ASYLUMS OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION BILL. (Hansard, 29 July 1918)

§ VISCOUNT SANDHURST
My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this very short Bill, which deals with the staffs of certain certified institutions for mentally defective people. It is to ensure that when experienced men and women are moved from the asylums to certified institutions they should not lose their pension rights. It is extremely valuable that certified institutions should have the advantage of the services of these experienced people. At present these persons lose their pensions rights, and this Bill is merely to ensure, if they are transferred, that people so transferred shall not lose those rights.
The provisions for Scotland differ in detail from the provisions of the English Act. Seeing, however, that officers may be removed from Scottish institutions to English institutions and vice versa, it is very desirable that the provisions obtaining in the two countries should be the same. The Asylums Officers Superannuation Act applies to both countries alike. The Bill brings the arrangements for both countries into line, and it is a useful measure for those concerned. I beg to move that it be now read a second time.

EARL RUSSELL
My Lords, the title of this Bill is perhaps a little misleading. It is called on the Paper the "Asylums Officers Superannuation Bill," but I notice 10 that the title contained in the Bill itself is the "Asylums and Certified Institutions (Officers Pensions) Act," which, I think, rather more correctly states its meaning. I understand that this Bill, in fact, does not apply to asylums officers in the ordinary lunatic asylums. The lunatic asylums of London are a matter in which I was considerably interested for a number of years. I have looked at this Act and received some communications with regard to it, and, among others things, I have received a suggestion which perhaps the Department that advises the noble Viscount might consider.
The present provision as to superannuation contains a certain amount of, I will not say so much of injustice as of actual public inconvenience; that is to say, the provision which prohibits any remuneration paid to a person in respect of a pension from bringing his total income beyond what his income was before he received his pension. I understand that at present, in consequence of the war and the difficulty of staffing to which all institutions are subject as well as all businesses, these asylums have to employ a certain number of what in other ranks are called "dugouts." The effect of this provision is that when these persons who are pensioned come back into asylum service, they cannot receive any remuneration which brings their total pay beyond what they had whom they were pensioned; and the result is that in some cases the incentive is not sufficient to bring these people back. It might not from the form of this Bill be possible to graft upon it an Amendment to this Act, but perhaps it will be considered whether it is possible to do so and whether in the view of the Department it would be desirable. I am told that it now operates to prevent a supply of persons who thus remain retired which might be possible in view of the present shortage of labour in all directions.
Then with regard to this Bill itself, which applies only to institutions for the mentally defective, I should be glad to ask a question with regard to proviso (a) of Clause 1 which says that—
An officer or servant employed in a certified institution shall be treated as an officer or servant of the second class. I understand that the usual definition of classes which is made is that the second class includes gardeners, labourers, farm hands, and people of that sort, whom you might call the outdoor staff, and that the 11 first class includes only those who actually attend to the patients. I do not think that attendance on the mentally defective is likely to be more agreeable or less arduous than attendance, on lunatics, and I do not know why there should be any distinction in rank in respect of pensions. If I understand proviso (a) aright, officers and servants in these institutions cannot be treated in the same way as officers and servants in lunatic asylums.
Then there is another proviso, proviso (b), which takes away the power of adding years spent in service in certified institutions to the actual years of service. There, again, there, is no reason given why there should be this difference in treatment between officers in the institutions for the mentally defective and officers in asylums, and I should be glad to know the reason why there is this difference. I think if the noble Viscount could answer those questions we should understand the Bill better. As I read it, it seems to me that the officials in these institutions are treated worse than the corresponding officials in lunatic asylums.

§ VISCOUNT SANDHURST
I am not in a position at the moment to give the information which the noble Earl requires, but I will inform myself and communicate with the noble Earl or make a statement when I make the Motion to go into Committee on Friday.