PROBATION OFFICERS AND CLERKS (SUPERANNUATION) DRAFT REGULATIONS, 1954 (Hansard, 27 July 1954)

§ LORD MANCROFT
My Lords, I beg to move that these Regulations be approved.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, the noble Lord was wise not to attempt to explain these Regulations. He made some attempt to explain the last, but I imagine that these particular Regulations are beyond even his capacity to explain. There is an explanatory note at the end of the Regulations, and I have also an explanatory memorandum which I imagine explains the note. I understand that, in due course, the Minister proposes to issue a further memorandum which will explain the memorandum, and I suppose that eventually the ordinary public may understand what this is all about. I have tried, but I found these Regulations even more difficult than the Town and Country Planning Bill which we are to discuss after the Recess—and that is saying something! However, I assume that it is all right, since those people who are to be benefited by the Regulations have accepted the proposal; and if they find it is all right, who am I to say that it is not? In this matter, we are bound to trust the Government.
There is only one point that I should like the noble Lord to explain to me. I see from these Regulations that there were two authorities who had made provision in the past for probation officers—namely, London and Manchester. They have, apparently, made provision irrespective of the Public General Acts and before those General Acts were passed. I take it that one of the purposes of these Regulations is to bring probation officers employed by those two authorities under the same provisions as are found in the general law. That is a trend which is, I must say, all to the good. It gives me the opportunity, too, of saying a word on this point to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
We are constantly passing legislation which incorporates, in many cases, private Acts, but in fact the private Acts still remain in force, with the result that the situation can be exceedingly complicated. The subject is often in a difficulty because he is subject both to the private Acts and, presumably, to the general law. I had in mind, particularly, certain regulation provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act. Where there are private Acts regulating advertisements, the advertisers are subject to the private Acts and, 125 presumably, also to the Town and Country Act; and it is for the local authority to decide under which Act they are going to proceed. That can be confusing to the ordinary subject. It is a matter which at some appropriate time I should be grateful if Her Majesty's Government would consider. However, the question which I wanted to ask in particular was: Are there any other authorities which have private Acts relating to superannuation for probation officers? If so, is it proposed that they shall be dealt with similarly? I think it is all to the good that they should be brought into the general law. I do not expect the noble Lord can give me the answer at this moment, and I do not ask him to, but if he could in due course let me know, I should be greatly obliged.

§ LORD MANCROFT
The noble Lord will probably be staggered to know that I believe I can give him the answer at once. So far as I know, there are no others than Manchester and London. The probation officers in those two places were consulted, and I understand that they are agreeable to the proposals.