§ Lords Amendment: In page 59, line 7, at the end, insert "or inefficiency."
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Sir H. Young.]
§ Sir S. CRIPPSI should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the addition of these words does not seriously diminish the rights of compensation of existing officers? As I understand the 1063 Amendment, it will be within the power of any authority who want, as a practical result of the operation of the Act, to get rid of an officer and cut down their staff, to avoid paying him compensation by saying that he is inefficient. Before, all that they could do was to say that he had misconducted himself, which is, of course, a serious charge. If merely by saying that a person is inefficient they can avoid the paying of any compensation it will very largely result in taking away the rights of compensation already given under the Clause.
Sir H. YOUNGThat is not so. The Amendment makes no difference at all to the rights of the officers concerned. An officer could not claim compensation, as I understand the general law, unless his office was determined either because his services were no longer required on reduction of staff or because his remuneration was reduced because his duties were diminished. That being so, this provision makes no difference to the ground on which he can successfully claim compensation at all. It is only put in in order to make it clear, which it is thought desirable to do, that there were other grounds upon which his services could be dispensed with without compensation in addition to sheer misconduct, in order to prevent any difficulty of interpretation such as might give rise to trouble in the law courts.