HC Deb 27 May 1937 vol 324 cc491-503

Order for Second Reading read.

6.21 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hore-Belisha)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill has been printed for a long time, and its effects are only too well known to the House, because it was discussed at some length on the Financial Resolution. It is a simple Bill which gives effect to a very simple and solitary principle. It is, that functionaries originally appointed upon a temporary basis for a specific term of years, whose duties are now found to be permanent, should be put upon an established basis such as that to which civil servants are usually entitled, with consequent rates of pension. Accordingly, the Clauses of the Bill apply the Superannuation Acts with modifications having regard to the special conditions in which the functionaries referred to are engaged. In view of the nature of the jurisdiction which these functionaries discharge, they are engaged at a later age than is normal with those who serve the public, and the pension which is related to the number of years which any particular employé serves would obviously be very much less than the habitual one. As they are engaged at a later age one of the proposals of the Bill is to advance by five years the age at which civil servants normally become entitled to pension, and also by five years the age at which they are normally retained in the service.

If the age were left as it is in the Superannuation Acts the State might lose prematurely those who have special qualifications and whose mental powers are still alert to perform the duties that are required of them. On the other hand the functionaries themselves would find the pensions to which they had become entitled so exiguous as hardly to be likely to attract them from their previous employment. At 60 years of age a Civil servant normally becomes entitled to half the salary that he was enjoying at the age of his retirement. Consequently, a Civil servant retiring with a salary of £1,500 a year, which is roughly the salary of these officers, would become entitled to £750 a year pension. If the same rule applied without the modification now suggested to these officers they would get only a half to a third of that amount. Those are the main reasons which cause us to make these modifications.

There is included in the Bill for convenience the President of the Railway Rates Tribunal. His salary is recovered from railway funds, and the proposal in regard to him here h that he should be pensionable on the same basis as the Masters of the Supreme Court who discharge similar functions. The Amendments of the Superannuation Acts in Clause 2 are purely consequential. Those are the proposals of the Bill which 1 commend to the House.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Parkinson

The Minister has been unduly short in his explanation, though I quite agree that it can be brought down to one or two points—the age of the Commissioners, and of course their pension, after they have served their period. The first appointments were in 1931 and in the period of six years since there have been several retirements. In the selection of people to carry on the work there have been one or two opportunities given to appoint younger men. Owing to their appointment at a comparatively late age their superannuation is smaller, and the Bill advances by five years the service and the opportunity for pension. The right hon. Gentleman says we might lose good serviceable men simply because their pension, if they had to retire at the ordinary Civil Service age, would not be attractive. I do not quite agree with him there. He said the Traffic Commissioners had a salary of £1,500 a year and that their superannuation would be something like half that amount, and the Bill proposes to raise the age from 60 to 65 and from 65 to 70. Is that the right kind of practice to adopt? Ought we not really to be reducing ages rather than increasing them?

I quite agree that the right hon. Gentleman may cite this as a special case but, being a special case, it creates in some senses an anomaly which will have its rebound upon the Government later on. It is certainly a clear departure from the normal Civil Service practice. I understand that the Civil Service practice is retirement at 60 with a possible extension to 65, but on no account except in one or two cases which are under Treasury control, can they go beyond 65. In view of the fact that these people have been appointed rather late in life, I want to ask the House whether they think it is a step in the right direction, in order to meet the convenience of, say, ten to a dozen people, to create this position of extending the age of service. The modern tendency is to try to reduce the years of service and bring in pensions at an earlier date, but in this case the Government are taking the opposite decision. Is it wise to depart from the Civil Service practice and so create an anomaly which may possibly lead to other anomalies being created? It is no use saying that nothing else will happen. We never know. Similar circumstances may arise in connection with some other Department. Is it not better to keep to the old retirement age of 65, and if these persons cannot receive their full pension, would it not be possible to make an adjustment at the age of 65, so that they might retire and receive the pension to which they are entitled? Appointments should be made at a younger age in future, so that the difficulty with regard to pensions could not occur. This appears to be a deliberate breaking of a custom which has served its purpose very well indeed.

It will be said that these men were appointed in later life simply because they could not have had the necessary experience before that time. I agree that the previous Minister of Transport exercised his judgment when he made these appointments and did what he thought was best in an experimental period. Persons should be appointed between the ages of 50 and 55, so that they can work the full period necessary to secure superannuation or pension. Some people might say that at such an age they would be too young, but I do not think so. The duties are meticulous, but I do not think that it can be said that it is not possible for men of 50 or 55 to fulfil those duties. We are told that men of 50 or 55 are too old in the industrial world, but when it comes to a question of work in the Civil Service they appear to be too young. It should be possible to make a clean cut at the age of 65, with the necessary adjustments in respect of pension. If that were done, it would be possible to avoid the difficulty of persons entitled to pensions taking up other appointments. I do not want to say anything against these people, but as I go about the country I find a tremendous number of pensionable persons stepping into industry at the expense of other people.

Clause 3 deals with the retirement and superannuation allowance of the President of the Railway Rates Tribunal, and it is ridiculous to ask for the extension of the age from 72 years to 75 years. If a man has not made good by that age, I do not think that there ought to be an extension of his services. This should be brought down to the Civil Service practice and superannuation made possible at 65, and it should be left there. No doubt I shall be reminded that the Minister mentioned that this appointment does not cost the Government anything and that the railway people pay. Payment of the salary is really of no moment; it does not matter whether it is paid by the railway companies or the Government, but it is wrong to extend the period from 72 years to 75. I am not saying that there has not been efficiency shown in all the appointments that have been made, but it is up to the Government to see that they secure efficiency, which I do not think is possible, by extending the age which has existed for so many years as the Civil Service limit. I realise that there are plenty of younger men who can do work which I cannot do, but which I could do a few years ago. It is a step in the wrong direction to break down the custom of the Civil Service. These appointments should cease at 65 without any further extension. I would rather introduce pensions at an earlier age than extend the period of these people in order that they may qualify. We are going in the wrong direction.

I shall no doubt be told that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport at that time exercised his discretion in the appointment of these people. I do not think that anybody could charge him with not having given due consideration to the appointments or of not having exercised his intelligence, but his experience has not been universally accepted as being of the best, and now is the opportunity to replace these appointments with younger, fresher and more alert minds. The work is not easy. The Commissioners may not work as many hours as we do, but their work is of a meticulous character and calls for rigid scrutiny of all things that come before them. I object to the extension of age. I want the Minister to give consideration to this matter and to bring in men of middle age with well balanced minds, able to give long service. I want to relieve the aged people. We would be doing the greatest service to these people if they were able to be relieved of their jobs and to live upon the pensions to which they were entitled. It would enable them to spend the evening of their lives unharassed by the meticulous duties which they have to perform.

This Bill ought to have been made a step forward instead of a step backward. It almost amounts to a disgrace to ask the House to give power to three Ministers to extend from 72 to 75 years the age so far as the Railway Rates Tribunal is concerned, when at the same time there are so many people in the country able, willing and probably anxious to do this kind of work. I hope that the Minister will take these observations into consideration, and that in future appointments will be made so as to enable these persons to serve the full period for their pensions. We as a nation ought to be working towards bringing about retirement at a lower age for all classes of the community. When people have served their day and generation, pensions should be given at such a time in their lives as to enable them to live in the enjoyment of them for some years.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith

Before the Bill receives a Second Reading, I should like to know the policy that is to be adopted in the future by the Minister of Transport when selecting chairmen of traffic commissioners. What is to be the method of selection, and on what grounds are these appointments to be made? It is to be deprecated that in these times a Bill is being presented to the House to extend the age to the extent that this Bill proposes. Enlightened opinion throughout this country in particular, and it is now accepted in industry generally, is that the time for people to retire, after having given of their best in the service of industry, as most men do, at the very latest is round about 60 years of age. In these days of mechanisation arid electrification, there is no need any longer to ask men to carry on in industry or in appointments where they have to accept serious responsibility, as have these men. It ought to be no longer the position that they should be asked to carry on after 60 years of age. There are thousands of well trained young persons coming out of the secondary schools and out of the universities who cannot get satisfactory appointments after their parents have very often sacrificed themselves in order to give them a good education, but find that the a venues of employment are closed in these times. Rather than extend the age, as the Bill proposes, one would have thought that the object of the Government would have been to get the best possible men for these positions, and that they should be given an opportunity of retiring at the ape of 60 rather than of having to carry on as they are to do.

Moreover, I wish to contrast the policy of the Government in these matters with the treatment meted out to poor men and women with regard to their pensions. We know that the cost of living is going up and that the Government are not prepared to take that into consideration, and we know that there are anomalies with which the Government are not prepared to deal. We know that when men and women have given their best to the country, they are called upon to retire on pensions of 10s. a week at 65 years of age. I ask the Minister of Transport whether it is a fact that many of the people who are now holding these positions are already receiving pensions of from £6 to £14 a week. If that be the case, let us compare it with the treatment of ex-service men.

One of the things that has caused me most concern since I have been a Member of the House is our inability to do anything to meet the grievances of ex-service men. As a result of having taken an interest in this question, I have a pile of correspondence from all parts of the country, and I am convinced that if they only knew of the grievances which ex-service men have, hon. Members in all parts of the House would demand that something should be done for them. Although that is the position of ex-service men, we find that many of the traffic commissioners are receiving pensions of from £6 to £14 a week as retired chief constables, retired generals or retired colonels.

According to an answer which the Minister of Transport gave to me a few weeks ago, all the traffic commissioners a re receiving in salaries between £1,500 a year and £1,700 a year. This is not a question of individuals, but one of principle, and although I must give a number of examples, I do not want it to be taken that I am critical of the individuals as individuals. Is it a fact that in one area a chief constable had been in that position for 28 years, that he retired on a pension of £660 a year, and that he is now receiving at least £1,000 a year in addition as a salary for fulfilling the duties of traffic commissioner? Is it a fact that in another area a traffic commissioner who is an ex-chief constable is receiving a pension of £800 a year, and that in several other cases they are ex-chief constables receiving pensions of from £300 to £466? I contend that those people are already sufficiently well-placed in life and that they are already sufficiently well cared for.

On the one hand the Government are prepared to give this treatment to ex-chief constables, ex-generals and ex-colonels, and on the other hand, when a poor man's wife has reached the age of 65 years, she is not able to draw a pension of 10s. a week, in spite of the fact that her husband may have been a miner or an engineer for 30, 40 or 50 years. I ask the Minister whether the facts are as I have stated, and if so, what is to be the policy in future with regard to the selection of the men to fill these positions? Are ex-chief constables, ex-generals and ex-colonels to be selected in future? I suggest that it will not be good for this House, good for the Government or good national policy for men who are already well cared for and who are already receiving very good pensions to be placed, by this Bill, in the position of being able to draw other pensions.

6.52 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson)

One thing which this Debate has brought out is that both sides of the House are agreed that for these very important positions we want to get the very best men and we want to treat them properly. The Debate has mainly turned on the question of age. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) asked me whether certain of the Traffic Commissioners are already receiving pensions. In reply to a question of that nature, I sent him a list of the Traffic Commissioners, and from that he will see that of the 12 Commissioners, five are in receipt of pensions—three Police pensions, one Army pension and one Colonial pension. As the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) pointed out, all of them were appointed by the Minister of Transport in the Labour Government, who, like us, wanted to get the very best people possible.

I want to impress upon the House that these gentleman are not civil servants in the strict sense of the word, and in endeavouring, as this Bill does, to give them security of tenure and make their appointments permanent, we are adopting the same procedure as is used for civil servants. A large part of the Debate has dealt with the retiring age, which is 65 to 70, instead of 60 to 65 as in the Civil Service. That is really a compromise between the age of 72, which is laid down for judicial posts, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Wigan, and the 60 years of age which is laid down for civil servants; but there is the difference that civil servants join the Service generally on leaving school and spend all their lives in it, whereas it will be obvious to the House that the Traffic Commissioners cannot do that, as they must, of necessity, owing to the nature of their work, be men of mature age.

Therefore, we have tried, as did the Minister of Transport in the Labour Government, to choose then who have been successful in other walks of life. If when they come to do this rather arduous work they prove to be successful, we want to keep them for a reasonable time. We believe, as did our predecessors, that we shall thus get the very best men for these extremely important posts. I would remind the House that the Treasury both can and do extend the term of service of civil servants. Incidentally, this proposal to alter the age by five years cuts both ways, for the Traffic Commissioner is not eligible for a pension at 60, but at 65 years of age. In reply to a remark made by the hon. Member for Wigan, in filling these appointments we try now to get men at a little earlier age than was possible for the original appointments. If the hon. Member will look at the list of the chairmen, he will see that there is quite a number of the age of 50 or very little over it.

The question of pensions was fully debated on the Money Resolution as far back as February. The scale is the same as that laid down in the Superannuation Acts. Ten years of service is the minimum requirement, and I repeat what I said on the Money Resolution, that none of the five chairmen who are eligible for this pension—and incidentally the Chairman of the Appeal Tribunal, who is also eligible—is in receipt of another pension from public funds. As regards the President of the Railway Rates Tribunal, we are not, as some hon. Members seem to think, making any alteration in existing practice. There is an Act on the Statute Book known as the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1925, and under that Act come a number of persons carrying on duties which are very similar to those of

the President of the Railway Rates Tribunal, such as the Masters of the Supreme Court, Official Referee, Official Solicitor, Registrars and Taxing Masters. All we are doing under Clause 3 is to make an addition to the list so that the President of the Railway Rates Tribunal will be treated exactly as the other judicial and semi-judicial posts are treated. In accordance with the Act of 1925, the age of 72 has been inserted, with a possible extension to 75.

Mr. Parkinson

Why increase the list? Would it not be better to diminish it?

Captain Hudson

We want to give permanency to this gentleman, and we feel that the work he is doing is similar to that of the other people in the list; therefore, we think it best to place him in the list. Whether at some period some Government may feel that it would like to have an amending Act to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, I am not here to say, but I do say that by putting him in the list we are not making any alteration in what is the existing practice. In the case of the posts to which I have referred—Master of the Supreme Court, Official Referee and so on—if the Lord Chancellor wishes it, the age may be extended to 75. In the present case, obviously the Lord Chancellor is not the person concerned, and, therefore, the Bill says that the age may be extended to 75 in a case in which the Lord Chancellor, the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Transport and the Treasury agree. We feel that that is the place, if we are to give permanency under this Act, where the President of the Railway Rates Tribunal should go in. I submit that these alterations which we propose are equitable to the present occupants, will facilitate recruitment in the future, and will also give that security of tenure which is very desirable in appointments of this kind.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 95.

Division No. 194.] AYES. [7.2 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Aske, Sir R. W. Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Assheton, R. Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Agnew, Lieul.-Comdr. P. G. Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M. Bracken, B.
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Brass, Sir W.
Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S. Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Brooklebank, Sir Edmund
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) Beit, Sir A. L. Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Bossom, A. C. Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Bull, B. B. Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.) Peake, O.
Burgin, Rt. Han. Dr. E. L. Guy, J. C. M. Petherick, M.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H. Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Carver, Major W. H. Hanbury, Sir C. Radford, E. A.
Cary, R. A. Hannah, I. C. Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Castlereagh, Viscount Harris, Sir P. A. Ramsbotham, H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Uuiv's.) Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Channon, H. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Chorlton, A. E. L. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Ropner, Colonel L.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.) Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs) Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon) Rowlands, G.
Cox, H. B. T. Holdsworth, H. Russell, Sir Alexander
Critchley, A Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Crowder, J. F. E. Horsbrugh, Florence Samuel, M. R. A.
Cruddas, Col. B. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Seely, Sir H. M.
Davies, C. (Montgomery) Hudson, R. S. (Southport) Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Hunter, T. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Dawson, Sir P. Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
De Chair, S. S. Joel, D. J. B. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)
Denville, Alfred Keeling, E. H. Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H. Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury) Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Lamb, Sir J. Q. Spens. W. P.
Dugdale, Captain T. L. Leckle, J. A. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Dunglass, Lord Lees-Jones, J. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Eastwood, J. F. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Elmley, Viscount Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Emery, J. F. Levy, T. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Emmott, C. E. G. C. Lewis, O. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Lindsay, K. M. Tate, Mavis G.
Entwistle, Sir C. F. Lloyd, G. W. Tree, A. R. L. F.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Wakefield, W. W.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Fildes, Sir H. M'Connell, Sir J. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Fleming, E. L. McKie, J. H. Warrender, Sir V.
Foot, D. M. Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees) Waterhouse, Captain C.
Fox, Sir G. W. G. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Furness, S. N. Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M. Wells, S. R.
Fyfe, D. P. M. Maxwell, Hon. S. A. White, H. Graham
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Gledhiil, G. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Gluckstein, L. H. Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Goodman, Col. A. W. Moreing, A. C. Withers, Sir J. J.
Gower, Sir R. V. Morgan, R. H. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Morris-Jones, Sir Henry Wragg, H.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) Munro, P. Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.
Gridley, Sir A. B. Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M. Orr-Ewing, I. L. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Grimston, R. V. Palmer, G. E. H. Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin and Captain
Hope.
NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett) Gibbins, J. Maxton, J.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Messer, F.
Adamson, W. M. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A, Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Grenfell, D. R. Naylor, T. E.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Noel-Baker, P. J.
Banfield, J. W. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Paling, W.
Barnes, A. J. Hayday, A. Parker, J.
Barr, J. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Parkinson, J. A.
Batey, J. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Bellenger, F. J. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Price, M. P.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Pritt, D. N.
Broad, F. A. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Quibell, D. J. K.
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Riley, B.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Ritson, J.
Burke, W. A. Kelly, W. T. Rowson, G.
Cape, T. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Sanders, W. S.
Chater, D. Kirby, B. V. Sexton, T. M.
Cluse, W. S. Kirkwood, D. Shinwell, E.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Lawson, J. J. Short, A.
Daggar, G. Lee, F. Simpson, F. B.
navies, R. J. (Westhoughtoh) Leonard, W. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Dobbie, W. Leslie, J. R. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) McGhee, H. G. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Ede, J. C. MacLaren, A. Sorensen, R. W.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Maclean, N. Stephen, C.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Mainwaring, W. H. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Gallacher, W. Marshall, F. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Gardner, B. W. Mathers, G. Thorne, W.
Tinker, J. J. Westwood, J. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Viant, S. P. Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Walker, J. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Watson, W. McL. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe) Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.
Welsh, J. C. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Cross.]