§
Amendment proposed—
Page 82, line 37, after 'service,' insert 'and the service of any existing county surveyor, whether in one or more counties, shall be reckoned as part of his service.'"—(The Earl of Mayo.)
*THE EARL OF MAYOCounty surveyors in Ireland are appointed after examination by the Lord; Lieutenant, and it has been the custom in Ireland, when a better surveyorship becomes vacant, to get a transfer into that county in which the vacancy occurs. If the clause remains as it is, and a county surveyor has services in two counties, his services only in his present county will be reckoned. Your Lordships, I think, will readily understand that a county surveyor, in his professional career, naturally wishes to better his position by removing into a better paid post in a larger county, and his appointment to that better paid and larger county practically proves that he is a good officer. I submit that it is unreasonable that these good officers should lose part of their service solely by reason of the fact that they have not served their entire time in the same county. In point of fact, the Amendment is in order to enable a county surveyor, who has served a certain portion of his time in one county and another portion in another, to have both services to count when it comes to a question of those services being remunerated by superannuation.
LORD TEMPLETOWNI have much pleasure in supporting this Amendment, as it does seem to me hard that a man who has worked in two counties should lose the benefit of his services because he has not confined his work to one county. I do not propose to detain your Lordships in this matter, because it seems to me to be so eminently just a proposal. I only express my hope that Her Majesty's Government will see their way to accept it.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDThis is the first of a number of Amendments which have been put down in consequence of the mass of correspondence that I have no doubt many of your Lordships in all parts of the House have received. This is a question of existing officers and people who desire to 1079 continue to be officers with pensions enlarged and conditions of service improved. Of course, everyone is anxious to make their friends the existing officers on as good terms as is possible and with the best rate of pay that is conceivable, and with the most generous system of pension that can be devised. But all this has been threshed out and discussed over and over again on every platform; everything was done that conceivably could be done in the way of considering this matter. I trust that your Lordships will consider that we are dealing now not with questions of sentiment or generosity, but we are dealing with the status of officers whose position has to be considered in these new public bodies from a purely business standpoint. The particular Amendment of my noble Friend, Lord Mayo, who has been supported by my noble Friend, Lord Temple town, is one which might have been very reasonable if the high contracting parties had expressed their minds at the outset. In the future it may be wise to say, "If you choose to take into your employment a man who has been a county surveyor of another county, remember that you are doing that cum onere; if you take him, you will have to reckon that you may only get four or five years of his service, and that he will be entitled to a pension calculated on the time he has served in another county. That would be very well if they knew the nature of the obligation they were incurring; but to go and make an ex posté facto case of this kind would not be reasonable or just, I venture to think, to a county council that takes over the obligations of the grand jury. I therefore much regret that it is not in my power to say a very easy "Yes," instead of a more difficult "No." I trust your Lordships will not assent to this Amendment.
§ LORD MACNAGHTENI am sorry that the noble and learned Lord cannot accept the Amendment. I thought that under the Bill as drawn a county surveyor's service did reckon from another county. Up to the present time the Lord Lieutenant has had the power of transferring a county surveyor from one county to another. Take the case of my own county; the gentleman there who 1080 has been county surveyor has served in two counties of a lower class. If, instead of being transferred into the higher class, he had remained in the lower class, he would have been entitled to a higher superannuation. I do not think there would be any injustice done if my noble and learned Friend will accept the Amendment that I have put down. It is fair that his past services should be counted, but it is equally fair that the county which has had the advantage of those services should contribute to the superannuation allowance. If that is done under the supervision of the Local Government Board it will be perfectly fair.
§ LORD MACNAGHTENIt is on the Paper. But, first of all, I should like to ask what is the meaning of sub-section 3 to clause 112—
For the purpose of the enactments relating to superannuation, the service of any existing officer of any authority before the transfer to a county or district council shall be reckoned as service under that council, and the service of any existing secretary as assistant or deputy secretary in the same county shall be reckoned as part of his service.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDServices before the Act are to be taken into account after the Act. If they have served before the passing of this Act, that service is to be placed to their credit.
§ LORD MACNAGHTENThey may have served in the county. If my noble Friend will read the clause he will see that in the case of the secretary it is indicated that the service should be in the same county, but in the case of the surveyor it is not so indicated—
For the purpose of the enactments relating to superannuation, the service of any existing officer of any authority before the transfer to a county or district council shall be reckoned as service under that council, and the service of any existing secretary as assistant or deputy secretary in the same county shall be reckoned as part of his service.So that I do not conclude, when I read the Bill, that the services of the surveyors are to be taken into consideration.
§ LORD MACNAGHTENI do not understand what my noble Friend means by "the future."
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDProvisions, after the passing of the Act and when the councils know what they are doing, will apply; but to deal with the general question now of the services of the county surveyors in the past, when they have become existing officers—may be two or three years ago under another grand jury—that is another question.
§ LORD MACNAGHTENThe Amendment that I am proposing later on is this—
When the service of a county surveyor (whether transferred or appointed under this Act), reckoned for the purpose of the Acts relating to superannuation, includes service in more than one county, the amount of his superannuation allowance shall be apportioned between the counties in which such service was performed, in such manner as the Local Government Board may think just, and shall be raised and paid as the Board may direct.
§ LORD MACNAGHTENPerhaps my noble Friend will consider the whole subject, because it is rather a hard case.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDI have only had an opportunity of seeing this Amendment just now, because it was not placed on the Paper that was distributed, but I will consider the whole matter that he has called attention to.
*THE EARL OF MAYOAfter hearing what Lord Macnaghten's Amendment is, I will withdraw mine. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will favourably consider the matter on Report, because it covers all the ground.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 83, line 2, after 'them,' insert 'or at any time thereafter during the period of five
1082
years immediately following said last five days of March.'"—(Marquess of Londonderry.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYIf this Amendment were adopted, the clause would read as follows—
Any existing secretary of the grand jury, unless he dies or resigns, or is removed with the concurrence of the Local Government Board, shall become and continue the secretary of the county council up to the last day of March, nineteen hundred, and may then, or at any time thereafter during the period of five years immediately following said last five days of March, if he has given three months' previous notice in writing to the county council of his intention to retire, retire from office, and shall thereupon be entitled to receive an allowance under this Act of the same amount as if his office were abolished.This Amendment does not deprive the county council of the right of dismissal, but to my mind it greatly increases the chances of the secretaries continuing with the new council—it will enable them to remain after the 31st March without losing the right of retiring on the abolition of office. The clause, as it now stands, compels almost every secretary to serve notice to retire on the date named. It is impossible for him or for the county council to form a satisfactory opinion as to whether his continuance in office would be mutually desirable. I have been given an instance of a secretary of a grand jury who can retire now on an allowance calculated at 38 years' service, but if he retires in 1901 he will only be allowed to retire on allowance calculated at 29 years' service. It seems to me to be somewhat of an injustice that those who have served faithfully and well should be so treated, and I therefore trust that my Amendment will be considered favourably.
*VISCOUNT DE VESCII support this Amendment. A great many secretaries will retire under the operation of this Act next year, whereas the insertion of these words would secure their services for a further period, otherwise they will not be able to secure the full superannuation to which they would be entitled, unless they serve till 1910. I hope the noble and learned Lord will see his way to accept the Amendment.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDI am very sorry I cannot accept this Amendment. These things are all 1083 considered on a very broad and fair point of view. We have to consider every aspect of the case. The secretary of a grand jury is an important officer—he performs great duties. It is most desirable that he should be encouraged to remain with the new body until they become familiar with their duties. It is also desirable that he should tell them all that he knows, and put them in privity with all county work according to his knowledge. But then the particular clause that my noble Friend is seeking to amend is the first that provides an alternative. It is sub-section 4 of clause 112, and it provides—
Any existing secretary of a grand jury, unless he dies or resigns, or is removed with the concurrence of the Local Government Board, shall become and continue the secretary of the county council up till the last day of March, 1900.It is thought that that would enable him—I am speaking now of his point of view—to consider how he likes the change and how he likes his employment, and whether he sees his way to go on with his duties. He is given that opportunity up to the last day of March, 1900, and then he may—If he has given three months' previous notice in writing to the county council of his intention to retire, retire from office, and shall thereupon be entitled to receive an allowance under this Act of the same amount as if his office were abolished.Those are generous terms to give, and he could stop if he pleases; but if he thinks, having regard to everything, that after the last day of March, 1899, he would sooner make a change—that he does not like the new employment as well as the old—then, under the circumstances, he is entitled to be treated with all the generosity that it is right to treat him with on his office being abolished. The Amendment suggests this: that instead of taking the date as the last day of March, 1900, he shall be given a further period of five years. I do not think that is reasonable; I think that a man, after he has had experience, should be able, if he is a sensible and intelligent man, to know whether he likes his new employment or not. I think that keeping him in a state of 1084 suspense for a period of five years would not be at all satisfactory or in the interests of efficiency. The next paragraph gives reciprocity to the county council, and it might be that from various reasons not reflecting on the honour or integrity of the man—it may be from age or infirmity, and not having the requisite gifts needed for the change, that he was not at all to the satisfaction of the county council as regards efficiency. Even that course is taken care of. Subsection 5 of the clause says—The county council may, by notice given three months next before the said day of March, require such secretary to retire, and if they do so without the concurrence of the Local Government Board he shall be entitled to the same compensation under this Act as if his office were abolished.These have to be taken together. First, the wishes and opinions of the man who has performed the duties of secretary—his interests are considered—and then, the county council must be given their point of view as to whether they can see that they think he is a man with whom they can work. And in either case the option is given which will secure to the man the extremely good terms that are given in the case of abolition of office.
*VISCOUNT DE VESCIMy noble and learned Friend has said that the great thing was to secure the services of efficient men to start the working of the county council. Surely six months is not a sufficient time for anew county council to get into working order with their new officers. All we ask is an extension of a few years to enable either of them to make up their minds. As this clause stands now, a large number of efficient men who have passed the term will leave, with a rush.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDI have not wearied your Lordships by reading the entire clause, but if the secretary likes he gets a substantial period to come in and serve, and then his condition is provided for in the sixth sub-section, he will be entitled to go on and get his pension.
If at any time after the said last day of March such secretary retires voluntarily, he shall be entitled to receive from the county council a superannuation allowance on the scale 1085provided by the Acts and rules relating to Her Majesty's Civil Service, and the amount of such allowance in case of dispute shall be determined by the Treasury.
§ *LORD MORRISI think the Amendment suggested by my noble Friend appears to me to be a reasonable one. My noble and learned Friend says there is ample time for the parties to find out whether they like each other or not. I do not follow that there is ample time from now to the month of March, 1900. The Act is not to come into operation until September, 1899, so it does not appear to me that there is any time in which the parties would have an opportunity of seeing whether they suited each other as it is suggested. I quite agree with my noble and learned Friend that there is a reciprocity in subsection, 5, and, as far as I can see at present, it ought to be introduced into sub-section 4, as well as into sub-section 5. It does not seem to me that there would be any difference in doing that, and that the secretaries of grand juries who, to my knowledge, held appointments which were considered, not in point of law, but in point of fact, just as satisfactory as the appointment of judges on the bench, should get a reasonable time, which I should have thought five years was, but under the Bill it will not be five months.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDIt is quite a year. The elections to the first county councils are to take place in March.
§ *LORD MORRISDo they come into this at once?
§ *LORD MORRISWhy, there is a grand jury to be held in March next. I certainly do not understand how two suns can be shining in the same hemisphere together.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1086
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 83, line 10, after 'abolished,' insert 'provided, however, that such compensation shall not be less than one-half the emoluments payable to such secretary.'"—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
§ THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN AND MOUNT-EARLI move this because it seems to me that under this sub-section some practical injustice might be done to the secretaries. I quite agree that in the former sub-section injustice, I do not think, could be done. If a man dies I suppose he cannot help himself. If he resigns it is his own act, and if he is removed I presume that may be taken to mean that he is removed with sufficient cause. But under sub-section 5 he may be removed without sufficient cause; that is to say, the county council may remove him without cause, or without assigning any cause. I certainly think the county council ought to be empowered to discharge their secretary for any cause they like. They may discharge him because he has red hair, or any other reason; but in that case the man should receive proper compensation. He is compensated to the extent as if his office were abolished according to the Civil Service scale, but in the case of the Civil Service, civil servants generally enter the service young, and according to the provisions of the scale, they get a very substantial pension to a percentage of one-sixtieth if they serve 20 years or five years. But in the case of these grand jury secretaries, they very often eater into that business comparatively late in life, and their service is not generally very long, and the hardship is perhaps still greater in the case of a man who may have served as baronial constable, and he gives up all that in order to take up the position of secretary to the grand jury. I know a gentleman who gave up an office of that sort to accept a secretaryship to the grand jury, the emoluments being £800 per annum. According to this section he would have one year added to one-sixtieth—that is, according to the Civil Service scale—and his retiring pension would amount to about £40 per annum. I do not think that seems to be exactly just or fair, and I trust Her Majesty's Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. I have put down one-half, but I am not 1087 particular as to the amount. If the Government like to make it more I should have no objection.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDNothing could be more conciliatory or frank than the speech of my noble Friend, which I am not surprised at, because people are very often frank and generous with the money of others. My task is monotonous, but still it is necessary. I am aware this is only the beginning of the question of these officers, because their name is legion, but the abolition terms, everybody knows, are extremely liberal, and to attempt to add to the abolition terms so that they would never be less than one-half of the emoluments, would make some very substantial and large and wholly unjustifiable addition to the burdens which the public already bear, having regard to what is due to them as taxpayers. It is a very disagreeable thing to have to always give reasons in the negative. I am very sorry that I am unable to assent to this Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MABQUESS OF LONDONDERRYI ask leave to withdraw the next Amendment standing in my name, and to substitute—
Provided that any county or district council may, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, make a special agreement with any of their existing officers as to the terms and conditions on which he may continue to hold his office, and remuneration he shall receive therefor.I beg to move that.
§ Question put.
§ Amendment accepted.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 85, after line 28, insert as a new sub-section—
Any existing officer of a board of guardians transferred under this section, and who shall be employed as an officer by any county or district council, shall, in the event of his becoming qualified for a superannuation allow-
1088
ance by reason of length of service, old age, or infirmity, be entitled to receive such superannuation, on the scale and according to the Acts and Rules relating to Her Majesty's Civil Service, from the council to which he shall have been transferred, if the Local Government Board shall, on the application of such officer to them, declare him to be so entitled."—(Lord Clonbrock.)
*LORD CLONBROCKThe object of this is to provide for one class of public servants—the poor rate collectors, who, if transferred to the service of the county councils, fear that not having been originally appointed by the county councils, and not having worked before for them, they may not be treated with as great tenderness as they would be treated by boards of guardians. It merely secures to this class of people that, being entitled by length of service of 20 years, they should receive a superannuation. I hope that Her Majesty's Governmen will be disposed to accept this Amendment.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDWithout saying anything in the slightest disrespectful to my noble Friend who moved this Amendment, I should say that this is an Amendment which is very craftily drawn, because it does not at the first glance show that there is any distinction between itself and the clause in the Bill; but there is a substantial difference, and that is, it omits all reference to the fact that the person who has got those terms is to be now entitled to superannuation. I am very sorry, therefore, that I am not in a position to accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 85, lines 40 and 41, leave out 'within five years from the date of the transfer,' and insert 'at any time.'"—(The Earl of Erne.)
§ *THE EARL OF ERNEThis sub-section covers the case of the solicitors to the grand jury and the barony constables. I will state the case to your 1089 Lordships on behalf of the barony constables, because those are cases in which there is practically fixity of tenure. They are elected by the grand jury, and, of course, they can be dismissed by the grand jury; but they never are, excepting for misconduct. If they elect to retire or are compelled to retire now, or within five years after the passing of this Act, they are entitled to a gratuity not exceeding five years' pay. I think that is small enough in all conscience, considering the income they will be obliged to relinquish. If they continue to act after a period of five years, they will be liable to be dismissed without that gratuity, and without a reason given, no matter how exemplary their conduct may have been. I do not think it is right to leave these men at the mercy of these new county councils, who may possibly have a grudge against them, or who may want their places for their relatives and friends. It appears to me that this Amendment should be accepted. It involves no charge upon public funds, and I think it would be a slight compensation to a class of men who will be great sufferers through this legislation.
THE DUKE OF ABERCORNWith regard to the solicitors, these are a strong class of men, and have always been appointed from year to year. In the first instance, they are elected, and then they continue in the position from year to year. There has hardly ever been a case known of a man having been dismissed. Under the Act they will have the option of continuing in office for five years, and then they will be dismissed without any remuneration whatsoever. The solicitors of some of these grand juries have come into contact with a contractor who, very likely, under this Bill, will become a county councillor, and such a man would have an animus against the solicitors, and would cause their dismissal in five years. Under the Corporation Act of 1890, the full compensation to the solicitor is provided for, and under one of the sub-sections of this Bill the provisions of that Act with regard to compensation are taken, but the solicitor to the grand jury gets no compensation for loss of office, and therefore the noble 1090 and learned Lord will not think that what is omitted to be given to the one should not be given to the other, because they both belong to the same class of deserving officers. Therefore, I earnestly hope that your Lordships will take that into consideration, and that the solicitors should not be dismissed at the end of a period of five years.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDThe Amendment that has been proposed by my noble Friend Lord Erne is to leave out on page 85 the words "within five years from the date of the transfer," and to insert in the place of those words the words "at any time." It is obvious that that is a most wide and comprehensive and sweeping Amendment, and it has been presented with great moderation of tone and manner, and one would like to be able to yield to some of the Amendments which are so moved, but I am extremely sorry that I cannot. Everything has been done here to consider the matter from a most fair and reasonable point of view. It was considered with the minutest and closest attention, and the words that are sought to be amended are these—
If any officer transferred by this Act to a council who can be removed without the concurrence of the Local Government Board or the Lord Lieutenant (and is not a banking company), is within five years from the date of the transfer removed from his office for any cause other than misconduct or incapacity, his office shall be deemed to have been abolished within the meaning of the said section.Having regard to everything—to the tenure and experience—that is not an unreasonable clause. It seems to me that it is a fair and considerate one, and I am sorry I am unable to accept the Amendment.
§ *LORD MORRISI am astonished at this Amendment not being conceded to as regards the solicitors to the grand juries. My noble and learned Friend says that it has been so well considered before that it is impossible to reconsider it; but he has made no statement as to why he cannot accept it, excepting that it has been considered somewhere else. If we are only to register everything that has been considered elsewhere, then let that be said. But as a Member of this 1091 House, when we are exercising our own judgment, I should like to hear reasons assigned, and one reason I should like to hear is a reason why a solicitor, who is dismissed without cause, is to get compensation; but if he is dismissed at the end of five years he gets no compensation. That is an extraordinary proposal. I quite understand his getting no compensation under any circumstances, but if he is dismissed without cause, or for misconduct, or without the approval of the Local Government Board, he is to get compensation, and because a greater wrong is done him, namely, that at the end of five and a half years' service he can be dismissed without any reason, he is to get no compensation whatever. I should like to hear some reason given for such a suggestion as that, because at present I have heard none.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDThe reason is perfectly obvious. You have to consider the circumstances and the tenure of each office. It has been stated that the tenure of office of a solicitor to the grand jury—a most highly respectable gentleman—is not a tenure entirely for a term of years, because the appointment is renewed every year, and the way it is measured in considering the question is this: you cannot say that a man shall hold such an office for life or for 20, 15, or 10 years, but he is given a tenure for five years, and then it is said if he is dismissed within a period of five years he shall be entitled to compensation. But why is it hard? It is a question of degree. You have to consider the circumstances of the case, and it is not a case in which you can give a tenure for life. It would Tae unreasonable to give it for 20 years, it may be unreasonable to give it for 15 or for 10 years, but it is thought, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of his present tenure, that it is not an unreasonable thing to say five years.
§ *LORD MORRISThat is not the first time that I have heard my noble and learned Friend say, "Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it is so and so, or that is so and so." I have heard no reason yet except "having regard to all the circumstances of the case." I ask this question: If it is a 1092 right thing to do to give these people compensation if dismissed within five years, why is it not a right thing to give them compensation if dismissed after five years and a day? I have asked that question before, and the only answer I can get is: "Having regard to all the circumstances of the case," and "This matter has been largely considered somewhere else."
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDI did not say "Having regard to all the circumstances of the case"; I asked your Lordships to consider the circumstances of the tenure of his office, which was an office to which he was appointed from year to year. Some degree of measurement was necessary, and it was not thought unreasonable, as I have said before, having regard to the tenure of his office, that five years should be the measure of time. I may add that there was, I believe, no such measure for the English solicitors under the English Act.
THE DUKE OF ABERCORNIn a drastic Measure like the one which is now occupying your Lordships' attention, the. Government should, I think, deal liberally with the officers who will be affected by this Bill. There will be very great changes in their lives. They are a very worthy, hard-working body of men, and they will find their position, when the Bill comes into working order, far less satisfactory than it has hitherto been. But, as it seems useless to try to press any Amendments as regards compensation, I shall not press any future Amendment of that description.
§ The House divided:—Contents 39; Not-contents 32.
| CONTENTS. | |
| Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor) | Salisbury, M. |
| Devonshire, D. (L. President) | Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward) |
| Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal) | |
| Abingdon, E. | |
| Clarendon, E. | |
| Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal) | Denbigh, E. |
| Hardwicke, E. | |
| Portland, D. | Kimberley, E. |
| Mar and Kellie, E. | |
| Bristol, M. | Morley, E. |
| Lansdowne, M. | Mount Edgcumbe, E. |
| Powis, E. | Churchill, L. [Teller] |
| Selborne, E. | Crawshaw, L. |
| Waldegrave, E. [Teller] | De Mauley, L. |
| Digby, L. | |
| Harris, L. | |
| Llandaff, V. | Kinnaird, L. |
| Kintore, L. (E. Kintore) | |
| Aberdare, L. | |
| Ampthill, L. | Lawrence, L. |
| Ashbourne, L. | Monkswell, L. |
| Bagot, L. | Muncaster, L. |
| Balfour, L. | Tweedmouth, L. |
| Belper, L. | Windsor, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | |
| Grafton, D. | Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne) [Teller] |
| Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn) | Fingall, L. (E. Fingall) |
| Hertford, M. | Hare, L. (E. Listowel) |
| Harlech, L. | |
| Macnaghten, L. | |
| Dartrey, E. | Massy, L. |
| Mayo, E | Mendip, L. (V. Clifden) |
| Rosse, E. | |
| Vane E. (M. Londonderry) [Teller] | Monk, L. (V. Monck) |
| Monteagle of Brandon, L. | |
| Templetown, V. | Morris, L. |
| O'Neill, L. | |
| Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde) | |
| Brougham and Vaux, L. | |
| Plunket, L. | |
| Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort) | Rathmore, L, |
| Saltersford, L. (E. Courtowh) | |
| Castlemaine, L. | |
| Castletown, L. | Stanmore, L. |
| Cheylesmore, L. | Sudley, L. (E. Arran) |
| Clonbrock, L. | Ventry, L. |
§
Motion made and Question put—
That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
§ Agreed to.