§ Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
§ On Question, Bill read 3a.
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY moved to amend Clause 2 so as to provide that female asylum officers should be eligible for superannuation allowances on reaching the age of fifty, instead of fifty-five years. This was, he said, an Amendment that he had every intention of moving at an earlier stage of the Bill, but owing to a miscalculation of time on his part it did not appear on the Paper at the Report stage. It was something in the nature of a compromise. Their Lordships would remember that originally in the Bill it was provided that all officers should be eligible for superannuation at the age of fifty years, but owing to a little opposition on the part of Lord Belper, rather on the ground of economy and on behalf of the ratepayers of whose interests the noble Lord was so faithful a guardian, the age was altered to fifty-five years. But it was felt that in the case of women the age should be fifty years. The object of his Amendment was to enable women after long and arduous service to be superannuated at the age of fifty. He thought their Lordships would agree that female officers should be entitled to retire 548 at the age of fifty. Their temperament was not of such a robust character as that of male servants, and it was only fair that this preference of five years should be given to women.
In page 1, line 21, after the word 'old' to insert the words 'or in the case of females not less than fifty years old.'"—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
§ LORD MONK BRETTON said he not only accepted the noble Earl's Amendment, but he did so with pleasure. It was with the greatest regret that he had accepted Lord Belper's Amendment in Committee substituting the age of fifty-five for both men and women. The case of women in this connection was stronger than that of men, as was shown by the evidence before the Committee, from which it appeared that the number of breakdowns among women attendants greatly exceeded the number among men. He hoped the noble Earl would press the Amendment.
§ THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP) was sorry it was impossible for His Majesty's Government to accept this very serious alteration in the scheme of the Bill. It was serious not only in the way of making a considerable additional charge on the rates, but still more serious in the sense that it would introduce a wholly new principle into the pension schemes of this country. There was no pension scheme in which any distinction was made between men and women, either in this country or, he thought, in any other country. Their Lordships would probably agree that when a woman had reached the age of fifty years she was just as well able to look after lunatics for another five years as a warder who had reached the same age. He did not see that the charge of female lunatics was more arduous than the charge of male lunatics, and in view of the new principle in pension legislation which the Amendment would introduce he hoped their Lordships would not accept it.
§ LORD BELPER reminded the House that his Amendment was accepted without a Division and by the general consent of the House, and though the noble Lord in charge of the Bill now said that he accepted it with great regret, at all events he veiled that regret very satisfactorily at the time, because he did not speak against the Amendment. He (Lord Belper) had listened to hear what the arguments were 549 in favour of making the proposed distinction between male and female officers. He anticipated that the noble Earl who moved the Amendment would point out that the lives of women were much shorter than those of men, or that they were not able at this period of their lives to do their duty in as efficient a way as men. Nothing of the sort, however, had been contended, and therefore he agreed with the noble Earl the Lord Steward that there was no case for the proposed distinction. The age of fifty-five was inserted as a compromise, and he thought the age was a fair one both as regarded men and women and should be allowed to stand.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ Verbal Amendment to Clause 2 agreed to.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMP said the two Amendments standing in his name to Clause 3 were not important ones, but it was desired to make the language of this clause correspond to the language of Clause 2, to which it referred, and these Amendments would effect that object.
In page 3, line 6, to leave out 'a superannuation allowance is granted to'; and in line 7, after 'servant' to insert 'is entitled to receive or is granted a superannuation allowance.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Verbal Amendment agreed to.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMP moved an Amendment in Clause 4—which gave power to the visiting committee to grant a gratuity to the widow or children of an officer who, if he had not died in the service of the asylum, would have been qualified for a special superannuation allowance—empowering the visiting committee to grant either a gratuity or an annual allowance. He said their Lordships would remember that a short discussion took place on Report upon this clause, and that the noble Lord below the Gangway, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, moved an Amendment, of which he had not given notice, to an Amendment which appeared on the Paper. Lord Clifford then moved to leave out the words "an annual allowance or," and, as he thought often happened in those circumstances, it was difficult for their Lordships, although they 550 accepted Lord Clifford's proposal, entirely to appreciate the full effect of an Amendment of that kind. His Majesty's Government, on consideration, were anxious to persuade their Lordships to reinsert these words in the Bill. The object, he thought, was quite clear. There were oases in which it was only fair that the visiting committee should have the power of giving not only a gratuity but also an annual allowance to these people. Their Lordships had already, in subsection (4) of Clause 2, given power to grant pensions to officers permanently incapacitated, and to ask their Lordships also to give an annual allowance as proposed in cases where officers had been killed was, after all, only a necessary consequence to the previous power, to which no objection was taken by the noble Lord below the Gangway. There very likely would arise a case in which a sum of money down would not be a sufficient recognition to make of an officer who had gallantly lost his life in the service of the visiting committee. He did not think they could anticipate that there would be many such cases. Only one or two had occurred in the whole year throughout the police force of the United Kingdom, and there would be even fewer under this Bill. He therefore hoped their Lordships would agree to the Amendment.
In page 3, line 40, after 'granted,' to insert 'an annual allowance or.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
§ LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH said his objection to the words "annual allowance" was that they introduced an entirely new feature. The Bill up to the point when these words were proposed the other night limited its action entirely to a gratuity to widows and children and an annuity to the actual officers and servants. The Report stage was the first occasion upon which the subject of an annual allowance was brought up, and he then appealed to their Lordships whether in those circumstances it was not quite justifiable to call attention to so radical an innovation. The clause as it originally came to their Lordships' House provided that it should be competent for asylum managers to grant, at their discretion and on such terms as they thought fit, a gratuity to the widow and children of an established officer or servant who died whilst in the service of the asylum, and who, if he had retired at the time of his death, would have been entitled to a superannuation 551 allowance. The Amendment to which he had objected, and which the noble Earl now proposed to reinsert, enabled the asylum authority to give to the widow and children of an officer or servant dying in the service of the establishment not merely a gratuity but a pension. It was called an annual allowance, but the limit was practically equal to the original pension granted in the case of the actual officer on being superannuated. He contended that that was an alteration in the principle of the Bill which it was not proper to introduce at so late a stage, and their Lordships had acquiesced with him in that sentiment. Now it was proposed to reinsert the words. He left the matter entirely in their Lordships' hands, but he must say that the innovation was a very serious one, and one that ought not to be introduced at a late stage of the Bill.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Drafting Amendment to Clause 6 agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to amend Clause 6—
6. All services by an established officer or servant in an asylum shall be aggregated and reckoned for the purposes of this Act, whether the services have been continuous or not, and whether they have been rendered at one or more asylums: Provided that no service which is not continuous for at least two years under one local authority shall be so reckoned,
by deleting the proviso at the end and inserting a new proviso. He said the proviso as it stood in the Bill was an Amendment inserted in Committee on the motion of Lord Belper, and modified by the addition of words moved by Lord Monk Bretton on Report. There was no objection to the objects which the noble Lords had in view, but he proposed to redraft the section in the form in which it appeared on the Paper. He did not think there would be any objection to that.
In page 4, to leave out lines 18 and 19, and to insert 'Provided that where an officer or servant of an asylum has removed to another asylum, not being an asylum provided by the same local authority, his services in the first asylum shall not be so aggregated and reckoned unless they amount to at least two years service and in the case of an officer or servant who has removed to another asylum after the commencement of this Act, unless he has removed with the written sanction of the visiting committee of the asylum from which he removed.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.552
§ Verbal Amendments to Clause 7 agreed to.
LORD BELPER moved to amend Clause 9—
9. The percentage amounts to be deducted annually for the purposes of this Act shall be as follows (that is to say):—
In the case of officers and servants with less than five years service at the passing of this Act, or appointed after the passing of this Act, two per cent. of his salary or wages and emoluments for each year;
In the case of officers and servants with more than five and less than fifteen years service at the passing of this Act, two and a-half per cent. of the salary or wages and emoluments for each year;
In the case of officers and servants with more than fifteen years service at the passing of this Act, three per cent. of the salary or wages and emoluments for each year,
by omitting the words "or appointed after the passing of this Act." The object of the Amendment was, he said, to provide that persons entering asylum service after the passing of this Act should pay a contribution to the pension fund of three per cent. instead of two per cent. of their salary. He admitted that it was not desirable to move Amendments at a late stage of the Bill which should have been moved earlier if it was possible to avoid it; but his attention had been called to the fact that while the benefits under this Bill were much more liberal than those under the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, two per cent. was the same contribution as was paid by Poor Law officers under that Act. Therefore the effect would be that the surplus which had to be provided by the local authority would cause a heavier charge upon the rates than in the cases where the benefits were less and where the contribution was the same. He did not propose to interfere in any way with the amount that the present officers had to contribute, but it was proposed by his Amendment to increase the amount that future officers should contribute from two per cent. to three per cent. In the circumstances, considering that the benefits were considerable under the Bill and larger than under the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, he thought it was only fair to make this small alteration.
In Clause 9, to leave out the words 'or appointed after the passing of this Act.'"—(Lord Belper.)
§ EARL BEAUCHAMP said this was an Amendment to which His Majesty's Government would give a cordial approval. Their Lordships would see that this was a case 553 dealing with people who entered the service after the date of the passing of the Act. Therefore they were not taking away from anybody at present in the service of a visiting committee any privilege which he or she enjoyed at the present time. The scale of pensions provided in the Bill was so liberal that it was thought that three per cent. was not an unfair contribution to ask from these officers. The experience of the Metropolitan Police Fund and other funds was that large deficits had to be made up out of the rates. Therefore he thought three per cent. was not an unfair contribution to ask from future officers.
§ LORD MONK BRETTON said the promoters of the Bill accepted with very great regret the Amendment which was moved in Committee by Lord Belper and which retarded pensions from the age of fifty to fifty-five. Now this was another blow to be dealt to the Bill. By the Amendment the contribution was to be raised from two to three per cent. He felt it very difficult to accept the Amendment, even after what had been said on behalf of His Majesty's Government. Lord Belper had quoted the case of Poor Law officers, but the whole point of this Bill was that asylum officers were engaged in a dangerous profession, whereas Poor Law officers were not. After what had fallen from the noble Earl and the warnings he had received he was not going to press his opposition to the Amendment, but he desired to say that, though he had twice resisted an Amendment moved by Lord Donoughmore to the effect that the basis for calculating the pensions should be the last five years of service and not the last ten years of service, as in the Bill, he reserved to himself, if he did not resist the present Amendment, the right to accept Lord Donoughmore's Amendment later and substitute five years for ten years.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Drafting Amendments agreed to.
§ Drafting Amendment to Clause 10 agreed to.
LORD MONK BRETTON had an Amendment on the Paper to insert, after Clause 12, the following new clause—
13. Where, by virtue of any award made under section sixty-two of the Local Government Act, 1888, or section two hundred and forty-four of the
Lunacy Act, 1890, any liability is imposed on any county council or the council of any county borough to contribute to any superannuation allowances granted to any officer or servant or servant of an asylum, such liability shall, unless and until otherwise provided by subsequent award, agreement, or otherwise, continue in the same manner and to the same extent as if this Act had not been passed, and any sums payable under any such award in respect of any such liability shad be paid to the visiting committee of any such asylum in lieu of the county council or the council of any county borough to whom the same would otherwise be payable.
He said he was sorry to trouble their Lordships with such an obscure Amendment at this stage, but it was owing to its obscurity that it had not been raised before. The point to be met was this. Let them assume that a corporation and a county council owned an asylum together and that the asylum became too small and the county council and corporation separated. There were duties to give pensions on both local authorities, and consequently under the existing law awards were made under which, let them say, the county council had to pay to the corporation such sums as would enable the whole of the pensions due to be paid. Under this Bill the visiting committee and not the local authority were made the responsible authority for giving pensions, and therefore awards which had been made and which obliged one local authority to pay another local authority were vitiated by the visiting committee being made the authority. The county council might refuse to pay the corporation under the award because the visiting committee was the authority, and it was to remedy this that his proposed new clause was drafted. He was afraid his Amendment was not correct as it stood, but he would not trouble their Lordships to make any change in the Amendment had he not the authority both of the Lunacy Commissioners and of His Majesty's Government in the proposed amendment to the Amendment which he was about to suggest. Clause 19 of the Bill provided that repeals under this Bill should not affect the payment of any superannuation allowance granted before the commencement of the Act. Therefore existing pensions and the machinery under which they were paid in this peculiar case were safeguarded, but what were not safeguarded were future payments. He therefore hoped their Lordships would insert this clause. But as the words "such liability" would refer to existing pensions as well as to future pensions, he asked permission to amend the last five lines of his Amendment, so
that, after the words "and to the same extent as if this Act had not been passed," the clause would run: "provided that any sums payable under any such award in respect of superannuation allowance granted under this Act shall be paid to the visiting committee of any such asylum in lieu of the county council or the council of any county borough to whom the same would otherwise be payable."
After Clause 12 to insert the following new clause—
'13. Where, by virtue of any award made under section sixty-two of the Local Government Act, 1888, or section two hundred and forty-four of the Lunacy Act, 1890, any liability is imposed on any county council or the council of any county borough to contribute to any superannuation allowances granted to any officer or servant of an asylum, such liability shall, unless and until otherwise provided by subsequent award, agreement, or otherwise, continue, in the same manner and to the same extent as if this Act had not been passed, provided that any sums payable under any such award in respect of superannuation allowance granted under this Act shall be paid to the visiting committee of any such asylum in lieu of the county council or the council of any county borough to whom the same would otherwise be payable.'"—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
§ EARL BEAUCHAMP said His Majesty's Government would be very glad to see this clause inserted in the Bill, especially in the amended form in which the noble Lord had moved it.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMP said the two Amendments standing in his name to Clause 14 were Amendments to which His Majesty's Government attached a good deal of importance. As the clause stood at present, it would enable asylum officers to appeal to the Secretary of State not merely as to the amount of the pensions to which they were legally entitled, but also on questions whether the visiting committee had treated them fairly in cases where the amount of the pension was left to the discretion of the visiting committee. He thought when the visiting committee were given a discretion of this kind it was not desirable that there should always be a power of appeal to the Secretary of State. This was one of those matters which they might safely leave the local authority to deal with. His Amendment would have the effect of enabling an asylum servant to appeal as to the amount of pension to which he was entitled, but would 556 not permit him to appeal on questions as to the way in which the visiting committee had exercised a discretion now entrusted to them by law.
In page 8, lines 28 and 29, to leave out the words 'or amount of'; and in line 29, after 'asylum' to insert 'or as to the amount of the superannuation allowance to which any such officer or servant is entitled.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved an Amendment to Clause 15. The clause ran—
15. The salary or wages and emoluments of an established officer or servant shall, for the purpose of computing the amount of a superannuation allowance or gratuity, be calculated according to the average amount of his salary or wages and emoluments during the ten years ending on the quarter day which immediately precedes the day on which he ceases to hold his office or employment, or, in the case of an officer or servant with less than ten years service, on the average amount during his whole period of service; and the expression "emoluments" includes all fees, poundage and other payments made to any established officer or servant as such for his own use, and also the money valve of any apartments, rations, or other allowances in kind appertaining to his office or employment.
The annual money value of all such fees, poundage and other payments, apartments, rations, or other allowance in kind shall be set out in a schedule to be prepared by the visiting committee of every asylum and affixed in a conspicuous place in the asylum.
The noble Earl proposed to leave out "ten years" ["be calculated according to the average amount of his salary or wages and emoluments during the ten years"] and to substitute "five years." He said this was the Amendment to which Lord Monk Bretton had already referred, and which provided that the pensions were to be calculated on the average salary of the last five years instead of on the average salary for the last ten years, as in the Bill. He had moved this Amendment twice before, and would not have ventured to bring it again before the House but for the fact that the circumstances were entirely altered by the Amendment raising the contribution from two per cent. to three per cent. He claimed that the fact that the contribution had been so raised did very much increase the necessity for this Amendment. He would not go again over the ground which he had covered previously in moving the Amendment, but would merely remind their Lordships that Mr. Byrne, of the Home Office, had very strongly supported the
period of five years in his evidence before the Select Committee, and in doing so he was merely recommending to the Select Committee the following of precedents. Those precedents were a great many more in number than he was aware of when he moved the Amendment in Committee, and he had in his hand a list of six Superannuation Acts in which the period of five years had been adopted.
§ Their Lordships would remember that almost the sole ground upon which the Amendment was resisted at previous stages was that the cost to the rates would be too great, in view of the very small contribution—two per cent.—which was to be made by the officers. That contribution had now been raised to three per cent. and he claimed that that was a very strong reason why the period should now be reduced. A case had been drawn up in the offices of the London County Council which would show how the proposal in the Bill and the proposal in his Amendment would work. The ten years average was not likely to affect a higher official, who would always have been drawing his maximum salary for ten years prior to his retirement; his pension would, therefore, not be affected whether it was calculated on the average salary for his last five or ten years. But he was assured that if the Bill remained in its present form it would to a very large extent affect the pensions of the lower officers, men to whom a small difference in pension was much more serious than it would be in the case of the higher officials.
§ He was assured that the following case illustrated what would happen. A male attendant entered the London service, and was classed at first as a second-class attendant. He received, after six months probation, £31 a year, his salary rising by annual increments of £1 to £40; the officer was also, of course, allowed board, lodging and washing. Therefore, he took nine years to arrive at the maximum of a second-class attendant's wages, and he might remain in this position for many years awaiting a vacancy as a first-class, or what was known technically as a charge attendant. When he was thus appointed he commenced at £40 and proceeded by annual increments of £1 to £50. Therefore, the man joined, let him say, at twenty-five as a second-class attendant; he would reach his maximum pay as a second-class 558 attendant at thirty-four; he remained in that position for ten years, and was then made a charge attendant and did not reach his maximum of £50 until he was fifty-four years of age. At fifty-five he retired, and his pension for thirty years service was then calculated under the Bill on his average salary during his last ten years service. That average would work out at £46 8s., whereas the average for the previous five years would work out at £48 16s. In each case there would have to be added £39 for emoluments—board, uniform, lodging, and washing. The pension would then work out at £51 4s. 9d. on a ten years calculation, and at £52 13s. 7d. on a five years calculation. The difference was a very small one to the authorities concerned, but the sum was by no means a negligible one to an officer drawing a pension of about £1 a week. Under the present London County Council scale this man's pension would be £59 6s. 9d. Therefore, future officers were not going to be treated as well as past officers. He appealed to their Lordships to substitute five years for ten years. Five years was the period recommended by the Select Committee. He believed the period of ten years was absolutely without precedent. It certainly was contrary to the system under which the officials of whom he had been speaking at present served. The noble Earl the Lord Steward, in resisting Lord Shaftesbury's Amendment earlier in the evening, objected then to the introduction of a wholly new principle. He (Lord Donoughmore) was surprised but gratified to see that sign of Toryism in his noble friend opposite. He hoped he would retain it, and that His Majesty's Government would see their way not to oppose this Amendment.
In page 8, line 36, to leave out 'ten' and to insert 'five.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
§ LORD MONK BRETTON merely wished to add to what he had already said on this point, that as their Lordships had advanced the age to fifty-five that minimised very much the effect of the noble Earl's Amendment, because a large number of asylum workers reached their top pay at the age of forty-five.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMP said that in considering this matter their Lordships should remember that this question of five years 559 or ten years did not stand alone. They also had to consider the scale of pensions. Pensions for first-class officers were by this Bill based on a scale of fiftieths. In those circumstances it was thought not unfair that a period of ten years should be taken. If instead a scale of sixtieths had been inserted, then he thought there would have been a good deal to be said for the noble Earl's request that five years should be substituted. In the circumstances he was afraid the Government must stand by the provisions of the Bill as they stood. It had been suggested that, in view of the willingness of noble Lords who promoted
§ Amendment negatived accordingly.
EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to amend the definition in Clause 16—
Established officer or servant" means such officer or servant as has the care or charge of the
§ the Bill to accept the three per cent., His Majesty's Government might fairly give way on this question of the ten years, but they were unable to effect a compromise of that kind. He hoped their Lordships would support His Majesty's Government in this effort, small though it might be, to protect the ratepayers.
§ On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 69; Not-contents, 40.
patients or whom the visiting committee of an asylum shall by resolution determine to be an established officer or servant,
|Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)||Iveagh, V.||Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)|
|Wolverhampton, V. (L. President.)||Morley of Blackburn, V.||Kinnaird, L.|
|Leith of Fyvie, L.|
|Abinger, L.||Lyveden, L.|
|Northumberland, D.||Allendale, L.||Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)|
|Armitstead, L.||Montagu of Beaulieu, L.|
|Bath, M.||Avebury, L.||North, L.|
|Camden, M.||Belper, L.||O'Hagan, L.|
|Blythswood, L.||Oranmore and Browne, L.|
|Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)||Brassey, L.||Pentland, L.|
|Camperdown, E.||Burghclere, L.||Poltimore, L.|
|Carrington, E.||Camoys, L.||Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)|
|Cathcart, E.||Clinton, L.||Ritchie of Dundee, L.|
|Clarendon, E.||Cloncurry, L.||Rothschild, L.|
|Cromer, E.||Colebrooke, L.||St. David's, L.|
|Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)||Courtney of Penwith, L.||Saltoun, L.|
|Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)||Sanderson, L.|
|Liverpool, E.||Denman, L. [Teller.]||Sandhurst, L.|
|Lovelace, E.||Dunboyne, L.||Saye and Sele, L.|
|Mayo, E.||Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)||Stanmore, L.|
|Onslow, E.||Elphinstone, L.||Stewart of Garlies, L. (L. Galloway.)|
|Wharncliffe, E.||Farrer, L.|
|Glantawe, L.||Waleran, L.|
|Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)||Hamilton of Dalzell, L.||Walsingham, L.|
|Falkland, V.||Hastings, L.||Wenlock, L.|
|Goschen, V.||Herschell, L. [Teller.]|
|Newcastle, D.||Churchill, V.||Colchester, L.|
|Hood, V.||Ellenborough, L.|
|Ailesbury, M.||Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) [Teller.]||Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.|
|Salisbury, M.||Hindlip, L.|
|Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)|
|Carnwath, E.||Addington, L.||Middleton, L.|
|Cawdor, E.||Aldenham, L.||Monk Bretton, L. [Teller.]|
|Dartrey, E.||Alverstone, L.||Rathmore, L.|
|Devon, E.||Ashbourne, L.||Revelstoke, L.|
|Eldon, E.||Bagot, L.||Sandys, L.|
|Lauderdale, E.||Barrymore, L.||Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)|
|Lytton, E.||Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)||Sinclair, L.|
|Shaftesbury, E.||Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)||Sudeley, L.|
|Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)||Clifford of Chudleigh, L.||Ventry, L.|
|Waldegrave, E.||Clonbrock, L.|
§ by inserting, after the words "means such officer or servant," the words "employed in a permanent capacity."561
In page 9, line 15, after 'servant,' to insert 'employed in a permanent capacity.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
§ THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE asked if the Bill as it stood would apply to anybody who was not employed in a permanent capacity.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMP said the object of inserting the words was to prevent friction and disputes arising in the future.
§ LORD MONK BRETTON hoped the chaplain would not be cut out of the Bill by this Amendment. The chaplain to an asylum ran considerable danger although not permanently employed in the institution.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND) moved to amend Clause 17 by providing that the Act should come into operation in Scotland on May 15, 1910. This was, he said, the beginning of the financial year of local authorities in Scotland.
In page 9, line 36, at the beginning of the line to insert 'This Act shall come into operation in Scotland on the 15th day of May, 1910, and.'"—(Lord Pentland.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Consequential Amendments agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved an Amendment to Clause 18 with the object of preserving the right of existing officers in Ireland to an appeal to the Lord Lieutenant in the event of their being required to retire under this Act. He explained that, previous to the passing of the Local Government Act of 1898, all officers in lunatic asylums in Ireland had the privilege, if dismissed or pensioned, of appealing to the Lord Lieutenant. That power was done away with in 1898, but the rights of existing officers were preserved. They were anxious that the rights of those existing officers should be preserved under this Bill just as they were in the Act of 1898. That was only plain justice, and he hoped the House would accept his Amendment.562
In page 10, after line 29, to insert. 'A requirement to retire under section eleven of this Act shall, in its application to an established officer or servant who is an existing officer within the meaning of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, be subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved an Amendment in Clause 20 (Short title and commencement of Act) providing that the measure should come into operation on April 1 instead of March 31, 1910. The financial year began on April 1, and it would be more convenient that the Act should come into force at the beginning of the financial year rather than on the last day of the preceding financial year.
In page 11, line 28, to leave out 'thirty,' and to leave out 'March' and insert 'April.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Bill passed, and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended (No. 225.)