ASYLUM OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.

HL Deb 25 October 1909 vol 4 cc369-408

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Monk Bretton.)

On Queston, Motion agreed to

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

1. For the purposes of this Act the established officers and servants employed in asylums shall be divided into two classes. The first class shall consist of all those established officers and servants who have the care or charge of the patients in the usual course of their employment. The second class shall include all other established officers and servants.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said the three Amendments on the Paper which stood in his name to this clause were part of a series of Amendments he had been asked to submit to their Lordships in the name of the London County Council. He desired, of course, solely to consult the convenience of their Lordships, but he thought it would be probably more convenient that he should explain the purport of the Amendments now. He was sorry to notice that these Amendments ran very much counter to a scheme which was mostly contained in the Amendments of Lord Belper, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh being also interested in the same point. He was glad to think that there were one or two Amendments of his noble friends later on which he would be able to support on behalf of the London County Council, but he was afraid on this particular point there was a considerable gulf between them, arising from the peculiar situation of the London County Council in this matter owing to the extensiveness of the duties they had to perform. They had, as their Lordships were probably aware, ten asylums under their charge, which was a very much larger number, he fancied, than was the case with most, if not all, of the local authorities in the Kingdom. He was told that they were contemplating the addition of another asylum, and they supervised no fewer than 17,900 patients. As the result of such a very large system, they had, of course, a proportionately large staff, all of whom gave their whole time to this particular work. This Bill, if passed in its present form, would cut out from its benefits a very large number of officers in the asylum service. It would not only cut out future holders of these offices, but it was actually going to deprive of a pension a large number of officers who had now a perfectly definite expectation of one. It was owing to this fact that the London County Council supported the Bill as it was originally introduced in another place; he held in his hand a copy of a resolution which showed the attitude of two committees of the London County Council upon this subject in the direction he had just mentioned, and he should be pleased to show the resolution to any of their Lordships who desired to see it.

The difference of principle between the Bill and the desires of the London County Council was that whereas the Bill extended its obvious advantages to a very large number of officers in the asylum service, it did not extend those advantages to all those officers, at any rate in the asylum service of the London County Council, and it was the desire of the London County Council that all those officers should share in its benefits. The theory on which the Bill seemed to proceed was that wherever there was danger from contact with lunatics the official should be given the advantages of this Bill, but that any official who was not actually submitted not only to danger but to constant danger should not be brought within the benefits of the Bill. That, of course, excluded the whole of the large clerical staff of the London County Council, or, at any rate, a very large part of it.

Perhaps he might be allowed to give some concrete cases which, he was advised, would not come within even the second class mentioned in Clause 2. First of all, however, he might say generally that all lunatics were, if he might use the phrase, potentially dangerous. One could never be certain when they were likely to prove dangerous, and in all asylums, he understood, there were selected lunatics working in the grounds and elsewhere who might at any time develop homicidal tendencies; and on two occasions recently, he was informed by officers of the London County Council, a lunatic working in the grounds of an asylum attacked another lunatic. In one case the attack was made with a pick-axe, the patient attacked being murdered. Obviously if there were danger to another lunatic there was equal danger to an officer of the Council coming in any way into contact with the lunatic, and it was the opinion, therefore, of the Council that that officer should not be denied the benefits of this Bill.

He had a large number of cases of officials who, he believed, would be excluded under the Bill as it now stood. First, he might mention that at the epileptic colony, where all the patients were specially selected as fit to work in the grounds, a patient recently felled a medical superintendent with a piece of iron-piping which he had concealed under his coat, and in this case there was very little doubt that the action was premeditated. He might quote the well-known case of the late Mr. Ermson, a Commissioner in Lunacy, very well known in connection with the subject of asylums, who was visiting Bexley Asylum in his official capacity and returned to a ward to re-count the patients. A lunatic stabbed him in the throat with a large sharpened nail, which he admitted he had cunningly concealed about his person for some days, his intention being to kill one of the committee of the asylum. He mentioned this case to show that it was not only the persons who were in direct charge of lunatics who might be in positions of danger from the result of their contact with lunatics.

But he would now come actually to the officials of the London County Council. There was a clerk and a staff of clerical assistants who devoted the whole of their time to their administrative work. Their conditions were, he believed, quite different from those of officers having the care of lunatics under the jurisdiction at any rate of a great many other authorities. These officers frequently visited the asylums. Every week of the year there were several meetings in the various asylums, and thus the clerk and his assistants, in the course of their duties, were brought into contact with the patients. The clerk very often visited the wards on occasions of inquiry or statutory inspection, and therefore he ran exactly the same risks as members of the committee; he ran exactly the same risks as would be run in some of the cases he (Lord Donoughmore) had already quoted to their Lordships. Yet the clerk would be excluded from any of the benefits of the Bill—at least, he was advised that that was so if the Bill passed in its present form. The London County Council had a special engineer told off to the asylums. He was known as the asylums engineer, and he frequently had to visit asylums about heating, lighting, and so on, and his duties, therefore, brought him into a position which afforded constant opportunity for attack upon him if any lunatic were so minded. Yet he was advised that that engineer would not enjoy the benefits of this Bill. There was also a pathologist, undoubtedly a member of the asylums' staff, his duties being entirely confined to circumstances arising in the asylums; he, of course, had constantly to go into the asylums and all over them, but he was excluded from the benefits of this Bill. Therefore, he (Lord Donoughmore) claimed that the particular position of the London County Council made it absolutely necessary, if fairness was to be meted out to all its officials, that this Bill should be extended in the way that his three Amendments to this clause asked their Lordships to extend it.

He wished to urge another point upon their Lordships. A great many officials who now looked forward to benefits such as would be given under this Bill under the present system would lose those benefits as the result of the passing of this Bill, and they would be therefore very unfairly treated unless some such Amendments as he was now moving were passed. He knew it was a matter of dispute as to whether all the officials of the London County Council were at present justified in claiming that they had these benefits; but he would say that in 1904 the London County Council took counsel's opinion on the point, and he would read two short extracts from that opinion. The first was— In our opinion all officers and servants appointed by the Asylums Committee, including the clerk of such Committee, are pensionable under the 280th Section of the Lunacy Act, 1890, and are exempt from liability to contribute to the Superannuation and Provident Fund of the Council. The fact that any such officer or servant is appointed in the central office, and not in connection with any particular asylum does not, in our opinion, prevent him from being so pensionable.

The next extract was— We do not think the engineer or his professional or clerical assistants can be compelled to contribute to the Council's scheme, and the same applies, in our opinion, to the pathologist and his professional and laboratory assistants. The reason is that all these officers and servants are in our opinion pensionable under Section 280 of the Lunacy Act, 1890.

That was the opinion of no less an authority than the present Secretary of State for War, and he did not think it was unreasonable that he (Lord Donoughmore) should claim that the Government should accept it; and in view of this opinion it was a very far-reaching action that the present Bill should wipe out all the expectations which the officials in question now undoubtedly enjoyed.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 6, to leave out the second 'the,' and in line 7 to leave out 'employed in asylums.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

LORD MONK BRETTON said he had no quarrel with the way in which his noble friend stated his case. His noble friend had truly stated that the great principle of this Bill was as to whether there was danger or whether there was no danger; but then he went on to say that there was danger in the case of doctors in the asylum service, who, he said, would be excluded from the Bill as it now stood. He (Lord Monk Bretton) said they were not excluded from the Bill as it now stood, and that was the quarrel between them. The noble Earl made a great case of the hardships to which existing servants would be exposed, but Clause 13 permitted those servants to contract out so that they were left if they chose as they were before. What was the noble Earl's, case in reference to the epileptic? The words of the Bill were "employed in asylums." How could a man be knocked down by an iron pipe in an asylum unless he was employed in an asylum? Then the noble Earl made a point as to the clerical staff of the County Council. That was a very broad question. He said on the Second Reading that the great principle of this Bill was the question of whether or not there was danger. They gave these people preferential treatment because there was danger. If a clerk of a committee of the London County Council went into the asylum and was in contact with lunatics he would come within the provisions of the Bill, but if he did not do so then he was not treated differently from the clerk of any other committee of the London County Council. This was not a matter which affected the London County Council only but England, Scotland and Ireland; and why should a country solicitor who acted as asylums committee clerk and perhaps did not go to the asylum at all, or else went there under circumstances where he ran not the slightest risk or nerve strain of any sort, be in a different position from the clerk of the finance committee of a county council? On these grounds he hoped the noble Earl would not press his Amendment. Of course, if the noble Earl differed from him on a question of law, there were higher authorities in the House to decide that point; but as this Bill referred to officers employed in asylums he did not see how a man could be in danger or receive injury in the asylum without coming within the scope of the Bill.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH hoped their Lordships would not agree to this Amendment. Speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill he said that while he thought the county councils were as a rule in hearty sympathy with the general principles of the Bill, they were not prepared to admit that everyone who happened to be employed about the grounds of an asylum was a person entitled to a pension. There were many such persons whose occupations brought them very little into contact with the lunatics, and to say that persons who ran the same danger as those of their Lordships who had served on asylum committees were deserving of special consideration on account of the risks they ran was, he thought, absurd. He had served on a committee for a great many years, and it had never occurred to him that he was undergoing nerve strain or exposing himself to an enormous amount of danger such as would justify his having the same preferential consideration as other people in the asylums.

THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP) did not think the noble Earl's Amendment would have quite the effect the noble Earl thought. A large number of the people to whom the noble Earl referred were, he believed, already included in the Bill. To begin with, this Bill did not take away from those who were employed by the London County Council any right or any expectation they had at the present time. There was nothing in the Bill which could deprive them of any expectation they legally or morally enjoyed at the present time; but, on the other hand, he thought the Bill as it stood included a certain number of people whom the noble Lord below the Gangway did not appreciate were likely to come within the effects of the Bill. Some of their Lordships had probably had the same experience he had had himself of being on a visiting committee of a lunatic asylum. Certainly in country districts it was a very common thing for lunatic asylums to have a large farm, on which they had a large number of servants who were helped by lunatics. His own idea was that a dairyman in the employ of a lunatic asylum who was hurt by lunatics in the discharge of his duties, being generally assisted by lunatics, was a proper person to be superannuated under the scheme of this Bill. The idea of the noble Earl opposite, he thought, was that as the Bill stood it would not allow such a man to come under the scheme. There he joined issue with the noble Earl. He thought such a man came quite clearly under the definition of the Bill. On the other hand, certainly the members of a committee going round an asylum were not entitled to superannuation any more than the architect who went in to give an occasional opinion. They did not and ought not to come under the Bill; but under the Bill as it stood he thought it was perfectly plain that any servant who was in contact with lunatics would come under the scheme of superannuation and that was really the idea that was in the mind of their Lordships. They all wished that whatever the immediate employment of these persons might be, if they were in constant contact with lunatics they should be able to enjoy the advantages of this Bill. He thought the noble Earl was really under an unnecessary fear that these people would be excluded, and under the circumstances he should like to join in the appeal to him not to press this Amendment.

LORD BELPER said he would like to point out to the noble Earl who moved the Amendment that he appeared to propose to leave out the most important words in the Bill, "employed in asylums." Was the noble Earl going to leave out the title of the Bill? If he did not do so, it was not logical. With the words "employed in asylums" left out, the Bill might affect any one in a hospital or who had any dealing with any patient. There would be nothing to confine the Bill to asylums. If the noble Earl meant that, he ought to bring in a separate Bill for the London County Council.

What was the history of this Bill? The Bill was introduced in the other House by a gentleman who added to his other qualifications the honour of having been chairman of the London County Council. The whole case of the London County Council was fully placed before the Committee—the only part of the proceedings in the other House to which they were able to refer in any way, because the other proceedings were silent. After the case of the London County Council was heard in the Select Committee and the Bill had been through the other House with general consent, that gentleman now wanted to upset the whole Bill and make it suited for the London County Council, and for the London County Council alone, quite forgetting that if he was going to impose these stringent regulations in respect of other officers it would greatly widen the Bill and lead to very much larger expense. He hoped that if the noble Earl would not withdraw the Amendment it would not at all events be allowed to be added to the Bill.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said he was afraid he had not got the same innocent faith in a Committee of the other House that the noble Lord seemed to have. It was quite true that this Bill was introduced by an ex-chairman of the London County Council and as introduced the Council actively supported it. With regard to the proposed omission of the words "employed in asylums," he thought the noble Lord answered that point himself when he said that he (Lord Donoughmore) did not propose to alter the title. That made it quite clear that the Bill referred to people in the asylum service.

LORD BELPER

It would not say so at all.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said the noble Lord would find the word "asylum" in a number of places in the Bill where he did not propose to move its omission, and he thought that would be enough to establish his case. Of course, he did not desire at the present stage to press this Amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, had met him perfectly fairly and frankly. He understood from the noble Earl that it was the desire of the Government that any one who, owing to his profession, was in danger should receive the benefits of the Bill, and that being so he did not desire to press the Amendment now, although he was sure their Lordships would allow him to retain his right and to see whether any Amendment safeguarding the London County Council could be introduced at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BELPER moved an Amendment to substitute the word "direct" for the words "care or" in Clause 1. This, he said, was the first of several Amendments in his name, and perhaps he had better follow Lord Donoughmore's example and explain what he wished these Amendments to effect.

EARL BEAUCHAMP said he should be glad to accept the word "direct" if the noble Earl would leave in the words "care or."

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN asked if this were a Government Bill. It was very difficult for their Lordships to know whether it was a Government Bill or a private Member's Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is obviously not a Government Bill, but a private Bill in which the Government may be permitted to take a benevolent interest.

LORD BELPER thought he had better continue his remarks, because he did not understand the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to say that he would accept the Amendment, although he hoped he would. What he desired by these Amendments was to confine the higher scale to those who had direct charge of the patients. He had always recognised that this Bill had received very warm support on many sides from the fact that the asylum service was not only very unpleasant in many respects, but it was also a dangerous service, and for that reason, although many of his friends would have liked to see the whole of the Bill made adoptive and not compulsory on every authority, he had not taken the course of moving any Amendment in that direction because he thought it would be an attack on the principle of the Bill. He recognised the principle of the Bill so far as the first clause went, but he wished to confine it to those who were in direct charge of the patients, and not to include the numerous class whom Lord Donoughmore referred to, and who would be only very occasionally in touch with the patients. Probably this was not the time to refer to further Amendments, but his object was that the second clause, dealing with the second class comprising the heterogeneous number of officers, labourers and servants, should be made adoptive—that was to say, every county council who wished to adopt it could do so, and those county councils who did not wish to adopt it should have the discretion of not adopting it.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 9, to leave out 'care or,' and to insert 'direct.'"—(Lord Belper.)

LORD ASHBOURNE said he quite recognised the position of the Government, who, although not directly responsible for the Bill, took a benevolent interest in it, and would like to further its object and purposes. He would prefer not to see the word "direct" inserted, because he thought that the words already in the Bill were sufficiently specific. Might they not introduce an element of uncertainty by the insertion of the word? Could not a man be in very immediate charge of patients, although sometimes his work might be indirect? The supervision might be acute and active, and yet on some occasions might not be direct. He might have intermittent charge and intermittent control, sometimes direct and sometimes indirect. An element of doubt would certainly be introduced by the Amendment.

LORD MONK BRETTON hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment. He thought it might occasion cases of hardship. A case in point had been furnished by Lord Beauchamp. Sometimes a dairyman was in charge and sometimes he was not. The same was the case with the cook and the laundress. All these cases varied at different times in different asylums, and if the noble Lord tied them down as he proposed hardship might be inflicted. In regard to his Amendments to Clause 2, the noble Lord went to the other extreme, because he left the matter entirely to the local authorities. One of the principles of this Bill was uniformity, and that proposal of the noble Lord was contrary to the principle of uniformity. He was not sure whether the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment with regard to Clause 2 might not be quite different from what he had anticipated. Supposing it had the effect of making a generous local authority put everyone into class one and so increase the rates. That possibly would be open to objection. However that might be, he thought it would impose hardships amongst that class of officers whose places could not be very accurately defined.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD MONK BRETTON moved the insertion of a new subsection. He thought the Amendment explained itself. It left with the local authorities within the limits of the definition of this clause the actual decision as to who should be in class 1 and who in class 2.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 11, after 'servants,' to insert the following new subsection—

'(2) The division of established officers and servants into classes shall be made by the visiting committee of each asylum, with the consent of the local authority, and the visiting committee shall affix in a conspicuous place in the asylum, a notice with respect to such division into classes.'"—(Lord Monk Bretton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

2. Subject to the provisions of this Act—

1. (1) Any established officer or servant of the first class who has been in the service of an asylum for not less than fifteen years, and is not less than fifty years old, or who is permanently incapacitated for asylum duties after ten years' service by injury or illness, mental or bodily, medically certified and not attributable to his own misconduct, shall be entitled, on resigning or otherwise ceasing to hold office or employment, to receive during life a superannuation allowance, the annual amount of which shall be computed at the rate of one-fiftieth of his salary or wages and emoluments for each completed year of service:
2. (2) Any established officer or servant of the second class who has been in the service of an asylum for not less than twenty years and is not less than sixty years old, or who is permanently incapacitated for asylum duties after ten years' service by injury or illness, mental or bodily, medically certified and not attributable to his own misconduct, shall be entitled, on resigning or otherwise ceasing to hold office or employment, to receive during life a superannuation allowance the annual amount of which shall be computed at the rate of one-sixtieth of his salary or wages and emoluments for each completed year of service:
3. (3) The managers or authorities of any asylum may, in computing the amount of superannuation allowance to any established officer or servant, take into account any peculiar professional qualifications or services or special circumstances entitling to consideration and, with the consent of the Secretary of State, add a number of years not exceeding ten to the number of years which the officer or servant has actually served in the aggregate:

Provided that a superannuation allowance shall not in any case exceed two-thirds of the salary or wages and emoluments of the superannuated person.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said that before their Lordships proceeded to consider this clause he would like to address a question to the Government with regard to its general meaning. When the noble Earl the Lord Steward just now said he would accept an Amendment he seemed to be taking rather more than the benevolent interest which the Lord Chancellor told their Lordships the Government had in the Bill. He really thought the noble Earl was quite right, and he greatly regretted that the Bill was not a Government Bill, because it was going to impose a very large charge on the rates and establish a system of superannuation. Of course, they could not establish a system of superannuation with regard to any particular class of public servants without reference to other classes of public servants, and there were, of course, general rules and general principles with regard to superannuation which really could only be administered properly and considered properly by the Government, because the Government had the whole question of superannuation under its direct supervision and control. For instance, he saw by the Bill that the superannuation allowance was to be computed at the rate of one-fiftieth of the salary and emoluments for each completed year of service. In the Civil Service, as they knew, it was one-sixtieth. Although he had a great deal of confidence in his noble friend Lord Monk Bretton, at the same time when they were establishing a scale of superannuation he questioned whether his noble friend had at his disposal, and a sufficient acquaintance with, the general principles and general rules and practice of superannuation to enable him to be a great authority on the subject. The Government, of course, were in quite a different position, and he presumed that a Bill of this sort, imposing as it would a direct charge on the rates, must come under their careful supervision and watchful eye; and what he wanted to ask the noble Earl was whether the Government had examined the whole principles of superannuation upon which the Bill was based. Had they, for instance, considered the scale of salaries, because by adding to the existing scale of salaries a right to superannuation was equivalent to a very large increase of salary. Take, for instance, the superior officers in asylums who had large salaries; their superannuation would be proportionately large, and it was more in regard to them than with regard to labourers and the smaller persons that really this increase would be felt. Therefore, what he wished to ask the Government was whether the Home Office had thoroughly considered the pecuniary results of the Bill and the principles upon which it was based, and did the Treasury approve of it, because rumours had got about—they were very general and might have no solid basis—that there was something not quite correct about the pecuniary foundation of this Bill, and that the Government themselves were not altogether satisfied with it in its present form. He would be much obliged to the noble Earl if he could tell him what part of the scheme the Government approved of and whether they approved of it in its present form.

EARL BEAUCHAMP said that after the recent rebuke of the noble Earl he rose with some diffidence to reply to him. The noble Earl had said the Government had assumed too much responsibility.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I did not say so at all. On the contrary, I wish His Majesty's Government would assume the sole responsibility.

EARL BEAUCHAMP said that undoubtedly the noble Earl objected to his early intervention on behalf of the Government when the noble Lord opposite moved an Amendment. He could only tell the noble Earl that the position of the Government with regard to this Bill was exactly what it would be with regard to any Bill introduced by a private member in either House of Parliament. It was quite impossible to suppose that His Majesty's Government could accept responsibility for every word and every detail of every clause in the Bill as it appeared before their Lordships at this moment. He did not suppose any one except the draftsmen ever thought any Bill perfect and incapable of improvement. The Home Office and the Treasury had examined the principle of this Bill, and, as their Lordships heard on the Second Reading, the Government approved the principle, which was to give superannuation to asylum officers. Towards that principle His Majesty's Government adopted a very benevolent attitude. Then the noble Earl asked whether the Government approved of the Bill exactly as it stood to-day. He would ask the noble Earl to what Bill he referred. Did he refer to the Bill before their Lordships at this moment or to the Bill in the shape that it would assume after it had been through Committee of their Lordships' House and after various Amendments they hoped to insert in the course of the discussion had been accepted? It seemed to him quite impossible for the Government to approve of the Bill on the Table now, and also to approve of the Bill after it had been amended in their Lordships' House. The position was inconsistent. But what he could say was that not only did His Majesty's Government approve of the principle but they also believed and hoped that when the Bill had undergone amendment, it would be a Bill to which every one of their Lordships could give an unqualified approval.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN was afraid the noble Earl did not apprehend the question he had put to him. He asked the noble Earl whether the Government approved of the financial arrangements of the Bill as it now stood. He (Lord Camperdown) did not know what their Lordships' House would do, but he presumed that the Government, taking as they did a benevolent interest in the Bill, had looked into the financial arrangements, and he wanted to know whether they approved of the scale of superannuation proposed in the Bill. That was his question.

LORD MONK BRETTON said the question of the scale came under the consideration of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and he believed the scale was founded on the Lunacy Act of 1890; the proportion there was one-fiftieth, and that was without contribution, whereas this was with contribution. So far as he knew, the Report of the Select Committee was unanimous on the subject.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My noble friend Lord Camperdown raised one point which seems to me of considerable importance, namely, whether in connection with this question of pensions the question of salaries has also been considered. This Bill, I understand, will render pensionable a number of officers who at present are not pensionable. I had always been led to believe that a pension was a form of deferred salary, and therefore it does seem to follow that if these persons are to be pensionable hereafter, the whole question of their salary would naturally come under review; and I think the question of my noble friend was whether there had been such a review of the salaries of these officers.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think the best course would be this. We have not a Treasury officer here, and although I am myself officially interested in the subject-matter, I am not concerned in any part of the financial considerations. The question having been asked, we will certainly inquire of the Treasury, and at a later stage of this Bill we will give the direct answer which the noble Marquess desires. If the House will exercise its own judgment with regard to this scale of pensions we will certainly inquire of the Treasury what they think of the subject and communicate with the House at the next stage.

LORD BELPER moved an Amendment substituting twenty for fifteen years as the qualifying period of service, and fifty-five instead of fifty as the age when an officer should be entitled to claim superannuation allowance. He hoped it would not be thought that he in any way posed as an authority with regard to what was the proper scale. If they got some authoritative statement from the Treasury as to what was a reasonable scale he would willingly withdraw his Amendments. But he could not conceal from himself that if the scale as it stood in the Bill was not a reasonable one it would cause a very serious charge indeed upon the rates. Unless he was more successful in a future Amendment than he was in the last, this Bill would create an enormous number of pensionable people whom many believed it was not at all necessary to pension, and whose pensions would form a very dangerous precedent with regard to other county council officers.

There was a very strong feeling indeed amongst county councils that at all events so far as officers like clerks and others who were not directly in charge of patients were concerned, a discretion should be given to county councils as to whether they should give them pensions or not. When the county councils were first established, many of them passed a resolution against giving pensions to their servants. They gave their servants adequate and even liberal salaries, and told them it would be their business to make what provision they could out of their salaries for their old age, and it seemed to him that it would be a very unfair and dangerous thing to lay down by a Bill of this sort a principle which might have to be adopted afterwards with regard to all sorts of officials of county councils, because there would be no distinction between some of the officers who would be made pensioners under this Bill and others who would be serving county councils in other similar offices, but did not receive pensions. In those circumstances he felt bound to make some inquiries with regard to the figures in this Bill, and certainly to raise the question. He did not pretend to be an authority on this matter, but he raised the question so that those of their Lordships who were conversant with such matters could deal with the Amendments as they came up.

His first Amendment was that the service should be twenty years and not fifteen. Fifteen seemed to him a very short service to entitle one to a pension, especially when they were dealing with oases of officers who were permanently incapacitated. Then he proposed that instead of the age of fifty at which they should be entitled to retire, it should be fifty-five. He had made some inquiries with regard to this matter, and was informed by gentlemen who had some knowledge of these points that it would be very fair to leave a discretion as to the age from fifty to sixty—that was to say, to allow the authorities a discretion as to giving the pension at fifty, fifty-five or sixty. He believed there were very strong objections to leaving a discretion in this matter, particularly in a Bill which aimed at uniformity, and it might be that an officer received a pension at fifty in one asylum while another would not receive it till fifty-five or sixty. He did not wish to raise any difficulty of that sort, and therefore he had taken what he considered a moderate figure—namely, a mean between fifty and sixty, which, he thought, would be some relief to the fund which would have to be provided for these officers, and would be on the whole a fair compromise. They had in the Police Act a good example as to the effect of pensions of this sort. That Act was year by year becoming a larger and more serious charge on the counties. The amount of money county councils had to pay out of the rates to meet the charges of the police pensions in some counties was as much as £4,000 and in one instance even £4,700, while in a great many others it was over £1,000. The average of the counties he took—they were not all large and some were small—was £2,000 a year. That was a serious matter, and not only that, but towards the expenses of the police a very large sum was paid by the Treasury—£300,000 a year, he believed, out of which every county council got a proportion. Under this Bill, however, the county councils would get no contribution at all from the Treasury, although the charge was likely to be a large one.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 15, to leave out 'fifteen' and to insert 'twenty,' and to leave out 'fifty,' and insert 'fifty-five.'"—(Lord Belper.)

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY did not know what line the noble Lord in charge of the Bill was going to take with regard to this Amendment, but he earnestly hoped he would not assent to it too readily, and that, in fact, he would oppose it. He hoped it would not be forgotten that in this matter they were dealing very largely with women. It was one thing to say that a policeman might go on, but it was quite another thing to say that a woman having the extra ordinarily difficult and trying charge of lunatics was to go on till fifty-five years of age before she was entitled voluntarily to retire on a pension. The point was one which ought not to be overlooked, and he deprecated anything which would have the effect of discouraging asylum workers from remaining in the public service and tempting them to transfer their services to private service. He had ventured on the Second Reading to remind their Lordships that whereas police and Poor Law officers could not find something akin to what they were doing which could tempt them else where by a slight increase of salary, there was a large number of private institutions to which the asylum officer might go. The last thing which it should be their desire to do was to discourage asylum officers, and, above all, the women, who might be tempted to find a place where they would receive a little more and leave the public institutions to perhaps an inferior grade of officer. Therefore, he hoped their Lordships would err on the side of generosity and not niggardliness with regard to the number of years service and age.

LORD ASHBOURNE said he agreed with everything the most rev. Primate had said. There was nothing novel about this Bill. It had been thrashed out by a Select Committee and legislation of the kind had more than once been proposed. His noble friend speaking on behalf of local authorities, forgot to say that of the county councils of England four-fifths were in favour of the Bill.

LORD BELPER begged the noble and learned Lord's pardon. They had not got any figures at all from half the county councils, and therefore it was not quite fair to say that four-fifths of the county councils in England were in favour of the Bill.

LORD ASHBOURNE said he remembered his noble friend's statement perfectly well. His noble friend was the chairman of the County Councils Association, and no one spoke with greater authority or was heard with greater respect on the question. What his noble friend said was that the circular was issued to every county council in England. Therefore, every county council in England had an opportunity of expressing its opinion.

LORD BELPER

Many of them have not met since.

LORD ASHBOURNE said it was reasonable to suppose that if the county councils had any feeling against this Bill they would have made themselves distinctly heard. Could there be any analogy between the procedure in this Bill and the relief given under the Police Acts? There was no kind of analogy. The services were widely different. No one who knew the police and who knew what they had to undergo grudged them any liberal treatment they might receive, but those who had been in asylums—and it had been his lot to visit many, for he had always taken a deep interest in the work—would recognise the importance of the work and the enormous mental strain on the men and women there; it was a strain on their nerves, on their strength, and on their powers of endurance. There was everything that entitled them to sympathy. Therefore he thought this a necessary Bill to give fair play to a very important class. The object of the Bill was to try and work out a uniform scale of justice. If they gave a discretion as to the class in which the officials were placed they would run the risk of different methods of treatment being dealt out. There were fair and reasonable, and, if they liked, generous public bodies. He did not wish to say that any public body approached questions in a mean, niggardly, and ungenerous spirit. Other people might say those things, but he did not; but it was desirable, in trying to work out a system of retirement, to have a method of payment in the way of pension that would be compulsory, that would ensure fair play all round, and that would prevent unjust and unfair discrimination. That was the principle in this Bill.

His noble friend suggested an Amendment that the period of service should be changed from fifteen to twenty years, and the age from fifty to fifty-five as the scale for the higher class of officials. He did not think the figures named in the Bill were unreasonable. They were dealing now with the class who were in direct contact, and who had the greatest strain on their nerves, on their strength, and on their powers of endurance, and if they wanted to do that class justice they must name a comparatively moderate number of years service. Was not fifteen years a very substantial time for people to be asked to undergo work in a lunatic asylum, with all its painful surroundings, great trials, and sometimes grave danger? His noble friend sought to change the period of service to twenty years. It was a question of degree. He himself agreed with the most rev. Primate. He would prefer seeing fifteen years to twenty years. He was even more strongly opposed to the age being raised from fifty to fifty-five years. Wear and strain aged people. They could not subject a person to a very hard and trying series of conditions such as obtained in lunatic asylums without imposing a great strain on the vital powers. He agreed with what the most rev. Primate had said about the female officers in asylums, and although his opinions were stronger on the subject of age than on the number of years service he was unable to bring himself to believe that the proposals in his noble friend's Amendment would be an improvement to the Bill.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND could not help thinking it would be a good thing if their Lordships discussed this question in a rather more businesslike spirit. The noble and learned Lord who had just spoken had made an eloquent appeal on behalf of fixed pensions—pensions that should be given by all local bodies. He thought they were all agreed about that. He understood the Bill was based upon the supposition that there was to be a fixed scale. The noble and learned Lord had told them that the county councils would have been up in arms at once if they had objected to the Bill, and that their Lordships would have heard about it. He could assure the noble and learned Lord that although no doubt he knew Ireland perfectly well he knew nothing about county councils in England if he thought they would do any such thing. County councils in England never moved except at their regular meetings and at the instance of certain committees which had these matters in their charge. The committees reported to the county councils, and the councils came to a decision. Generally, it was true, they took the opinion of the committee; but there had been no opportunity for the county councils to give their opinion on this Bill. It would require a very much more drastic and serious matter to stir up the county councils to have special meetings and to communicate with the central association.

It appeared to him that they had heard a great deal of philanthropic talk. The most rev. Primate had told them that these were most deserving cases, and especially the cases of women. The corollary to that speech which suggested itself to him was that the most rev. Primate should make provision for a separate class, if necessary, so as to pension women at an earlier age than men. But what they wanted to know, and what he felt in the dark about, was what was the charge going to be upon the rates. That was a question no one could answer. Here was a Bill that the Government had under their protection, and yet they had no conception of what it would put upon the rates. This just showed the great importance which the rates had in the eyes of His Majesty's Government! They did not care a brass farthing so long as they got a little popularity. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill could tell them nothing except that a Committee of the House of Commons had thrashed the matter out. He had no information about the Committee of the other House. It might have been a Committee thoroughly qualified to go into the financial circumstances; but they had no knowledge of that. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment had himself told them he did not know whether this was right or wrong. The Government told them that they would make inquiries. They had fathered the Bill, so to speak, without knowing anything of the financial position, but they would make inquiries and would tell the House. What on earth were their Lordships going to do now? How were they to deal with these Amendments? Would the noble Lord who moved the Amendment tell him on what basis he was to form his opinion? He did not know whether the Amendment would bring within due limits the increase in the rates which would be imposed on local authorities by the Bill.

There was one thing they seemed to forget when they talked about the great necessity for pensions. All local authorities when they fixed the salaries of their employés, just like everybody else, took into consideration the question whether those employés could look for a pension or not. It was all very well to say these officials would have no pensions. No, they would have no pensions, but presumably they had in consequence higher salaries than they otherwise would have. It might be right to make a hard-and-fast rule that certain classes in lunatic asylums should be entitled to pensions, but before they could decide upon the scale of those pensions and the age at which they should be received they should have some idea of what the cost was going to be. All the speeches about the great desirability of considering those who were exposed to danger and so forth seemed to him to be beside the mark. First of all, they wanted to know what they were going to impose upon the local authorities, and, until he knew that, he for his part did not feel inclined to vote for any Amendment at all. He suggested that they had better postpone the Amendments until the Government were able to give them some information on the point.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH said he did not know what information the noble Duke had upon the subject of the opinion of the county councils which was not at his (Lord Clifford's) command; but when he spoke of the majority of the county councils being in favour of the Bill he distinctly said that that approval was not to be taken as an approval of the scale or an approval of the right to pensions of any except those who were in direct care and control of the patients. They might be in favour of the scale and of everything in the Bill, but he did not take it, so far as any information he had went, that that was the amount of their consent. When they were shown a Bill and were asked if they were in favour of it, if they were in favour of the general principles they said they were in favour of the Bill. There might be many details they did not accept. Therefore, to say that the county councils or the majority of them were in favour of the Bill absolutely as it stood and of everything in it appeared to be an unwarranted assertion. The most rev. Primate had said that this was a matter which chiefly concerned women. He did not know what experience the most rev. Primate had had of that.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

I said "largely women."

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH said his experience was that it did not affect women chiefly, because although the majority of asylum attendants might be women, few of them, compared with the men, stayed on long enough to get a pension, either under the scale as it was in the Bill or under the scale as proposed by the Amendment. Therefore, it was hardly true to say that this Bill would affect the women attendants rather than the men. Another argument in favour of having the age at fifty-five instead of fifty was that by Clause 9, fifty-five was the age in the Bill at which the committee was empowered to place an attendant on compulsory pension; and it would be more uniform if the two ages, the age at which the servant could demand a pension and the age at which the committee could oblige him to take one, were the same.

LORD MONK BRETTON said it had been objected that the county councils had had no opportunity of stating their views because they had not met for their quarterly meetings. In the case of his own county council the circular, was issued before the last quarterly meeting, and the county council did reply. The noble Duke had told him that he ought to say what was going to be the effect of this Bill on the rates. He did not think any one, however clever, could say that, because it must be a matter of speculation to a certain extent. That was the case with the Police Act and with the Poor Law Act, and it must be exactly the same in regard to this Bill. They could not tell exactly what the effect would be on the rates, but they could say that whereas in the Police Act a man got his pension on the basis of the salary he was receiving at the date of his retirement, under this Bill there was a ten years basis and that made it cheaper for the rates. His position as being in charge of the Bill was a singular one. The benevolent interest of the Government might be a sort of suspended judgment. He was not quite sure whether their friendship was much more than a name. He had to accept an Amendment or not, and to hope that the Government would agree and would not condemn the Bill afterwards. In the circumstances he was going to strain the matter as far as he possibly could, and to say, on behalf of the promoters, that they would accept both these Amendments, but on the distinct understanding that nothing else was added in reference to the scale. If there was any further question of changing the scale the Bill would be wrecked. The great authorities of London and of Liverpool, which represented a very large proportion of the asylum services of the United Kingdom, gave terms at the present time very much more favourable than the terms under this Bill. If the terms in the Bill were made less favourable than set out in these Amendments, then the asylum officers in those asylums would prefer to receive the better scale than the compulsory scale which would then be proposed under the Bill. It was on the express understanding stated that he accepted the Amendment of the noble Lord.

EARL BEAUCHAMP was sure everybody in the House would recognise the willingness of the noble Lord to meet the criticisms which had been devoted to this portion of the Bill. A good deal in the debate had carried him (Earl Beauchamp) on to somewhat unfamiliar ground, but that was not the case in regard to the denunciations which the noble Duke had poured upon His Majesty's Government. Then he realised that they were in the same House of Lords as that to which they had been accustomed during the past few weeks. There was something a good deal reminiscent of other discussions on other Bills in what the noble Duke had said on the subject of His Majesty's Government. There was this, however, to be said, that the denunciations were quite impartially poured. They were poured not only upon His Majesty's Government, but also on some of those who sat on the same benches as the noble Duke himself. With regard to the questions which the noble Duke had put to the Government, it was difficult to say exactly what was the meaning attached to such words as "due limits." The noble Duke asked whether the Amendments would bring the expenditure upon the rates within "due limits." It was not unlikely that the noble Duke and himself would differ upon the subject as to what they thought "due limits."

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

What the Government think "due limits."

EARL BEAUCHAMP said it was even more likely that the majority of the Government would differ from the noble Duke as to what were "due limits" in this matter. He could only say that it was quite impossible for the Treasury to give an estimate of what the cost to the rates would be. The cost to the rates would be different in every county throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. There were counties which had a great many asylums, in which the cost would be a great deal more than in the more fortunate places where there was only a single asylum. Therefore it was quite impossible to offer to their Lordships any figures which would be immediately reliable. He thought the course of the discussion showed the wisdom of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill in accepting the Amendment, because even amongst his own supporters there, were differences of opinion. In regard to the most rev. Primate, it was noticeable that while he thought the Amendment might go rather far with regard to women he did not say He thought it went too far with regard to men. However that might be, he ventured to think that after what had fallen from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill their Lordships would accept the Amendment without further discussion.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BELPER moved an Amendment providing that an officer of the first class should be entitled to the superannuation allowance during life "or incapacity." The object of inserting the words was, he explained, to prevent anybody who had been apparently permanently incapacitated but who might, contrary to expectation, recover, getting his pension for life, when he might be fully capable of returning to his duties.

Amendment moved— In line 21, after 'life,' to insert 'or incapacity.'"—(Lord Belper.)

LORD MONK BRETTON intimated that he would accept the Amendment.

LORD ASHBOURNE said that if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill accepted the Amendment he did not want to offer any opposition. But surely this was rather hastily accepted. He could quite understand a man being given a pension for life if compelled to retire, but if they went on to say "during incapacity" what did they mean? A man might have gone away in broken health and might make a recovery sufficient to enable it to be said that he was no longer suffering from incapacity; but would it do any good for a man then to have his pension stopped? If a medical certificate were produced saying he was no longer incapacitated, were they to take him back into the asylum at the old salary?

LORD BELPER said those questions were answered in the Amendment. The Amendment was taken from the Police Act, and was thought to be a very necessary provision for dealing with the cases in question.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BELPER then moved an Amendment for the purpose of making the subsection relating to officers of the second class adoptive. He explained that if this and other Amendments were agreed to the clause would read, "The managers and authorities of any asylum may, if they think fit, decide that any established officer or servant of the second class is eligible for a pension, and in that case, when he has been in the service of an asylum for not less than twenty-five years and is not less than fifty-five years old, or is permanently incapacitated from asylum duties after ten years service by injury or illness, mental or bodily, medically certified and not attributable to his own misconduct," etc. In the Amendment he wished to deal with the cases of clerks, accountants, and others employed in an asylum who were not brought to any great degree into contact with lunatics. It seemed to him that if they were to have imported into the Bill cases like the clerk who was responsible to the asylum committee for keeping their books or of accountants or other officials of that sort, it would be a precedent which it would be almost impossible to resist if they were asked for pensions in the cases of officers of other committees of county councils. He believed this particular case was met in another way by an Amendment which would be moved at a later stage by Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, whose Amendment might possibly be almost as effective as his own. The only difference would be that his Amendment would give to an asylum authority who did not wish to put anybody into the second class the power of saying they would not do so, while Lord Clifford of Chudleigh's Amendment gave discretion as to what officers they should put into the second class. He would be willing to meet the Committee in regard to these Amendments if Lord Clifford of Chudleigh's Amendments were accepted. But in the meanwhile he would move his first Amendment because he was representing county councils who were very anxious not to have this obligation put upon them of giving pensions to a large number of the officers to whom he had referred.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 4, at the beginning of subsection (2), to insert 'The managers and authorities of any asylum may, if they think fit, decide that.'"—(Lord Belper.)

LORD MONK BRETTON was very disappointed to hear the noble Lord argue his Amendment, because he thought he had agreed to its withdrawal. He did not like the Amendment, as it destroyed the principle of uniformity, which was one of the main objects of the Bill. As he had pointed out, if they eliminated the second class they very likely drove a larger number into class one, and therefore increased the rates. He certainly preferred the Amendment of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh to that which had just been moved.

^*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH hoped the noble Lord would adhere to his Amendment, because it seemed to him to be a safeguard against the ratepayers being unduly oppressed in this matter of very serious expenditure. It also afforded an opportunity for dealing with special cases which deserved treatment although they did not come under the general rule. He thought that in this Bill they could not lay too great stress upon the importance of considering the increasing liabilities of the unfortunate ratepayer, whom nobody seemed to care about at the present day and upon whom all sorts of burdens were put, merely for popularity. It was desirable that this, among other, safeguards should be inserted. Mention had been made of an Amendment to be moved subsequently which possibly might amount to much the same thing. He hoped that whether Lord Belper's Amendment was pressed or not, that of Lord Clifford would be adopted, and the principle adhered to.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE supported the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. If the Amendment were adopted in its present form it might put officers in the second class in the position that they might have to contribute but would not have the ultimate certainty of the benefit. He was sure the noble Lord did not desire that.

LORD BELPER said if that was not clear he would be perfectly ready to make it clear.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

LORD MONK BRETTON moved an Amendment at the commencement of the third subsection, to substitute "visiting committee" for "managers or authorities." He said that "managers or authorities" was a vague term, and would hardly do for the purposes of the Bill. Their Lordships who had had experience in local government would, he thought, say that the visiting committee was the proper authority to deal with this matter. Alterations would be put in with regard to Scotland and Ireland so as to make the equivalent to the visiting committee in England the authority in Scotland and Ireland.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 17, to leave out 'managers or authorities,' and to insert 'visiting committee.'"—(Lord Monk Bretton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH moved a new subsection which, he said, was intended to meet the case where officers not being entitled to a pension received some serious injury in the actual discharge of their duty which would entitle them to some consideration, either by way of gratuity or pension according to the nature of the injury they received.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 25, after subsection (3), to insert the following new subsection—

'(4) Where an established officer or servant of an asylum is injured—(a) in the actual discharge of his duty; and (b) without his own default; and (c) by some injury specifically attributable to the nature of his duty; and is permanently incapacitated for asylum duties as the result of such injury, the visiting committee of such asylum may grant to him such gratuity or special superannuation allowance as they may consider reasonable.'"—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)

LORD MONK BRETTON accepted the Amendment on behalf of the promoters.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved a new clause, the object of which was, he said, to continue the discretionary power which the asylums committees now had under the Lunacy Act of 1890. This was in the Bill as it passed the Select Committee in another place, and the London County Council felt that the omission of such power—their Lordships would grant it was a power—would occasion great hardship, as without it no officer could be pensioned although he had served for at least ten years in some cases. It was quite true there might be some relief under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but that would not apply to all the cases that might arise. The medical superintendents and most of the assistant medical officers and other high officials would be excluded from adequate provision in the event of disablement due, for instance, to the attack of a patient. He was advised that there had been many such cases, and owing to the fact that high officials did run serious risks the London County Council felt very strongly that it was desirable that this power should be continued.

Amendment moved— To insert the following new clause— 'In the event of any established officer or servant being permanently incapacitated for asylum duties by reason of injury or illness (bodily or mental), medically certified and clearly attributable to the duties of his employment, the managers or authority of the asylum may grant him such superannuation allowance not exceeding two-thirds of his salary or wages and emoluments as under the circumstances may appear fitting independently of length of service.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND pointed out that the Amendment went back on the Bill. Lord Clifford of Chudleigh's Amendment said that where an established officer or servant of an asylum was injured certain things should happen, and the present Amendment repeated "in the event of any established officer or servant being permanently incapacitated for asylum duties by reason of injury."

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE pointed out that there were the words "permanently incapacitated."

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND asked whether both Amendments should be inserted in the Bill.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said it was a matter of a different scale. In the case of his Amendment the officer must be permanently incapacitated. Lord Clifford of Chudleigh's Amendment dealt with the case of injury. His (Lord Donoughmore's) Amendment went a great deal further, and enabled a higher scale to be given, because it said that the managers or authorities might grant such superannuation allowance not exceeding two-thirds of the salary.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH said his Amendment would cover the case of an officer permanently incapacitated. The only difference was that Lord Donoughmore's Amendment laid down a certain scale, whilst his own Amendment merely said that the allowance should be such as appeared reasonable.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES said that the Amendment of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, as altered, was not on the Paper, and therefore it was a little difficult for noble Lords to see what was its exact effect. The most convenient course for Lord Donoughmore would be to withdraw his Amendment now, and for consideration to be given to the matter before Report.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said he would not press the matter now, and would withdraw his Amendment without prejudice to any further action.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— After Clause 2, to insert the following new clause—

'3.—(1) Where a superannuation allowance is granted to an established officer or servant on the ground of incapacity for the performance of his duty the managers or authority of the asylum shall yearly or otherwise, until the power under this Act of requiring such officer or servant to serve again ceases, satisfy themselves that the incapacity continues, and unless they resolve that such evidence is unnecessary, shall satisfy themselves by the evidence of a legally qualified medical practitioner selected by the managers or authority.

(2) In the event of the incapacity ceasing before the time at which the officer or servant would if he had continued to serve have been entitled without a medical certificate to retire and receive a superannuation allowance for lift, the managers or authority of the asylum may cancel his superannuation and require him to serve again in the asylum at a rate of pay and emoluments (if any) not less than the rate which he received before his retirement.

(3) Where an established officer or servant so serves again the provisions of this Act as to retirement and superannuation allowances and gratuities shall apply as if he had not previously retired, save that the time which elapsed between his former retirement and the commencement of his service again shall not be reckoned as service.'"—(Lord Belper.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3:

3. An established officer or servant who ceases to hold office in consequence of any offence of a fraudulent character or of grave misconduct shall forfeit all claim to any superannuation allowance under this Act in respect of his previous service, provided that the asylum managers or authority may in special cases, if they see fit, return a sum equal to the amount of all or part of his aggregate contributions under this Act.

LORD MONK BRETTON moved to leave out the words "asylum managers or authority "and to substitute the words" visiting committee of the asylum in which he was last employed."

Amendment moved— In page 2, lines 33 and 34, to leave out 'asylum managers or authority,' and to insert 'visiting committee of the asylum in which he was last employed.'"—(Lord Monk Bretton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

4. 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.

LORD BELPER moved an Amendment providing that no service not continuous for at least two years should be reckoned as services for the purpose of the Act. He had been told that it might lead to very great inconvenience if there was encouragement, as there would be in some cases, for an officer constantly to change his service. It was very undesirable, in the interests of the asylums themselves, that that should frequently be done.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 40, after 'asylums,' to insert 'Provided that no service which is not continuous for at least two years shall be so reckoned.'"—(Lord Belper.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

5. When a person in receipt of superannuation allowance under this Act is appointed to any office or employment by any authority to which this Act applies, such allowance shall cease to be paid so long as he continues to hold such office or employment if the salary or wages and emoluments thereof are equal to or in excess of such allowance; if they are not, then only so much of such allowance shall be paid so long as he holds such employment as will make up the deficiency.

Any such person on ceasing to hold such office or employment shall be entitled to revert to and receive the full amount of his original superannuation allowance from the authority which granted it.

LORD BELPER moved to add at the end of the clause the words in his Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 12, after the word 'it,' to insert the words 'If an established officer or servant in receipt of superannuation allowance under this Act is appointed to an office or employment remunerated out of money provided by Parliament, or out of a county or borough rate or fund, or out of any parochial district or other rate, he shall not while holding that office or employment receive more of the superannuation than, together with the remuneration of that office or employment, is equal to the remuneration of the office or employment in respect of which the superannuation was awarded.'"—(Lord Belper.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

6.—(1) An established officer or servant who has not become entitled to a superannuation allowance, and who loses his office or employment by reason of reduction of staff, or of any other cause whatever other than his own misconduct or voluntary resignation, shall be entitled to receive the aggregate amount of his contributions under this Act.

(2) An asylum authority may, if they think fit, repay to any female officer or servant leaving to be married after not less than five years' service, the amount of her contributions under this Act, provided that within three months after leaving she produces to the asylum authority her marriage certificate.

(3) If an officer or servant claims under this section and subsequently obtains a fresh office or employment, he shall not be entitled to reckon his service before obtaining such fresh office or employment towards a superannuation allowance under this Act, unless, upon obtaining such fresh office or employment, he pays the amount received under this section to the managers or authority under whom he obtains such fresh office or employment.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved to substitute "three years" for "five years" in subsection (2). He said the London County Council were of opinion that the proposal in the Bill would inflict a hardship upon very many of their employés, a large number leaving under five years. It was obviously unfair that a woman should subscribe to a fund for four years and then lose all benefit. The London County Council felt that three years would be a fair and sufficient time.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 21, to leave out 'five,' and to insert 'three.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9:

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10:

10. It shall be competent for the asylum managers or authority to grant at their discretion, and on such terms as they think fit, a gratuity to the widow or children of an established officer or servant dying while in the service of the asylum who if he had retired at the time of his death would have been entitled to a superannuation allowance, but such gratuity shall not exceed his total contributions, or one year's salary or wages and emoluments.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH moved an Amendment making the granting of gratuities to dependants of an officer in case of death subject to the consent of the local authority. Under the Lunacy Act every pension or gratuity was subject to the consent of the local authority, and he thought it advisable also under this Bill with regard to gratuities and payments which were not in the scale of the Bill.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 32, after 'authority,' to insert 'with the consent of the local authority.'"—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)

LORD MONK BRETTON said the Amendment was a very reasonable one, this being a permissive clause, and on behalf of the promoters he was quite prepared to accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12:

12. In this Act, if not inconsistent with the context, "asylum" means (1) an asylum for lunatics provided by a county or borough, or by a union of counties or boroughs; (2) a Metropolitan Asylums Board asylum for imbeciles; and (3) district and parochial asylums in Scotland; and (4) district asylums in Ireland. "Established officer or servant "means such officer or servant as the local authority shall by resolution determine to be engaged in the work or administration of the asylum, and the division of such established officers and servants into two classes as provided by clause one shall be made by the managers or authorities of the asylum.

LORD MONK BRETTON moved the omission of the words "district and parochial asylums in Scotland, and district asylums in Ireland."

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 11, to leave out 'district and parochial asylums in Scotland, and district': and in line 12, to leave out 'asylums in Ireland.'"—(Lord Monk Bretton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH moved an Amendment, the object of which was to provide that the first class should be that which was laid clown in Clause 1, and that the second class should be as set out in this clause.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 13, to leave out 'as,' and to insert 'as have the care or charge of the patients or whom.'"—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 14, to leave out from 'be' to 'and' in line 15, and to insert 'an established officer or servant.'"—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH moved to omit from the clause the words contained in his Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 5, lines 14 and 15, to leave out 'engaged in the work or administration of the asylum.'"—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MONK BRETTON moved to further amend the clause by omitting the words "and the division of such established officers and servants into two classes as provided by Clause 1 shall be made by the managers or authorities of the asylum," in order to insert the words in his Amendment.

Amendment moved— In line 15, to leave out from 'asylum' to the end of the clause, and to insert 'Local authority means the local authority by which an asylum is provided, or in the case of an asylum provided by two or more local authorities, those local authorities, and in the case of an asylum provided by the Lancashire Asylums Board, that Board.'"—(Lord Monk Bretton.)

LORD ASHBOURNE asked whether this fitted in with the last Amendment having regard to the words "local authority."

LORD MONK BRETTON pointed out that where several local authorities were joint authorities in an asylum there must be some difficulty under the clause if the various authorities should happen to clash.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MONK BRETTON moved to add a new subsection.

Amendment moved— To insert the words:

'(2) In the case of an asylum provided or maintained by the Lancashire Asylums Board, for references in this Act to the visiting committee of an asylum there shall be substituted references to that Board, or a visiting committee appointed by that Board, as the case may be.'"—(Lord Monk Bretton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14:

14. Every superannuation allowance or gratuity under this Act shall be paid by the managers or authorities of the asylum in which the officer or servant to whom, or to whose widow or children, the superannuation allowance or gratuity is payable was employed at the time of his superannuation or death, out of the fund out of which the salaries or wages of officers and servants in that asylum are payable.

LORD BELPER stated that under this Bill the authority to find the money for the pensions was changed from the county council to the board of guardians, and the first part of the Amendment was absolutely necessary to the machinery for carrying it out. The second part provided that the charge should be divided between the different asylums where the officer had served.

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 1, to leave out from 'death' to the end of the clause, and to insert 'and the weekly sum fixed by the visiting committee under section two hundred and eighty-three of the Lunacy Act, 1890, shall be of such amount that the total of such weekly sums shall be sufficient to pay all such superannuation allowances or gratuities in addition to the expenses of maintenance and salaries payable out of such sums under that section. 'Provided that where an established officer or servant of an asylum has removed to some other asylum under such circumstances as entitle him to aggregate his services in such first mentioned asylum with his services in such last mentioned asylum and in due course becomes entitled to and is awarded a superannuation allowance, the visiting committee in whose service he then is shall be entitled to call upon the other visiting committee or committees with whom he shall have served, and they shall contribute a proportionate part of the superannuation allowance to such officer or servant reckoned according to the service and pay of such officer or servant during his service in such asylum, and the said proportionate part shall be settled by agreement between the visiting committees, or in default of agreement, by the Secretary of State.'"—(Lord Belper.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15:

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 five 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 value 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 managers or authority of every asylum and affixed in a conspicuous place in the asylum.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved to substitute "five years" for "ten years" ["be calculated according to the average amount of his salary or wages and emoluments during the ten years."] He regarded this as an important Amendment because the Bill provided that the calculation for pensions should be based on the average salary of the last ten years of service. When the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons it was suggested that the amount should be based on the amount of salary at the date of retirement. The Select Committee appointed to inquire into the matter altered the basis to the average of the last five years, but the Bill put it at ten years, and he desired to restore the basis recommended by the Select Committee. He did not pretend that he would not have preferred to restore the Bill to its original form as introduced to the House of Commons. That, however, was not altogether practicable. The London County Council submitted that the Bill would inflict a definite hardship on their employés, who expected a pension calculated on the basis of their salary during the last five years. Those officers who came under the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896, had their pensions calculated on the basis of their last five years' earnings, and he was glad to see that the Home Office, in giving evidence before the Select Committee, supported the same view.

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 8, to leave out 'ten,' and to insert 'five.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH felt bound, after what had fallen from the Government, to say that they ought not to do anything to make the Bill more favourable to the asylum workers. Under those circumstances he would go to the extreme end of his tether, and if the Bill were wrecked it would not be his fault. The success of the Bill would depend upon the benevolent or malevolent attitude of the Government, and that attitude would only be disclosed after the Committee stage had been passed.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said that if he found the Government in a smiling attitude as a later stage he would move the Amendment again.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to substitute "ten" for "five" years' service in line 10 ["an officer or servant with less than five years' service"]. The Amendment, he said, was due solely to a printer's error.

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 10, to leave out 'five,' and to insert 'ten.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved to insert a new clause which, he said, had been prepared in order to allow for the aggregation of services under both Poor Law and asylums. This was especially a London Amendment. In London the Metropolitan Asylums Board, which was a Poor Law authority, had four asylums for imbeciles and chronic invalids, and the officers went from one asylum to another. Such officers had served under the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896, and this Amendment would enable them to derive the benefit from the contributions so paid.

Amendment moved— After Clause 15, to insert the following new clause: 'Where an officer or servant has been employed in a poor law asylum prior to or subsequent to his employment as an established officer or servant to which this Act applies, he shall, at the discretion of the managers or authority be entitled to reckon his entire period of employment or service in both capacities for the purpose of pension on the scale and subject to the statuory requirements affecting pensions in the service from which he last retires.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16:

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved to insert a new clause after Clause 16.

Amendment moved— After Clause 16, to insert the following new clause—

'17. In the application of this Act to Scotland a reference to the Secretary of State shall be construed as a reference to the Secretary for Scotland, and in the application of this Act to Ireland a reference to the Secretary of State shall be construed as a reference to the Lord Lieutenant.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

This clause merely refers to Scotland and Ireland. There is a later Amendment in the name of Lord Clifford, and in the opinion of the Home Office that is to be preferred to this Amendment.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said he would not press the Amendment at this stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH moved to add the new clause standing in his name on the Paper.

Amendment moved— To insert the following new clause— 17. In the application of this Act to Scotland— Asylum "means a district asylum, and "visiting committee" means a district board within the meaning of the Lunacy (Scotland) Acts, 1857–1887. References to the General Board of Commissioners in Lunacy for Scotland shall be substituted for references to the Secretary of State and also for references to the local authority. A reference to the weekly charge for pauper lunatics paid and approved from time to time pursuant to section seventy-three of the Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1857, shall be substituted for the reference to the weekly sum fixed by the visiting committee under section two hundred and eighty-three of the Lunacy Act, 1890. The expression "established officer or servant" has the meaning in this Act assigned thereto, but shall not include an officer or servant who does not devote his whole time to the duties of his office. Provided that this Act shall apply to the Greenock parochial asylums and the Kirklands asylum, as if they were district asylums, and the respective managing bodies thereof were district boards.'"—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Remaining clause and Schedule agreed to.

Standing Committee negatived: Report of Amendments to be received on Monday the 8th of November next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 206.)