HC Deb 29 July 1908 vol 193 cc1629-31

Considered in Committee.

In the Committee.

Clause 1:—

MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University) moved to leave out words with respect to dismissal for misconduct. He did so on the ground that they were contrary to the present law in the matter. What the law said now was that when a person was dismissed for misconduct the specific acts of misconduct need not be stated by the employer. He thought it was desirable that the law should remain as it was, but under this clause the obligation was placed on the person dismissing to give a statement of the grounds of dismissal, and if that was not done the dismissed person might have a ground of action. That would create bad blood between employer and employed, and it would be unjust to the employer. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment.

The PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,) Dewsbury)

said he had told the hon. and learned Gentleman that the last portion of the subsection was inserted as the result of an agreement between the various parties concerned. There must be a clear understanding on that point.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:—

MR. RAWLINSON moved to leave out "April," and insert "September." As the Bill stood at present it would come into operation at a retrospective date. That form of legislation was obviously open to many disadvantages, and if allowed in this Bill it might be used as a precedent. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 4, to leave out the word 'April' and insert the word, 'September.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'April' stand part of the clause."

MR. RUNCIMAN

said that the words used in the clause were taken from an Act passed in 1906, to remove doubts as to the powers and duties of justices under the Licensing Act of 1904. He would suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman to insert "July" instead of "September," as that was the date at which the Bill had been introduced in the House of Lords.

MR. RAWLINSON

said that the Act referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was an explanatory Act, which kind of Act was invariably made retrospective as it merely declared what the law was. But this Bill did not explain the rights, of parties but would create new rights on the part of assistant masters of endowed schools by saying that they were not to be dismissed except with the consent of all parties. There was no precedent for retrospective legislation in Bills of this kind, which altered the right of parties, which had been acquired in the Law Courts. He pressed very strongly that the right hon. Gentleman should not allow this precedent, which might be disastrous not only in this case, but in many other cases of great importance, to come into this kind of legislation.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)

said that this was not an explanatory measure. The object of the Bill was to get rid of a difficulty that had arisen with regard to the position of the assistant teachers of the endowed schools, in consequence of the wording of the Endowed Schools Act of 1869. No doubt when the agreement was come to between the parties concerned it was expected that this Bill would have come into force earlier, and they chose the commencement of the financial year as the nearest Parliamentary date that occurred to them. The date, however, of April 1st had long since passed, and he contended that retrospective legislation was not desirable unless for some exceptional purpose. If they said the date should be "the date of the passing of this Act," the whole difficulty would be got over.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

thought that if the date was made the 1st of August the difficulty would disappear.

MR. RUNCIMAN

suggested that the hon. Gentleman should act on the advice of his hon. friend.

*SIR WILLIAM ANSON

pointed out that the Amendment was to leave out "April" and insert "the date of the passing of this Act."

THE CHAIRMAN

We have now got a little further than that. The Question is that the word "April" stand part of the clause.

Question put and negatived.