Clause 1.— [POWER TO PAY GRATUITIES TO CERTAIN FORMER OFFICIALS OF SUDAN GOVERNMENT OR PARLIAMENT.] (Hansard, 25 October 1955)

§ Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas (Leicester, North-East)
There are one or two points arising on this Clause about which I should like an explanation. I should like an explanation of the different dates which appear in subsection (2) for different categories of civil servants referred to. A second point arises under subsection (3), which provides for the contingency of the service being terminated by so many months' notice, the number of months varying in different cases. I suppose that the obvious explanation about the length of notice in particular cases is that it varies because of the contract of service. I do not know, but perhaps we could be told.
What bothers me a little is what is to arise if the contract of service is not terminated by the stipulated number of months' notice provided in subsection (3), that being, for instance, in paragraph (a) two months' notice or, I suppose, what is accepted by the parties in place of two months' notice. Apparently a case of wrongful discharge does not come within the provisions of this Bill. Assuming that someone is wrongfully discharged, there would be a claim against the person wrongfully discharging him and there would be damages payable accordingly, but so far as I can see that would not bring in in substance the topping-up provisions under the Bill. It may be that there are no cases of that kind coming within the Bill, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell me.
If the right hon. Gentleman would give some explanation of how this matter works in cases other than those which come within the rather narrowly worded provisions of subsection (3) providing for a stated number of months' notice, I shall be obliged.

§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton)
This Bill is to provide a topping up of compensation that is provided under the Sudan Ordinance. Therefore, the effect of this Clause is to use the words that are used in the Sudan Expatriate Officials Compensation Ordinance, 1954. That is why we have this phrasing.
Subsection (2, a) refers back to the Sudan Ordinance and includes all those who are pensionable officials under the Sudan Government Pension Ordinance, 1919. Paragraph (b) deals with women officials who are working towards an annuity, which for these purposes was regarded as being the same as for pension. In subsection (3) we are restating the provisions for notices set out in the Sudan Ordinance. Under paragraph (a) we are saying that if notice was given under recommendation of the Sudanisation Committee it should be two months and if it is given, under paragraph (b), by the Sudan Government or by the person on or after the first day of January, 1955, it should be six months' notice, but if it is not given until the first day of July, 1955, it only becomes three months' notice. That is reciting what is in the Sudan Ordinance.
Finally, under paragraph (d) we are saying that if a person finds that he has not been promoted to a position and notice has been given to him of the decision to appoint a Sudanese to the vacancy he might have got he can give merely three months' notice whether that occurred before or after 1st July. In all those cases those notices may be reduced by agreement in writing between the parties.
The question of wrongful dismissal does not really arise here, because we are only dealing with cases where a man is entitled to compensation under the Sudan Ordinance. If he is not entitled to compensation under the Sudan Ordinance he is not entitled to the topping up under this Bill. Therefore, I submit that the question of wrongful dismissal does not arise in this connection.

§ Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas
It might be important if there are cases of wrongful dismissal. In a case of that kind, which, quite clearly, is not covered in terms by the Bill, in which a civil servant suffers, as it were, a double injury—not merely 79 not having the advantage of the provisions of the Bill, but also having the wrongful dismissal piled on top—would consideration be given to ensuring that the measure of damages paid to the civil servant would be on the footing that he would otherwise be entitled to the advantage of the topping-up provisions of the Bill?

§ Mr. Turton
I can only repeat that if the official is not receiving compensation under the Sudan Ordinance, topping up cannot arise. Therefore, if he were wrongfully dismissed and did not come under any provision of the Sudan Ordinance, it would not be possible for the conditions laid down in the Bill to take effect.

§ Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas
That is exactly the point I am making. It does not help for the right hon. Gentleman to repeat as an answer the point which I am making in raising the difficulty. There is nothing between us on this; we are agreed that it does not come within the Sudan Ordinance and, therefore, does not come within the topping-up provisions. That is the whole gist of my question.
In those circumstances, because that case would not come within the Bill, will the Government consider ensuring that when an official suffers the wrong of wrongful dismissal—it is on the basis of wrongful dismissal, and not rightful dismissal—the damages which would be paid to him, or whatever is done in lieu of damages paid to him, would be on the footing that if he had not been wrongfully dismissed, he would have had the advantages of the topping up provisions of the Bill?

§ Mr. Turton
I am sorry if my previous reply appeared to be repetitive to the hon. and learned Member. He is asking us to consider the case of a Sudan official who, in the Sudan, is wrongfully dismissed. From that tort there would be an action in the Sudan for damages. I cannot provide in this Bill for what a Sudan court would award in damages, nor would it be possible for the House to give a topping up provision to the Sudan court. That is why I tried to explain—I hoped courteously and without undue repetition—that that cannot be within the purview of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman is asking me to deal with something 80 which would be entirely a matter for a Sudan court of justice.