[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."' EIR,—Once or twice
in the past I have had occasion to ask your permission to correct mistaken statements by your correspond- ents on the question of Civil Service salaries. Your current " News of the Week " contains two very misleading passages, for which, in my view, the Government spokesmen in last week's debate in the House of Commons are to blame, since, as often before, they allowed the wild statements of certain members to pass without correction. You say that Mr. Hilton Young " had to admit that Civil Servants received propor- tionately higher pensions than naval officers," and later that " Colonel Ward pointed out that soldiers' and sailors' pensions are on a basis of only 20 per cent. above the pre-War level." I cannot discover from Hansard that Mr. Hilton Young made any such admission, but, if he did, he admitted something which is quite untrue. He did, however, say that during the six months when the bonus reached its peak—and for this brief space only—the increase in Civil Servants' pensions over their pre-War value was approximately the same as in the case of naval officers' pensions. Perhaps I can best demonstrate the real position by taking the concrete case of a Civil Servant on a pre-War salary of £800, the actual figure as to which Sir Donald Maclean tripped up, and so lamentably misled the House by asserting that the pension would be larger than the pre-War salary—hint ills; lacrimcel A pre-War Civil Service salary of £800 now carries a bonus of £293; the pension of a Civil Servant on this remuneration, retiring at age 63, would be approximately 4510, or 271 per cent. more than the pre- War pension of £400. This is a maximum, and as compulsory retirement at 60 is the general rule, the pension would ordinarily be nearer £470. In addition the pensioner would be entitled to a gratuity under the rules of the Service.
What of the naval officer? £800 was the pre-War consolidated rate of pay of a junior captain at the Admiralty; he draws to-day about £1,420 against the Civil Servant's £1,093. The maximum pension of a naval captain was £600 before the War;
it is to-day £900, an increase of 50 per cent. Further, whilst the Civil Servant cannot retire before age GO without a medical. certificate, if he were compelled by ill-health to leave the service at the age of 45 his pension would be only £280, the naval captain can retire of his own volition at 45, and his pension would bo £562, or more than double that of the Civil Servant, despite the fact that their pre-War rates of remunera- tion were identical. Let it not be forgotten that all the extra- vagant (P) Civil Service pensions I have quoted are those which would have been payable under the scheme which the Govern- ment have been compelled to withdraw! It is the same through all ranks and grades of the Services. The higher division of the Civil Service has, indeed, in the words of the Third Report of the Geddes Committee, "fared worse than their contem- poraries in the fighting Services," whether in respect of increases over their respective emoluments in 1914 or the inclu- sive total remuneration which they now draw. I will not weary your readers with further examples, but will refer them to pages 149 and 156-157 of this report (Cmd. 1589), -where they can read an impartial statement of the facts. The Committee have, however, been misled on one point. They give the number of naval officers receiving £2,000 or over as 46; in point of fact, the number of officers in the Navy receiving emoluments in cash or kind on this scale is nearer 60 than 50.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
