CLAUSE 48.—(Provisions as to pension rights.) (Hansard, 25 June 1947)

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Scottish Universities)
I beg to move, in page 58, line 4, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 14, and to insert: (2) In the case of persons, whether taken into the employment of an Electricity Board or not, who have been members of the Central Electricity Board or were before the vesting date regularly employed in or about any undertaking or part of an undertaking or other business vested in any Electricity Board by or under this Act, the regulations to be made for the purposes of the preceding Subsection shall be so framed as to secure that where either—

(a) a right to or expectation of accruer (whether as of right or under customary practice) of, any particular benefits in favour or in respect of any such person ceases or is prejudiced by reason of hisce asing in consequence of the passing of this Act to be employed by his previous employer, or

(b) any such person has retired from employment as aforesaid before the vesting date and he or another person by reference to his employment has been in receipt of benefits granted in respect of his employment whether as of right or under customary practice,
the same benefits or substituted benefits not less advantageous shall be provided for under the regulations. This is the first of our compensation Amendments, and it seems reasonable to us that the safeguards they provide should be inserted. The whole position of persons who have been taken into employment or whose employment is altered under the conditions of this Bill is rather obscure. The action of the Minister is to sweep away the previous safeguards and replace them by undertakings. We think it is desirable to extend the scope of the Clause to cover all persons who have a right to or an expectation of a pension and persons who were regularly employed in the undertakings which are taken over. The Bill, as I understand it, covers only those who were employed full time. We had this discussion last night on a different set of individuals —the directors—but I should, not think the Minister will desire to extend the principle which he asserted in the case of directors to cover part-time employees who have also lost their employment or have been otherwise affected by law through the action of this House. It seems reasonable that they should be compensated.
470 I have had experience of this in many spheres before in Bills which this House has put through, mostly dealing with public employment of one kind or another, and this House has always accepted the principle that where a person is deprived by Statute of employment, whole-time or part-time, or even the prospect of employment, he has a right to have his case considered. I do not know whether the Minister is able to give us any indication that he can meet us on this point. It seems not, judging from his hostile gestures. There is more than one Minister on the Front Bench, and the learned Solicitor-General seems to be moving his head from left to right in the way which is taken to indicate a negative.

§ Mr. Shinwell
He did not agree with the right hon. and gallant Member.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
I thought he did not agree that he would be able to meet us. I would be only too glad to cut short the discussion. I was trying to get some indication from the Minister whether he might meet us on this point, and I have gathered from the gestures of the Solicitor-General that he would not be able to do so. I find it rather difficult to see why it is thought desirable by the Minister to expand the point to the House, because frankly the Amendment is self-explanatory. I do not think that I could add to it and I do not wish to dilate upon it. The simple proposition set out in our Amendment is reasonable and is well in accord with previous precedents established in the House.

§ Mr. J. H. Hare (Woodbridge)
I should like to support the Amendment proposed by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), and before we have a reply from the Solicitor-General I should like to concentrate particularly on local government officers who are employed on a whole-time basis by a local authority. As part of their duties they have had large responsibilities in the running of local municipal electrical undertakings. These duties as a result of the Government's action in introducing this Bill are taken away from this particular class of person, and it is almost inevitable that the salaries of local government officers such as town clerks or treasurers in the particular municipality 471 will be reduced. It is perfectly right for the local authority to do this. But it seems to us quite wrong that the unfortunate individual, as a result of the action of His Majesty's Government, should lose that part of his salary which is being taken away from him through no fault of his own.
I should like to point out to the Minister that, in fact, this principle of compensation to these wholly employed local authority officials is accepted in the National Health Service Act. Section 68 (1, a) states that local authority officers who have been connected with joint hospital boards are, in fact, to be compensated under that Act for positions lost, and all that we are asking this afternoon is that the same procedure should apply to local government officials, who will lose a portion of their salaries as a result of the municipal undertaking being removed from the control of the local authority. That is a reasonable case to put forward, and I do not believe that His Majesty' Government desire to impose any hardship on a worthy section of the Civil Service. I hope, therefore that the Minister will accept the Amendment. I have one further word to say before I sit down. It should be made quite clear that in Committee the Minister said that it was up to the local authority to compensate such officials for any loss of salary that they may suffer. That is obviously not a statement of fact, because I think the Minister must agree with me that no local authority has a right to give compensation unless it receives statutory power from Parliament to do so. I support the Amendment.

§ The Solicitor-General
This particular Amendment does not directly raise the question of part-time employees, but of whole-time employees. It is true that it substitutes regular employment for whole-time employment, and one criticism I have to make of the terms of the Amendment is that it is very difficult to say what is meant by "regular employment," but that is a question of principle apart Leaving aside that principle, which is raised more directly on subsequent Amendments, we come directly to the issues dealt with by this Amendment and what it seems to do. My answer to it would be this—in point of fact it adds nothing to what is already in the Bill; and 472 I will endevour to explain why I say that.
Clause 48 (1, a), covers both persons in the employ of boards and persons who have been in the employ of bodies which have been taken over by the boards as well as persons who have retired from those bodies, and, therefore, have not been taken over by the boards. So the same range of people who are covered by the Clause as it stands are covered by the Amendment. How are they treated? If hon. Members will look at the concluding words of the Subsection, they will see that in making regulations the Minister has to frame them in such a way that people having pension rights are not in any worse position by reason of the alteration than they were before. If hon. Members will turn to page 70, they will see that pension rights include the cases purported to be covered by the Amendment, for the Amendment includes rights to which the person concerned is not strictly entitled by law If hon. Members look at line 12 on page 70, they will see that the definition of "pension rights" includes: any expectation of the accruer of a pension to or in respect of that person under any customary practice. The Amendment does no more than is already done by the Bill.

§ Colonel Clarke
Surely the term "whole-time" is the governing word both as to employment and as to the expectation. The object of our Amendment was to expand that to cover those who have not been in full-time employment and who have both employment and expectations.

§ The Solicitor-General
I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for his intervention. I had endeavoured to deal with it by pointing out that the question of principle arises on the subsequent Amendments on the Order Paper, and I was confining myself to what was the basic object of this Amendment. I am not really clear as to what is meant by the words "regular employment." It might be said that those words mean the same as whole-time employment, but whether they do or do not, the principle arises on the later Amendment.

§ Mr. Hare
On a point of Order. I understand that the later Amendment is not to be called.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
I ask for the guidance of the Chair on that matter.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)
Mr. Speaker has decided not to call the next four Amendments. The first is the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) in page 59, line 25, to leave out from "officers," to "being," in line 29, and insert: who have been regularly employed in or about the whole or any part of any undertaking or business vested in or transferred by or under this Act. It is also not proposed to call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones), in page 59, line 27, after "whole-time" to insert "or part-time." The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden)—in page 59, line 35, at end, insert: (2) The Minister as respects the Central Authority and any Area Board, and the Secretary of State as respects the North of Scotland Board, shall by regulations require the Authority or Board to pay, in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations, compensation to persons who, immediately before the vesting date,—

(a) devoted the whole of their time to employment by authorised undertakers; and

(b) were employed for at least part of their time for the purposes of any functions which are transferred from the authorised undertakers in consequence of this Act.
and who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments which is attributable to the passing of this Act."— is not being called; nor is the Amendment on page 59, line 41, at end, insert: (c) Persons who were on the tenth day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, and immediately before the vesting date, directors of any company to which Part II of this Act applies.

§ Colonel Clarke
Is it the intention to call the next Amendment, in page 59, line 46, at end, insert: (3) If within five years after the vesting date—

(a)any existing officer relinquishes his employment on the ground that he has been required to perform duties which are not reasonably comparable to or are an unreasonable addition to those which as an officer of his previous employer he was required to perform; or

(b)the services of any existing officer are dispensed with by an Electricity Board because his services are not required and not on account of misconduct or incapacity to perform such duties as immediately before the vesting date he was performing or might reasonably have been required to perform; or
474
(c) the emoluments of any existing office: are reduced,
that officer shall unless the contrary be proved be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section to have suffered loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments by reason of the vesting For the purposes of this subsection the expression 'existing officer' means any person who was on the nineteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-five, and immediately before the vesting date such an officer as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section and whose services are transferred to an Electricity Board by reason of the passing of this Act"?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Yes, it is proposed to call that one.

§ The Solicitor-General
Having disposed of the other facets of the Amendment in so far as part-time employees are concerned, the Government's case is that one has to draw the line somewhere and one feels when one is endeavouring to do justice in this matter that these employees give the whole of their time to the body by which they were employed. There is not really very much one can add upon that. The scheme of this Clause and of the regulations to be made under it are designed to ensure that at any rate those who can be said to have been engaged in the whole-time employ of these bodies are to be entitled. After all, that is a very substantial right of considerable value. They are entitled to be placed in that position not only with regard to those rights which they had as legally enforceable claims, but also in respect of those customary accruals, if I may so call them, to which they would expect to look forward in the normal course at the termination of their service.
That is where we have sought to draw the line. If one goes beyond it and says, "We think that that is too stringent a restriction on the benefit rights," one gets into a very uncharted sea. How far is one to go? Who is to count as a part-time employee? What is to be the minimum qualification which is to rank for pension rights? We feel that it would be very difficult in practice to draw any line which could really work and which would be practicable. For this reason, in imposing the duly on the Minister to give the same pension rights, not only in respect of legally enforceable claims, but also in respect of customary expectations, we have thought that those valuable rights should be confined to persons with regard to whom it can be said that they are or were 475 whole-time employees of the bodies, or are whole-time employees of the boards which have taken over the undertakings of those bodies. We feel, therefore, that we cannot accept this Amendment even if— which is questionable—the expression "regularly employed" is an apt expression to cover part-time employees. If it is an apt expression, I would only say that it is extremely difficult from the wording to know which part-time employees could be said to be regularly employed and which not. Would it apply to a person who works only on Mondays, for example, or would it mean a person working three days a week? Would a person who does actual work come within the expression? If not, why is there to be any intelligible distinction made between a person who does not work regularly but does perhaps much more in the service of the body concerned than a person who works three days a week? There is no definable line of demarcation you can make if you go beyond the category of employees who have been full-time employees.

§ Colonel Clarke
I want to clear up what was, I think, a misconception on the part of some hon. Members opposite last night concerning the position of directors. The right hon. Gentleman, in replying to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-port (Mr. R. S. Hudson) on a point about certain part-time directors, said in Standing Committee: I am advised that directors who have some specific…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 15th May, 1947; c.1027.]

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
What the hon. and gallant Gentleman is saying would not appear to have any relation to the Amendment at present before the House. He may not now seek to clear up something which happened last night, unless he can relate it to the present Amendment.

§ Colonel Clarke
I think you will find, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that this is relevant to the Amendment in page 59, line 41, which, I understood you to say, might be referred to during the present discussion.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I am sorry but the Amendment has not been selected and is, therefore, not open to discussion.

§ Mr. Asterley Jones (Hitchin)
I understand that I shall be in Order if I refer during the discussion of the Amendment 476 now before the House, to the principle of the Amendment to page 59, line 27, which stands in my name. I trust that we have not heard the last word yet from the Solicitor-General on the subject of part-time employees. I am aware that the majority of the employees concerned are only partly engaged on the work of an electricity undertaking, but at the same time it must not be forgotten that there are others who are still employed but who spend only part of their time doing work in connection with the authorised undertakings. In my constituency there is an undertaking known as the First Garden City, Limited. This company, which was established over 40 years ago, is in fact the owner of the garden city of Letch-worth and, besides being the ground landlord of the whole of that garden city and carrying on a number of other undertakings, it is also the authorised undertaker for the electricity works.
This company is proposing to take advantage of a Clause, which I understand the Minister is to move later today, whereby this electricity undertaking may be separated from the First Garden City, Limited, and established as a new, separate undertaking. At present the situation is that in the offices of the First Garden City, Limited, 26 persons are employed, none of whom is fully occupied on the work of the electricity undertaking, although many of them are employed on it for part of their time. It is obvious, for example, that in the accountants' branch, to mention only one, the receipts from the electricity undertaking are dealt with together with those from the various other enterprises in which this company is engaged. I am informed that of those 26 employees five only have nothing to do with electricity; four of them spend three-quarters of their time on electricity and the remainder on other work; five of them spend two-thirds of their time on electricity work, eight of them half their time, and three one-third of their time. When this undertaking is separated from the First Garden City, Limited, there will be two alternatives open to the firm — either to transfer some of these officials to that separate undertaking and to separate their work from the rest, which will give rise to a certain amount of waste, or to maintain the arrangement under which all the employees remain servants of the First Garden City, Limited, but are employed only part-time on the work in question. It 477 is easy to see that some of these men and women will suffer as the result of the change. Adjustments in duties will be made and, in the words of the Bill, they will undoubtedly suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights. I do not imagine that these arguments apply to many people in this country, but they do to some. It is not confined just to that particular company. I imagine that there will be employees of local authorities also who will be adversely affected if the matter is allowed to stand as at present.

§ Colonel Lancaster (Fylde)
I am grateful that the Solicitor-General should have given assurances in regard to the matter of pensionable rights, but I should like to deal briefly with this matter of part-time employment. I understand that it is giving rise to a good deal of concern and it is a very real question which requires clarifying. I understand that some undertakings have been in the habit of sharing certain types of minor artisan for their particular technical requirements. Such people as chemists who are employed on test work, and men of that kind, were shared between one or two, or possibly more, undertakings, and, therefore, cannot claim to come under the requirements of the Clause as it is at present drafted, although they have nevertheless been spending the whole of their time employed in the electricity industry as such. As the Clause is drafted, these men would not benefit. I am sure that that is an unjust situation, particularly as a man might have been taken on quite recently. He might have worked no more than a month or so. Nevertheless, he can claim that he has been employed whole-time. As the Solicitor-General said, it might be difficult to find a form of words to cover the cases which in no sense can claim to have been employed whole-time in the industry as a whole. That does not seem to be a real reason why the matter should not be fully considered, or why some formula should not be devised to cover those who might properly claim to have been employed full-time within the industry as a whole, although only part-time in some particular part of it.

§ Mr. Collins (Taunton)
I support the point of view which has been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones). The present 478 provisions of the Clause do not fulfil what I feel is the genuine intention, that people who are employed in undertakings, whether whole-time or part-time, shall not suffer either in their employment or otherwise when the undertakings are transferred. There is a danger that many people employed part-time will definitely suffer. We have had a lucid explanation from the Solicitor-General, but I feel that this has only made the position of part-time employees even more obscure. I do not accept the plea which has been put forward that part-time employees in municipal undertakings are likely to be covered by the Severance Clause which is to be proposed later today. Undoubtedly many of those people are employed in a part-time capacity and may become redundant or have their employment affected. It does not seem that their position will be covered by any over-all provision for compensation. There is undoubtedly considerable uneasiness among those people. We cannot afford to run the risk that they may not be provided for. We cannot afford to let them have less than justice, and they may get less than justice unless there is a suitable Amendment or a form of words to cover their cases.

§ Mr. Shinwell
It is all very well for my hon. Friend to say that it should be comparatively simple to find a form of words to cover what are called part-time employees. It is a matter we find exceedingly difficult. We had an illustration given to us, in connection with electrical composite undertakings, of how difficult it is. There are many variations among part-time workers. We must make a distinction between the apparent part-time worker who is an officer of a local authority and who, as a result of severance of the main electricity undertaking, may lose emoluments. That matter can be easily adjusted. In any event, his position is covered by the provisions relating to the statutory rights of local officers.
The remainder of the cases must be very difficult. I heard of a few cases connected with the Letchworth garden city composite undertaking. A person may be employed in a composite undertaking for an hour each day as a part-time worker. That is the kind of person with whom we are concerned. As a result of severance, he presumably loses what he would normally receive for the hours 479 worked per day. I should imagine that the part of the undertaking that is left might easily adjust that matter, which should present no difficulty. If we are to be compelled to consider the cases of these part-time workers, we shall find ourselves in a position of great difficulty. All sorts of people will be coming along and saying: "As a result of the severance, I have lost this or that." Burdens will be imposed upon the new Central Authority, but they will have to be borne, not by that authority, but by electricity consumers themselves. We have to safeguard ourselves against a position of that kind.
We have taken every precaution that I can see in order to ensure that persons generally employed, and who are regarded as employees of an electricity undertaking, should have their statutory rights preserved, and that pension, superannuation and the like should be providd for them under regulations, which it is my duty to promote when the Bill becomes an Act. That seems to be as far as I can go. I am satisfied that if I proceeded further than that it would create a position of great complexity. It may be that in severance of these composite undertakings some kind of financial adjustment can be made. I imagine that the Central Authority can deal with a matter of that sort without any provision being made in the Bill. It is a consenting financial authority. If certain adjustments were required to be made, that could be done. To ask me to provide legislation to protect these part-time workers who are employed very little of their time in the undertaking seems to me to be a new idea in legislation which might be very injurious. I must ask the hon. Gentleman opposite not to press the proposal. In the case of the Amendment to page 15, line 4, which was dealt with so lucidly by the Solicitor-General, I should like to point out the great difficulty of finding a definition for regularly employed persons, although we know what is meant by that expression.

§ Colonel Lancaster
The term "regularly employed" is frequently used in connection with the Electricity Act, 1919. It is not a new term, but it is new in this connection.

§ Mr. Shinwell
We have covered that point by providing as good a definition as 480 we can get. It is covered by a provision which hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to delete from the Clause. It is in Clause 48 (2). I should have thought the position eminently satisfactory. I do not suppose that hon. Gentlemen opposite see any objection to that. As regards the Amendment, I cannot see how it is possible to make provision in any specific fashion. I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.

§ Commander Galbraith (Glasgow, Pollok)
One of my hon. Friends referred to a case in which men were employed by a number of electricity undertakers. They could not say that they were employed full-time by any one of them. Nevertheless, their full time was spent in electricity undertakings. The right hon. Gentleman did say "generally employed." Will he explain whether those words cover such persons as I have indicated?

§ Mr. Shinwell
I am giving an offhand reply, but I think I can say that if a person is employed whole-time in a number of undertakings, he would come within the provisions of the Clause. He could not possibly be excluded, because he is employed in the electricity industry whole-time.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
It is clear that the House is not happy about the position in which it finds itself. Comments have come from both sides on this point. Indeed, it is not unnatural, because it arises out of the definite pledge which the Minister gave on the point. On that pledge, an Amendment was withdrawn in Committee. The Minister of Fuel and Power said: Some reference is made in some Amendments to part-time employees. I doubt very much whether it would be possible to bring them within the scope of this provision, but we will do our best to find a suitable form of words, and perhaps that will meet the point. My hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes) said: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 15th May, 1947; c. 1018.] That is a very definite undertaking by the Minister. It is true that in earlier stages of the discussion the Minister—

§ Mr. Shinwell
I am sorry, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot get away with this.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
The Minister must restrain himself for a minute.

§ Mr. Shinwell
There is not much point in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman quoting me without doing so adequately.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
Believe me I have no intention whatever of misrepresenting the Minister of Fuel and Power. It will be seen in HANSARD. I was just about to say that while it is true that in an earlier stage the Minister had shown himself adverse to the position of part-time employees—and I was about to quote what he said—he said earlier in the same column: It may be that the term 'full-time' is not adequate for the purpose, but 'regularly employed' would open the door to all sorts of categories of a part-time character, which might create difficulties… Then he went on to say: I want to make it quite clear that we could not, so far as I can foresee, agree to provide for part-time employees, whatever that may mean. Then he said, in these concluding words which I have quoted: Some reference is made in some Amendments to part-time employees. I doubt very much whether it would be possible to bring them within the scope of this provision, but we will do our best to find a suitable form of words, and perhaps that will meet the point."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 15th May, 1947; c. 1018.] I contend that I am not in any way misrepresenting the Minister. At an earlier stage of his speech he turned his face against the part-time employees but seemed to modify, his opinion as his speech proceeded, and when, in his concluding words, he gives an undertaking to try to meet a certain point and the Amendment is withdrawn, then unless the Minister specifically demurs at that point, it is generally taken that it is in the nature of, I do not say a Parliamentary bargain, but an undertaking to give attention to this point.
The desirability of it has been shown both by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones) and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins), as well as by hon. Members on this side. The Minister says it will be difficult to do that, but the Minister, in taking power to draw a regu- 482 lation, should not think it impossible for him to ensure that such cases could be considered. He himself says that the number of cases would be small; therefore, that disposes of his other argument that undue burdens might be thrown upon the electricity undertakings by the liability which the House, without distinction of party, seeks to lay upon his shoulders. The fact that only a few people have to be considered is not an argument against taking action. All of us know in our capacity of Members of Parliament that the most irritating thing in the world is to find some person with a perfectly legitimate grievance in our constituency which cannot be remedied because of some Section in an Act of Parliament. The person in question nearly always thinks it is due to the malice aforethought of the Member with whom he or she happens to be in correspondence that the grievance cannot be rectified.
We are only trying to see that this small class of case should not arise. Indeed, the Minister himself says that he has heard of cases in the Welwyn area. It is not a great point, but it is one which other Ministers have to meet. I have had to meet it myself as a Minister framing legislation. An hon. Member behind me said that it has had to be met in this administration by Ministers framing the Health Service Acts. This is not infrequent; it is a puzzling, troublesome and a tedious matter to put it straight, but for all that it is the business of Parliament to put these things straight. If they are not, it is impossible for the Minister to deal with it afterwards by regulations. The Minister has debarred himself from taking any action to meet a class of case which all of us can foresee by the use of the word "whole-time." We suggest that he should not leave that word in the statute and that, if he leaves it in, he, the Minister, and we, the Members, will suffer inconvenience and trouble and, still worse, the lieges for whom we are legislating will suffer. It seems to us, therefore, that a reasonable case has been made out and pressed upon the attention of the Minister from both sides of the House, and it is reasonable that the Minister should correct it now, or should undertake, in the terms of his words upstairs, to give further attention to it between the time when the Bill leaves here and the time when it is under consideration in another place.

§ Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that Members are very worried about this Subsection. I am seriously worried about it and I ask the Minister to consider carefully what he is doing. It says: The Minister and the Secretary of State jointly shall by regulations require every Electricity Board to pay…compensation to officers, employed whole-time for the purpose of administering the undertaking or any part of the undertaking of any authorised undertakers, being officers who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments… Why should the Minister put that in a Bill? What we have always stood for when there has been loss of employment or emolument is work or full maintenance until work is provided. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will recollect that, when the parish councils were taken over, those officers who lost their employment were compensated in the form of a pension of £300, £400 or £500 a year—£6, £8, or £10 a week. Nobody can dispute that. Any of these men may have got employment and, at the present time, be employed by an electricity undertaking. Now they will lose their employment with that electricity undertaking and their emoluments—does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman question that?

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
I was engaged in trying to restrain hon. Friends of mine from engaging in altercation. I am most anxious that the hon. Gentleman should conclude his argument undisturbed.

§ Mr. Gallacher
None of them can question the fact that compensation was paid, and that the people now have pensions of £6, £8, or £10 a week; and there is nothing in connection with the pension to prevent them from taking a full-time or a part-time job with an electricity or any other undertaking. If they lose their employment with an electricity undertaking, are they to get another pension of £300, £400 or £500 per annum? I ask the Minister if we are to be put in that position?

§ Mr. Shinwell
As regards what my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has said, there is no intention of providing substantial pensions for persons who are transferred and who will occupy positions in the nationalised industry with high salaries, but we have to 484 preserve the statutory rights of every individual concerned. That is an obligation which we cannot set aside. I have looked again, at Clause 48 and I imagine that provided—and I must emphasise this— provided a suitable formula could be arranged within the regulations—because it is impossible to do it in any other fashion—then Subsection (1, a) of this Clause might enable us to do so. It reads: for providing pensions to or in respect of persons who are or have been in the employment of an Electricity Board or a Consultative Council, or persons who have been members of the Central Electricity Board"— I direct attention to these words— or have been employed by any body to which Part11I of this Act applies or have been employed whole-time for the purpose of administering the undertaking or any part of the undertaking of any authorised undertakers, but who have not been taken into the employment of an Electricity Board as aforesaid; Let me take the case of a composite undertaking. Part II applies to the transfer of the electricity section of a composite undertaking, and, therefore, an employee of such an undertaking would come within the scope of this provision. That is clear. The remaining question is whether we could find a suitable formula which would cover a person who, while he had been in the employment of an undertaking covered by Part II, had already been partly employed in the other section of the composite undertaking. I am not certain whether it is possible to find such a formula, but we shall do what we can so that no injustice shall be done to anybody. On the other hand, we must not be unjust to the Central Authority. I do not think it is possible to go beyond that, and I am afraid that is my final word

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
It seems that there was a little misunderstanding about the Minister's previous remarks, so I would like to be quite sure that there is no misunderstanding now. I hope there is no misunderstanding that the right hon. Gentleman is now giving an undertaking that he will look into this.

§ Mr. Shinwell
No, I am certainly not.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
It is desirable that we should get this clear, for nothing could be worse than a suggestion that some misunderstanding which has arisen 485 has not been cleared up. I understood from the Solicitor-General that he considered that no case of part-time employees could be dealt with under this Bill. Indeed, I understood that from the Minister's remark when he demurred to his final pledge being queried, and stood by his earlier remarks upstairs. Now I understand that the Minister, on examining the Clause, has said that he thinks the case quoted by an hon. Member could be covered under the terms of Subsection (1, a)of Clause 48. Do I carry him with me so far?

§ Mr. Shinwell
Yes.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
He thinks he can do something here by means of regulations, but repeats his caution that he may not find it possible to do anything in the way of regulations? Do I understand that the Minister is now willing to try to do something by regulations in respect of the class of cases which he had previously indicated he could not do anything about; that the Minister is moved in this respect, and is now giving an undertaking to the House that he will try to meet by regulations the class of case pressed upon him by the House which previously he could not deal with? If that is the understanding, then we are all at one.

§ Mr. Shinwell
In my first speech i indicated how difficult it would be to find a formula. That was my sole difficulty. I have looked at this, and while I still think it would be difficult to find a formula, I will make the attempt when I am dealing with the regulations.

Mr. McKie (Galloway)
I feel sure that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Scottish Universities (Lieut-Colonel Elliot) who showed such laudable concern to protect the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), will allow me to say that I felt concerned when I heard that hon. Member speaking so earnestly to the Minister—

§ Mr. Gallacher
There is another provision which deals with pension rights. We are all in favour of pension rights being maintained.

Mr. McKie
I thank the hon. Member for what he has said, but it does not do away with what I felt he tried to impart into the "discussion. In my con- 486 stituency there is a very large hydroelectric undertaking and I cannot think there is a possibility of cases existing such as the hon. Member for West Fife quoted in connection with the parish councils— which were done away with as long ago as 1929—in which emoluments of £6 a week would be drawn. I was very glad to hear the Minister, if I may use the expression, almost giving the lie direct to what the hon. Member for West Fife said about cases like this, which must be very few and far between, and if the hon. Member does not accept my assurance I hope he will accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman.
On behalf of people in my constituency and many employed in such undertakings I join in hoping that the Minister will be as good as his words, and although he rejects the Amendment I hope he will see what he can do under Subsection (1, a) of Clause 48 by way of regulation to assure the future position of these people. We are not trying to make party capital out of this. I do not think those who have been employed part-time so far, when they read the Debate—and there are a larger number of people than ever who read HANSARD now—will be pleased with what the Minister has said. I feel sure they will be impressed by what my right hon. and gallant Friend has said and they will feel that we are concerned, even including the lone voice of the hon. Member for West Fife, although he succeeded in imparting political prejudice into his speech.

§ Colonel Clarke
In view of the assurance given by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. and gallant Member did not move the Amendment and, therefore, cannot ask leave of the House to withdraw it.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
In that case I will do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment in consideration of the assurance the Minister has given, although it was of a rather more tenuous nature than I. would like on this occasion, but we are glad that he showed himself so reasonable.