HL Deb 09 December 1952 vol 179 cc841-6

3.43 p.m.

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

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]

Clause 1 agreed to.

LORD BURDEN moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:

Compensation to officers

".— (1) Every existing officer who suffers or who has suffered loss of employment or diminution of emoluments which is attributable to the postponement or further postponement of the coming into force of new valuation lists for rating by the New Valuation Lists (Postponement) Order 1951 or by any order under section 1 of this Act shall be entitled to have his case considered for the payment of compensation by the Minister of Housing and Local Government such compensation to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to the Local Government (Compensation) Regulations 1948 and subject to the provisions of this section those regulations shall apply accordingly with any modifications which the Minister of Housing and Local Government may by order consider it necessary or expedient to make for the purpose of the application of the said regulations to compensation under this Act.

(2) For the purposes of this section and the said regulations as applied thereby the expression "existing officer" means a person who immediately before the coming into force of the New Valuation Lists (Postponement) Order 1951 or any order under section 1 of this Act devoted the whole of his time and has devoted the whole of his time for a period of not less than eight years previously after attaining the age of eighteen years without a break of more than twelve months at any one time either—

  1. (a) to any of the following employments or to two or more or to any combination of such employments namely:—
    1. (i) employment under the Crown or in the local government service in Great Britain; or
    2. (ii) employment by any authority or body for the purposes of the Crown or of local government service in Great Britain; or
    3. (iii) employment under any officer engaged in any such employment as aforesaid for the purposes of the functions of the employing authority or body; or
  2. (b) partly to any such employment as aforesaid or to two or more or to any combination of such employments and partly to—
  1. (i) employment as a superintendent registrar or registrar of births and deaths or as a registrar of marriages or as a person designated by a local authority to act as a deputy superintendent registrar or registrar of births and deaths; or
  2. (ii) war service as defined by the said regulations undertaken on ceasing to follow any of the employments mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection or any combination thereof.

(3) Nothing in this section or in the said regulations as applied thereby shall entitle a person to have his case considered for the payment of compensation unless—

  1. (a) the cause of the claim arises not later than ten years after the passing of this Act;
  2. (b) the claim is made not later than two years after the passing of this Act or two years after the date on which the cause of claim arises whichever is the later; and
  3. (c) the other conditions prescribed by paragraph (b) of regulation 5 of the said regulations are fulfilled.

(4) In this section the expression 'officer' includes a servant."

The noble Lord said: I have put down this proposed new clause on behalf of the National and Local Government Officers' Association. This Association has a membership of over 200,000, including town clerks and similar responsible executive officers, as well as other officers engaged in routine salaried work. The Association, fully representative and responsible, is gravely concerned at the unhappy plight of those officers who are already suffering hardships and others who, clearly, may be affected in the near future.

May I give your Lordships briefly the facts as I understand them? Under Part III of the Local Government Act, 1948, the valuation and rating of here ditaments passed from the loca1 authorities to the Inland Revenue, and authorities such as the assessment committees ceased to exist. The same Act set up local valuation panels and courts to hear appeals brought against valuation lists. It is the staff employed by these panels and courts who are now looking to your Lordships for help. There are 103 valuation panels, employing about 150 persons. Of these, 95 are clerks, 68 in full-time and the remainder in part-time employment. More than 50 of the 68 whole-time clerks come from assessment committees, and the majority of these have from 25 to 30 years' service in local government. It is to assist the unhappy plight in which these men find themselves that I have put down this new clause. The Act of 1948, in effect, abolished the posts they occupied in the local government service and now, owing to the further postponement of the new valuation lists, their livelihood is again in jeopardy. I do not wish to deal at length with the junior staff, such as shorthand typists: some of them have already been made redundant and have been absorbed without much difficulty, and as their employment has been less than eight years the compensation code arising from the 1948 Act does not apply. Nor am I concerned at the moment with some 25 part-time clerks who are solicitors in private practice.

It may be said that these men, clerks to the abolished assessment committees, might well bring claims for compensation under the Local Government (Compensation) Regulations, 1948, but I am advised that there is a substantial measure of doubt on this point, and therefore service with the valuation committees may not count for compensation, even if compensation would accrue. In any event, there are other whole-time clerks, formerly employed by rating authorities for rating purposes, where these functions ceased to be performed by local authorities as the result of the 1948 Act, who would still be in local government service but for the 1948 Act. The proposed new clause is designed to prevent hardship to men who have mastered the intricate problems of rating and valuation, and who now, after twenty-five to thirty years' full-time service, find themselves for the second time face to face with the possibility of unemployment.

I would assure your Lordships that I am not asking merely for compensation. I have sufficient experience to be aware that compensation provisions inevitably lead to a genuine and deliberate effort to find suitable employment for those who may be displaced, rather than someone taking the easy and obvious way of dismissal. With all respect, it is no use saying that only a few people are involved: an injustice is an injustice, whether only a few or many are involved; and an injury to one is an injury to all. Has the noble Earl anything to offer these men other than the bleak prospect of dismissal? Sympathy, valuable in itself, is not sufficient. The noble Earl's sympathy and good intentions, and those of his right honourable friend in another place, are not for one moment in question or in doubt. But we have been told that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and it is in an endeavour to help to save these men from the hell of dismissal and unemployment that I am pleading with your Lordships this afternoon. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 1, insert the said new clause—(Lord Burden.)

3.52 p.m.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

The noble Lord, Lord Burden, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, did raise this question broadly on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I assured them that I would look into the situation carefully. That I have now done. I am afraid that at the moment we cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment, because, in point of fact, it would go much wider than this Bill intends to go, and might easily alter the whole basis of compensation to displaced officers in any Government Department. From what the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has said, it would seem that he is chiefly worried about the people employed by the valuation panels. Though he said that he would not be satisfied even if only one sheep were left out of the fold, I will tell him that there are slightly more than one. They are very few in number, but it may be of interest to your Lordships to know how the situation stands with regard to these people.

So far, dismissals have been as follows: clerks, 1; part-time clerks, 2. One part-time clerk has agreed to be unpaid for his service, because he does so little and is called in only occasionally. Assistant clerks: 14 dismissed, plus one for whom arrangements have been made for one-third of his salary to be paid elsewhere; another one of whose salary one-fifth is paid from another source, and three more of whose salaries half is paid elsewhere. Your Lordships will see, when I come to the last category, that the burden has really fallen, not on the trained and skilled specialists but on those of a more general nature. Thirty-five general divisional assistants (who I understand are people in what might be called secretarial type of employment) are still employed, and 32 have been dismissed. Of the others, the clerks, as I said, one was dismissed, and on November 13 (these are the last figures available) 71 were still employed. Twenty-five part-time clerks are still employed, as against 2 dismissed, and the one who has voluntarily forgone his part-time payment. Forty-four whole-time assistants, against 14 dismissed, and 5 part-time assistant clerks.

I should like to satisfy your Lordships that these people are not being got rid of in a wholesale manner, as might be suggested. The basis on which Her Majesty's Government are dealing with this matter is that they are trying to get panels, in groups, generally of three, to pool their resources and staffs, and thereby to keep the heads and more experienced members of the panels and release for other employment those who are not in any way fully skilled in this particular subject and who can, without much hardship, be found employment elsewhere. As regards the question of these people being dismissed or removed from their business through the delay which this Bill imposes, I am advised on the strongest authority that this is not so, and that there is no question of the delay assisting to remove these people. It is merely that under the original setup of these panels the staffs were slightly larger than actual practice has shown to be necessary. On those grounds, I hope the noble Lord will see fit not to press his Amendment.

LORD OGMORE

As the noble Earl has said, on the Second Reading I did raise a query as to the future of the gentlemen, and, I suppose, a few ladies, concerned in this matter. I raised it not merely from their point of view—although that is important—but also from the point of view of the public interest. As I said then, if these valuable people are dismissed, or are allowed to drift away, it will be difficult in future to replace them at short notice. When the new valuation list comes in, it will make it rather difficult to run. I feel that what the noble Earl has said to-day has, to a large extent, eased my fears, and I do not think the position is by any means as serious as I feared that it might be. I believe that the Government clearly have the dangers in mind. But, if I may refer to what was said on Second Reading, I think that perhaps the tone of the debate gave a rather wrong impression as to the work being done. It rather implied that these people have been doing nothing. In fact, in the year 1950–51 they dealt with 30,000 appeals, which shows that a considerable amount of work has been done by them.

One conclusion to which I come from what the noble Earl has said is that there is one heroic person who is carrying on without salary. It is significant that he is one of the few part-time officials. I have thought for a long time (I have in my time been a part-time officer) that the trend in local government for the last twenty-five years or so in doing away with part-time officials was not always wise. If there are more part-time officials, it does mean that at a time like this one can appeal to them, as the Government have in this case, to carry on without remuneration, or with very small remuneration—something, which, obviously, a full-time clerk or official cannot do. Therefore, it is wise, I think, to ensure that in these systems we always have a certain amount of fluidity; that there are a few part-time clerks who can, so to speak, hand on the torch to their successors. With those few words, so far as I am concerned—I do not speak for my noble friend, Lord Burden, who is on rather a different point—I am convinced that the Government will take the necessary action to ensure that this valuable band of men and women are preserved, even though perhaps doing slightly different work, for the time when their chief activity will come into play.

LORD BURDEN

May I thank the noble Earl for his reply? As I understand it, it can be taken that, broadly speaking, we have reached finality, so far as the top range of our people are concerned, and that there is no intention of a wholesale slaughter, if I may put it in that way, of those men. Picking up the point that the proposed new clause might extend the compensation regulations, may I say that I have no desire to get an extension of that kind carried through in that way? One would rather argue that matter on its merits, if and when the time comes. It might happen by accident that the serried ranks behind me might beat the noble Lord opposite this time, but I do not propose to take this Amendment to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Remaining clause agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.