REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1909–10.

§ Mr. PHILIP SNOWDEN

I should like to enter a strong protest against the way in which this Vote is treated by the Government year after year. In every Session of the present Parliament the Customs and Inland Revenue Vote has been set down for such an occasion as this, when 1483 it is known that the attendance of Members would be very small. The Customs and Inland Revenue Vote is, I think, in many respects the most important of all the Votes that come before the House. The Customs and Inland Revenue Department are responsible for the assessment and collection of something like one hundred and twenty millions of revenue every year, so that in a very real sense they are the Government of this country. I do not think that the Government in not affording us adequate time to discuss this Vote are treating the House with the courtesy to which it is entitled, and certainly I—

§ Mr. JOSEPH PEASE

The Vote was put clown, having been chosen from among all the subjects from which we invited the Opposition to select for this day. In accordance with the practice, I put it down at their request.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN

That simply spreads the responsibility but does not alter the gravamen or seriousness of the complaint. I do not relegate my responsibility as a Member of this House to the Front Opposition Bench, and I think other parts of this House have quite as much right to have their convenience considered as the convenience of Members of the Front Opposition Bench. I desire first to call attention to the remuneration of Old Age Pensions Officers, but before doing so I am reminded by seeing the Secretary to the Treasury alone representing the Department which is under consideration this afternoon, and, as has already been intimated, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be present. While I do not grudge the right hon. Gentleman the extension in view of the hard work behind hill: and in front of him, I think the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot be present this afternoon is another very strong reason why this Vote should not have been put down for consideration to-clay, because, without any disrespect to the Secretary of the Treasury, there are matters likely to be raised in the course of this discussion which are not altogether within his province. I now proceed to deal with a question that has been before the House previously and on which we were given very little satisfaction. I refer to the remuneration, or, to use the official term, the gratuity which has been given to the Pensions Officers for the work they have 1484 done in bringing into force the Old Age Pensions Act. When the Excise Officers were appointed to do this work they were informed—

§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott)

I do not think that that arises on this Vote.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN

The Board of Inland Revenue are the responsible authority for the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act, and they have had the disbursements of those gratuities.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE

The Board of Inland Revenue are not responsible for the Old Age Pensions officers. They are under Customs and Excise.

§ The CHAIRMAN

Even if they were, that question would come up under the Old Age Pensions Vote.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN

In reply to what the Secretary of the Treasury says, seeing that the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments are at present in a somewhat chaotic condition—

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE

It is only for the purpose of conveniencing the Committee that the two Votes are placed before the House. It is only the Inland Revenue Vote that is under discussion to-day. The Board of Customs and Excise are entirely separate and distinct from the Board of Inland Revenue.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN

There is another matter that you will permit me to deal with as coming under the Votes now before the House. I refer to the action of the Board of Inland Revenue in having fined certain of their officers for alleged breaches of official regulations in connection with the carrying out of the Old Age Pensions Act work. I think I would be in order in referring to that matter.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I am very sorry to interrupt any hon. Member who desires to introduce any subject, but I have to keep to the rules of order. If those officers are not under the Inland Revenue, the question cannot arise here.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN

They are—

§ Mr. SNOWDEN

We were arguing the point as to whether I was entitled to deal with the fines imposed on certain officers.

1485 I understood we were now discussing the Inland Revenue Vote. The fining of those officers is, I submit, with respect, one distinctly within the Vote now under consideration. In reply to a question which I addressed to a Minister I was told that those fines had been imposed by the Board of Inland Revenue under certain authority over them of the Board of Inland Revenue.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE

Perhaps I may explain that in 1908 the Pensions Officers were under the Board of Inland Revenue and the Excise, which was one joint Department. On 1st April, 1707, the Excise, under which the Pensions Officers acted, was transferred to the Board of Customs and taken away from the Board of Inland Revenue. The Pensions Officers are now under the Board of Customs and Excise for all purposes, and they cannot be discussed in Estimates which deal only with the Inland Revenue.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN

I think the last part of his speech is a matter for the Chairman of the Committee to decide. Even if the Joint Board was formed, did the Joint Board take over responsibility for past misdeeds?

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE

I submit you cannot discuss in the Estimates of the present year what took place on the Estimates of last year.

§ The CHAIRMAN

The question does arise, probably, on the Excise Vote, and the hon. Member must raise it under that Vote or else under the Old Age Pensions Vote. These officers being transferred from No. 2 Vote to No. 1, any question arising as regards them must be dealt with on No. 1 Vote or on the Old Age Pensions Vote. I should have thought under the Old Age Pensions Vote.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN

May I ask for your ruling, Mr. Emmott? The hon. Member says that on a Vote for the forthcoming year the action of a Department on any matter which had arisen in the previous year cannot be discussed. Is it the case that any action, which was undoubtedly purely a matter for the Board of Inland Revenue in the past year, cannot be discussed on this Vote?

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE

I submit that any action, which has taken place in the past year, cannot be put down for discussion on this Vote, if the officers concerned or Department concerned have been transferred to another Department. On the 1486 Customs and Excise Votes I shall have no objection to the hon. Member criticising the action of officers who are now transferred from the Inland Revenue to the Customs and Excise Department.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN

The hon. Member is now raising a new point. My point is that the hon. Member said a little while ago that we cannot discuss the past action of these Pensions Officers on this Vote. I want your ruling on that point, Mr. Emmott, if I may have it?

§ The CHAIRMAN

I think I must have a more concrete case put before me. I certainly do not lay down any such general ruling as that which the hon. Member for Blackburn has attributed to the Secretary to the Treasury. But from what the Secretary to the Treasury now says, these officers who were under the Inland Revenue Department are now under the Customs and Excise Department, and, therefore, the matter does not apply to the Inland Revenue Department.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN

My point is that these officers were not under the Customs and Excise Department at the time that these actions were committed. The Board of Inland Revenue alone having responsibility for what was done on that occasion, I want to indict the Board of Inland Revenue for art action which was entirely their own.

§ The CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member wants to indict the Board of Inland Revenue for matters for which they are responsible, I think it would be better to hear his case before coming to any further decision.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN

I venture to submit that this is a matter for which the present Board of Inland Revenue are alone responsible. The matter very simply put is this. In the latter part of last year the Board of Inland Revenue inflicted fines of £10 on certain Pensions Officers for an alleged breach of what they said was a general order of the Department prohibiting the servants of the Department giving any informaion to the public. The matter arose in this wise. A Service newspaper in the latter part of September—to be precise 26th September—issued a notice inviting Pensions Officers to send in the number of claims which had been made in their respective districts. Something like ten of these Pensions Officers responded to the request, and sent in to the newspaper simply the number of claims received, 1487 without any particulars whatever. The very same day that this notice appeared in "The Civilian" newspaper—it having evidently come to the knowledge of the Board of Inland Revenue—a special circular was issued, and it bore the same date as toe date of the newspaper in which the request was made. This circular drew the attention of Pensions Officers to the general order of the Board of Inland Revenue prohibiting them from giving any information to the public which might be acquired in the course of their official duties. It must have been at least four or five days before the Pensions Officers had been made aware of this circular letter, because it had, in the first instance, to go to the collectors of Inland Revenue and then to the supervisors, and then to the officers, and, in the meantime, the Pensions Officers had actually given the information to the newspaper, and it appeared in the following issue of the paper, and at once the Board of Inland Revenue, exercising what I am told is their legal right, inflicted a penalty of £10 on each of these officers. In reply to questions I put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few weeks back, he stated that these officers had communicated this information to the Press, and that they had been expressly prohibited from so doing.

§ The CHAIRMAN

Do I understand the hon. Member to say that the Inland Revenue Department inflicted these fines?

§ Mr. SNOWDEN

Yes, Sir.

§ The CHAIRMAN

Then I think the matter ought really to be discussed now, because otherwise objection might be taken, if it is brought up on another Vote, that the officials of the other Department were not responsible for the action complained of.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE

That is so.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN

Thank, you, Mr. Emmott. In reply to a supplementary question, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the offences had been committed after the attention of the Pensions Officers had been specially drawn to the prohibition, and I followed that up with a further supplementary question, asking if he was perfectly sure he was correct in that statement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was not perfectly sure, and he asked me to put a further question. I thought I would bring it up now. The Board of Inland Revenue issued that circular, dated 1488 26th September, but they did not issue the general order prohibiting this information to the Press until 22nd December It draws the attention of Pensions Officers to paragraph 57 of the Board's general instructions to supervisors and others, which lays down that:— They are not to communicate to the public Press any information derived titan official sources without the sanction of the Board. I quite agree that that is a very important rule, and I should be the very last man in the world to defend any intentional breach of a rule of that character. But these officers, in communicating this information, certainly did so innocently, and they did not think it was information which was not public property. Information, it was found, was given at ten stations altogether. Of course, the Board of inland Revenue had no difficulty in finding that Pensions Officers were stationed at each of those towns, and they were fined £10 each. At that time the Local Government Board and the Post Office were giving similar information to the Press—much more detailed information—and the heads of these Departments have never called their officials to book at all. Here I have a quotation from the "Eastern Daily Press" of 2nd January, in which the most detailed information, some afforded by an official of the Local Government Board, is given as to the pensions which had been paid to old people in the Eastern counties. The "Newcastle Chronicle" of the same date gives the exact number of the pensions granted in that city.

Now these Pensions Officers, out of salaries which are not large, have been fined £10. What makes this all the more ungracious is that this piece of despotism was inflicted at. a time when these men were working night and day in order to establish the Old Age Pensions Act upon a successful foundation. They have from those benches opposite been highly complimented on the way they have discharged that work. Repeated appeals have been made to the Board of Inland Revenue to remit these fines altogether or to reduce them. It is not only the officers directly concerned who feel very deeply aggrieved by the action of the Board of Inland Revenue, but it has caused deep and widespread indignation throughout the whole of the Revenue service. They come here in the hope of getting that justice which is denied them by the Parliamentary and Permanent Heads of the Department. That is all I want to say about that matter.

1489 There is another matter. It has reference to the issue of an Order in October last by the Board of Inland Revenue altering the conditions under which officers of the Inland Revenue may be called upon to retire from the service, Up to October 10th the superannuation of the Revenue officials had been governed by the Order issued on 18th June, 1877. That Order was not a long one. To make my point clear I would crave the indulgence of the Committee while I read a few sentences from it. The Order is signed by the then Secretary of the Board of Inland Revenue. It alludes to the Board having for some time had under consideration the policy of adopting some general regulation for retirement.

But I need not read that about the desirability of calling upon officers to retire at an early age. The point I wish to call the special attention of the Committee to is this:— That if the officer is called upon to retire at an earlier age he must have completed 40 years' service in order to entitle him to the full two-thirds of his salary as superannuation. That is repeated twice in the Order of June, 1877.

The purpose of that is this: that they are to be allowed to complete 40 years of service in order to get the full forty-sixtieths of their salary as pension. They must have the maximum salary of their class in order that they may get the maximum pension. These are the two points which I want the Committee to keep in mind, because they are both violated by the Order of last October and by the practice of the Board since that time. On 10th October last a very short Order was issued, signed by the Secretary of the Board of Inland Revenue. It reads this way:— The Board give notice that after the close of the current financial year, Excise officers of all ranks will he required to retire at the age of 61. That is to say, the age has been reduced from 65 to 61. Nothing is said in that Order about completing 40 years' service, and about reaching a maximum of salary.

The Board of Inland Revenue began to put the October Order into practice, and began to call upon officers who had completed 61 years of age to take their superannuation papers at once. That has inflicted a very great hardship in a great number of cases. The hon. Member the Secretary for the Treasury asked me a few moments back for the date of the question I put to the Chancellor of the 1490 Exchequer. I want to call his attention to a reply that he himself gave on 5th April. The matter was raised by one of the hon. Members who sits amongst the Irish Members. The Secretary of the Treasury on that occasion said:— Forty Inland Revenue officers and supervisors were retired on the 1st instant before they had completed 40 years' service. Only four of these officers had on that date served as much as 39 years and eight months, and none had served 39 years and nine months. In axing the actual retirement dates the Boards of Inland Revenue and Customs have allowed extensions not exceeding three months beyond 1st April in the case of officers 61 and over on that date, or beyond their sixty-first birthday, in the case of officers reaching 6l after the 1st April, in all cases where such extension would enable an officer to count either another year's service or another increment for pension. That—and the information from the supplementary questions I put—means this, that supposing an officer has completed 39 7–12th years' service, according to this he would be permitted to continue, whatever the age reached, for the necessary period in order to qualify for the maximum pension. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for the information he gave the House, and which he was supplied with by the officials, but the main facts of the case, as he stated, are not correct. They are altogether at variance with the actual facts. I have here a mass of papers, but I can assure the hon. Member I am not going to read them. But I have here a reply from the Secretary of the cases where officers had to take their superannuation papers and whore they have lost from three to nine months' service. Here is an officer with 39 8–12ths years' service, another with 39 5–12ths, another 39 9–12ths, another 38 6–12ths, and so on, and in some of these eases the pensions should have run to £6 or £7 a year more. These refer to one district alone. I have a list for places in England, Scotland, and Ireland.

This is a matter which is exciting a good deal of dissatisfaction through the Inland Revenue service at the present time. I am asking, and I think it is a. very reasonable request, that officers should be allowed to complete their 40 years of service. These officers entered the service on the distinct understanding that they should be allowed to complete 40 years of service. I have read the Order of 1877. in which it is specially laid down that they are not to be superannuated unless they have conformed to the conditions, namely, that they have completed 40 years of service and reached the maximum salary. I want to appeal therefore to the hon. Gentleman that the present practice of the Board of Customs and Excise in regard to this matter should be changed, 1491 and that those old men should be allowed to complete their years of service. Some of them are by no means old. I have letters here written in a fine, bold handwriting, in which they complain, and rightly complain, of being called upon to retire and accept their superannuation at a time when they are as vigorous and as clear-headed as ever they were in their lives. Therefore, unless there are very strong reasons, such as mental or physical decline and decay, I think it would be not only a good but a just thing if the Commissioners of Customs and Excise enabled these men to complete their 40 years of service. I think it is a very serious matter. These are the only two matters I wish to raise, though I have very grave doubts whether another opportunity will be given again this Session for raising these and similar matters. There is perhaps one other point upon which I should be in order in bringing to the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary. When speaking upon this Vote 12 months ago I dealt at considerable length with the question of salaries. For the past 25 years no change has ever taken place in the scale of salaries of officers of Inland Revenue, and during a great part of that time a very vigorous agitation has been going on for revision; a, similar agitation has been going on in the Customs service. I quite recognise that now that the two services are going to be amalgamated it will be impossible that there should be any piecemeal revision of salaries, but the point which I wish to bring forward is this: There is a Committee sitting, I understand, to consider the question whether the two Departments should not be amalgamated, and that Committee must of necessity take into consideration the question of salaries. The Customs and the Excise, I understand, are for the future to be interchangeable. The two services are going to be fused for all practical purposes. and therefore it would be quite impossible to maintain the disparity in the different salaries of different officers formerly attached to the Customs and those attached to the Excise.

§ The CHAIRMAN

Order, order. Surely that question does not arise. The question of Excise officers arises on Vote No. 1. The difficulty arises from the matter being in a transition stage, and will probably not recur.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN

I bow to your ruling, Sir, and I shall confine myself to the two points which I have already brought forward, and upon which I wish to ask the Financial Secretary to give me a reply. These points are the fining of the Pensions Officers and compulsory retirements of officers who have not completed their 40 years of service. I hope in regard to both of these matters the hon. Gentleman will be able to give me a satisfactory answer, and I hope that if he can he will do something to bring a little more contentment to the service, which at the present time is seething with discontent and dissatisfaction.

§ Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT

I desire as an old Civil servant to support one part of the subject which has been brought forward by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). I followed your ruling, Mr. Emmott, with great care, and I understand I am in order in discussing superannuation and compulsory retirement before the 40 years' service is completed. I had a letter this morning from one of my own constituents—an officer who entered the service in August, 1869, and was compulsorily retired in April, 1909, and therefore was only four months short of having completed his full 40 years of service.

§ The CHAIRMAN

Is this a question of an Excise officer or an Inland Revenue officer If it is a question of an Inland Revenue officer it is in order on this Vote, but if it is a question of an Excise officer that arises on Vote 1, it is, therefore, out of order on this Vote.

§ Mr. HARCOURT

It arises out of the proposed amalgamation.

§ The CHAIRMAN

Then clearly that arises on Vote 1.

§ Mr. F. A. N. NEWDEGATE

With regard to the question of compulsory retirement of officers, I desire to say that in the Constituency which I represent there is a very strong feeling in regard to this practice and about the order which has been issued making those officers retire before they have completed their 40 years of service. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) has said, and, as I think, perfectly accurately, with all due deference to the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary for the Treasury, that in 1877 the retirement age of the service was reduced to 62 years, conditionally that the officials had completed 40 years' service and that the maximum salary of their class had been reached. In 1908 the Board of Inland 1493 Revenue compelled the officials to retire at 61, because of these previous conditions. The result is that these men when they are compelled to retire are full of work and thoroughly well able to do their duty. They are only paid upon their completed service, calculated, as I Understand, at one-sixtieth of their last year's salary over a period of 40 years; that is to say, if they serve 40 years they get forty-sixtieths of the last year's salary. Let me take a concrete case. An official with a salary of £400 a year loses for life, if he has not completed the full 40 years, the sum of £6 13s. 4d. per annum, which is a matter of very considerable importance to those officers. In a few cases in which three months only require to run to complete the 40 years' service, the officers were allowed to serve the extra three months in order to get the full pension, but in one case, in which I was informed that three months and three weeks was required, the officer was not allowed, and, therefore, three months' and three weeks' less service of 40 years to this man meant that he lost for life £6 13s 4d. per annum. I venture to say that that is a hardship, and I hope the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will see that it is redressed. I assure him that a very important and influential deputation waited upon me the other day—and I am quite sure other hon. Members have had similar deputations—to report their grievances. I do not know whether I am in order in mentioning it, but there is a very strong feeling about the subsistence allowance not being adequate. By recent legislation officers are only allowed money for their food if they are eight hours away from home. Of course that goes very hard upon officers in country districts, and this same deputation represented to me that it would be only fair and just that the eight hours should be reduced to five hours. Very often an officer has to be away from home for a period of five hours, and surely he cannot be expected to go without food for that time, and in country districts it is often impossible for him to get home to his own house in order to procure refreshment. I venture to bring this fact to the attention of the hon. Gentleman. I believe I would not be in order in mentioning the very great hardships and grievances the Pensions Officers consider they are suffering under in not having been adequately remunerated for the hard work in which they were engaged when bringing the Old Age Pensions scheme into operation.

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member will not be in order in dealing with that question now.

§ Mr. NEWDEGATE

I regret that I am not able to bring this question before the Committee, but at some future stage I will try to do so. I can assure the Government there is a strong feeling that these officers have not been adequately remunerated for the immense amount of service they put in to bring into operation the one asset of the present Government.

§ Mr. F. W. VERNEY

I should like to know under what authority these fines have been imposed. I know cases where the officers had not the remotest idea that they were transgressing any rules, and what I want to know is under what authority have those fines of £10 been imposed, and whether they are fines by way of a reduction of salary7 I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will give this question a well-considered reply. I am certain it is a matter which has aroused a great deal of public interest, and it should be considered as a public matter and not in any sense as a Departmental secret. I cannot conceive anything which could be more harmless than to give to the public this information, and it is necessary that it should be given correctly by those officials who know the facts. I am sure the present Government would' be the last Government in the world to wish to conceal facts from the knowledge of the public, and even if this rule does exist, I hope it may in the near future either be relaxed or abolished, because this is a matter upon which it is important that the public should be continually informed as to the correct figures.

§ Sir H. J. S. COTTON

I wish to associate myself with the appeal which has been made to the Government by my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Snowden). Some of my Constituents are members of the Inland Revenue Department, and they have appealed to me on this question as an old member of the Civil Service. I think they were amply justified in assuming that their complaint would receive sympathetic consideration. I think this fine of £10 for communicating statistical information of general interest to the public is singularly harsh, and in the whole course of my experience as a Civil servant I can recall no parallel case. I can conceive of no turpitude or any impropriety in the action of those officials. Although I am as great a stickler for official rules and official subordination as any hon.

1495 Member of "this House, I fully recognise that harsh procedure of this kind is bound to create a disaffected service, because it is resented by all the officials in that particular Department. I can assure the hon. Member who represents the Government that there is a very strong feeling on this subject and much discontent, and for my part I must say that this feeling has my complete sympathy.

§ Mr. A. LEVY LEVER

I rise with great diffidence to press for more money from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I feel that even a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is pledged to economy and retrenchment would refrain from doing an injustice to any Department of the Civil Service. The Inland Revenue officers have a very great grievance, and the particular point I especially refer to is the one which has been raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). There is another reason why I approach this subject with diffidence, and it is because I deplore that any question of the remuneration of civil servants should enter the political arena and be discussed across the floor of the House of Commons. I hope the time is not far distant when these matters of pay, status, and treatment of civil servants will be referred to a Committee, who will be able to deal with them in an unbiassed and independent manner. The grievances of the Inland Revenue officers are so pronounced and so well founded that I have no hesitation in adding my voice to the appeal which has been -made to the Financial Secretary to the 'Treasury, and I do so because I feel that if this state of unrest is allowed to continue it must mean a less efficient, less vigorous, and less energetic execution of the duties of these officers, which must militate in the long run against the interests of the National Exchequer. The question which the hon. Member for Blackburn has raised is one upon which I should have liked to have brought forward fresh proof in testimony of what he has said. I have had a great many letters sent to me, on this subject, but not being aware that the question was coming forward to-day I have not brought them with me, and consequently I am not able to put my hands upon them at this moment. There is no disguising the fact that retirement at the age of 61 instead of 62 is causing a very great hardship, because some officers are unable to complete 40 years' service, 1496 with the result that the full superannuation grant will not be earned. In many cases this means a dislocation of their domestic arrangements, because their small means are not such as would allow them to make adequate provision for the future. I think civil servants ought to be able to look to the terms and conditions upon which they joined the service being faithfully carried out just as would be the case in any other sphere of life, and I appeal to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to take these facts into his serious consideration, and to refer to the Committee appointed to inquire into the amalgamation of the Customs and Excise Departments this question of the pay and remuneration of these officers.

§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. C. E. Hobhouse)

, who was indistinctly heard in the Gallery, was understood to say: The hon. Gentleman who initiated this debate will forgive me if I say that it was a pity that he did not give me notice of his intention to raise this question. As I have pointed out before to the Committee, the control of the Excise officers has been transferred to the Customs Department, and it is impossible at a very short notice—I think not more than 40 minutes—to get into touch with the Customs Department, which is not under discussion, and with those officials who have now the custody of the papers which relate to this Debate, and access to which will alone enable me off-hand to give a full and complete explanation of all the circumstances connected with the matters to which the hon. Gentleman has called the attention of the Committee. But I should like to draw the particular attention of the Committee to a question to which the hon. Gentleman has made reference. On 24th February last a question was put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by an Irish Member—I think by an hon. Gentleman who represented one of the Divisions of Dublin. The hon. Gentleman in his remarks indicated, and I think he desired the Committee to understand, that the officers did impart to the newspapers certain information at a time previous to attention having been drawn by the Department to the fact that the figures should be considered confidential. That is not in accordance with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to the hon. Member for Newry. My right hon. Friend pointed out that it was a serious matter from a disc), 1497 plinary point of view, because these communications were made to the Press before the second circular had reached him.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN

Was not that the occasion on which a supplementary question was put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE

Yes, there was a supplementary question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn. It was said by my right hon. Friend that the offence was committed after the officers had been informed by the authorities that they must not do what they did. My right hon. Friend, according to my recollection, told the hon. Member that if he would put down a question he would inquire into the matter. The communications were made to the Press not in anticipation of a circular, which had not reached them, but after the circular of 26th September had reached them. My right hon. Friend, in answer to the Member for Newry, said—I think the Committee should hear it— "Two circulars had been addressed to them, and the offence was committed by them immediately after the receipt of the second circular, though their attention was specifically drawn to the fact that no communications to the Press were to be made."

§ Mr. SNOWDEN

Was that the occasion on Which I put a supplementary question, and as to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed a doubt as to its accuracy?

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE

There was a supplementary question which is rather germane to our discussion. My right hon. Friend stated that "the offence was committed after the officers were informed—" Then the hon. Member asked," Is he perfectly sure he is correct? "and the reply was, "My recollection is what I have stated. If the hon. Member will put down a question I will further inquire into the matter." It is rather singular he has not put down a question after the lapse of six weeks or two months.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN

When was that?

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE

On the 5th of April. This illustrates precisely and exactly the inconvenience of the course which the hon. Gentleman has adopted. I think it would have been extremely interesting had we been able to get a statement from my right hon. Friend after his very careful examina- 1498 tion. I find that I am not in a position to give to the Committee those facts owing to the difficulties—the technical difficulties—which I have already mentioned. Passing away from the minuter aspects of the case, the facts really are, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, that the officers were well aware that fines were inflicted on the authority of the Board of Inland Revenue. They were properly and legally inflicted, and a deduction of £10 was made in consequence. It would be perfectly impossible to maintain discipline in a large force,. numbering 7,000 men, if punishments of this sort, inflicted most reluctantly and unwillingly upon a very deserving class of officers, were not in the cases of these few men—I think not more than ten or twelve altogether—who did commit a breach of discipline and confidence—were not enforced and subsequently maintained. You have to inflict either pecuniary fines or disciplinary punishment upon officers who in other respects are deserving, who are capable officers who have done capable. work for the State. It is not pleasant for the head of any Department to have to do. this, and I know it was with great reluctance that the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue proceeded, as he felt bound to do, in support of the authority of the Department of which he is the head.

§ Sir HENRY COTTON

May I ask whether there is not a standing rule that fines are not to be inflicted by the head of the Department?

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE

Not only is there no, standing rule, but the head of the Department is supreme in a matter of this sort. As I said, it was with reluctance that the-fines were inflicted, and they were inflicted. for the sake of the discipline of the Department. My right hon. Friend at the time saw no possibility of reducing or remitting the fines. The hon. Gentleman has also raised the question of the revision of salaries. As he very truly stated, the two Departments of the Customs and Excise are in course of amalgamation, and until that amalgamation is complete, and the two establishments dovetailed into each other, it is perfectly impossible in any way to announce what the salaries of individual members or even of a class shall be in the future. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend appointed a Committee, of which I am chairman, to go fully into the question, and until that Committee has reported, as I hope it will shortly, I can make no pronouncement as to the salaries 1499 which it may or may not be necessary to enforce. Then the same hon. Gentleman raised a question with regard to the retirement of Revenue officers. It is perfectly true that in June, 1877, a circular was issued saying that the age of retirement would be 62, but it has always been not merely held to be so, but actually competent for the head of a Department to retire any member of the Civil Service who is serving under his authority at any age and at any time he likes. The extreme limit of age has been fixed at 65, and 60 is the age when the Civil servant himself can claim to go on pension if he wishes; but there has always been the power in every Department, and I imagine it is exercised by great corporate bodies like the London County Council, for the head of the Department to retire members at an earlier age, and the age which the Board of Inland Revenue has fixed for present purposes is 61.

§ Mr. NEWDEGATE

Was it not specifically laid down in the Order of 1877 that these people would not be retired unless they had completed 40 years' service, and unless they had reached the maximum salary of the class to which they belonged, providing they were good and efficient officers?

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE

It must rest with the head of the Department to decide whether they are good and efficient officers, and it rests with the head of the Department to alter within the limits of 65 the age at which Civil servants may be retired if he thinks necessary. I do not say for one moment that the Order of 1877 is not as my hon. Friend has put it, but it is perfectly possible, and I think quite proper, that the terms of that Order should be varied later as that Order itself varied earlier terms. I really do not think the Committee has done full justice to the consideration shown, once the policy was accepted, to individual members of the Civil Service who were retired under the terms of that Order. The hon. Member for Blackburn did not lay quite enough stress upon the words of the Order, "Retirement after the close of the current year." The Order was issued at the beginning of October, 1708. That therefore gave the Civil servants concerned practically six months' notice. It gave them more than that. I should like to refer to the terms of my answer to a question by the hon. Member for Newry.

1500 I said, in answer to him, that in fixing the actual retirement age the Board of Inland Revenue, Customs, had allowed extensions not exceeding three months beyond the 1st April, 1701, in the case of officers of 61 years and over, so that they gave them six months' notice of the intention of retirement, and then three months' extension of time beyond that in the case of officers reaching 61 after 1st April. An officer, therefore, was able to count on for a year's service or another increment of pay as an extension of his pension. I really think, therefore, that retiring officers were given, I will not say exceptionally or unreasonably good terms, but I think they were treated very fairly, and their claims for extra pension were met very fully by the retirement Order of October. Those were the three points which were raised by the hon. Gentleman in the course of the Debate. I shall only acid one word in reply to the opening sentence of the hon. Member for Blackburn, in which he rather complained of the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. During the considerable number of years that I have been in the House I do not remember any debates on the Inland or Customs Revenue Votes in which the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was more than accidental and passing. The Debate has invariably been conducted by the Financial Secretary of the day, and the absence of my right hon. Friend is no act of intentional or even accidental discourtesy to the Committee, but the practice he has followed of being absent is a practice almost traditional.

§ Mr. PEEL

There is one point I should like to raise on the statement of the hon. Member opposite. He complained of the difficulty of dealing with the situation at the present moment because of the Papers having been sent to a different office. That may be so, but I think it is hardly satisfactory to hon. Members who wish to deal with these matters, and wish to get an answer. Will there be any other opportunity of dealing with these points? It is quite obvious that the answer of the hon. Member has not been so well informed as it would have been if he had been able to inform himself, and I should really like to know whether there will be an opportunity later of going into these two points in order that we may have some fuller statement. Let me say one word about the penalties inflicted. I am bound to say I think the case is a hard one, and I think further it is quite possible the hon. 1501 Member may have made a mistake about the dates upon which the whole question turns.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE

It really does not turn entirely upon the circulars at all. There are general instructions not relating to any one particular occasion; there are general instructions which forbid officers of the Inland Revenue communicating news which they have received from official sources either to the public or to the Press, and, quite apart from the circulars referring to this particular case, they were infringing, and they ought to have known they were infringing, not particular but general instructions when they communicated to the Press facts which came to their knowledge from official sources.

§ Mr. PEEL

I will leave for the moment this general point, because I want to deal with the more specific points raised. The lion. Member told us that the matter had not been fully represented by the lion. Member for Blackburn. He said there was one circular, whereas the hon. Member opposite said there were two circulars. There is a point to be considered there, and it turns upon the dates. There were not two circulars, but a letter and a circular. On 26th September a letter was sent not to all the officers, but to the collectors, and by them to the supervisors, who again advised the officials under them. It was at the beginning of October that this information was given to the Press, and I think the hon. Member is quite right in stating that it is possible, and in fact probable, that these instructions filtered down to the lower ranks of the Service. It is quite true also that there was a circular issued, but it was not issued till December, and could therefore have nothing to do with the communication of this matter to the Press. I think, therefore, that when the hon. Member says there are two circulars he is wrong. One was a letter and one was a circular. The circular was issued in December, two months afterwards, and could therefore have nothing whatever to do with the matter at all. There is no allegation of these officers having received money for the information they gave, although there is, of course, this general obligation resting upon them not to disclose matters of importance which come to them officially. I cannot help thinking that possibly in this case they had some cause for transgression in the fact that this information was being given in other parts of 1502 the country. It was a matter of general knowledge and interest at that time, and no one could really imagine there was any reason why the public service should suffer from information of that kind being disseminated. I rather dislike discussing here matters of discipline, but I cannot help thinking that in this case it was perhaps hard to have exacted a very full penalty of this kind for what was really a formal offence. I think perhaps the hon. Member might reconsider the fines inflicted in view of the facts I have stated, and especially as the second circular was not issued till December, two months after the offence was committed.

§ Mr. BOULTON

The hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury stated in the course of his remarks that the question of salaries would not be investigated by the Committee over which he was presiding. I desire to appeal to him to reconsider that decision. It appears to me that the present would be a very suitable time for the Committee to go into the question of the salaries of these officers. A union of these two branches of the Service is being brought about in order that more efficiency may be attained in the Department and in view of the new work which will be laid upon these officers. There is no question that a great deal of extra work is going to be given to these officials to carry out, and surely, when a union of the two branches of the Service is being effected, it is a proper time to consider the question of their salaries. I would appeal to him on this point.

§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott)

Is the hon. Member dealing with Customs and Excise, because he is not in order on this Vote in doing so?

§ Mr. BOULTON

I was only, Mr. Emmott, dealing with the point raised by the Secretary to the Treasury, when he dealt with the inquiries of the Committee over which he is presiding, and said it would not consider the salaries of the officials of the two branches of the Service. I understand that there is going to be a fusion of the two branches, and I will ask him whether he will reconsider the question and take into account the extra work which will be entailed on these officials and enlarge the scope of the inquiry so as to take evidence on this question, investigate the salaries, and make a Report.

§ Mr. W. W. RUHERFORD

I think the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the 1503 Treasury has rather misunderstood the complaint. which is made by numerous classes in the Civil Service, and which has been referred to, in the course of this Debate, with regard to orders being issued which limit their terms of service, and which, in -the case of the particular order referred to, has the effect of inflicting considerable injustice. From the point of view of a large number of Civil servants who happen to be 60 years of age, the point of the complaint is really this. They admit that undoubtedly the Department has the full right from time to time to alter the conditions of service, and to issue orders, but it is considered in the Service generally that these orders ought simply to be applicable to the new men joining the Service, and that all those who have joined the Service of the State, under a given set of conditions, are reasonably entitled to have those conditions carried out on which they joined the Service. They say that it is to late in the case of a man who has been 15 or 20 years in the Service, and who has gone into it on the footing equivalent to his not retiring before 62—it is too late to tell him when he is 57 that the terms of his service are altered, and that he must retire at 61. It is felt that in such cases it is no answer on the part of the Treasury to say: "Oh, we have got the power to retire any given individual at any time." Of course, we all know that every public Department has got servants whom they do not consider when they have passed 55 years of age to be really efficient from the point of view of health or giving way of faculties, or anything of that kind, and equally, of course, we know that they have the right to retire a man in that position. These men consider, however, that a general statement of that kind is no reply to their complaint, and they think that they suffer from very great hardship indeed if, when they join they were fully justified by the terms under which they joined, to consider that they could go on to 62, and under a subsequent. change they have to retire earlier. The substantial claim, therefore, of all branches of the Civil Service is, that when the terms are altered from time to time, the new terms should only apply to new men corning into the Service. With regard to the other point, I think the Committee will agree that for any public servant in the Inland Revenue to divulge any private information which may affect individuals with regard to their income, with regard to the abatement they are claiming, or with 1504 regard to any matters of that sort, would be fatal to such a man continuing in the Service.

It ought to be laid down in the strongest possible manner that public servants of this description must be reticent and careful, and must not be allowed to give to the public or the Press information of a private character of any sort or description touching their service. But what is this particular complaint? What is the basis upon which these men have been fined? They have been fined simply for imparting probably to reporters, who may possibly be dodging about to catch them at odd moments, and saying: "How many claimants have you had?" simply because some of them, probably in a careless moment, allowed themselves to say that they had had 180 claims, ant for furnishing figures like that I understand that these men have been fined in this extremely hard and heavy way. It is clear, at any rate, with regard to the subordinate men in the Service, that they had not received any caution. As a matter of fact, in one or two cases which have come to my knowledge, it is admitted that nothing in the nature of a letter or circular has filtered down through their superiors to these men before the information was given. There was great interest on the part of the public all over the Kingdom to know generally how this old age pensions business was getting on. People wanted to know, if the Post Office got 200 or 300 applicants, or two or three thousand applicants in particular places, and what was likely to be the general position, and for a subordinate official, who casually had that information in his custody, to allow himself to make it public, certainly was an act of indiscretion, and if he had been cautioned that general information of that sort ought not to be given, I can understand his being fined a heavy sum and made an example of, though that is really-not a class of information which makes it a very serious offence. But in this case it was a matter of general interest to know the particulars of this old age pensions scheme, and I join with those hon. Members who have appealed to the Treasury in the circumstances not to take such a harsh and extreme view of the position as to press these fines to the full extent, as they seem to have decided to do. Some of us came here to-day prepared to refer to the two Votes, as it was understood that they would have been taken together, but I understand it would be entirely out of-order to refer to the Customs.

§ The CHAIRMAN

Yes, certainly it would be out of order. I am very sorry that the two Votes are not put down, but they are not, and I cannot allow them both to be discussed.

§ Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD

As they have not been put down, I do not know whether I should be in order in appealing to the Secretary to the Treasury. Seeing that the matter would not take very long, as the discussion on the particular Vote now before the Committee is nearly at an end, I would appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury to allow the Customs Vote to be discussed, because it is included in the Orders of the Day, although it is not included in the Motion. Is there no power which would enable us to raise further questions upon that Vote to-day, because there was a general understanding in the House, although I do not suggest that any understanding has been broken—there was a general understanding that we were going to have the Customs Vote as well as the other Vote put down.

§ Mr. WEDGWOOD

I had hoped, when the Secretary to the Treasury began his reply by saying that he had not got the materials to answer the question, that we should have had a non-committal answer from him on these two points brought up by the hon. Member for Blackburn, and I am very sorry that, in spite of his not having the material, he replied by a direct negative to the appeal made from both sides of the Committee. I do think that this reply of the Treasury to the fining of these Revenue officers for imparting information to a Service paper is really most unsatisfactory.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE

I do not wish to interrupt. I do not like being interrupted myself, and I do not like to interrupt other lion. Members, but perhaps it may shorten the discussion, and shorten the speech which the hon. Member desires to make to the Committee, if I state again that I had an opportunity myself of actually consulting high officers of the Inland Revenue. and they themselves investigated cases of fines, and a high official who I had the opportunity of consulting assured me that in every case which he had investigated, and in which a fine was inflicted, the fine was not inflicted until the officer himself confessed that he had seen the second circular, and that he knew perfectly well what the instructions of the Board of Inland Revenue were, and that he should not communicate this information.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN

What was the date of the second circular?

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE

I do not think it is a question of date. It is a question of whether or not, as I understood my hon. Friend, these officers contravened instructions of which they were aware, or ignored them.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN

No; the point just now is this: What does the hon. Member mean by the second circular?

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE

If I used the words "second circular," I may have done so by inadvertence, but what I wished to convey was this, that the officers had got, before they communicated particulars, the different instructions from the Board of Inland Revenue, and in the case of the particular officers to whom I referred they admitted that they had seen the instructions of the Board of Inland Revenue; but notwithstanding those instructions, they disobeyed them, and communicated with the Press.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN

I understand the hon. entleman draws a distinction between "instruction" and "circular."

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE

No, I make no such distinction. There is no quibble about my answer.

§ Mr. PEEL

Was the second circular issued in September?

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE

I am not addressing the Committee. I only interrupted with an explanation.

§ Mr. WEDGWOOD

That interruption is exactly the point I wish to make, viz., whether these ten people who were fined for sending information to the Press were afforded any opportunity of defending themselves, because the whole dispute centres round the question of the date of the appeal by the service newspaper (26th September) for this information. On 26th September, it seems, that appeal was issued, and on the same day the circular was sent out by the Government Office asking Civil servants not to communicate the information to the Press. Anyone who has any knowledge of public offices will know that between the printing of the circular and the issue a considerable period would be allowed to elapse. It would be very unfair, therefore, if the people who received that circular first, and who were enabled by the receipt of that circular to cancel the information. 1507 which they were about to send in to this Service paper, should escape the fine, while the people who did not get the circular till later were not able to stop the information which they were sending in, and were fined. Of course, as the Secretary to the Treasury said, if these people were asked, and if they had this letter or circular which was sent out on 26th September before they sent in their information to the newspaper, then I admit that they have no case to stand upon at all. But if the circular was later than 26th September—the reminder of the universal rule—after these unfortunate ten had sent in these harmless figures, they have a very hard case, and some grace might be allowed them from the Treasury.

So far as the question of the new rule as to superannuation is concerned, surely there the issue is perfectly plain. As a rule I am entirely with the bureaucracy, and am anxious that we should retain full power to sack people whenever we want to get rid of them. But having issued that circular of 1877 stating clearly and distinctly the contract under which people in the service were to serve, namely, that they would be retired at 62, you are committing an absolute breach of contract with your servants when you make it 61.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE

I interrupt for the purpose of giving satisfaction, I hope. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) has not quoted the concluding words of the circular, which are all important. They are:— The Board reserves for future consideration the question of further reduction to 61 or 60 of the age for compulsory retirement. No change will be made without due notice being given. So the members of the Service were informed that a further reduction was Possible, and six months' notice has been given besides the further consideration of which I have already spoken.

§ Mr. WEDGWOOD

That seems to be perfectly satisfactory as long as no exceptions are made, and some people are allowed to complete their three, four, or five months, so as to complete their full service, and others are not.

§ Mr. SUMMERBELL

Like the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rutherford) I came for the purpose of discussing the Customs Vote. I do not know whether it is within the province to ask the hon. Gentleman to make a definite reply. I 1508 understand the Revenue Votes were put down by agreement with the official Opposition, but I am told that was a misunderstanding. I should like to have a definite statement as to whether that is so or not?

§ The CHAIRMAN

This has nothing to do with the Vote. Whether there is a misunderstanding or not we can only take the Votes of which effective notice has been given.

§ The PATRONAGE SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Joseph Pease)

Perhaps I might be allowed to deal with the last point to this extent. The Vote was put down at the request of the official Opposition, and I approached the Leader of the Labour party and informed him of the intention to put down the Revenue Vote. I should have been very ready to respond to any invitation from any quarter of the House to put down any other Vote second on the Order Paper, but no representation was made to me. The Revenue Votes were alone put down as they were, the only ones applied for by the official Opposition. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Peel) asks whether a further opportunity could be given to raise this question, owing to the fact that we are Debating this subject in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is really responsible for the administration which has been criticised this afternoon.

§ Mr. PEEL

I asked in consequence of what was stated by the Secretary to the Treasury that he could not get the papers and information, because they had gone to some other office, and he has not had time to get them.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE

What I said was that it would have been to the convenience of the House if the hon. Member for Blackburn had given me notice that he was going to raise the point, because then could have got the papers, which it is not easy to get at a moment's notice. I made no complaint. The hon. Gentleman is under no obligation to give notice. I thought it would be for his convenience and the convenience of the Committee had notice been given. The information, which I have been able to convey to the Committee, has, I hope, been satisfactory.

§ Mr. PEASE

In the event of there being any strong desire to raise this Question on a subsequent occasion the Government would be quite prepared on any of the allotted days to meet the wishes of the 1509 House in regard to putting down the Report stage of the Vote, and a subsequent opportunity will then be afforded of dealing with the matter more fully.

§ Mr. C. B. STUART-WORTLEY

The Government appear to be taking up a rather wooden attitude on the Question, and failing to draw some distinctions, which might properly be drawn in the various cases. The Financial Secretary tells us there is one or more cases in which the incriminated officer confesses to having done this particular thing after having had his attention specifically drawn to the fact that it was a thing he ought not to do. On the other hand, there seems to be a certain conflict of testimony as regards the other cases. It is perfectly clear that if the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue—and it is their conduct which is in dispute upon this Vote—were wrong in the facts, they ought, I think, to have made some kind of distinction between the flagrant cases on the one hand and the less flagrant cases on the other, and ought not to apply a rigid rule, in what seems to be a very severe form, with strict equality in all cases. It is very unfortunate that we do not quite know the facts, because the facts are so very material. The hon. Gentleman naturally says there is a general rule prohibiting communications to the Press. I am very glad to hear it is a general rule. The very existence of the circular rather points to the fact that the rule has fallen into desuetude. That is not probably the fault of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue at all, but it may have been the fact that hardship may have been occasioned in some of these cases if it was true that some of these officers believed that any rule there had ever been had fallen into desuetude and might be safely disregarded. It will he admitted that that would be a different case from the case of a man who in defiance of superior authority resorted to this very objectionable proceeding of communicating information to the Press. I hope there will be some future opportunity when the Financial Secretary has had an opportunity, which he has not had to-day, of making himself further acquainted with the exact sequence of events in relation to each other, without which we are debating this matter with insufficient information.

§ Mr. SUMMERBELL

After the statement of the hon. Gentleman I am more surprised than I was before. However, I rise principally to say a few words in support of the hon. Member for Blackburn in 1510 regard to this matter. I consider the statement of the Financial Secretary far from satisfactory, particularly the second statement. It may be perfectly true that these men did know in a general way that they were not to impart official information, but I think all the circumstances ought to be taken into consideration. It was a new Act, everyone was anxious for information, and information was being imparted by the post offices up and down the country. Almost in every town you could get to know the day after the number of claims that had been made at the branch offices and general post offices. In these circumstances to inflict the fine which has been inflicted is unjust and very harsh. It is not assumed for a moment by any Member of the Committee that these men imparted information in order to receive any reward. That being the case, I hope the Financial Secretary will yet give a promise to the Committee that the cases of these men shall be reconsidered. If not there is only one course to adopt, for I feel just as strongly as those who have spoken that the men have been harshly treated. The only course to adopt is to carry the matter to a Division. I do not think the Government ought to permit such a proceeding in face of all the circumstances. If the Financial Secretary cannot tell the House about the second circular, if he cannot impart the fullest knowledge to the Committee, he ought not to be so dogmatic as he is to-day, and practically state that the fines have been inflicted, that they have to remain, and that the matter will not be reconsidered by the Government. So far as I am concerned personally, I shall enter my protest in the most forcible manner I can, namely, by opposing the Vote unless a more satisfactory assurance is given by the Financial Secretary in regard to the reconsideration of the cases of these men.

§ Mr. A. J. SHERWELL

I rise for the purpose of dissociating myself from the view which has been so freely suggested on this and the other side of the House that offences of this character can lightly be disregarded by the Permanent Heads of the Departments. No one disputes the interesting character of the information which was divulged, but the only arguments put forward in defence of the officers is that the offence was a small one, and that it had relation to the information which was of general interest, and the divulgence of which could not cause very much harm. But the implicit suggestion 1511 of that argument is that the officer himself is to discriminate as between the various items of information, and that an item of information, the divulgence of which would, in his judgment, be harmless, may be divulged in open and deliberate contravention of instructions which he has received. I do not think the technical question of whether a certain instruction was a circular or was a general instruction really is of vital importance in this discussion. There is no dispute concerning the essential facts, and every officer in the Civil Service, and notably these officers, is perfectly well aware that he is exceeding his duty and privilege in divulging information of any kind, and the fact that the particular information might be divulged without causing serious public inconvenience is really not germane to the argument at all. I sincerely deprecate the position in which Members of the House are increasingly being placed by being made the mouthpieces of grievances which, in my estimation, are not proper subjects for discussion in this House. I hope sincerely that the effect of this, as of previous discussions of this character, will be to give emphasis to the suggestion that the time may shortly come when some Standing Committee or other authority may be appointed to deal with complaints of this kind, which are becoming rather offensive, and encroach considerably on the time of Members of the House. If this matter is to be carried to a Division I shall unhesitatingly support the Government.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN

The Secretary to the Treasury must be extremely grateful to the hon. Member, for he has provided him with the only grain of comfort he has received in the course of this Debate, in which nearly a score of Members have spoken in opposition to the action of the Department. It has been stated by a number of hon. Members that the whole matter centres round the date of the instructions which were given to the Pensions Officers. The Secretary to the Treasury attempted to make a point of the fact that I did not respond to the application of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put a further question as to the accuracy of a statement he made to the House. If the Secretary to the Treasury will refer to "Hansard" he will find that I spoke in this House on 1st March this year, and then I gave the dates not only of the circular, but of the subsequent general order, and the facts that I 1512 stated on that occasion were not challenged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall give to the Committee the actual facts, and I am prepared to pledge my word for their absolute accuracy in every detail. It is perfectly true that there is in the general instruction given to the officers of Inland Revenue a prohibition against giving information to the public. That is part of the general instructions governing the work of all the officers of the Department. It is the duty of every officer to be acquainted with that regulation. That I am quite prepared to admit. The 26th September was the date on which the information appeared in the Service newspaper, and that is the date of the circular letter. That general letter dated 26th September is the one in which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue called attention to the paragraph in the general instructions. It is utterly impossible that these officers could at the time they sent the information to the newspaper have been made acquainted with the contents of the circular. An officer would not get it at the very earliest until Monday morning, and, although it is dated 26th September, we do not know whether it was sent out on that date, because as a matter of fact such letters are often delayed for days before being posted to their intended destination. It would have to be sent by the supervisors in the different districts to the officers. One of the stations where an officer was fined is Loch Carron in Ross-shire. Now, it is a physical impossibility that the officer of that station could have become acquainted with the contents of the circular on 26th September. The information appeared in the Service paper in the following week, and as it goes to press on the Thursday evening, we might safely assume that it had received the information by that day. I think there is sufficient evidence to prove at least the strong possibility that no one of these officers was in possession of the information at the time of sending of the facts to the paper. May I be allowed to say that I think the information recently sent to the hon. Gentleman by some permanent official referred, not to the circular issued on 26th September, but to the request as to whether the officers were aware of the paragraph in the general instructions? I think it is of importance to take notice of this. If the Board of Inland Revenue thought the paragraph in the general instructions covered the pension work, why did they consider it necessary to issue the circular of 26th September? And if they 1513 considered that the circular of that date met the whole case, why did they consider it necessary to issue a special general order? These are points which seem to prove first that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue had doubt in their minds whether the paragraph did cover the pension work. The general order was issued on 26th September, and these are the only two circulars that have been issued. If it be desirable to have such regulations—I think we all admit that it is—why should it apply only to one part of the public service. If it is a serious thing for officers of the Inland Revenue to divulge information, is it not equally serious for the officers of the Local Government Board to do so? Is it not equally important that officers of the Post Office should not divulge information? Therefore, why are not the President of the Local Government Board and the Postmaster-General called to task for the officers of their Departments giving information to the Press? I have grave doubts as to the legality of these fines. Certainly no private employer could impose them in this way. I very much doubt whether the Board of Inland Revenue have legal power to make these deductions.

In regard to the matter which I raised with respect to the superannuation of officers of the Inland Revenue, the Committee have got no more satisfaction from the hon. Gentleman than in regard to the fines. The hon. Gentleman said that the officers called upon to take their superannuation papers had been given six months' notice. That does not meet the question which I asked. If they had been given two years' notice, it would not alter the fact that many of them are giving six, eight, or nine months' service, for which they are getting no compensation allowance at all. What I ask is that when a man has got well into the second year he should be given an opportunity of continuing that in order to add in the case of a first-class officer of Excise £4 3s. 4d. a year to the pension. I think the efficiency of the public service would not suffer if the Treasury made that slight concession. The Secretary of the Treasury drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that I had not read the last paragraph of the regulations dated 1877. I was under no necessity to read it. It does not in any way touch the crucial point in the circular, namely, that no officer is to be called upon to retire until he has completed forty years' service. I quite admit that the Board have power, 1514 under this Order, to reduce the age to 60, but they have only p