CLAUSE 91.—(Compensation of persons prejudicially affected by this Act.) (Hansard, 30 March 1944)

§ Mr. Burden (Sheffield, Park)
I beg to move, in page 63, line 20, to leave out from the beginning to "suffers," in line 23, and to insert: Any person who at the date of the coming into operation of this Part of this Act or any such order, scheme, or agreement as is hereinafter mentioned (as the case may be) is an officer of a local authority or who, at that date, is engaged on war service but was, immediately before undertaking war service, an officer of a local authority and who, in consequence of anything in this Act or any order, scheme, or agreement made in pursuance of the provisions of this Act. The side title of this Clause is Compensation of persons prejudicially affected by this Act, but I would respectfully submit that the Clause provides compensation for only a limited number of persons. I take it that it is quite unnecessary to argue the case for compensation—that is a well established principle—but I suggest that the Clause ought to provide for any officer of any authority who may be directly affected, and who may suffer pecuniary loss or have his appointment terminated, as a result of the passing of the Bill. It is quite unfair to single out one section of officers and provide compensation for them, and to exclude others who may equally suffer as a result of the passing of the Act. The Amendment and consequential Amendments on the Order Paper will provide compensation for any officer who may be adversely affected by any order, scheme, or agreement made under the Act. Past experience has shown that the officers of local authorities to whom functions have been transferred have sometimes been adversely affected: for example, their places have been taken by officers who are transferred with the functions. The Local Government Act, 1933, provides for the compensation of any existing officer; and it follows, therefore, that the compensation provisions apply to all officers, and not only to transferred officers.
May I also put a point in regard to those on war service? The Clause does not provide for compensation for local government officers now serving with the Forces, in the event of their being adversely affected. I submit that nothing is more calculated to cause despondency and alarm among local government 1683 officers serving with the Forces than if they realise that, if their jobs disappear as a result of this Bill, there will be no compensation for them. It would be quite wrong to plead the Reinstatement Act, which gives only a limited measure of protection, namely, employment for 26 weeks. I am sure that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary do not desire to do any injustice to any member of the local government service who may be affected by this Bill. As was mentioned on a previous Amendment, this is their world, and this Bill, when passed, may shatter their world. I suggest that it is not fair or right to provide compensation for one section and refuse it to another section, particularly those who are on war service at the present time. Not only that, but if the Clause is carried as it stands, it will break down a principle of compensation for any officer affected which has been established by legislation for over half a century, and I hope the Minister is not going to set a bad precedent of that kind. In those circumstances, I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. Moelwyn Hughes
I fail to see why the Parliamentary Secretary should be impressed by this Amendment at all. It is the desire of the mover, the hon. Member for the Park Division (Mr. Burden), supported by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson), to protect persons who go off to the war, leaving their appointments to undertake war service, but the terms of the Clause are very clear. They apply to every person who was an officer of the council affected by the provisions of the Clause. As I see it, if a person goes into His Majesty's Forces and volunteers for the duration of the war, he will remain, for the purpose of this Clause, an officer affected by the provisions of the Clause. He is not affected in the least by the fact that he is on war service, but still retains all the advantages given to him by the provisions of this Clause. I therefore confess, with all respect to my hon. Friend and to my hon. and learned Friend, that their object is completely defeated by this Amendment. They are protected. Why should they try to get further protection when the Clause secures everything they could possibly need? Therefore, I hope, not that the Amendment will be rejected, but 1684 that my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend will consult together and ask leave to withdraw it.

§ Mr. Hutchinson
I only want to take up one point, because the matter has been so fully put by the hon. Member for the Park Division (Mr. Burden). As the Bill stands, the right to compensation will be restricted to those officers who are officers of authorities which will cease to be Part III education authorities under the Bill. My hon. Friend has pointed out that the Amendment seeks to extend the scope of the right to compensation to those officers who are officers of authorities to whom the Part III education functions are to be transferred. If that is done, it would be necessary, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, to provide that the right to compensation should arise if there is a loss of office or a diminution of emoluments arising by reason of any Order made under this Bill. Under the Schedule of the Bill there are very wide and extensive powers to meet what are called claims of provisional administration. It may very well be that the effect of Orders bringing these schemes into operation may result in the officers of the authorities to whom the educational functions have been transferred suffering a diminution in their emoluments. Therefore, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, who is going to reply, that when he comes to consider the case of the officers of the authorities to whom the functions are to be transferred, he should also consider whether it should not be necessary for that compensation to extend to cases where there is diminution of emoluments arising out of the operation of an Order made under the Act.

§ Mr. Ede
I am very much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes) for satisfactorily answering my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden). It would be very wrong of me to attempt to say anything more after the very clear and explicit exposition which he gave of what we understand to be the Government case. We believe that all the officers who are likely to come within these arrangements are covered by the Bill. In looking at the rather narrow point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) with regard to the possible diminution of emolument of an existing officer of the county council, I 1685 do not think that what he fears is likely to happen, but the mere fact that one person only may suffer an injustice may make the injustice even more keen to the sufferer. Therefore, I will endeavour to see that, if there is any need to cover such a case, it shall be done.

§ Mr. Hutchinson
A large number of officers are being brought in from other authorities and will my hon. Friend look at that?

§ Mr. Ede
It must not be forgotten that we arc going to have a large number of divisional executives that did not exist before and experience will be a considerable recommendation for appointment to officerships of these bodies. I should not think that the total result of this Bill will be to reduce the number of persons employed on the administration of education.

§ Mr. Burden
Can my hon. Friend say whether it is his view that the Clause as drafted not only provides compensation for the officers of county districts, but for the employees of the local education authority, the Part III authority? Is their case also covered by the Clause?

§ Mr. Ede
I have no doubt that the officer of the Part III education authority is covered. I understood that the anxiety of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford was lest a representative of the county council who might be injured by the operation of the Bill might not be covered. That was the point I promised would be examined very carefully, and I gave my reasons for thinking that the number of cases in any event is not likely to be very large.

§ Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks (Chichester)
As I understood that the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) was not only worried about officers but about other persons of a similar capacity but of a different title who might also be affected, are there any other people who might be similarly affected who do not come under the definition of "officers," which is the definition in the Bill?

§ Mr. McEntee (Walthamstow, West)
On that point, could the Minister give some idea of what would be covered by the term "officer"?

§ Mr. Ede
The officer of an authority, as stated by the Local Government Act, 1933, is a person employed by an authority, and it has been laid down in that Act that the old differentiation between officer and servant for the purposes of this kind has vanished. Therefore any person, whether he be a salaried officer or a chief education officer of a Part III authority, a school caretaker, or an assistant school caretaker in receipt of an emolument from a local education authority, is an officer for the purpose of this Act. I do not know how they arrange about saluting, but I have no doubt they get over it satisfactorily.

§ Mr. Burden
I still feel that both my hon. and learned Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary are wrong, that all officers and servants are not covered, but, on the understanding that he looks at the point as well as the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, I shall be happy, with permission, to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Sir Joseph Lamb (Stone)
I beg to move, in page 63, line 20, after "county," to insert "or county."
In discussing the last Amendment it was stated that this Clause deals with compensation of persons affected by the Bill when it becomes an Act. At the end of line 22 it says "officer of that Council," but line 20 mentions "county district." What I want to know is whether this will not apply equally to those who are officers of a county council, that is to say the county in this case, because it would appear from reading the Clause as it now stands that it would deal with the officer of the county district but not of the county council, if—

§ Mr. Moelwyn Hughes
On a point of Order. There are two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member. May we know to which of these Amendments he is now speaking?

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member has moved his first Amendment, unless the Chair states otherwise.

§ Sir J. Lamb
If I may continue, what I want is that it might be made quite clear that the officer of a county, if by any chance that officer was affected owing to a Joint Board having been promoted, would be in a position of being able to 1687 obtain compensation. It might possibly be said that this point is covered by the Schedule, but this Amendment would make it quite clear—and I do not think there would be much repetition if these words were inserted—that the officer of a county council is covered by this.

§ Mr. Moelwyn Hughes
Again I fail to see why these Amendments are moved. After all, one has only got to see them. Here is an Amendment moved by a representative of the County Councils Association before this Committee—

§ Sir J. Lamb
On a point of Order, is that any disqualification?

§ Mr. Moelwyn Hughes
No, but it is a perfectly legitimate matter to raise when we consider the substance of the Amendment itself.

§ Sir J. Lamb
Why?

§ Mr. Hughes
Look at it. Anybody who has followed this Bill at all will realise that the Bill sets up various local education authorities, and the Amendment, if you please, is one that would mean that if in consequence of the council of any county and county district ceasing to exercise functions under any enactment—and so forth. The answer is that the local education authorities are the counties and the county boroughs and are covered by the Bill already. This Amendment which we are asked to consider is, may I say with all respect to the hon. Member who has moved it, and to the Association behind him, completely meaningless. It is a complete waste of time and I hope the wisdom of the Parliamentary Secretary will explode it in two seconds.

§ Mr. Burden
I am surprised that this Amendment should have aroused such a denunciation. The hon. Member who moved it can possibly see the reasons for his Amendment.

§ Mr. Moelwyn Hughes
He will never see them.

§ Mr. Burden
I must suggest to the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. M. Hughes) that he really has not a monopoly of Amendments, and other hon. Members must occasionally and humbly ask the right to move an Amendment without having explained it to the hon. and learned Member so that he shall know all the reasons behind it.

§ Mr. Ede
rose—

§ Earl Winterton
Can we hear the Minister? It is he to whom we want to listen, not the P.P.S.

§ Mr. Ede
My P.P.S. has been most exemplary. Such advice as he tenders to me is whispered so quietly and so effectively that I am quite sure it has never reached the other side of the House until I have conveyed it. Without sharing the language and views of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes), may I point out that the only case in which a county council can be relieved of its functions under this Bill is if a joint education board is formed? As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) pointed out, paragraph (a) of Part I of the First Schedule brings in Section 293 of the Local Government Act of 1933, and that incorporates the compensation provisions of Section 150 of the Local Government Act. I therefore think that officers who might be concerned are amply covered. May I say this in defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone? I, too, am a member of the Executive of the County Councils Association and—

§ Sir J. Lamb
My hon. Friend is running a terrible risk in saying that.

§ Mr. Ede
I know that great anxieties are felt by officers in the various departments that may be affected by this Bill. Many of them are not able to see easily their way through a Bill such as this and an Amendment frequently elicits information which gives them considerable reassurance. I was asked earlier to give a declaration on a certain point. Of course, I realise that any declaration I make here will not bind the courts of law. In fact, remarks might be made there that you, Mr. Williams, would not tolerate if they were made in this Committee. But while a declaration is nothing other than a Minister's opinion it is, when reinforced by the opinion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen, of very considerable value to the people who suffer these anxieties.

§ Sir J. Lamb
In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, and in view of the courtesy shown from the other side, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Messer
I beg to move, in page 63, line 29, after, "situated," to insert: if by virtue or in pursuance of this Act or of any determination made by the Minister thereunder he is transferred to or within one year after the commencement of Part II of this Act enters the service of such authority, but in any other case from the council of such county district. This Amendment also is moved for the purpose of eliciting information. As the Clause stands all compensation is payable in the case of an officer of a Part III authority by the county council, which supersedes it as the local education authority. The Bill as introduced provided for the transfer to county councils of all officers employed by such Part III authorities in connection with their education functions. Clause 6 as amended limits the transfer to officers employed substantially full time. That means that a large proportion of the officers of Part III authorities will not be transferred to the county council. The Amendment says that the officers who are transferred to the county council shall be the county council's responsibility for compensation, but those not so transferred shall be the responsibility of the Part III authorities.

§ Mr. Ede
We cannot accept this Amendment, because we regard it as being contrary to the whole spirit of the Bill in dealing with this problem of the future education area. These part-time officers are to be compensated for the loss of education functions. The education function is paid for out of the education rate. The only body capable of raising an education rate in the area in the future will be the county council, and therefore it would appear that the liability for compensation should fall upon the people who are able to raise the appropriate funds. I think it goes a little further even than that. After all, part of this compensation will fall to be paid out of grants provided by the Board. Those grants are paid to the local education authorities and, of course, it is only fair that, if this is part of the expense of education, the Board should bear its proper share. Therefore if we left the compensation with the county district council it would have to be raised 100 per cent. by the ratepayers and the Board of Education, not making grants to the ex-Part III authorities, would escape its proper share of this burden. I think these arguments will convince my hon. Friend, who has very considerable experi 1690 ence as a county councillor, that it is right that this compensation should fall upon the county rate, where it can be assisted from the Board of Education funds and where the education authority will be discharging what is an educational liability.

§ Mr. Messer
In view of that explanation, which I think it will be agreed meets the situation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. Obviously my hon. Friend's case is that these officers have been employed on education, they are to be compensated because they have lost office, and will be compensated from the fund which found their salaries.

§ Mr. Cove
I beg to move, in page 63, line 43, at the end, to insert: or was a teacher employed in any school maintained but not provided by such council as local education authority.

§ Mr. Ede
This Amendment is unnecessary because the interests of teachers in non-provided schools in regard to compensation are safeguarded by Sub-section (2) of this Clause.

§ Mr. Cove
I beg to move, in page 63, line 44, at the beginning, to insert: If, in consequence of any alteration in the organisation of any school in pursuance of a local education order made under this Act, or.

§ Mr. Ede
We regard this Amendment as being drawn far too widely. Reorganisation has been going on for a considerable number of years, and my hon. Friend knows the statements which have been made by the organisation to which both he and I belong, that no teacher has ever suffered any loss of office or emoluments as a result of re-organisation. Provisions have been made whereby, under the Burnham scale, such losses could be met, and we do not think it is necessary to alter the Bill in the way suggested.

§ Earl Winterton
May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) and the Parliamentary Secretary on the way they have dealt with these Amendments by moving them shortly and replying to them shortly, in pleasing contrast to the garrulity with which some hon. Members move Amendments?

§ Mr. Cove
I beg to move, in page 64, line 10, at the end, to insert: (3) A teacher, other than a reserved teacher, employed in a special agreement school which becomes an aided school, shall not without the consent of the local education authority, be dismissed from his office on grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction in the school unless the foundation managers or foundation governors allow him compensation for the loss of his office upon such terms and with such security as may be agreed or as may, in default of agreement, be approved by the Minister, but so that the Minister shall not approve terms which in his opinion are less favourable to the teacher than they would have been if determined under Sub-section one of this Section.

§ Mr. Ede
May I on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) and myself thank the Noble Lord for the kind words he has used? We are fully appreciative of them, seeing that they come from one who has had such a long experience of listening to garrulous Members. This Amendment would introduce the novel principle in educational law that compensation should be paid by managers or governors. We regard the case which he desires to cover as being almost impossible of occurring, when one thinks of the sums of money that would have to be raised by the managers or governors of the schools concerned in order to put themselves in a position to be able to dismiss a teacher, who, by that time, would probably have acquired considerable local popularity and status. The whole Bill has been framed on the idea that such a case would never come to pass.

§ Mr. Messer
I beg to move, in page 64, line 32, at the end, to add: (4) if any officer of a county council who was immediately before the commencement of Part II of this Act employed for the purpose of any of its functions as local education authority, by virtue of this Act or of any scheme of divisional administration approved thereunder or of any other thing done in pursuance or in consequence of this Act or of any such scheme suffers direct pecuniary loss by reason of the determination of his appointment or the diminution of his emoluments he shall be entitled to receive compensation from such Council in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Section. This Amendment again is moved for the purpose of obtaining clarity. When the Bill comes into operation there will be great changes. County councils which have been doing Part II and Part III work will find that there will have to be a great deal of reorganisation with regard 1692 to their officers. A county council may have its divisional officers covering those areas where they have elementary education, and directors of education in the present Part III autonomous areas acting as agents for higher education. There is the possibility that there may be some redundancy, and if not redundancy the allocation of offices at a lower remuneration. Some safeguard is required for those who may be in that position and who, as a result of the operation of this Bill, find themselves in a worse financial position than they previously occupied.

§ Mr. Ede
The first class of cases covered by the Amendment has already been dealt with in the reply which I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), with regard to a certain group of officers. The other officers, to whom my hon. Friend now refers, are those who come under a scheme of divisional administration, and find themselves in a less well paid job than the job which they now occupy. The divisional administration will be set up under schemes made under the First Schedule, and there will be the usual provisions for paying compensation to people who, as a result of a scheme, suffer damage. I think that in that way, under the Bill as it stands, we deal with both classes which the hon. Member has in mind.

§ Mr. Messer
Having ventilated that point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Burden
I shall he brief, and I hope that I shall not incur the censure of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. M. Hughes). May I call attention to the fact that the Clause as it stand provides that the compensation period shall be from the passing of the Act? The Local Government Act, 1933, provides that compensation shall run from the date of an agreement, or scheme, or order, and that is frequently a much later period than the passing of the Act. The Parliamentary Secretary might help us by considering that point, and see whether we can deal with it on the Report stage.

§ Mr. Ede
If it is necessary to deal with that point on the Report stage, I undertake to do it, but I want to say that 1693 on this Clause and the preceding one we are exceedingly anxious that no person shall suffer in any way that ought to be avoided by the ordinary processes of law in this matter, as a result of this Measure. We are only too well aware how bad a send-off that can be to a great administrative scheme in any area.