CO885-11 — Page 512

507

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.882/11

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- | COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO |

C. 83227:31 [No. 9].

76

No. 34.

THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

(Confidential (3).)

(Received 17th September, 1931.)

[Answered by No. 36.]

MY LORD,

Queen's Cottage, Nuwara Eliya, 24th August, 1931. I HAVE the honour to invite your attention to my Confidential despatch dated 7th August, 1931,* on the subject of the refusal of the State Council to pass a supple- mentary vote of Rs. 50,000/- for passages for public servants to and from England during the current financial year. In the tenth paragraph of that despatch I indicated that the Board of Ministers had asked for an interview with me to discuss the situation created by the use of my reserve powers to pass the supplementary vote in question.

2. The Board of Ministers had an interview with me on 10th August. The Officers of State were present, but did not associate themselves with the representations made by their colleagues, for whom Mr. Jayatilaka, Vice-Chairman of the Board, acted as Spokesman. Mr. Jayatilaka told me that he and his colleagues had been taken by surprise by the attitude of the State Council in regard to the supplementary vote. They had, of course, expected opposition, but had hoped that the Council would accept a fait accompli and would not force me to use my reserve powers. He and his colleagues recognized that my action was quite unavoidable, but they felt that they were placed in a very difficult position, especially as two of their number had, in the Legislative Council, voted in favour of the proposal to grant passages once in five years instead of once in four years. They felt that it would be impossible for them to include, in the Estimates for 1931-32, provision for passages once in four years. and they asked me to support a recommendation to Your Lordship that provision for passages at the rate of one in five years should receive your approval. Mr. Jayatilaka made it clear that the proposal was of a temporary nature, and that the question would be reconsidered if and when the financial situation improved.

3. In replying to Mr. Jayatilaka I quoted your telegram of 2nd September, 1929,† (in connexion with a proposal by the Select Committee on the Budget that no provision

at all should be made for leave passages) which ran as follows:--

"Legislative Council may be informed that I should regard withdrawal of passage privileges without warning and without compensatory revision of salaries as unjustifiable impairment of conditions of service of Government Officers which You may at your should properly be resisted by use of your reserve powers. discretion indicate to the Council that drastic action of nature contemplated by Budget Committee must necessarily prejudice consideration of proposals for reform of Constitution arising from report of Special Commission and produce atmosphere unfavourable for grant of concessions tending to increase of control of administration by elected members. All other important Colonies drant similar passage concessions and withdrawal would involve insbility of Cevlon Government to obtain services of ablest and most experienced offcers,”

I also quoted the following passage in your telegram No. 117 of 12th September, 1930, in regard to the proposal, made in Select Committee on the Budget last year, to provide for passages at the rate of one in five years only:-

"Sum involved could have no material effect on financial position and impairment of existing conditions of service of Government officers can have no justification on this ground."

I said that it appeared to me clear from these telegrams what your attitude to the present proposal would be, and I felt that it was a matter for regret that your views in regard to the grant of leave passages had not already been made publicly known. As regards my own view, I expressed myself as strongly of the opinion that leave at least once in four years was an absolute necessity in the interests of the health (and conse- quently of the efficiency) of European officers, and I added that in my opinion the emoluments of European public servants (except in the case of senior bachelors, of whom there are very few, or of officers possessed of private means) are quite insuffi- cient to enable them to put by savings towards the cost of their own leave passages. • I should therefore be unable to recommend Your Lordshin to accent their proposal, ‡ C. 73362/30 [No. 7]: not printed.

* No. 32.

+ C. 63393/29 [No. 2]: not printed ·

77

but I would forward to you, with my observations, any resolution which they might pass in the matter, and I suggested that their resolution should be accompanied by an explanatory letter.

4. I have now received from the Chairman of the Board a letter of which 1 enclose a copy. The letter is signed by the Chief Secretary as Chairman of the Board, but he informed his unofficial colleagues that neither he nor his fellow Officers of State could endorse their recommendations, and that he would consider it his duty so to inform me.

5. You will observe that the letter makes no mention of the temporary nature of the proposal to alter the existing Passage scheme (vide paragraph 2 of this despatch) and that it contains a proposal to reduce the number of holiday warrants, a subject which was not mentioned by the Board of Ministers during the course of their interview with me. I propose to deal with the two questions of passages and holiday warrants separately.

6. It is noticeable that neither during the debate on the supplementary vote, nor in the course of my oral discussion with the Board of Ministers, nor in the letter from the Chairman of the Board, has any serious attempt heen made to attack the present Passage scheme on its merits. In the debate on the Budget last year the Colonial Secretary stated that it is the considered opinion of Government, with which I think few people will disagree, that in the interests of efficiency it is necessary that a European officer should have leave in England once in four years at least. serious attempt was made to controvert that opinion,

No

7. The main arguments put forward by the Board of Ministers in support of their resolution are contained in the sixth and seventh paragraphs of their letter, and may fairly be summarized as follows:-

(i) Public officers are aware that the present Passage scheme is a temporary measure and discussions in the legislature during the past years have made them fully aware of the opinions of unofficial members. An alteration of the scheme could not therefore be resisted on the ground that it was a sudden impairment of permanent conditions of service, made without due warning.

at a time

The scheme was introduced as a measure of temporary relief when prices of commodities and steamship fares were high. The cost of living and steamship fares both having fallen a modification of the scheme is justified.

(iii) The severe financial depression through which the country is passing has necessitated the cutting down of essential public services to a minimum. It is therefore not unreasonable that Government servants should suffer

a curtailment of privileges granted in more fortunate times, even at the cost of some slight hardship.

On the other hand 8. The first of these arguments is substantially correct. previous attempts to modify the Passage scheme bave met with the strongly expressed disapproval of my predecessor and of Your Lordship. Public servants are fully aware

of the attitude hitherto maintained by the Governor and the Secretary of State in this regard. There is no question that they fully expect that attitude to be maintained, and that any alteration therein would be taken as an indication that they cannot expect, under the new Constitution, the same measure of protection as they received under the old. It is not necessary for me to emphasize the serious situation that would be created were this impression to gain ground.

9.

"

As regards the second argument, it is perfectly true that the present scheme as a measure of temporary was recommended by the Salaries Commission of 1921 relief.' Those words, however, cannot be isolated from their context, and I would invite your attention to the following passage in their report (ride paragraph 51 of Sessional Paper XIX of 1921):—

"There is abundant evidence that it is exceedingly difficult for any officer of the Government, even if he is a bachelor, and still more so if he is married and has a family, to pay out of his salary, or out of any savings which it is at present possible to effect out of such salary, the extremely high fares of passages to and from Europe. It is in the interests of the Public Service that, after certain periods of work, a public officer should be able to go back to his own country for the purpose of recruiting his health, and of seeing his friends and relations. But the whole object of a visit of this kind is defeated, if it is to be preceded, accom panied, and followed by financial worry.'

23

The real question at issue is whether conditions have so altered since 1921 that the average European officer can afford, without being subjected to undue financial worry,