HC Deb 25 November 1919 vol 121 cc1687-702 If after the eighth of May, nineteen hundred and nineteen, and within five years from the date when under this Act a transfer of the whole or any part of an undertaking (including the transfer of a generating station and main transmission lines) has been effected, or a scheme for the improvement of the supply of electricity in any district has come into operation, or an agreement or arrangement between various authorised under takers for the rendering of mutual assistance to one another has been entered into, any officer or servant who has before that date been regularly employed in or about the undertaking or any of the undertakings concerned proves to the satisfaction of a referee or a board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour that in consequence thereof he has suffered loss of employment, or diminution of salary, wages or emoluments, otherwise than on grounds of misconduct, incapacity, or superannuation, or has relinquished his employment in consequence of being required to perform duties such as were not analogous or were an unreasonable addition to those which before the said date he had been required to perform, or has been placed in any worse position in respect to the conditions of his service (including tenure of office, remuneration, gratuities, pension, superannuation, sick fund, or any benefits or allowances, whether obtaining legally or by customary practice), and the body to which the undertaking or part there of was transferred, or, as the case may be, the authorised undertakers who are affected by the scheme or are parties to an agreement or arrangement, do not show to the satisfaction of the referee or board of referees that equivalent employment on the like conditions as those obtaining with respect to him before the said date was available, there shall be paid to him by that body or those undertakers, or such of them as the referee or board of referees may think just, such compensation as the referee or board of referees may award, including any expenses which the officer or servant necessarily incurs in removing to another locality: Provided that such compensation shall (unless otherwise agreed previously to the eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and nineteen) in the case of an officer employed on an annual salary be based on but not exceed the amount which would have been payable to a person on abolition of office under the Acts and Rules relating to His Majesty's Civil Service in force at the date of the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888, but in computing the period of service of any officer, service under any authorised under takers shall be reckoned as service under the authorised undertaker in whose employment he is at the time that he suffers such loss or diminution as is mentioned in this Section: Providing also that every officer or servant as afore said shall be entitled to count any temporary absences caused by exigencies of war as regular employment within the meaning of this Section.
Mr. T. THOMSON

I beg to move, to leave out the words "and within five years from" ["nineteen, and within five years from the date"], and to insert in stead thereof the words "or after."

This Clause is the one that provides for compensation, if necessary, to the staffs of various undertakings that may be affected by the Bill. As it is at present worded it merely protects the employés who were employed at a date from the introduction of the Act until five years from the time when any undertaking may be transferred. The purpose of the Amendment is to remove the restricting and limiting words "within five years," so that they may have application to any injury that may take place, whether within the five years or during a later period. I submit that the Amendment would put the Bill on exactly the same plane as Clause 7 of the Ministry of Transport Act, where a similar provision is made for any of the staff who may be affected. If the Bill remains as it stands serious hardship may be done, particularly to the older employés. You might have an employé who was with one of these undertakings and subsequently transferred. He would be taken over by the undertaking; his experience may be used for remodelling the plant and works under new circum stances; his brains would, as it were, be sucked, and at the end of five years he might be thrown on the scrap heap and have no redress. The Amendment does not say that he must have compensation, but that he may. We have spent consider able time in this House in safeguarding the interests of the various undertakers and the shareholders, and I am sure the Home Secretary is prepared to give the same consideration to the staff who may suffer any loss through this Act of Parliament.

Mr. SHORTT

I think the words it is proposed to leave out are infinitely preferable to those of the Amendment. The five years dates from the date of the transfer. The Clause does not deal with the unreasonable or improper action of employers after the whole effect of the Act had gone. It deals with compensation for that which is caused by the Act in the new circumstances which the Act sots up. Five years from the date of the transfer is ample time in which to discover whether a person is injured or not, whether that injury is due to loss of wages or emoluments, or whether due to the offer of work which is not analogous to what he had hitherto done or which it is unreasonable to ask him to do. All these things are open to him as grounds for claims if the injury is caused in consequence of the passing of this Act. If you extend the period beyond five years the only claimant would be a person with a claim that ought to have been brought against the employer rather than against those responsible for carrying out this Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: Leave out the words "that date" ["who has before that date been regularly employed"], and insert instead thereof the words "the said eighth day of May."—[Mr. Shortt.]

Mr. THOMSON

I beg to move, to leave out the word "the" ["in or about the undertaking or any"], and to insert in stead thereof the words "an authorised."

The Clause as it stands is not quite water-tight, because it excludes one or two cases which I believe it was the intention of the Home Secretary and of the Committee to be covered by the Clause. Take the case of a man who is employed with a company "A" at the time of the Act coming into force. Before the undertaking is transferred to a district board he may have transferred his services to another company, "B" That company "B" is subsequently taken over by the district board. As the Clause is worded, because he had made this move in the meantime and because he was not employed by company "B" when the Act come into force, he would be debarred from the right to-compensation. I have two other Amendments on the Paper following this. The second is consequential and the third is of the same kind, where you may have some one who suffers deprivation because of some action which is anticipated or caused by the Act, although it is not mentioned in this particular Clause. The Clause provides for three cases where a man may claim compensation. They are, where the concern is transferred, where someone is affected by the scheme, and where a concern is party to any scheme under the Act. In addition to those, you might have a fourth case of an undertaking which is not transferred, which is not directly affected by the scheme itself and yet affected by the Bill, or is not party to any undertaking provided by the district board.

Mr. SHORTT

My hon. Friend is quite right. I think this is a case which ought to be met. I cannot accept the second Amendment at all. The first, which I do accept, provides for a case where there has been what you might call continuous service in the same profession. We have accepted that position for the purpose of counting time of service. The proper way to meet that would be to leave out the word "the" and let it read, "in or about the undertaking or any authorised under taking proves to the satisfaction." If the hon. Member will move it in some such way, I shall be quite willing to accept it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: Leave out the words "or any of the undertakings concerned"["undertaking or any of the undertakings concerned proves to the"], and insert in stead thereof the words "or any authorised undertaking."—[Mr. T. Thomson.]

Mr. THOMSON

I beg to move, after the word "thereof" ["in consequence thereof he has suffered"], to insert the words "or in anticipation of the passing of this Act."

As the Clause is now framed it would exclude from the purview of the protection of this Act the case where an employé may be dismissed through the passing of this Act and yet his case is not covered. He has to show, according to the Act, that the undertaking either was transferred to the district board or joint authority, or that the undertaking was affected by this scheme, or they were parties to some agreement about price or supply of electricity, as the case may be. There is a fourth case, I submit, where an employé may be affected, which does not come within those three particular classes, and it is the case where an employé engaged on an undertaking before the passing of the Act finds his services dispensed with because that undertaking is unable to continue some developments which may have been in hand, but which, owing to the operation of this Act in the surrounding districts, makes it unnecessary for this particular undertaking to carry out these enlargements of its plan. In that particular case he would lose his work because of the general effect of the Act, and not because the undertaking was transferred or directly affected in the meaning of the Clause, or a party to any terms arranged under the Clause. As the Bill is framed the man would be deprived of any benefit, and I submit he should have the right to make a claim before, the proper authorities.

Mr. WADDINGTON

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT

The speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved does not in the least support the words of his Amendment. I cannot imagine any case which would not come in under the words "in consequence thereof," and of any harm happens to him he would receive some sort of pecuniary compensation. That is quite different from this position which might arise. Some people might say, "Here is an Act coming, and we will dismiss all you men, and you will all be able to get some compensation." They might do that deliberately, or equally on the supposition that the Act would do them some injury, and their action might prove to be wholly unnecessary. The words "in anticipation of the passing of this Act" might give rise to all kinds of operations and transactions for which it would certainly be most unfair to ask the industrial community to pay through the district boards or Electricity Commissioners. The position seems to me to be covered, as far as it is justifiable, by the words as they stand.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: Leave out the word "date" ["date he had been required"], and insert instead thereof the words "eighth day of May."—[Mr. Shortt.]

Mr. THOMSON

I beg to move, to leave out the words "before the said date" ["date was available"].

The insertion of the words "eighth day of May" has altered the reading of the whole Clause. As I understand, the purpose of the original Clause was that a man should be offered similar work to that in which he was employed when the transfer of the undertaking took place. Supposing an undertaking was transferred four years after the passing of the Act, then by the words "eighth day of May" the man would only be entitled to claim to have the same class of employment as he had on the eighth day of May, four years prior to the transfer. He might, in the meantime, have improved his position considerably, and if the intention is to give him an offer of alternative employment similar to that in which he was employed when the transfer took place, I submit these words will not do that.

Mr. RAFFAN

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT

"We took the position upstairs that you ought to protect the men who were in employment at the introduction of the Bill when people's suspicions and misgivings might have been aroused. But if you merely protected the right of compensation to the date of the transfer that would be doing an injustice to a large number of men. The object of putting in the words "eighth of May" was to protect people in that position. For instance, a man before the eighth of May might be in a position which carried £500 per year, and by the time of the transfer he might have improved his position to £750. The fact of his being employed before the 8th May, 1919, in the service of an authorised under taker in the kind of employment that led to promotion would qualify him to get what he lost. If the Clause does not cover cases of that kind, I am willing to consider the matter, and have it dealt with in another place.

Mr. THOMSON

I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. If the Clause covers what he suggests it does I do not wish to persist, and as he is pre pared to further consider the matter, I ask leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: Leave out the word "date" ["date was available"], and insert instead thereof the words "eighth day of May."—[Mr. Shortt.]

Mr. NEAL

I beg to move to leave out the words "previously to the eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and nineteen."

This is part of the proviso which deals with the way in which the compensation referred to in an earlier part of the Clause is to be assessed. The proviso in its general terms applies what is generally known as the Civil Service scale. I can not understand exactly what is the meaning of these words which I propose to omit. The scheme of the Clause is to compensate for some injury done in consequence of the passing of this Act. The man loses his employment or he is put to some disadvantage thereby. The proviso says that he shall be compensated for that in a particular method, unless previous to the presentation of the Bill he has made some other agreement. How can he have made some other agreement unless he had some prophetic instinct, which is altogether unlikely. I do suggest that these words are confusing, and that they should be left out. If my argument is sound, perhaps the Home Secretary would prefer that the whole words should come out, and if not I would respectfully ask that where the parties had come to an agreement it would have to be sanctioned by the Commissioners and some other scale of compensation than the usual Civil Service scale might apply. Suppose, for instance, an officer entered into a bargain with some authority to remain in their employment, and that he should retire on attaining the age of sixty and be entitled to a pension on some proportion of his salary, then why should not that agreement be allowed to stand with the approval of the authority concerned and of the Electricity Commissioners? I suggest that that would be a proper thing to do.

Mr. KILEY

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT

It might be that a great many special agreements with special compensation might have been made after the Bill was brought in, and no special claim of that description would of course be taken into account. The agreement might be one which would give the person considerably more compensation than he would get under the rules of the Civil Service. If the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about these words I have no objection to their omission.

Mr. NEAL

I propose to accept what is offered to me.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. KILEY

I beg to move, after the word "not" ["salary be based on but not exceed"], to insert the words "except with the consent of the referee, or board of referees."

The object of the Amendment is to give power to the referee or board of referees to consider exceptional cases, such as border line cases. You might find the instance of a person who had been in the electrical profession all the days of his life, but only a limited number of years in a particular undertaking coming under the provisions of this Clause, and, therefore, he will only have a brief period of service for compensation, but, on account of his advanced age, it would be very difficult for him to resume other employment. I have in my mind the case of an individual who has served something like twenty years in the North of England, and who came up to London in June, and he will find himself in a very peculiar position if under this Clause he is deprived of his situation. It is to meet a number of cases on the border line that I move this Amendment.

Mr. RAFFAN

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT

These words would give far too wide a discretion to the board of referees, for they would mean that the board could at any time and for any reason they chose depart from the scale which has been laid down by Parliament. The board of referees must stick to the scale. There is hardly any case that is not properly met by the Civil Service Rules and Regulations, and, therefore, I would ask that this Amendment should not be pressed.

Mr. KILEY

In the Civil Service a person has a number of years to his credit, but in the case of an undertaking under this Clause, although a person may have been in the profession for a number of years, he may have only a very few years to his credit in the particular undertaking affected. If my words are too vague, I hope the Home Secretary will undertake to consider some limitation of the power.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. SHORTT

I beg to move, to leave out the words Providing also that every officer or servant as aforesaid shall be entitled to count any temporary absences caused by exigencies of war as regular employment within the meaning of this Section, and to insert instead thereof the words and where any such officer or servant was temporarily absent from his employment whilst serving in of with His Majesty's Forces or the Forces of the Allied or Associated Powers during the present War, such service shall be reckoned as service under the authorised undertakers in whose employment he was immediately before and after such temporary absence.

Mr. KILEY

Will the Home Secretary explain how he proposes to deal with people who have rendered national service, say, with the Ministry of Munitions, but who, strictly speaking, have not been in His Majesty's Forces?

Mr. SHORTT

I think the word "with," in the sentence "whilst serving in or with His Majesty's Forces," would cover that case. These words would, I think, cover anyone who has done war service; at any rate, they are so intended.

Mr. KILEY

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider that point?

Mr. SHORTT

It shall certainly be re considered. It ought to be covered.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir C. COBB

I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words Provided also that this Section shall extend and apply for the protection of electric inspectors and also officers and servants employed in connection with tramway undertakings affected under this Act in all respects as if such in spectors, officers, or servants had been employed in connection with an electric supply undertaking. The object of this Amendment is that it may be quite clear that certain employés of undertakings taken over by a district electricity board shall be included in the benefits of compensation, or other- wise shall be taken over. In London, for instance, there are certain inspectors of electric mains and meters who ought to be covered. In the event of the generating station at Greenwich, for instance, being taken over by the district board, these inspectors, and also certain tramway employés, such as those employed by the council in connection with the Greenwich generating station, might or might not be taken over by the board. If they were not, I submit that they ought to be compensated for the loss of their position, just as other people who are employed about the undertaking regularly.

Major GRAY

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT

These words are quite unnecessary. If the electrical inspectors are county council inspectors, they are not affected. If they are servants of any undertaking that is taken over, they are covered by the Act, and they are entitled to compensation unless the authority can show that they are able to offer them as good work as they would have had if there had been no Act at all. With regard to the tramway employés, if the undertaking is taken over and they are injured in consequence of what is done under the Act, they are covered also.

Sir F. HALL

What I expect my hon. Friend has in his mind are employés or officers of the county council who are not what you might call exactly electrical officers, and are not entirely employed on purposes connected with electrical undertakings. My right hon. Friend knows that the London County Council have a very large generating station at Greenwich, and there are some of these officers who are overlooking work in connection with it for the bulk of their time, but are not employed at Greenwich or specially in connection with Greenwich. If my right hon. Friend gives an assurance that they are all included, I have no doubt my hon. Friend will be perfectly satisfied

Mr. SHORTT

May I point out that the persons covered are those who are employed in or about the undertaking, not in the generating station in particular, but in, or about the undertaking as a whole.

Sir C. COBB

If it is perfectly plain that these people are included, I am willing to withdraw my Amendment.

Mr. G. BALFOUR

If these words were introduced it would be utterly wrong, because it would, for the first time, be introducing into this Bill a confusion as to the protection of the employés of the consumers of the electricity in addition to the protection of the employés in the power stations taken over. In regard to the tramways, if the inspector is a man who, in the ordinary course, has been employed as a tramway employé, and has had no duties in connection with the generating or supply of electricity, he would not fall within the scope of protection under the Bill, as he would be a consumers' employé, and not an employé controlled by the power station people. I think it would be a great mistake, therefore, to have this Amendment inserted.

Amendment negatived.

Captain BOWYER

I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words "the word 'officer' shall be deemed to include 'director' for the purposes of this Section."

We have not had much luck on this question. Upstairs, I moved Amendments on these lines, and I was told by the Home Secretary, with absolute truth, of course, that a new Clause was going to be inserted which would deal with the matter. That eventually took place, but—

Mr. SHORTT

No, I said that a new Clause was put down to discuss the matter, and the matter would be better discussed then.

Captain BOWYER

I did not want to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, and I did not put his words any higher than saying that a new Clause, dealing with compensation to directors, was coming on. When the new Clause did come on for discussion, I think it was the Secretary to the Board of Trade, who was in charge of the Bill at the time, and he did not see his way to agree to the Clause. It is perfectly true that there is no compulsion under Clauses 12 and 13 to purchase, and it is also true that under the Electric Lighting Act of 1888 there is no provision for the compensation of directors. It is also true that a power-company under its terms of purchase, namely, fair market value, would be able to deal with the question of compensation to directors, and very likely this question would not arise, but I submit that the question does not, and will not only arise on Clauses 12 and 13, but that it will equally arise on Clause 7, where, if a company loses its generating station, it may make a large difference in the personnel. There the company has no choice in the matter, and I therefore submit that these words should be inserted. Many directors of electricity supply companies are men of technical and commercial experience, who render services to their companies comparable in character to those rendered by executive officers, and the fees they receive may be appreciable parts of their professional income.

6.0 P.M.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY

I beg to second the Amendment.

There are precedents for regarding directors as the servants of a company. When the Metropolitan Water Board was formed, the directors of the various water companies, whose duties were abolished, were compensated under the Act, and in the case of the gas companies, where the duties and emoluments of the directors have been destroyed on account of amalgamation and otherwise, this House has, under private Bill legislation, authorised the compensation of such directors upon scales of varying degrees of generosity. The principle has been established both in public Acts and in private Bill legislation, and I hope, as regards the mere abstract justice of the case, and as regards the precedents I have mentioned, my right hon. Friend will accept this Amendment, unless, indeed, he is able to point to something in the Bill elsewhere which will produce the same effect. I do not suggest an addition, but perhaps it may be possible to add the words so that "the word 'officer' shall be deemed to include director or trustee for the purposes of this Section." That would be a necessary change in order to give proper justice to men whose offices may be destroyed, because debenture holders are nearly always represented by trustees. Their duties are just as important as the duties of directors, and if their fees are abolished in consequence of this Bill be coming an Act, I think, on the ground of abstract justice as well as precedents, the Section ought equally to include them.

Sir F. HALL

I should like to support this Amendment. This matter was broached in Committee, but although my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did not promise that it should be included, I think the Committee were led to believe that, at all events, he would give it his favourable consideration. The question was gone into when the new Clauses came up, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said: There is no compulsion to purchase in this Bill, and under the Electric Lighting Act of 1888 there is no provision for the compensation of directors. If the power companies should be transferred under Clause 13, then it would be on the terms of the district board paying the fair market value as a going concern, and it would be for the company to make their own arrangements for the compensating the directors, if any of them required compensating. The position is this: Many of these people have been carrying out duties, and, after all, the great bulk of directors of these electric undertakings are well versed in the subject of electricity. They are not, if I may use the word without being offensive, what is ordinarily recognised as guinea pigs. They are not that class of men.

Mr. W. THORNE

Sucking pigs then!

Sir F. HALL

I do not happen to be a director of any, but I say that many of these people have given the whole of their lives to the study of questions concerning electrical undertakings. Many of them have served in the shops and worked up from lower grades, entering the managerial department, and eventually being recommended for places on the board. In the ordinary course of events, if an amalgamation takes place with regard to any big undertakings, the first thing that is considered is what is going to be paid to the officers and the employés in compensation, and what is going to be paid to the directors. It has always been looked upon as a reasonable and proper way of dealing with them, and if you are going to say this compensation is not going to be paid to directors, I think it would be detrimental to a good many undertakings, because persons, possibly, would not feel inclined to become directors of these concerns, if they were under the impression that, as soon as they got them into a paying way and everything was plain sailing, they were likely to be jockeyed out by amalgamation. I think the principle has been an excellent one, and I do hope my right hon. Friend may be able to see his way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT

I think really the answer to this Amendment was given by the Mover himself, when he explained what probably would be said against it. There is no class of undertakings which has directors which are taken over com- pulsorily. As has been pointed out over and over again, the whole of the profit-earning portion of the concern will be there, having regard to the provisions of Clause 5, and clearly, if you are going to give the directors any kind of compensation for any loss of their fees, you are doing that which Parliament refused to do in 1888. With regard to the power companies, they are not bound to be taken over at all, but, when they are taken over, the provision is that they should be taken over as a going concern, and that ought to include compensation to whoever is employed by them when taken over. That ought to cover not only compensation for directors, but anyone in their employ at the time. Transfers under Clauses 12 and 13 would not entitle officers to compensation under this Clause of necessity at all, and therefore it is the duty of the company to make their terms and look after their directors and every one else who happens to remain in their employ. There is nothing else to affect directors, and therefore I am afraid I must oppose this Amendment.

Sir F. BANBURY

May I ask whether there is any Clause in the Act of 1888 dealing with officers and employés? I am not sure, and I have not got the Act here. My recollection is that they are not dealt with. In the meantime, may I point out that the argument, so far as I can follow it, of the Home Secretary, is that when you take power stations over, directors will be left, and in all probability their fees will remain? If that is so, of course they are not entitled to anything further, but, if this provision is put in, surely it would not apply in the event of the directors not losing any fees. It would only apply in the case of the directors losing their employment as directors With all deference to my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, I think directors fill a very useful position.

Sir F. HALL

I hope my right hon. Friend did not misunderstand me. I have always looked upon them in the very way to which my right hon. Friend has referred.

Sir F. BANBURY

I am glad to hear we are in accord in that, as we are in many other things. Directors are a very useful body of men. In many cases an undertaking could not go on at all without a good chairman and a good body of directors. I know cases where under takings in a bad way have been pulled round entirely by the directors. It is not an uncommon thing. Under those circumstances, why should officers or employés, who are, after all, only wage earners, be compensated and the really moving spirits in the concern be left out? As the Home Secretary has looked through the Act of 1888, I gather that I am right in my recollection that there was no compensation given under that Act, but in those days the compensation was, apparently, as the Parliamentary Secretary stated upstairs, always given out of the lump sum which was paid to the companies. There was no question then of Parliament putting in provisions dealing with the compensation of employés. Under those circumstances, as opinion on those matters has altered during the last thirty years, surely the directors ought to be put in, and compensation given to them just in the same way as to any other officers or servants of a company! There can be no harm in putting this Amendment in if the matter is as the Home Secretary says, because if a director does not lose anything he will not get any compensation. I am sure the Mover of the Amendment would be glad to make it clear that compensation is not required to be paid to anyone for some thing he has not lost. If that is not clear, might I suggest to the Home Secretary that he should modify the Amendment so as to make it clear? I do earnestly hope he will not reject this Amendment, but reconsider the position he has taken up, for, if I may venture very humbly to say so, I think it will be in his own interest in the long run.

Mr. THOMSON

I hope the Home Secretary will maintain the position he took up in Committee, and, with all due respect to what has fallen from the right hon. Baronet, I respectfully submit there is no analogy between the employé and the director. The director, I take it, is a trustee, and a trustee for the capital that is invested very often. When he is a managing director, that is a different matter altogether, and I think a managing director, being an officer and employé of the company, will have the right to claim compensation. He gets compensation if he is a paid officer of the company. The other directors, who meet occasionally and draw their fees, are there, I submit, as trustees for the money which is invested in the company. Under this Bill, if the companies are taken over, they will have their capital and their money refunded to them. They get their fees as trustees, as guardians, or whatever you like to call them; and if their money is handed back to them they can reinvest it in other companies and draw their fees as before. I submit there is no analogy between the employment of an employé who loses his work, and is rightly entitled to compensation, and a director.

Sir F. BANBURY

Can the hon. Gentle man tell me where it is that the money can be moved about and reinvested in the way he describes, and a man get director's fees?

Mr. THOMSON

With all all respect to the hon. Baronet, who has much more experience in finance than I have had, I have some slight idea that there are people who have large sums to invest who get on to boards of directors and do get fees for their work. I may be labouring under a misapprehension, but this sort of thing obtains, I think, in the North of England, if it does not in the City of London. I therefore submit that there is no analogy between a director and an employé, and I trust the Home Secretary will resist the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.