HL Deb 02 April 1924 vol 57 cc50-61

LORD MUSKERRY rose to call attention to the case of Mr. Arthur McClintock, late Irish Public Trustee, and to his treatment on retiring; and to move for a public Committee of Inquiry into his case. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope to put the case of Mr. Arthur McClintock before you very briefly, and I trust that, if I make a prima, facie case, you will support my Motion. In 1903 Mr. George Wyndham, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, pressed Mr. McClintock to take the new post of Public Trustee. Mr. McClintock at first declined, as the salary that Mr. Wyndham mentioned was only £1,500 a year. Mr. McClintock was receiving over £2,000 a year from his employment, and he therefore objected, as he would be at a considerable loss because, his age being 47, his pension would be very small. Under pressure from Mr. Wyndham, however, Mr. McClintock subsequently agreed to accept £1,200 a year, as the Treasury were not inclined to sanction £1,500 a year. He remained in that position for twenty years. Then the Free State Government came into being and, as Mr. McClintock was a loyalist and had five sons in the British Army, he was told that his services were not required. He thereupon wrote about his pension. Mr. Stanley Baldwin, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time, said that he was not pensionable, but on search being made, certain documents turned up and it was found that he was pensionable. He received a pension of £300 a year and a gratuity of £800.

Mr. McClintock's son communicated with Mr. Thomas, the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, and received the following reply:— I understand from my private secretary that you wish to see me to place before me the case of your father, Mr. Arthur McClintock, who was formerly the Public Trustee in Ireland. I have been looking very carefully into the case, and I find that it received the careful and sympathetic attention of my predecessor, the Duke of Devonshire, who took the matter up personally with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am convinced that the case has received all possible consideration, and that no further action can be taken in the matter. I have here a copy of a letter from Mr. Stanley Baldwin to the Duke of Devonshire. I will not read the whole of it, but I will read one passage that applies. It is dated March 26, 1923, and states:— While they are satisfied that Mr. McClintock was given to understand in 1903 that he was pensionable, no evidence has been produced to show that either George Wyndham, or anyone else, gave any promise that he would become entitled to an addition of years. Since then there has been received a letter from Mr. Murray Hornibrook, who was private secretary to Mr. Wyndham, in which he says:—

"Dear McCLINTOCK, The preliminary steps leading up to your appointment as Public Trustee were the subject of correspondence between George Wyndham and Chamberlain, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. This correspondence was, at the most, semi-official, and, if the letters still exist, they must be among the papers of these respective heads of Departments. I have no copies of them. The original idea was to give you £1,500 per annum. I recollect that Chamberlain demurred to this amount, and suggested a lower figure. Wyndham's reply was to the effect that it was necessary to secure a man of certain standing for a position of such importance, and that, as a person of suitable age and standing would not have many years to serve before he reached pensionable age, it would, in his opinion, be necessary to offer more generous terms, at least in the case of this first appointment. I do not remember exactly how the letter was worded, but it was to the effect that the higher rate of pay which he suggested, or, rather, the difference between the rate he suggested and that which Chamberlain proposed, might be treated in a manner similar to that which the Treasury had recently sanctioned in the case of Sir George Holmes … who was appointed rather late in life, and who was given the usual salary of £1,200, plus £300, or £1,500 in all, the extra £300 being a set-off to the smaller pension his shorter service would entitle him to upon retirement. There were several conferences after this between George Wyndham and Chamberlain, and I understood that, failing the higher rate of pay, you would receive some 'added years' to your service as compensation.

"Yours sincerely,

"MURRAY HORNIBROOK."

Mr. Stanley Baldwin, in his letter dealing with this, says:— I cannot think that there could be any justification for now giving him additional benefits, which would certainly not have been given in 1903, and which are contrary to the established practice of the Civil Service. The exceptional gratuity which you suggest that Parliament should be asked to vote would amount to over £1,600, and could only be defended on the plea that his salary of £1,200, with pension on his length of service, is inadequate remuneration for his services. In 1913 Mr. Wyndham wrote to Mr. McClintock as follows:— My dear Mr. McCLINTOCK, I am more interested than you might think to hear how you are getting on as Public Trustee. I made you a pioneer, after close consultation with all who could advise me, and notably with Lord Halsbury. Everyone felt that a Public Trustee was necessary, and you, under my auspices, became a Public Trustee. I shall never forget that you surrendered £2,000 a year of private emolument to accept £1,200 a year in this public capacity; and I feel that, after ten years of public service, your salary ought to be increased. I am equally sure that your 'sphere of influence' ought to be extended. I should rejoice to learn that the Chief Secretary had persuaded the Prime Minister to extend your sphere of influence, and pending that (if it has to be suspended) I am convinced that anyone handling £5,000,000 in a public capacity ought to have a 'rise' in salary. If Mr. Birrell or Mr. Lloyd George desire further particulars, I shall be most ready to supply them.

"Yours Sincerely,

"GEORGE WYNDHAM."

I hope that those two letters will be regarded as an answer to Mr. Stanley Baldwin's letter from which I have just quoted extracts. I beg to move.

Moved, That a Committee of Inquiry be appointed to inquire into the case of Mr. Arthur McClintock, late Irish Public Trustee, and his treatment on retiring.—(Lord Muskerry.)

THE EARL OF MAYO

My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will permit me to make a few remarks upon this Motion. Many sad and terrible matters have been discussed in this House in relation to Ireland. This is not a case of that nature. It relates to a public servant who has done his duty thoroughly and well and to the satisfaction of all who placed their trust in him. Mr. McClintock was the first Public Trustee for Ireland. He handled many millions of trustee money with discretion and probity. May I state the facts concerning his appointment? In 1903, as my noble friend has stated, Mr. George Wyndham offered Mr. McClintock the post of Public Trustee for Ireland at a salary of £1,500 per annum. Mr. Wyndham said that he wanted a man of experience and Mr. McClintock was then 47 years of age. This was an entirely new office in Ireland. The Treasury objected to a salary of £1,500 a year and, under pressure from Mr. Wyndham, Mr. McClintock accepted £l,200 a year.

Owing to a change of Government in Ireland, Mr. McClintock retired in 1923, as my noble friend has already explained to your Lordships. In February of that year Mr. Baldwin, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, wrote to our Public Trustee saying that he was not entitled to a pension at all. I am repeating what my noble friend has said. Naturally, that took Mr. McClintock somewhat by surprise. As a public servant he had done his duty well to the satisfaction of all my countrymen who had dealings with him. Subsequently, on the Treasury being reminded of a memorandum which Mr. McClintock had had read to him some years previously, a pension was granted for his actual service of twenty years. He served in Ireland for twenty years

The noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, on hearing from Mr. McClintock that on his appointment Mr. Wyndham had informed him that his age would be considered, applied for what is called ten "added years." "Added years," I believe, is a technical expression that is used by the Treasury. In refusing this application Mr. Baldwin, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, wrote to the noble Duke saying that no evidence had been produced to show that Mr. Wyndham had made any promise of an addition of years; also that the granting of an exceptional gratuity could only be defended on the plea that the salary with pension on length of service was inadequate. My noble friend Lord Muskerry has read to your Lordships a letter from Mr. George Wyndham's private secretary, Mr. Hornibrook, whom I know personally and whom I knew very well at that time. He was subsequently appointed a Stipendiary Magistrate and did his work very well. I have every reason to believe that what is written in that letter is the fact.

I want to point out that there is a precedent. Sir George Holmes's name is mentioned in that precedent. He was appointed at a late age in life and was given a salary of £1,500 a year. But Mr. McClintock accepted a salary of £1,200 a year and surely he is entitled in those circumstances, as a man of 47, who had given up £2,000;, year from his own private business, and after all the good work he has done—we all respected him over there, and I know the good work that he did—to some consideration and to something in respect of "added years."

With regard to the Committee of Inquiry, I do not suppose that the Government would reopen the case before a Committee, but after the precedent that I have adduced and the letters which your Lordships have heard read, I think that Mr. McClintock's case is one to be considered, remembering that the other man was appointed at £1,500 a year. I do not want to say anything disagreeable about his being an Irishman and not being treated in a proper way. It is not an Irish grievance at all. It is the case of a public servant who has done his duty properly, with probity, dignity and honesty, and I hope that the Government will consider that he is worthy of more consideration than has been meted out to him.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE TOR THE COLONIES (LORD ARNOLD)

My Lords, in replying to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Muskerry, and the noble Earl, Lord Mayo, I will re-state the facts of this case from the Government point of view. I will do so briefly, but I trust adequately. It is the case, as has been stated, that Mr. Arthur McClintock was appointed Public Trustee for the purpose of the Irish Purchase Acts in 1903, at a salary of £l,200 per annum. Mr. McClintock was at that time aged 47. The appointment was made by the Lord-Lieutenant on the recommendation of Mr. George Wyndham, the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was personally acquainted with him, and Mr. McClintock states, and there is no reason to doubt his statement, that Mr. Wyndham not only promised that the post, which was a new one, was to be pensionable, but also held out a hope that in assessing his pension full consideration would be given to the fact that he had entered the public service at a more advanced age than usual.

Nevertheless, although it was a most extraordinary omission on his part, no action was taken by Mr. McClintock to make known to the proper authority—namely, the Treasury—that the post was to be pensionable, nor was any attempt made to implement the suggestion that the rather advanced age at which he entered the service would be taken into consideration. If Mr. McClintock or Mr. Wyndham had at the time endeavoured to arrange for the post to be made pensionable, it is probable, though not certain, that the Treasury would have agreed. If, however, at that time, or at any time subsequent to 1903, they had endeavoured to have the post declared a professional office under the Superannuation Act, 1859, so that years—and this is the point of the noble Earl who spoke last—might have been added for the purpose of reckoning pension it is quite certain—and I must emphasise this point—that the Treasury would have refused. They would have had to refuse. There can be no doubt whatever about this, because for some considerable time prior to Mr. McClintock's appointment the Treasury had, as was well known throughout the Civil Service, and as had been announced in Parliament, discontinued, as the result of a Report of a Royal Commission, the practice of adding years for pension purposes in the case of new offices. It is not possible, therefore, that Mr. Wyndham could have succeeded if he had endeavoured to make such an arrangement.

But in fact, as I have said, no effort was made by any one to take the neces- sary steps even to render the office pensionable; and as he was serving in a non-pensionable capacity, Mr. McClintock was not subject to the rule requiring established civil servants to retire at the age of sixty-five. He served on until 1923, when he was aged sixty-seven, and then apparently for the first time discovered that he really had no right to a pension at all. I say it is an extraordinary circumstance that Mr. McClintock, a man experienced in affairs, had apparently for nearly twenty years never taken the slightest trouble to inquire how he really stood about his pension, and even when he reached the age of sixty-five, which he must have known was the retiring age limit if he was a pensionable civil servant, he still did not inquire about his pension. He remained in his post until he was sixty-seven, and it was only in 1922—that is, the year before he retired—that he raised the matter formally with the authorities.

Mr. McClintock did, at this very late hour, make representations in the matter, and explained fully to the noble Duke who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies the circumstances of his appointment. My noble friend went into the matter very fully, and he put the whole details before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As a result, the Treasury took what after so long a time I believe to be an unprecedented step. Two or three days before Mr. McClintock's retirement, they gazetted the office of Public Trustee, Ireland, as a pensionable office and issued a Civil Service certificate to Mr. McClintock, whereby the whole of his service, including the two years he had served after the age of 65, was made pensionable, and he became entitled to a pension of £340 per annum and a lumpsum payment of £827. This action on the part of the Treasury was, of course, legally within their discretion; but I believe I am right in saying that it was the widest stretch of that discretion which has ever been made.

Nevertheless, it is urged that "added years" ought to have been allowed to Mr. McClintock under the Act of 1859. I have explained why that was impossible; and in the face of that explanation I do not think any reasonable person could press such a claim. The fact is that Mr. McClintock has been awarded, and is in possession of, the highest pension to which he could in any circumstances become entitled. In those circumstances the Government cannot really agree to the appointment of a Committee. I think your Lordships will agree that the case of a civil servant who has been dealt with as considerately—I think I may say as considerately—as Mr. McClintock does not call for a Committee. Those are the facts of this case as decided by the late Government, and to that decision the present Government adheres. I submit with confidence that in this matter Mr. McClintock, in all the circumstances, has been treated with great consideration.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, I rather hesitate to intervene for a very few moments, and I would not do so were I not convinced that there is a strong prima facie case for re-opening this question, and further considering Mr. McClintock's claim. What are the facts admitted by the noble Lord? He began by telling us that Mr. George Wyndham, when he was Chief Secretary and when Mr. McClintock, at his request, took this office of Public Trustee, definitely promised him that he should have a pension. That is not denied. Secondly, he further promised him that full consideration would be given to the fact that Mr. McClintock took his post at an advanced age; in other words, that that should be taken into consideration when the amount of pension was to be considered. I ask your Lordships: Would any public servant having received that solemn promise from Mr. George Wyndham, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, have had any doubt whatever that the Government of the day, whatever Government it was, would give effect to the promise of the Chief Secretary?

The noble Lord makes some comment upon the fact that Mr. McClintock did not go to some office in Dublin or elsewhere, and get some formal official recognition of Mr. George Wyndham's promise. Speaking for myself, and I have no doubt for most of your Lordships, I would say that if you had had a definite promise from the Chief Secretary that such and such would be the case you would be content with it. I should have felt myself acting somewhat meanly if I had said: "I do not value the Chief Secretary's promise. I shall go to some office and get it officially confirmed." Mr. McClintock did what I think most honourable men would have done. He treated Mr. George Wyndham's promise as binding upon that Government, and any future Government. I beg the Government to give effect to the solemn promise made to a State official by a Cabinet Minister to whom the Government of Ireland was entrusted at that time. That promise was made and acted upon—do not let us forget that—by Mr. McClintock, because on the faith of this promise he gave up his post of £2,000 a year and accepted £1,200 a year for the rest of his official life.

It would really be an astonishing thing if the present Government should say to Mr. McClintock: "You had no business to trust Mr. George Wyndham; you ought not to have taken his word; you ought to have got some official confirmation. Although you have acted for twenty years at what is admittedly a far lower salary than you would have been getting had you not taken that, post and not believed Mr. Wyndham—although you have done all that, you will get nothing." May I add this? It may be said, and I think quite truly, that Mr. Baldwin decided this matter on the material before him, I think it was in March, 1923. Mr. Baldwin decided that he should have a pension, but he also decided that no years should be added to his service for the purpose of calculating the pension; he was to get but the bare pension to which his years of service entitled him.

If no new facts had come to light since that decision no one would ask the Government to reopen the case. But what are the new facts in the case? They are these. At that time Mr. Baldwin did not know that Mr. Wyndham had, in effect, promised that these years of service should be added. That is one thing Mr. Baldwin did not know. On the contrary, Mr. Baldwin said: no evidence has been produced to show that either George Wyndham or any one else gave any promise that he would become entitled to an addition of years. The second thing Mr. Baldwin said was that the grant of exceptional gratuity "could only be defended on the plea that his salary of £1,200 with pension on his length of service is inadequate.".On both these points additional evidence has come to light. There is the letter of Mr. Horni- brook, who was private secretary to Mr. Wyndham, and intimately acquainted with all that happened. Mr. Hornibrook says: There were several conferences after this between George Wyndham and Chamberlain, and I understood that failing the higher rate of pay, you would receive some 'added years' to your service as compensation. That is a new fact.

There is also another new fact now before us. In the earlier part of his letter Mr. Hornibrook says that:— as a person of suitable age and standing would not have many years to serve before he reached pensionable age, it would, in his opinion, be necessary to offer more generous terms. Having regard to these vitally important facts which were not before Mr. Baldwin, I hope the Government will reconsider their decision. It is quite obvious from Mr. Baldwin's letter that had he had this further evidence before him he would have reconsidered it, and I therefore ask the Government to do what I think Mr. Baldwin would have done if he were in office now, either to reconsider it or to appoint a Committee to look into the matter.

LORD ARNOLD

My Lords, I was loath to interrupt the noble Lord before, but may I point out that the promise of Mr. Wyndham, so far as it was a promise, related to the office being pensionable? The noble Lord began by stating that as regards the question of the "added years" it was a point which Mr. Wyndham had stated would receive full consideration. I wish to read the facts so far as they can be unearthed from official documents. Mr. McClintock admits, in a letter which he signed in March of last year, that in 1903 there was read to him a minute by the Under-Secretary of Dublin Castle, the effect of which was that the Dublin Castle authorities considered him pensionable, but that it was open to him to apply to the Treasury for a declaration to that effect. He did not apply, and be it noted that in this minute there was not the slightest suggestion of any "added years" being taken into account in reckoning his pension. These matters relate to conversations which took place a great" many years ago. Let us be as precise as we can. The promise Mr. Wyndham made has been kept to the full, because Mr. McClintock is, so far as pension is concerned, getting the fullest pension to which he would under any given circumstances be entitled. In fact, two additional years were added because he remained in the service until he was 67.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

My Lords, after the statement made by the Under-Secretary I confess that if my noble friends desire to press this case they will find themselves in a position of great difficulty. I was in office myself at the time when the memorandum which has been mentioned was adopted by the Treasury. The question of "added years" for service is one which has been debated over and over again. Personally, I think there is a great deal to be said for inducing men to join the public service who cannot afford to do so unless their earlier years of service elsewhere are taken into account. No doubt, there was great disappointment on the part of public officials at the action of the Treasury, but I never came across a case in which, on the ipsi dixit of a Minister, a gentleman takes up an appointment with the pious hope that this concession will be made and then comes forward twenty years afterwards and complains that there has been a breach of faith. I think, on the showing of the Under-Secretary, that it is difficult to make out a case for attempting to do now what the Treasury determined should cease twenty years ago.

Apart from that, my noble friend, Lord Danesfort, has not given sufficient weight to the fact that this gentleman himself continued in office beyond the period at which officials who retire on pension under Civil Service rules must retire, and to assume that he was remaining under the belief that he was still carrying out a pensionable service is straining the natural interpretation of the relation of public officials with their chiefs. We should all regret that any promise made by Mr. George Wyndham should not have been carried into effect, and still more that a public official of eminence should be the sufferer, but I do suggest that we have scores of the most heartrending cases connected with Ireland to press on the attention and sympathy of the Government and to select a case on which it would be impossible for most of us to give them our support is, I think, a mistake. The whole of the circumstances in this case were carefully considered by the Government which has just gone out of office and of which the noble Duke was a member. They gave their decision, and to ask this Government to overrule it seems to me to be straining the interpretation which we ought to put on the rights of public officials.

LORD MUSKERRY

My Lords, may I say that Mr. McClintock told me that when he accepted £1,200 a year it was because he was given an assurance that ten years would be added to his service? May I also point out that Mr. McClintock did not retire? He was retired, and I presume that under the regulations he could have gone on until he had done thirty years' service when he would have been entitled to the full pension.

LORD ARNOLD

If the noble Lord asks me that question, the answer is that in the Civil Service he would have to retire at 65—nobody is allowed to go on beyond that age—and the pension would be reckoned up to the age of 65.

LORD MUSKERRY

But I think the noble Lord stated that he was not liable to that. By leave of the House, I beg to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.