Clause 22.—(COMPENSATION TO OFFICERS AND SERVANTS OF COMPANIES.) (Hansard, 24 February 1953)

§ The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys)
I beg to move, in page 18, line 5, to leave out from the second "of," to the end of line 7, and to insert: the duty imposed on the Agency by. I hope it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I refer also to a subsequent Amendment, in page 18, line 10, dealing with the officers and servants of the Iron and Steel Corporation.
The Bill provides for compensation for employees of iron and steel companies 1950 who suffer loss as the result of groupings or regroupings by the Holding and Realisation Agency. It has been pointed out that the compensation under the 1949 Act is for loss resulting from nationalisation generally. Although we believe that amalgamations are likely to be almost the only cause of loss resulting from de-nationalisation, nevertheless we think it right to bring the Bill into line with the 1949 Act, because we do not want to be less generous than the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss).
The second Amendment relates to compensation for officials and employees of the Iron and Steel Corporation. This was not referred to in the original draft because the period of their service has been too short to qualify them for compensation under any of the Regulations so far issued. The possibility of bringing the employees of the Corporation within the scope of compensation regulations which may in due course be issued should not be excluded in advance. If any further information is required I shall be glad to give it.

§ Mr. Arthur Palmer (Cleveland)
A short but comparatively important point arises on one of the two Amendments which we are considering and, in another application, arises on the Clause itself in several places. There are words used which are now common form in Clauses of this kind to describe people who are affected by a Measure because they stand under some circumstances to suffer loss of employment, emoluments or pension rights. It struck me that something was missing from the Clause as compared with some previous occasions.
In a previous incarnation in this House I followed very closely the discussions upon the then Electricity Bill in 1947. The words are used there in a rather fuller form, because that Act now says: being officers who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights. The following words, which were used in the Electricity Act, have been omitted on this occasion: or whose position is worsened in consequence of the vesting, or the operation of the Act. I concede that such words did not appear in our own Iron and Steel Bill but there is reason why we are raising the matter today.
1951 I understand that the General Council of the Trades Union Congress are interested in having these words, which were in two nationalisation Acts I have mentioned, put in again. It is possible for a situation to arise with professional and technical employees that they lose nothing of their material reward but lose a good deal in status and in hope of professional advancement. We shall be interested to know how the right hon. Gentleman reacts to the suggestion that these words I have mentioned might be put in the Bill.

§ Mr. Sandys
I expected that some hon. Member would raise this point. I know there was considerable discussion at various times between the late Government and the General Council of the T.U.C. in regard to the phrasing of these compensation clauses. That is not a breach of confidence because it appeared in T.U.C. reports on two occasions. We gave careful thought whether these words should be included, but we feel that they are vague and give rise to uncertainty. The reason they were introduced into the Transport Bill is, I understand, that there is a fairly long history touching this matter in regard to transport legislation. Once a phrase has been included in an Act it is exceedingly hard to take it out, be the Government of the day Labour or Conservative—although they may regret that the words were originally included.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) is present, because I would remind the Committee of what he said when, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, he took part in the discussions on this particular point on the occasion of the nationalisation Bill. He was explaining to the Committee why the late Government decided not to include these particular words. The matter was raised then in very much the same way as this afternoon, and the hon. Gentleman based his reply on the Gas Act, which had been passed shortly before, and in which these words had not been included.
We have included in this Clause precisely the same words as were included in the 1949 Measure, so that it stands on all fours with that Measure so far as the scope of compensation claims are concerned. The hon. Member for Rotherham said: 1952 In using the words loss or diminution of emoluments' in that Clause we are following the precedent of the Gas Act. Prolonged consideration was given by the Government to the proper phrasing necessary to deal with the compensation provisions of the Bill. It is however possible that the words loss or diminution of emoluments' may not cover all the cases which may arise. In cases not completely covered by the Clause where serious hardship can be proved to have arisen out of the nationalisation of the industry, my right hon. Friend will expect the Iron and Steel Corporation and the publicly owned companies to act as all good and sympathetic employers would, and to make proper arrangements with the trade unions and other bodies concerned for consideration of all such cases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1949; Vol. 464. c. 1504–5.] 5.30 p.m.
I wish to act in exactly the same way as did the hon. Member for Rotherham and his right hon. Friend on that occasion. I shall expect the companies concerned, whether still in the Agency's ownership or not, to act just as sympathetically and generously on denationalisation as the hon. Member for Rotherham expected them to act on nationalisation. I can assure the Committee that the Government and the Agency will use their influence to ensure that this moral obligation is fully and faithfully carried out. I hope that will meet the point raised by the hon. Member.

§ Mr. Mitchison
Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the existence of this Clause and the direction to him to make regulations under it regarding payments by the Agency would not in any way prevent the exercise of that discretionary generosity by the companies concerned?

§ Mr. Sandys
I am quite sure it would not.

§ Mr. G. R. Strauss (Vauxhall)
We understand there have been some discussions between the Minister and representatives of the T.U.C. on the question of compensation. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, with the possible exception of the point raised just now by my hon. Friend, the requests made by the T.U.C. are broadly satisfied, or is the matter still under discussion, and that we can raise it again on the Report stage? Can he also indicate whether the requests made by the T.U.C. have been met in full or in part by the drafting of this Clause, taken together 1953 with the Amendment, apart from the disagreement which has arisen over the wording referred to by my hon. Friend?

§ Mr. Sandys
I do not like to make public the results of private consultations, but I am sure the T.U.C. would not object if I replied to the right hon. Gentleman's question. Apart from the point raised by the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer), I am assured that the Clause, as amended, meets the desires of the T.U.C. The Amendment which I have introduced was designed to meet a point raised by the T.U.C. in discussions I had with them.