CLAUSE 5.—(Compensation to displaced officers.) (Hansard, 13 June 1944)

§ Mr. Petherick
I beg to move, in page 3, line 31, to leave out "that authority," and to insert "the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries."
We are now dealing with the question of compensation, for those officers who are displaced by the somewhat arbitrary action of the Minister of Agriculture in bringing in this Bill. What the Minister is saying, in effect, to the local authorities is, "We are going to take over a number of your functions, and as a consequence we shall also be taking over a good many of your officers, and if any of them are displaced they will have, and ought to have, the right of compensation, but we are not going to pay it; we expect you to pay it." It is the same as saying, "We cut off your ear and we expect you to pay the doctor's bill." I would like to know what argument there can possibly be in favour of making local authorities pay compensation for those officers whose duties are taken over by the Ministry of Agriculture. There are a number of precedents in which the central authority have taken over the functions of local authorities. We have only to look at Clause 92 of the present Education Bill, which provides that officers whose functions are taken over by the county council from a district council are to be compensated, not by the district council, but by the county council. On that analogy it should be right for the Minister of Agriculture, with Treasury money, to pay any compensation for loss of office to those officers whose 1927 functions are taken over by him. There is another case in the First Schedule to the Education Bill, where the functions of council officers are transferred to a joint board, and the officers are compensated by that joint board. There is no suggestion in existing legislation, where local government officers are displaced by a central authority, that the officers are compensated by the surrendering body. Therefore the Government should show cause for this extraordinary Clause, which says that local authorities, having been forced to surrender their functions and their officers, are obliged to compensate the officers.

§ Mr. G. Griffiths
I support the Amendment and hope that the Minister will give consideration to it. He has given consideration to Clause 1, but I know that a few Members have not faith in his word about the committees he will set up. I plead with the Minister to look at this matter again because there is a double-barrelled gun here. The Clause contains the words: suffers any pecuniary loss by reason of the determination of his appointment or a diminution of his emolument. What does the Minister mean by "determination of his appointment"? When the Ministry takes over this inspection from the local authorities, a man may lose his job or a certain amount of his job so that his salary is reduced. I do not know how the Minister will explain this Clause. I guarantee that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell me that it will do a chap a good turn.
Here is a man who loses his job because the Minister is bringing in a new Measure. The Minister is putting this payment in as superannuation, but it is really compensation for loss of work. The Ministry say to the local authority: "Although we are depriving him of his employment, you must pay for it, despite the fact that we are sacking him." I do not think that is right. If a man is losing his job because the Minister is putting fresh legislation on to the Statute Book, it is the Government and not the local authority who should recompense him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Some of my colleagues are asking me to listen to the applause, but I am not worried about the applause from the other side. I am worried about the injustice done to an individual.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
It is injustice also to the local authorities.

§ Mr. Griffiths
I know it is, because they have to compensate, but it is unjust also if the person loses his job altogether. The local authorities have sufficient burdens on their shoulders at present without the burden of compensation in consequence of the Government taking over some of their functions. The Minister of Agriculture has just come back. I know he has had to have a cup of tea, but I hope he instructed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to say: "The hon. Member for Hemsworth is correct. Our legal advisers overlooked this point. We shall take it back and put in what the hon.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh)
The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment referred to the compensation payable to persons who have been taken over by the Ministry of Agriculture, and said that it ought to be paid by the Ministry. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) also thought that that was the case. We shall deal later on with cases of superannuation where persons may be taken over; here we are dealing with oases where—if ever they arise—there is no more work for a man because of the change that has taken place. The same position has arisen in other Acts, for example in the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934.

§ Mr. Petherick
Perhaps the hon. Lady will explain where I have gone wrong in reading this Clause. It says: For the purposes of this section, an officer or servant … shall be deemed, unless the contrary is shown, to have suffered direct pecuniary loss by reason of the determination of his appointment or the diminution of his emoluments in consequence of the passing of this Act. How can he suffer diminution of his emolument unless he is taken over? If he is not taken over, he loses his job. Does it not imply that he is, in fact, taken over? Otherwise he could not suffer diminution.

§ Miss Horsbrugh
I think I can make the point clear. There might be cases where men were doing extra work for the local authorities and being paid for it, but that extra work has now gone. This is the case of a person who has 1929 either lost his work with the local authority or has had his work reduced because of this new legislation. This has happened before: in the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, under which outdoor relief ceased to be payable by public assistance authorities to certain classes of person; in the Trunk Roads Act, 1936, under which the Minister of Transport became the highway authority for certain roads; in the Agriculture Act, 1937, under which a national service of veterinary inspectors was established; and in the Old Age and Widows' Pension Act, 1940, which instituted supplementary old age pensions and made it unlawful for a public assistance authority to give outdoor relief to persons in receipt of old age pensions. Those are all cases where, new legislation having been introduced, officials of local authorities have less work to do because work which had been done by those authorities is now being done by other authorities. The staffs of some authorities were greatly reduced because of the Old Age and Widows' Pension Act, and so Section 17 of the Act made provision for compensation of the officers of those authorities in exactly the same way as we are suggesting in the Bill.
The Amendment relates to those who have either become redundant, of which I think there will be very few, or those whose work has been reduced, and hon. Members have asked why local authorities should pay the compensation. The local authority is going to pay less because certain burdens are being taken off them. They are not to do this work of supervision and they will, at any rate, pay less. It would, therefore, fall to them to pay compensation to any of their servants whom they do not employ, in exactly the same way as was done in the cases which I have cited. If there is a case where someone becomes redundant and is not taken over, or whom they do not employ, it is for the local authority to pay the compensation. In many cases there will not be redundant officers. The difficulty will be rather a shortage than a redundancy.

§ Sir E. Grigg
I hope that my hon. Friend will not cling to the argument that this is just because it has been done before. Many unjust things have been done before. Certain duties are being taken over from the local authorities and certain men are to be thrown out of their 1930 jobs or part of their jobs. The suggestion is that the compensation for that loss of work, which is entirely due to the Government of which my hon. Friend is a Member, should be paid by the local authority. That seems to me to be extremely unfair. The action is taken by Whitehall; the compensation should be paid by Whitehall. And may I tell the hon. Lady that it seems to me clear and definite that the fact that this particular injustice has been committed before, only makes me very ashamed that it has been committed before? When injustice occurs, let us put an end to it at some time or other. It is one of the things for which we are here. There is another reason. Local authorities dealing with old servants, finding that they must employ them or give them pensions for doing nothing, are bound to be in the difficult position of saying, "Let us find a job for them to do." It is the very worst way of dealing with this kind of question. They will try one subterfuge after another to compensate people suffering, not through their actions but entirely through the action of the central Government. It seems to me, with great respect, that she has not made a case which the Committee can easily accept. Surely this House can sometimes go back on precedent. The fact that there is a precedent, does not prove it is right. I appeal to the party opposite. I do not want to make a partisan thing of it, but the fact that it has been done for a long time, does not prove that it is right. That is the case I am making. Let us make a new start some time. I suggest that the time to make a new start with this particular injustice is now.

§ Earl Winterton
So far from agreeing with the hon. Gentleman, I do not think he has made out a case at all. I ask him and his associates to answer the points that I shall put to the Committee. If he wishes to take exception to my use of the word "associates" I am prepared to give way.

§ Sir E. Grigg
I have no objection to the way my Noble Friend refers to me or my hon. Friends, though hon. Friends is a more common term in this House.

§ Earl Winterton
I will certainly say his hon. Friends. I am anxious not to excite him; I am anxious to calm him. I am putting to him, humble individual as I am, worm as I stand, my argument. I 1931 will put it, I hope, with courtesy as high as that of my hon. Friend. He made an attack on the Parliamentary Secretary, and I am entitled to defend her. He said that she made out no case at all. I suggest that she made out a case. The first point she put was that we had done this constantly in the past. My hon. Friend very properly said that because a thing had been done in the past was no reason why it should be done again. I agree, unless the reason it was done in the past was a sound and a valid reason. I suggest it was a very sound and valid reason. What has been done in the past, and what is being done in this Clause, is this: The Government have asked the Committee to say that where a person loses his or her job, and suffers diminution of salary, that person shall be compensated. Unless there is something in the Bill to that effect it would be open to any local authority to get rid of their servants without any compensation. How else could it be done?

§ Mr. Petherick
The Noble Lord says that there shall be compensation by the local authority—not merely that they shall be compensated but that they shall be compensated by the local authority.

§ Earl Winterton
I have had some experience of opposing a Bill and I hope the hon. Member will allow me to put my case. I was dealing with the question of compensation. I ask for an answer. I say that unless this is put into the Bill it is an injustice to these employees. Otherwise the local authority would have the right to get rid of an employee without compensation.

§ Mr. Petherick
The answer is, who pays?

§ Earl Winterton
I will deal with that point. The opponents of the Bill having agreed with the Government and myself that these people must be compensated, the argument used by the Parliamentary Secretary seems to me a perfectly sound one, though I am open to conviction. The only reason I rose was because my hon. Friend said that the hon. Lady has made out no case. In regard to the local authority and as to who should pay, I say that it is fair the local authority should pay for this reason; because, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, the local authority, as a result of this Bill, will be 1932 relieved of paying a very considerable sum of money.

§ Mr. G. Griffiths
Who said so?

§ Earl Winterton
Does anybody deny that?

§ Sir E. Grigg
The Noble Lord keeps on shouting questions at me. I would rather hear the whole of his case and then reply to his questions.

§ Mr. G. Griffiths
I deny it. I want to ask the Noble Lord who is the cause of the determination.

§ Earl Winterton
We are not dealing with the question of determination. Let us introduce a little logic into the discussion. I ask any hon. Gentleman to get up afterwards and deny this proposition; I put it in the simplest, and I hope in the clearest, form. Local authorities are to be relieved of a very considerable expense under this Bill, very large expense indeed. Is that denied?

§ Mr. Colegate
Of course it is denied. There is not necessarily a very large saving. It entirely depends on the local authority and the number of people they employ. It might not necessarily be a large saving if a local authority has its functions diminished. It is largely a question of the number of officials and the amount of compensation.

§ Earl Winterton
Obviously if employees are not to be dismissed the Clause does not arise. I say, and I challenge anyone to deny, that in all cases where they have to dispense with the services of their employees, it means that they will be saved expense in the future because they will no longer have to pay that expense. [Interruption.] An hon. Member may say it is quite a different story, but it is the case I put to the Committee. If he would be less vociferous, I would ask him to answer this question. Does he deny that the only way in which the Bill can operate is in the case where a local authority will be saved expense in the future because they have lost employees?

§ Lieut.-Colonel Dower
I am going to take up the Noble Lord. He is coming here rather late in the day—

§ Earl Winterton
No, I have been here all day and listened to all the speeches.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Dower
Has the Noble Lord taken into consideration the expense of these new proposals the Minister is making? How do we know, for example, how these county committees are to be paid for?

§ Earl Winterton
I should not be in Order to discuss that now. I am dealing with a specific point. In respect of this item I again challenge opponents of the Bill to deny it; there must be a saving to the local authority if this portion of the Clause operates.

§ Sir E. Grigg
We are in an unusual position in this Debate: we are dealing with two Government Front Benches. They do not say exactly the same thing. I congratulate the Noble Lord on the new position he takes up. He does it with great effect and great eloquence.

§ Earl Winterton
Does my hon. Friend suggest that no one has a right to put a counter case to him? Is one necessarily a member of the Government if one does not agree with his massive intelligence?

§ Sir E. Grigg
I said that the Noble Lord distinguished himself, as he always does in argument, in supporting the Government Front Bench. I congratulate him upon his success. I am sorry that he should regard that as being in any way an insult; I meant it as a compliment. I listened with the greatest attention to the argument which he put, often interrupted, as it was, by rhetorical questions, which made it difficult for one to follow the thread. He says that the Parliamentary Secretary made a perfectly good case because she said that the local authorities were going to be relieved of some expenditure, and that, as they were going to be relieved of that expenditure, they might just as well meet other expenditure, whether it was just or not. The fact that they are to be relieved of some expenditure has no bearing on this case at all. The plain fact which I put is that the man who deprives another man of his job should compensate him. That is a plain principle, and a just principle.

§ Mr. Turton
I do not want to repeat what has been said by my hon. Friends, but I would like the hon. Lady to answer one question. What is the difference between the position under this Bill and the position under the Education Bill and under the Local Government 1934 Bill? Under both those Bills, I understand, the compensating authority is the authority which ought to have received the officer but which did not wish to take the officer over. For all I know, the Unemployment Assistance Act and the Old Age Pensions Act have a different system; but if we have the choice of two systems we should see which is the fairest. Should the taxpayer or the ratepayer assume this burden? My hon. Friend said that, when this Bill is passed, the ratepayers will have a smaller burden in respect of the inspection of cowsheds, etc. There is a great deal in that, but I do not think it goes to the root of the problem, because in nine cases out of 10, the Minister of Agriculture will say to the local authority, "We will certainly take over all your officials," and in the tenth, not through any fault of the local authority or of the ratepayer, but through some juxtaposition of another authority, he will say, "I am not going to take over your sanitary inspector, for certain reasons quite unconnected with his conduct," as this Bill makes clear in Clause 5, Sub-section (2, d). Does this Committee think it right that the ratepayers of that area should bear a burden that the ratepayers of the other nine areas are bearing? That is a misfortune which the taxpayers should shoulder. There is no large sum involved. There is to-day no large surplus of officials, but a great shortage of officials, and this thing will happen very rarely. But later on there may come a demand for very heavy compensation from a small authority, and I think it should be spread over the whole community, rather than that the ratepayers of one area should suffer.

§ Mr. Petherick
The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) seemed to think that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) and his supporters, of whom I am one, have some peculiar and sinister motive in taking up the attitude which we have taken up.

§ Earl Winterton
No, I merely said that I would like to answer his case. I suppose one may still answer a case in this House, or does one have to ask permission first from the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick)?

§ Mr. Petherick
The only permission one needs is that of the Chair. The Noble 1935 Lord has not made out the case which we might reasonably have expected from him. [Interruption.] I always enjoy an obbligato when I am speaking, particularly the sort of obbligato which comes from the Noble Lord, because it makes one's argument go more smoothly. The Noble Lord has not answered our case, which was that it was not equitable that the local authorities, who have had their functions taken over, should still be expected to pay the compensation of those officers who suffer diminution of their emoluments. Take the simple analogy of a public company which takes over the assets and liabilities of another company. In this case, the Minister of Agriculture has taken over the assets and the liabilities of the local authorities in respect of certain functions regarding milk. The assets are, broadly speaking, the right to supervise the production of milk. The liabilities are the obligation to pay the officers who are carrying out the administration. Here the assets have been taken over, but the liabilities have not been taken over in toto. Therefore. I cannot see how it is possible, in equity, to say that, merely because the local authorities are being relieved of most of their pecuniary obligations, the central Government should be relieved of their obligation to pay compensation. The Government take over some of the officers, they take over all the functions, but still the local authorities are left with the obligation to pay this compensation. Nothing which the Noble Lord or the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister has said shows how that can be done in equity.

§ Major Sir Derrick Gunston (Thornbury)
I came down here rather in favour of the Amendment, but I must say that, after hearing the speeches of its supporters, I feel the other way. They remind me of the Duke of Wellington, who, when asked once what was the best speech he had ever heard, said he could not remember, but that the speech least likely to have the effect which it was intended to have, was that of a Portuguese general, who, speaking to his men when they were about to take part in a forlorn hope, said: "Men, remember that you are Portuguese." The argument I have heard seems to have the opposite effect to what was intended.

§ Major Petherick
The Duke of Wellington did at least fight.

§ Sir D. Gunston
Well, I will pay the hon. Member the compliment of saying that he fought very well, even if not clear what he was fighting against. The question is—are the local authorities to suffer as a whole and is any injustice going to be done to any individual? Obviously, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, it is the duty of this House to see that no injustice is done to any individual who loses his job, or part of a job, but I cannot see how my hon. Friend, with his great ability and experience, can really suggest that local authorities are going to be worse off if we reject this Amendment, because, of course, we are going to relieve the local authorities of a certain amount, and we are safeguarding not only the ratepayers but the taxpayers as well, and the hon. Member has to think about the taxpayers, too. Are we really to say that, when we pass a Bill which relieves the local authorities of expenditure, that relief, therefore, should entirely be given to the local authorities? Obviously, under this Bill, certain local authorities will have less expense than they had before, and it seems to me to be only right that when they have that net gain, we should not agree with this Amendment. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) suggested that it will relieve the local authority of a bit, but not much, because most of the men are doing the work, or part of the work, at the moment.

§ Mr. Colegate
Actually, I wrote down the words I used, and this is what I said. "It is not necessarily a very large saving; it is largely a question of the number of officials concerned and the amount of the superannuation."

§ Sir D. Gunston
I quite agree that it probably is not very much. At the same time, on the whole, there will be a fairly large saving throughout the country.

§ Mr. Buchanan (Glasgow, Gorbals)
I should hesitate to intervene in the quarrel going on between two ex-members of a Government, and I cannot see—

§ Earl Winterton
I am sure the hon. Member would not wish to do me an injustice. I only want to point out that, while I have been in many bad Governments in my time, I have never been a Member of the same Government as the hon. Gentleman opposite.

§ Mr. Buchanan
Well, it happens in my own party. I should like to say that on this subject hon. Members can get all "het up" on either side. Some say that these charges ought to be on the Government and some say they should be on local authorities. I might make a speech with considerable eloquence which would not convince anybody. On the facts of the matter, I do not think there is much in it, in money cost, and I say this because I remember what was done in the 1934 Act. You have agreed that men should get compensation. When it comes to the kind of man most likely to be dispossessed—the older man, the man of middle age—I prefer the Government's line, but for different reasons. Are you likely to get compensation easily, if you are in a Yorkshire village, by coming down to Whitehall to conduct your negotiations? Frankly, I would not want to do it. The man has to start his negotiations with Whitehall, instead of in the locality in which he lives.

§ Mr. Petherick
Am I wrong in thinking that that is quite covered?

§ Mr. Buchanan
I know it is, but there will be all sorts of interpretations, and if I were the man on the spot, and particularly if I were an elderly servant, I would know that the local authority for whom I had done good service, would give me the best rate possible when it came to compensation. But, when you go to Whitehall, first getting into Whitehall to negotiate is one problem. It is becoming a problem in these days for a Member of Parliament to get into Whitehall, never mind getting compensation. I could make out an eloquent case that it should be made a national charge, and, just as easily, a case that local savings ought to be paid to the local authorities. Both of these cases could be made out, and I do not think they are inconsistent. I think that, if I were a local government servant, round about middle age, who had to start to negotiate, I should feel that the local authority was much more easy of access, that they understood me and my point of view, and that, as a result, the treatment I should get from them would be better.

§ Rear-Admiral Beamish
I want to quote the clerk to one of the councils in my area, whose opinion I asked on the whole matter. He said: We are in a fair way to losing all officials and officers, and others who work for us, and 1938 in whose work we are proud and whose services we are very loath to part with. In addition, their services are to be taken away by a Minister, they are to become civil servants which they do not wish to do, and, in addition to that, if there should be any direct pecuniary loss falling upon them, because we have paid them rather more than they will get as civil servants, we will have to pay the difference, and we think it is adding insult to injury.

§ Mr. Colegate
I support the Amendment, a little on the grounds of principle, but mainly on purely practical grounds. The whole atmosphere of this Bill is that, if local authorities do not come up to scratch, their powers can be taken away and given to Whitehall. However that may be, this raises a practical question. That is, how many obstacles can we put in the way of the central Government nibbling away at the functions of local government? Therefore, I am all in for the services of those whom they disfavour of making them pay compensation possess, if they do take away local government functions. Actually, the question of precedents is almost irrelevant. The circumstances are different and the whole atmosphere is so serious that it is time a new precedent was created.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
In calling upon the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) to move the next Amendment, I hope he will move it in the manuscript form and not in the words on the Order Paper.

§ Mr. Burden (Sheffield, Park)
I was hoping, Mr. Williams, that you would have called the previous Amendment standing in my name—in page 3, line 35, at end, insert: For the purposes of this section any such officer or servant as aforesaid shall include a person who is engaged in war service but was, immediately before undertaking war service, an officer or servant of a local authority. Because there is a very important principle involved.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I am calling the last Amendment to Clause 5 in the name of the hon. Gentleman which I have had handed to me in manuscript form.

§ Mr. Burden
I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, at the end, to insert: and where any such period is so reckoned his emoluments during that period shall, for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) of para- 1939 graph 4 of the said Schedule, be deemed to be such as he would have received if he had not been engaged in war service. I do not quite know why I am moving the Amendment, because I am advised that men and women serving in the Forces at the present time are not protected in the event of their positions being wiped out or becoming redundant, or of their having suffered any diminution in their emoluments. Therefore, it is a trifle difficult to make out a case for the Amendment, when those who are serving with the Forces are not protected by the compensation Clauses. The object of the Amendment is, that, in the event of compensation being payable, any salary increases which may have accrued while the man or woman was serving in the Forces or any permanent increments, together with the period for which they are serving in the Forces, should be calculated if and when compensation becomes payable. That is a very desirable addition to the Clause, because, unless the words that I am moving are added, should compensation become payable, the salary on which it is calculated would be the salary paid at the time the person entered the Forces, and the period for which he so served in the Forces would not be brought into the calculation of the number of years on which superannuation is payable. That is the brief case for the Amendment, but I go back, as I am bound to do, to the rather wider question. Is it possible for this compensation to be paid if those serving in the Forces are not protected by way of compensation? If it is the case that the Parliamentary draftsmen have overlooked the position of those serving in the Forces, this is a very grave thing indeed.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member cannot discuss that question on an Amendment of this kind.

§ Mr. Burden
I appreciate that, and submit with respect that I am entitled to ask whether this Amendment will actually become operative in the case of persons to whom it is presumably going to apply.

§ Miss Horsbrugh
I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that we are able to accept the Amendment, and, though I cannot range over other subjects, I can assure him that those serving in the Forces have not been overlooked, and their cases will 1940 be covered in the action which the Government will take.

§ Mr. Hutchinson
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the position of those serving in the Forces will be met by the action which the Government propose to take. May I ask her to go a step further and indicate what action they propose to take?

§ Mr. Turton
At this juncture it might be helpful if the Minister could say how far he wants to go to-day. If we can be told, it may ease the progress of the Bill.

Mr. Hudson
We want to get on with the Bill, and I think we ought to get the Committee stage to-day.

§ Mr. Burden
It would be ungracious if I did not express on behalf of the National Association of Local Government Officers and myself our appreciation of the acceptance of my Amendment.