§
Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 38, at the end, insert
(e) Any officer who was the chief constable of a small burgh immediately before the commencement of this Act may decline to become an officer of the transferee authority, and any such officer who shall so decline shall be entitled to compensation without regard being had to any offer of employment in the police force of the transferee authority, and any such officer who shall accept office under the transferee authority shall, notwithstanding the provisions of sub-section (2) of the said section twenty-seven, hold office on such terms and conditions as that authority may determine:
(f) The reference to 'this Act' in subsection (7) of the said section twenty-seven shall be construed as a reference to Part I of this Act:
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis Amendment raises a question of Privilege.
§ Mr. SHINWELLSurely the right hon. Gentleman will not accept it.
§ Sir J. GILMOURI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is to meet the case where the transferee authority may offer employment to an officer otherwise than as a chief constable, since there will be only exceptional cases in which they can offer employment in that capacity. As 1224 the terms and conditions cannot be quite the same as those of a chief constable it is fair that the officer should have the option of retiring and receiving compensation as an alternative to accepting a subordinate position. If, however, he chooses to accept a post under the transferee authority he should be precluded from demanding thereafter that the post should be held on the same terms and conditions as his previous post, and the last part of the Subsection secures this end.
§ Mr. WESTWOODIt is unreasonable that the Government should ask the House to accept this suggestion. This House and another place have agreed to the extension of the Title of the Bill, but it seems to me that the Bill has not been extended far enough, and that we ought to have had an Amendment in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Acts so as to provide for the unemployed insured workers exactly the same right that you are now going to provide for chief constables—namely, that if they are not genuinely seeking employment they can "go on the dole." That is exactly what is proposed by this Amendment. A chief constable who, having the opportunity of employment under one of the new authorities, refuses to accept what he considers to be an inferior post will be in the position of refusing employment, but he will be entitled to claim compensation. In other words, if he can prove that he is genuinely not seeking work, but refusing work, he will be entitled to compensation. Surely it is unfair to make such a proposal at this time of day, when we are discussing the unemployment problem so frequently. Why should we accept an Amendment from the other place, compelling authorities to pay compensation to individuals who have refused work, simply because those individuals are chief constables. I hope the country will realise exactly what is being done in this connection, and will compare what is now offered to the chief constables with what has been given to the unemployed work-people.
Mr. W. M. WATSONI wish to join in protesting against any proposal of this kind being included in the Bill. I think it will be found that the general opinion outside on this matter is that, if a man has lost his position as chief constable 1225 owing to these changes, and is not prepared to accept a minor post under a larger body, he should have to choose between accepting that post and getting no compensation at all. It is amazing that we should have a proposal of this kind brought forward at this stage. I agree with the hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood) that this case is on all fours with the case of the man who refuses a job and claims unemployment benefit. I do not say that the chief constable has left work of his own accord. His job has been taken from him, but he can get another post which would give him as good or almost as good remuneration as he was receiving. Undoubtedly the county council would give to such a man a very responsible post, and give him a salary almost as good if not as good as he was receiving from the small burgh.
§ Captain FANSHAWEI learn with some amazement that hon. Members opposite are not in favour of the Unemployment Insurance Act and apparently hold the view that if a painter is offered employment at a lower rate of wages, as a farm-labourer, he ought to be bound to accept that employment, or be cut off from unemployment benefit altogether.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to discuss the Unemployment Insurance Act on this proposed Amendment.
§ Mr. WESTWOODMay I put a point?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. and gallant Member for Stirling and Clackmannan Western (Captain Fanshawe) is in possession.
§ Captain FANSHAWEI understand that I was out of order, but I wish to register my amazement at the way in which hon. Members opposite seek to turn things to their own advantage.
§ Mr. SHINWELLWe cannot discuss, on this proposed Amendment the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, but we can discuss the principle involved. The hon. and gallant Member believes that the proposal embodied in this Amendment is on all fours with the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, but that is far from being true. The proposal amounts to this: A chief constable at almost any age, and no matter what salary or what terms of superannuation allowance he is 1226 enjoying is entitled to refuse to accept employment under another authority. That is the simple issue, and, if he so refuses, he is to receive compensation. In the case of an unemployed person, if he refuses employment, his compensation is immediately suspended. I confess to sharing the amazement of my hon. friend the Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood). Not a word was said about this by the right hon. Gentleman when the Bill was passing through this House, but now he is accepting a principle which, in effect, means that the chief constables of the small burghs in Scotland can turn down any proposal that is made to them by other authorities. No one can dispute the fact that this may involve those other authorities in considerable expense, but apparently that has never occurred to the right hon. Gentleman. It clearly affects the question of the amount of superannuation allowance that has to be paid, and if there were many men on the fund, that fund would be exhausted before its proper time, so that it may throw an additional burden on the shoulders of the other local authorities, because they will be compelled to seek new chief constables and new officers of a subordinate character.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain why these chief constables of small burghs should be placed in a more favourable position than any other officer of a local authority. If an ordinary servant of a small local authority, say, a dustman, is offered employment by a county council, which is responsible for undertaking certain functions formerly operated by the small local authority, and if he refuses that employment, is he to be compensated? Not a penny piece. "Take your job, or leave it." That is the position in respect of the ordinary servant of a local authority, but to the chief constable you say, "If you do not like your job, we will give you compensation." It is an inducement to the chief constables of small burghs to refuse employment under a county council and other local authorities. Take the case of a clerk, who may have been occupied in an administrative capacity under a small local authority over a period of years, and whose services may require to be transferred to a county council or a larger burgh. If he refuses to accept that employment, he is turned down at once. 1227 All that he would receive would be his unemployment benefit, and I am not so sure that he would receive that, because if he went to an employment exchange he would be told he had no right to refuse the employment, and certainly he would have to go before a court of referees. I cannot understand why chief constables should be singled out in this fashion. They have no more virtue, so far as I know, than any other class of the community and some of the chief constables with whom I have come into association have had even less virtue than some other folk.
I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House whether he proposes to extend this very excellent proposal. If it is generally applied, it is a very fine proposal. We rather like it. It is simply the old proposal of the right to work, but it ought not to be circumscribed. It ought not to be confined in any watertight compartment; it should be applied all round. Therefore, we want to know what the right hon. Gentleman proposes in that connection. Further, at what age will chief constables be permitted to indulge in this luxury of retiring? Is there to be a limit? Is a chief constable at 45, in his maturity, to be allowed to retire with compensation and then take other employment and do someone else out of a position? That would be most unfair. We are suffering a great deal from that kind of thing, and even hon. Members opposite, I believe, are inundated by complaints from people who say that pensioners, and those drawing superannuation allowances, are always taking other jobs, to the detriment of those who are displaced. We want to know, therefore, at what age these chief constables are to be entitled to do this. Again, what are the chief constables to do when they are superannuated? Are they to enter into competition with the police officers of other authorities? If so, they will try and get better jobs, and we may find this very curious thing arising, that a chief constable who refuses to be transferred in the beginning may find himself a few years later occupying a very high post under the very local authority to which he refused originally to be transferred. There has been no defence of this proposal, and I can only assume that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that 1228 because it emerges from another place we have simply to accept it, willy nilly, and submit. I am quite satisfied that no one on this side of the House is prepared to be submissive in face of a preposterous proposal of this kind.
§ Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISONI, for one, am very glad the Government have moved to accept this Amendment, because otherwise it would be a severe hardship on chief constables of small burghs, who under the Bill will be compulsorily removed from their positions. I think the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) has forgotten that in this Bill the chief constables of those burghs absorbed in the larger areas are removed from their positions, and certainly they are entitled to compensation. Under the Bill as it left this House those chief constables were compelled, in a way, to accept a lower position under the new authority—at least, they might be compelled—and were put in a very difficult position, because they might be offered a post, say, as inspector, after having served for many years as chief constable. It is right and proper that these men, who have given years and years of faithful service, many of whom have risen from the lowest ranks in the Force, should under this reorganisation, get some such consideration as is proposed in the Lords Amendment now before the House, although this Amendment does not give everything which, I think, these men deserve. They ought to be in a position to transfer, notwithstanding the age Section in the Police Act for Scotland. In other words, when a vacancy occurs in the larger area, the more efficient and active of them might be used in the new position. However, the regulation is that over the age of 55 they cannot be so employed, and, unless that Act be altered, they cannot take the position of chief constable in the larger areas. But I do think that this Amendment does something. It protects them, so that they will not be compelled to accept a lower position than that which they have been holding in the burghs, and, at the same time, it gives them the right of compensation, which everybody who has been removed in that department deserves, and I, for one, welcome this Amendment.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURThe concern which has been shown for the prestige of the chief constable who is removed is not, I think, so tangible a question from the standpoint of those who have spoken from the Labour benches, where it is a question of doing justice by any man, whoever he may be.
§ Sir R. HUTCHISONThe chief constable is removed by this Bill.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURI realise that there are changes taking place under the Bill, but this is a provision whereby a man who has been chief constable will very likely be offered a position with an excellent status as inspector in a much more important area, it might be a wider area, in which there would be special responsibility far beyond that which he might have as chief constable in a smaller burgh, and he is enabled actually to dictate his own terms as to rejection. That, I submit, is a factor which ought to meet with the opposition of any man in this House who wishes to deal justly with all concerned. Mr. Speaker has ruled that we cannot make any particular comparison touching the Insurance Act, but I think the references that have already been made, even after the very weak response from the opposite side, brought out the anomalies of the situation. If we compare what is being done under other measures for the ordinary toiler in his every-day avocation, we find that the Government, apparently, have no consideration for them whatever. Here, on the other hand, as in other parts of this same measure, the straw shows how the wind blows. The interests here have far more influence with the Government than those about whom this side of the House is very gravely concerned. We know that those who occupy such positions are exercising very great responsibility, and no one wishes in any way to detract from the manner in which they discharge their duties.
Under the re-arrangement of the law that is taking place, certain authorities are being given under their charge smaller bodies. There you have a question of prestige where the chairman of a parish council, who in that capacity in the smaller area reckoned himself to be a personage, becomes now merely a member of a sub-committee. Many of these people have been impressed with their 1230 dignity and importance as chairmen of these public bodies, some of them having vessels named after them, or something like that, but the Government have swept all their prestige out of the way. The Government say that they are out for a great scheme for handling the affairs of Scotland in a very effective fashion; therefore all these little somebodies, whom other people might describe as nobodies, have been relegated to a small corner of a sub-committee in a large area. The position of the chief constable, however, must be conserved. There is not only his prestige, but he must be able to dictate exactly where he is to sit and how he is to stand, what his salary is to be and generally have a sweep of the decks. I say that that is a preposterous position.
§ Mr. HARDIEIf this was to apply all round, it would be quite a good principle, as has already been said, but why should we take one individual of a service? There is no provision made for the inspector, for instance. Is an inspector of police of less dignity than the chief constable? Is it not a fact that while one may hold the head position, the understudy, or anyone taking his place in the case of illness or something else, is looked upon as a man, not only of the same dignity, but with the same responsibility in whom the public can place their trust? Why, therefore, should the inspector be left out? Then there is the next man in responsibility—the sergeant of police. He is not being given this privilege, although he is in a position distinct from what is called the rank and file known as the constable. If it is right that the chief should have an opportunity of saying he is not going to take another position, why should not the inspector or sergeant be able to claim the right, in order to preserve his dignity, to leave the force and take up some other occupation? It is well known that in all these organisations the understudy man is the man who at all times is capable of taking on that class of work. The argument used on the other side applies equally to the inspector and the sergeant. After all, the removal from a position surely is not a question of dignity. For instance, I could illustrate the point by the fact that a number of people have been displaced by the remission of the Tea Duty.
1231 Then take the case of the dock labourer. He is an occasional labourer, but his service is just as great as that of preserving the peace. That individual does not know his hours of work. He does not know when he is going to be on his job. It depends whether the ship is this or that way, or whether the ship is this or that way, and yet this man has always to be in constant attendance on the chance of getting work. We must
§ look upon the general aspect of this question, and the Government must take a general view. I ask them to take into consideration what has been brought to light in the Debate, and to see if they can make this general throughout.
§ Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 119: Noes, 48.
1231| Division No. 284.] | AYES. | [12.47 p.m. |
| Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Hills, Major John Waller | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Hilton, Cecil | Sandon, Lord |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Berry, Sir George | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.) |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Hume, Sir G. H. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Broun-Lindiay, Major H. | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Knox, Sir Alfred | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Long, Major Eric | Templeton, W. P. |
| Clayton, G. C | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Lumley, L. R. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | MacIntyre, Ian | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | McLean, Major A. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Macquisten, F. A. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Margesson, Captain D. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Fanshawe, Captain G. D. | Moreing, Captain A. H. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Fermov, Lord | Morris, R. H. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Fielden, E. B. | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.) | Watts, Sir Thomas |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | Penny, Frederick George | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Frece, Sir Walter de | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Wells, S. R. |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Pilcher, G. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Power, Sir John Cecil | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Pownall, Sir Assheton | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Grotrian, H. Brent | Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Hamilton, Sir George | Radford, E. A. | Worthington-Evane, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Yerburgh. Major Robert D. T. |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir Jamas Rennell | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich) |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Ross, R. D. | |
| Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Russell, Richard (Eddisbury) | Major Sir William Cope and Sir |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Salmon, Major I. | Frederick Thomson. |
| NOES. | ||
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Kelly, W. T. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Barnes, A. | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Snell, Harry |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Lansbury, George | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Lawson, John James | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Briant, Frank | Lee, F. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Broad, F. A. | Lee, Jennie (Lanark N.) | Vlant, S. P. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lowth, T. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Compton, Joseph | MacDonald. Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Dalton, Hugh | MacLaren, Andrew | Welsh, J. C. |
| Dennison, R. | Mosley, Sir Oswald | Westwood, J. |
| Dunnico, H. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontpool) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) | Windsor, Walter |
| Hardie, George D. | Saklatvala, Shapurji | Wright, W. |
| Hayes, John Henry | Scrymgeour, E. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson. |
| Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Shinwell, E. |
§ Mr. SPEAKERA special entry will be made in the Journals of the House with respect to the question of Privilege.
§
Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 42, at the end, insert:
(h) Except where the transferee authority or in the case of a claim for compensation the compensating authority in any particular case otherwise determine, any alteration made after the twelfth day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, in the tenure or terms and conditions on which any officer held his office at that date or in the salary or remuneration payable to any officer at that date shall be deemed not to have been made unless such alteration was made in pursuance of an agreement concluded before that date or merely confers rights to superannuation under the Local Government and other Officers' Superannuation Act, 1922:
§ Sir J. GILMOURI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
A limited number of parish councils have recently increased materially the salaries of some of their principal officers. I think that it was the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) who drew my attention to this in the House. I think the House will agree that it is proper to give the transferee or compensating authority the option of taking over those officers on the basis of the remuneration at the date of the introduction of the Bill, that is, in November 1928. An exception is made under the Clause where an increase in salary since the date is in accordance with the previously agreed scale of salary, and, of course, it will be within the option of the authority to use their judgment in dealing with these matters.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 10, at the end, insert:
unless throughout the period of his service in that office he devoted the whole of his time to the duties of offices held by him under one or more local authorities:
§ Provided that where a claim for compensation is made by a person who, while employed by a local authority in an office the employment in which is ordinarily regarded as full-time employment, also held another office under a local authority and the claim is based on the loss only of the last mentioned office, account shall not be taken of service in the first mentioned office."
§ Mr. SPEAKERAs this Amendment increases the compensation, it raises a question of Privilege.
§ Sir J. GILMOURI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is similar to one made in the English Bill, and I think it is reasonable that it should be inserted to bring the Bill into accordance with the English Bill.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. SPEAKERA special entry will be made in the Journals of the House with respect to the question of Privilege.
§
Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 34, at the end, insert:
except as respects any officer employed by a parish council solely for the purposes of functions transferred to the district council.
§ Sir J. GILMOURI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
There may be cases where a man is employed by a parish council part time only in connection with duties transferred to a district council, such as looking after a recreation ground, under part IV of the Local Government Act, 1894. It is right in such a case that the district council and not the county council should take over that officer, and if they do not that they should compensate him.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 13, at the end, insert:
(4) Where any scheme under this section modifies or adapts the provisions of any Act of Parliament the scheme shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such scheme is laid before it praying that the scheme may be annulled it shall henceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or the making of a now scheme.
§ Sir J. GILMOURI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment".
This is an Amendment requiring that where a scheme of superannuation modifies the provisions of any Act of Parliament, it has to be laid before Parliament.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendment to page 12, line 26, agreed to.