HC Deb 17 October 1944 vol 403 cc2337-46

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Buchan-Hepburn.]

6.30 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown (Rugby)

I wish to raise a matter touching a number of ex-Service men of the last war who are presently serving in the public service, and it is a matter on which I desire to elicit the support and sympathy of Members on all sides of the House. During and after the last war large numbers of temporary staff were appointed to serve in Government Departments, and among them there were thousands of ex-Servicemen from the last war. During the years from 1914 to 1926 the ordinary open competitive examinations for entry into the established grades of the Civil Service were suspended, and so there came a point in time when there were at once a very large number of vacancies in the established grades, and, at the same time, a large number of temporary staff who had put in various periods of service. The claim arose that the men who had put in temporary service should be considered for these vacancies. That claim was approved by the House of Commons, and it was decided that the opportunity should be given to the temporary staff to go into the established grades.

Two avenues of entry were provided. The first was an avenue of entry into the established Clerical Class of the Civil Service, and that was an avenue of entry by examination. The temporary clerks competed in three examinations—the two Lytton examinations and the Southborough examination—for vacancies in the established Clerical Class. The last was in 1926. Those who passed were given the conditions of the established Clerical Class, and became eligible for pensions—at the end of their careers. Establishment was, however, denied to any officer who was over 50 years of age at the time of the examination. Such officers were given the other conditions of the Clerical Class if they passed the examination, but were denied the element of pensionability at the end of their period of service.

Later, in 1932, a second avenue of establishment for the temporary staff was opened up. There was created a special class, called the "S" or supernumerary class, for sub-clerical work, and the opportunity of establishment in that class was offered to a large number of men. The condition for entry was not the passage of an examination, but the completion of a given period of approved service, in the first instance six years, subsequently reduced to four. But here, again, the privilege of establishment and pension-ability was withheld from men of so years of age and over. They got the other conditions of the S class, but pension-ability was withheld. There was one qualification introduced in the case of the "S" class: In counting his age for the purpose of entry into that class, as distinct from the Clerical Class, a man might deduct from his actual age one-half of any period of service put in after June, 1927. The process of the establishment of the "S" class was a continuing process as men reached the necessary qualification of six years or four years as the case might be. In the case of men established after 1927, they were allowed to count one-half their service from that date. The effect was to raise the age bar, as it is called, from 50 to 52½.

The case of these two categories of men who have been denied establishment in the Clerical Class and the "S" class has become known as the case of age-barred officers. I want to emphasise that at the time of the last examination for the clerical grade in 1926, some of the men who were successful but who were denied establishment on age grounds had already put in 10 years of unestablished service. At the time when the "S" class was created, in 1932, there were men who were barred from establishment in that grade who had put in as much as 16 years' unestablished service. Thus, a man of 40 who became a temporary clerk in 1916 would in 1932 have put in 16 years' unestablished work, but he was debarred from establishment because he was then 56 years of age.

Why do the Treasury refuse establishment for these men? The only reason that has ever been given to us—and the Civil Service has been agitating about this matter for years—was that Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1859, provided that a man must put in 10 years' established service before he can receive a pension, and, since the normal retiring age from the Civil Service is 60, it was held that it was no good establishing a man of over 50, because he could not put in the 10 years before the normal retiring age was reached. There are two answers to that reason. The first is that Section 3 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, gives the Treasury power to reckon as established service temporary service put in prior to establishment. In other words, it was within the power of the Chancellor to say that all the period of service put in before the date of establishment could be counted as established service, and if they had desired to do that there would have been no question of these men not being able to put in 10 years' established service. If there was a difficulty it was one created by the Treasury's refusal to use its power under the 1887 Act.

The second answer is this. The normal retiring age from the Civil Service is not now, and has not been for many years, 60 years. It has been 65, and civil servants, in order to help the man-power problem, have been invited and, indeed, compelled to stay on until 65. In fact, all the men about whom I am talking, who were physically or mentally fit to do so have stayed until 65. Therefore, all men up to 55 could have completed 10 years' service before leaving the service at 65, even if no unestablished service were allowed to count.

Most of the men of whom I have been talking have put in long periods of service, from II to 14 years, since the date when establishment was denied, and anything up to 16 years before the date when establishment was denied. We are therefore dealing with a category of men with anything up to 30 years' service, and who are now retiring from the service day by day without a single penny of pension.

What does the Chancellor say about this? When I raised the matter on 1st August his reply was three-fold: That he was not disposed to alter the decision of his predecessors; that he agreed that there had been, and were, hard cases; that he thought that our past arrangements had not been wholly satisfactory and he hoped for better arrangements in the future. I think that is a fair summary of the Chancellor's answer to me. I want to comment on those three points. First, he was not prepared to alter the decision of his predecessors. If that becomes a standing injunction to Ministers, this House might as well go out of existence. All progress depends upon our altering the decisions of our predecessors, and if the Minister is not disposed to do so it is equivalent to sterilising himself in public for all time. He agreed that there had been bad cases. There are very bad cases. In that agreement, he has conceded the argument which I am making here to-night.

His third point was the most astounding of all. He thought that our arrangements had been bad in the past, he hoped they would be better in the future, but he did not propose to do anything about the present. I should like the House to realise what those hard cases are like. I have some examples with me. Mr. O. Burns joined the Army in 1897, served through the Boer war and through the Great War. He joined the Civil Service in 1918 and has served in it ever since, 26 years. He missed establishment because, on the material date, he was 19 days over 50. If he had been born a month before he would have been established, but because of that arbitrary limit of 50 this man, who has fought for his country in two wars and served in its Civil Service for 26 years, is not eligible for a penny of pension when he goes out next year. Then there is Mr. T., who was 53 in 1933. He had already served 13 years in a temporary capacity and he has since served 25 years in all. He, too, goes out without a penny. There is Mr. T. J. Endicott, of Gloucester, recipient of the 1914–15 Star, who has been 25 years a temporary civil servant. He was debarred in 1932 on the same ground. In his case, his total service with the Crown, including his Army service, amounts now to 30 years. He will go out in a year or two without a single penny of pension.

It is my submission that this House cannot leave this matter in this state. I mentioned this matter to one of my trade union colleagues on the railway side. He said: "God knows the railway companies are not generous, but there is no railway company in Britain that would allow an employee, after 30 years' service, to leave without a pension, and if he was technically not entitled to one they would give him a compassionate pension." Here is the State, which should be a decent, if not a model employer, allowing men to go out pensionless for no other reason than the arbitrary application of the age bar which, I have demonstrated, does not fit the facts in these cases.

I want to appeal to the Chancellor. We have had a great exhibition of nationalism to-day. The Chancellor is a Scot. The Scots have a natural genius for metaphysics, but I beg the Chancellor not to prostitute the natural capacities of his race by devising philosophical justifications for the morally reprehensible. I beg him to do the obviously necessary thing here. Sooner or later it will have to be done, because I am determined I will not die before this is put right. It had better be done now ungrudgingly rather than reluctantly and unwillingly at a later stage. Finally I appeal to the House. I make it a rule not to bring to the House Civil Service matters that can be disposed of outside. If this matter could be disposed of outside I would not have brought it here, but superannuation is one of the things we are not allowed to bring to arbitration. This is the only tribunal to which the Civil Service can bring the matter. I bring it with the reminder that these men are our servants, and in the confidence that the House will not leave the position as it now stands.

Mr. Guy (Poplar, South)

Would the men affected pay back contributions into the superannuation fund for all the years of service they had rendered in order to qualify for a pension? Is a large sum of money involved?

Mr. Brown

I think my hon. Friend has in mind industrial practice. Some industrial pension schemes are contributory. The Civil Service pensions are not contributory, and no question of back instalments of contributions would arise.

6.47 p.m.

Captain Longhurst (Acton)

I should like to support the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) very shortly. I add to his massive knowledge an equally massive ignorance. So far as civil pensions are concerned I would like to read from a letter which I have received from a constituent of mine, in which he said: I was discharged from the Army in 1917, and in 1918 I gave up a permanent position in an insurance office to enter the Civil Service, having been told by the chief establishment officer of the then Aircraft Production Department that ex-Servicemen who entered the Civil Service in those days, when men were so badly needed in Government offices, would be established on a permanent basis. This promise did not materialise. He also told me he had been in the Service for 26 years and was due to retire and was to get no pension at all. Members will agree that we have very many of these very piteous cases, and perhaps we get a little hard-hearted and tend to say, "It cannot be as bad as all that. Now tell me the other side." I did this with my constituent, but I could find no other side. All his facts seem to be true. I said, "Perhaps they are unable by their own Regulations to give you any pension." But I am informed that if they want they can count service before establishment in deciding the question of whether they will give a man a pension. I said, "Well, perhaps if you get it so many people will get it that the whole national Exchequer will be swamped with people getting a pension because you have got one." I found on inquiry that the number concerned is substantially less than 1,000, I hope I am wrong, but that is what I am told. As time is short I will not continue, but in view of what I have said I hope the Financial Secretary will tell us why these men cannot have what appears to the layman to be the justice to which they are entitled.

6.50 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton)

The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) has once again raised this rather difficult case of the particular group of staff usually known as the "age-barred officers." My hon. Friend raised the matter nearly two years ago, and debated it with my predecessor, the present Postmaster-General, and he put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer quite recently on the subject. I was interested, as the House always is, to hear my hon. Friend's speech, and I was very glad to hear the contribution from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Acton (Captain Longhurst). I think I might preface my remarks by reminding the House that there is, unfortunately, a vast number of pet-Sons in this country who are employed and have no expectation of pensions, and a large number of them is in the Government service. Perhaps the House will bear that in mind. I want to deal carefully with the points made by my hon. Friends, and there is not time to go into the whole question of pensions and their payment.

The hon, Member for Rugby quoted the Chancellor's reply to his Question and to the supplementary questions which my hon. Friend put to him. The Chancellor made it quite clear that he was not prepared at this stage to reopen the decision which had been conveyed on several occasions by his predecessors, and he went on to say that he was perfectly aware that there were a number of hard cases, that he could not pretend that the arrangements in the past had been entirely satisfactory, and that he hoped that better arrangements would be made in future. My hon. Friend quoted his reply, and criticised it; but I do not see how we could possibly reopen a decision taken 20 years ago, under which 40,000 cases have already been decided, in order to deal with the very few hundred cases which now remain. These men were brought in as temporary clerks after the last war, and they have failed to secure establishment.

Mr. W. J. Brown

The number of age-barred officers in the Clerical Class was 264, and the number in the "S" class was about double that number. So far from there being 40,000 cases, there are not 800 cases involved.

Mr. Assheton

I am talking of cases dealt with in past years. I agree that only a small number is outstanding now. These men were brought in as temporary clerks after the last war, and the great majority, as my hon. Friend recognises, have, in fact, been established. Opportunities were given to them, as he told us, in the 20's to pass a series of competitions; and something like 16,000 men were established as a result of those competitions. Some of these temporary clerks either refused to sit for the competitions or failed to qualify. These must be the men we are now discussing. In 1932 arrangements were made, by agreement with the Staff Associations, for a series of annual reviews, at which temporary clerks with a minimum of four years' service could, subject to putting in 10 years' service by the age of 60, be presented for establishment. Under these arrangements, 20,000 further temporary clerks were able to secure establishment.

The trouble with the age-barred officers was the application of the rule that they must be able to put in 10 years' reckonable service by the age of 60. It is that which my hon. Friend says is hard. This particular group was not allowed to count for half the whole period of their temporary service. But this decision goes right back to the early years after the last war, when the temporary clerks who did qualify through the competitions were allowed to reckon service for pension only from the date of their establishment, that being in accordance with the Civil Service practice at the time. I am not saying what was right or wrong 20 years ago, nor whether that decision might not be considered rather more strict than any that would be likely to be taken nowadays, but that the decision on which we have worked was taken all these years ago.

The short point for this Debate is that the particular rule which has caught these men is a rule which dates from a very long time ago, and it is a rule which has applied to many thousands of staff, the majority of whom have probably now retired. It seems to me that it is quite out of the question, as a practical matter, to review the rule now.

Mr. Brown

If so, it will be impossible to review it at any time.

Mr. Assheton

I think so. All these age-barred officers must now be over 60. Many have retired, and all will be retired within a short time. Even if they stood alone, I think it would be contrary to the intention of the Superannuation Act to place them on the establishment at this later-than-eleventh hour. I must remind the House again that there are, in this country, a vast number of employees, including large numbers of industrial workers and others in the service of the Government, who have no chance of obtaining pensions at all.

I know there has been a great change in public opinion in regard to pensions, and I am very glad of it. Originally, pensions were instituted for the benefit of the employer, so that he could have a reliable and long-serving staff. Now, we are considering rather more the interests of the employee, and there has been a complete change of attitude in recent years; the whole programme of social insurance which is being put forward by the Government is intended to cover pensions. The men in question, with whom, I am quite certain, the House has every sympathy, were brought into Government service without any guarantee of permanent work and without any suggestion of pension at all, and, in view of the past history of these pensions and of the length of time the matter has been going on, I am sure the House will understand the reason why the Chancellor came to his decision.

A great many concessions have been made over the years to this particular category of temporary civil servants, and some of them, of course, are now being used by the hon. Member—and I do not complain about him for doing this—as the basis of criticism and as a way of building up his case. In future, I suggest to this House, our efforts must be severely to restrict the numbers of long-service temporaries and to control the recruitment of those who must be employed so that they can be admitted to superannuation arrangements under proper conditions. Discussions to this end will take place on the Civil Service National Whitley Council, and proposals will, I hope, in due course, be made. I am quite certain that the House will wish that matter to be pursued and will hope that it may reach a satisfactory conclusion. But I cannot conclude this Debate without reiterating what the Chancellor said at this Box the other day—that it was impossible to reopen this question, now 20 years old.

Mr. Brown

Then we must have another Chancellor.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute before Seven o'Clock.