MINISTRY OF SUPPLY DEPOT, EASTRIGGS (Hansard, 27 July 1953)

§ Mr. Niall Macpherson (Dumfries)
The question I want to raise tonight concerns a Mr. Stothart and a Mr. Richmond and the circumstances in which they parted company with their employers, the Ministry of Works. They were employed at the Ministry of Supply establishment at Eastriggs, a village in my constituency built up entirely during the first World War in order to meet the needs of the war at that time. During the Hitler war the Ministry of Supply, I am told, employed at that place five joiners, two bricklayers, two painters and a plumber. I am informed the actual accommodation to be maintained is much the same at the present time, except that three farm buildings were taken into use for storage of empty cases during the war.
1054 In 1942–43 the Ministry of Supply took on the two employees in question. Mr. Stothart was taken on as a joiner. He is a man who was wounded in the leg at Gallipoli. He is very lame still, and the wound still gives him trouble. At the moment he is awaiting admission to hospital for the removal of a dead bit of his limb. He belongs to the district, he has a house there, and he is aged 58. Mr. Richmond is a plumber. He is a man who was badly shell-shocked at Tobruk in 1941. He was invalided out in 1942, and taken on in 1943 at Eastriggs. He belongs to Glasgow. He was advised when he was invalided out of the Army to go and work in the country because of the state of his health.
The Ministry of Works took over the maintenance of this establishment in 1946, and the establishment was then cut down to a joiner and a plumber, Mr. Stothart and Mr. Richmond, and ultimately two labourers. I understand at the beginning of 1953 the Ministry of Works gave notice that they were going to hand 1055 over the maintenance of the establishment to outside contractors, and they gave six months' notice at that time of their intention to Mr. Stothart and Mr. Richmond and the two labourers. Three, at any rate, of them were established, and being established civil servants, of course, they were offered alternative employment elsewhere. They were to be sent to Glasgow. Mr. Richmond was to be sent back to the place which he was told to leave for his health. The odd thing is that the labourer asked to be sent to Edinburgh, his home, but he has been transferred to the Ministry of Supply at Eastriggs. The others could have been taken on by the Ministry of Supply at Eastriggs, but as labourers and not as tradesmen. The position is, of course, that both have lost their jobs because they declined to go to Glasgow. They lost also their pensions with their jobs, and they do not get compensation because they were offered these jobs in Glasgow.
I appreciate that the decision of the Ministry of Works to hand over the maintenance of the building at Eastriggs to private contractors may have been the result of a general decision, but the general decision ought not to have been applied without consideration of the special circumstances of the employees on the spot. I am informed that a man is working there whole-time doing the very job that Mr. Stothart was doing.
I seriously suggest to my hon. Friend—I have had discussions with him about the matter—that men like these two who have lost the zest of life through the service which they have given to the country, deserve special consideration. When considering future policy for Eastriggs, it would have been reasonable for the Ministry to take their special circumstances into consideration. Yet Mr. Richmond was virtually told "We recognise that you had to leave Glasgow for the good of your health, but you must go back there or leave your job without compensation." To Mr. Stothart. the Ministry said "We know that you are in no condition of health and not of an age to change your home, job and way of life, but the regulations say that you have either to take the job which is offered to you or lose the pension rights which you would have had in two or three years' time in your present job and also 1056 your rights to compensation." It is extremely hard.
I recognise that, rightly or wrongly, the Ministry have taken the step at Eastriggs and have already handed the maintenance work over to a private contractor. But the work is still there to be done by somebody. I urge my hon. Friend not to let his Ministry gain a name as a bad employer. The Ministry should set an example as a good employer. In this case, the compensation at least ought to be paid, but if the regulations preclude the payment of compensation, the right and proper course is to make an ex gratia payment. The cost to the Ministry for both men would perhaps be £500, but the Ministry would gain the advantage of a feeling among the employees that the regulations will be used not against them but in their favour and that the Ministry will do—as I am sure my hon. Friend will say—everything in its power to stretch points in such hard cases as this, giving the men who have served it well the greatest possible consideration when a difficult decision has to be made.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson)
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), discharging the duty of representative of his constituents, has raised tonight the case of these two men who were employed by the Ministry of Works at Eastriggs. I hope to be able to satisfy him that, having due regard to the amount of work to be done and the need for economy in public administration, every reasonable step was taken by my Department to give these men an opportunity of alternative employment.
My Department is responsible for the maintenance of the establishment belonging to the Ministry of Supply at Eastriggs. The amount of work to be done has been declining and for some time before the beginning of this year it was found that Mr. Stothart, the joiner, and Mr. Richmond, the plumber, and the two labourers, were not fully employed upon maintenance. In fact they were not employed more than two-thirds of the time. In the circumstances it was natural that we should look to a local contractor to undertake the responsibility for the maintenance of this establishment.
The hon. Member will realise that we have principles which have to be applied 1057 throughout the many establishments and buildings for which the Ministry of Works is responsible. Because these men were established we were under an obligation to try to give them continuous employment. If they had been unestablished industrial employees it would have been possible and natural for us merely to discharge them when, owing to the decreased amount of work, it was decided to employ a local contractor instead of direct labour. Because these two men were established industrial employees we offered them alternative employment.
The hon. Member has referred to the fact that Glasgow is a long way from Eastriggs, but that was the only place where we could offer them alternative employment. We have approached the Minister of Supply who had found employment for the two labourers, but they had no job to offer to a joiner or a plumber. They were willing to take either or both as labourers. We were able to offer them alternative employment in Glasgow, and one of the obligations which an established industrial employee undertakes in return for his increased security and right to a pension is that he will move to where the Department can give him employment.
In the case of Mr. Richmond, I understand he has now elected to go to a local authority which has employed him in the place where he lived.

§ Mr. Macpherson
That is not actually correct. He is employed by a private engineering firm as a machinist.

§ Mr. Molson
Yes. The reason I was not entirely informed about that is because we have not dismissed either of these two men. In fact, as the hon. Member has said in carefully chosen words, these men and the Ministry of Works have parted company and we have never dismissed them. They were told to report for work at Glasgow and they did not do so. As a result of representations made by my hon. Friend Mr. Stothart was granted an extension first of one week and then of a second, but he has not elected to report for work in Glasgow. I am without information as to whether he has obtained alternative employment or not.
My hon. Friend has referred to Mr. Stothart's service in the Army and to the wound he sustained at Gallipoli. I am 1058 quite sure that that information is reliable but we had heard nothing about his going into hospital until I received my hon. Friend's letter, dated 8th June, and we still are without information about it from Mr. Stothart. If it had been the case that he was just on the point of going into hospital he could have obtained sick leave for that purpose, but in fact he never made complaint to us upon the subject at all.
My hon. Friend has suggested that the Department should consider the particular cases of all their employees if ever they decide to close down an establishment. I do feel that if my hon. Friend considered what that would involve he would realise that it would make the ordinary administration of a rather large Government Department almost impossible. We are bound by the Superannuation Acts which have been passed by this House and which lay down the general principles upon which pensions are to be awarded and gratuities are payable. Gratuities are payable on three grounds; first, ill-health; secondly, abolition of office; and, thirdly, age limit. In fact these men do not come under any one of those three categories. I followed my hon. Friend's speech carefully and I think he was careful not to attempt to base his case upon any one of those three contingencies which are provided for in the Superannuation Acts.
What in effect he asked us to do was to depart from the general principles which are applied by the Superannuation Acts and which have, therefore, the authority of this House, in order to treat these particular individuals in an entirely exceptional way. When my hon. Friend referred to what the cost of paying a pension or gratuity to Mr. Stothart would be and represented it as a very small amount, I think he omitted to notice that it is really impossible for us to treat a single individual in an exceptional way without creating a precedent which must apply throughout the country. It is for that reason that the Ministry of Works is obliged to apply in the case of its own employees those general principles which are applied by all Government Departments under the direction of the Treasury in accordance with legislation passed by this House.
I can assure my hon. Friend that we made every effort to find alternative em- 1059 ployment for these two men at Eastriggs. We made representations to the Ministry of Supply and were successful in the case of the two labourers and we could have obtained employment for these two craftsmen as labourers. We could not undertake to pay a gratuity to a craftsman if he is unwilling to remove to where another job is offered. The effect of that would be to bring completely to an end mobility of labour among those employed by the State. We should find that wherever Government establishments were closed down all the employees would ask to receive a gratuity and would not move to other parts of the country where the Department was able to give them employment.
I feel that in the way we have treated these craftsmen who have worked for a number of years for the Ministry of Works, but not long enough to qualify for a pension, we have shown great consideration and done the best we can to find them alternative employment. We have no information about Mr. Stothart's illness, other than that given by my hon. Friend——

§ Mr. Macpherson
Which I trust is accepted.

§ Mr. Molson
Which indeed I accept, but we still have no confirmation from the man himself. He has made no claim for a gratuity on that basis. It is impossible for us, simply out of sympathy for these two craftsmen, to depart from the established principles.

§ Mr. Macpherson
May I ask if it is open to Mr. Stothart to make such an application for a gratuity on the grounds of ill-health?

§ Mr. Molson
I think it is extremely unlikely that he would be able to obtain it. His record shows very little absence due to sickness. What is open to him is to report to Glasgow and the extensions of one and two weeks which we have already considered as a result of the representations of my hon. Friend will be extended to re-employ him in Glasgow if he likes to re-consider his decision to remain in our employ.