council in Ceylon. It is conceivable that the new Eastern democracy may not appreciate the fact that leave to anyone in the British services is absolutely vital if he is to continue to do his work at all. I know the intense feeling amongst those who fear that they might be deprived of their privileges in this connection, when democratic institutions have been established. Everyone who has had anything to do with work in Eastern or tropical climates realises how important it is to preserve these leave privileges.

6.47 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE

I must ask the House to reject the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, not because I do not realise the necessity of having fair and adequate leave conditions, but because I believe that the Amendment to the Amendment is unnecessary and that it would be unworkable in practice. It is unnecessary for this reason: Hon. Members will see that in Clause 244, Sub-section (1, a), the rules for leave are effectively safe guarded. They have to be made by the Secretary of State. What better safeguard could there be? My hon. Friend's Amendment goes much further and recommends that not only the rules about leave but the actual orders should all be approved by the Governor-General or by the Governor. I should have thought that it was impossible for them to take all those details, to decide whether a man, for instance, should have three or four days' leave at a particular moment. The general rules already cover the general question. This proposal would take the matter away from the heads of departments and from the Indian Ministers.

My information runs somewhat counter to the information of my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock). I understand that these questions do not all go to the Governor-General and the Governors, but that in actual practice the detailed arrangement in nine cases out of ten is between the head of the department, or between the Minister and the officials of his department, and that there would not be the least need for them to go to some outside authority. If, however, an official was aggrieved and felt that he was being badly treated by the head of his Department or by the Minister, he has full powers to complain to the Governor-General or to the Governor under Clause 245. Further than that, there is the special responsibility of the Governor-General and of the Governor to safeguard the legitimate rights of the Services. The Governor-General or Governor could undoubtedly intervene under that special responsibility in a bad case. I hope I have made it clear that the official is effectively and adequately safeguarded, and that there is no reason, therefore, to exclude from the internal arrangements of a department the head of the department or Minister, or to bring the Governor-General and the Governor into detailed intervention about all sorts of matters that really affect the department and the Minister much more than the Governor-General and the Governor.

Sir B. PETO

After the explanation of my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER

I beg to move, in page 137, line 12, at the end, to insert: Provided that, if any such person is serving in connection with the railways in India, so much only of his salary and allowances shall be charged on the revenues of the Federation as is not paid out of the Railway Fund.? This proviso is necessary in order to secure that railwaymen shall be paid out of the right fund and that is not out of the revenues of the Federation. It is necessary to preserve the right of railway officers appointed by the Secretary of State, and if for any reason there is not sufficient money in the railway fun d to pay the whole of their remunera- any deficiency shall be charged on the revenues of the Federation.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

I wish the Under-Secretary would explain the proposal a little more. Let me put the case as I see it. I do not understand the Indian problem as well as other hon. Members. Does this mean that if a railway company agrees to pay £2 10s. a week to a workman and the company decides that it will pay only £2of it, the State would be called upon to pay the remaining 10s.?

Sir S. HOARE

My answer is that the question does not arise upon this Amendment, which deals with the question who should pay, should it be the railway authority or the Federation? What they should pay is another matter. This Amendment is simply putting the right payment authority in the Bill, and nothing more than that.

Amendment agreed to.