§ Mr. Arthur Skeffington (Hayes and Harlington)I beg to move, in page 91, line 48, at the end to insert:
(2) Any order under the said section 81, which by virtue of subsection (1) of this section contains provisions for the transfer of any person who immediately before the transfer was the holder of any place, situation or employment with or under a local authority shall provide that, except in the case of a person who is by agreement transferred before 1st April, 1965, the terms and conditions (including terms and conditions relating to superannuation or pension rights) upon which a person holds the place, situation or employment to which he is transferred shall not be less favourable than those upon which he held his place, situation or employment immediately before the transfer.
§ The ChairmanI think that it would be right to discuss this Amendment with the Government Amendment in page 92, line 13, at the end to insert: 56
(2A) The provision required by subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall include provision to secure that any person who on 1st April, 1965, is transferred under this Act from the employment of one authority to that of another shall hold office by the same tenure and on the same conditions as immediately before that date and, while he is engaged in similar duties to those in which he was engaged immediately before that date, shall receive not less salary or remuneration than that to which he was entitled immediately before that date.
§ Mr. SkeffingtonI am glad that we are to have a short period, although the timetable Motion is still very severe, in which to discuss the terms and conditions of the large numbers of the staff who are to be transferred. It is little short of scandalous that, because of the way that the timetable Motion was drawn for discussions in Committee, we had on one occasion only 40 minutes in which to discuss some aspects of staff conditions and an another occasion only 10 minutes. Even so, on this first occasion, we were successful in defeating the Government.
When we consider that this will be the largest transfer of staff in the history of English local government, I think that it is preposterous that the Government should so arrange things that we and they appear to be indifferent perhaps to the conditions of so many of them and the entirely changed circumstances under which they will work.
The purpose of our Amendment is to ensure by Statute, not just by regulations or Minister's intention, that every officer who is transferred from an existing local authority to one of the new authorities shall be transferred on terms and conditions not less favourable than those which he enjoyed immediately before. I realise that the Minister, in his Amendment, has gone some way towards meeting the fears which many of us, and certainly the staff associations, have, but our Amendment goes further because, as I shall explain, difficulties arise in the Minister's Amendment over what is meant by the term "similar duties".
It is always a very difficult matter to evaluate new duties under new authorities, and sometimes even the creation of new posts under old authorities give rise to very considerable heart-burning and, let us face it, sometimes injustice. We feel that because of the difficulties in trying to get agreement as to what old job really corresponds 57 to a similar job in a new authority, it would be much better for the Government to accept the precise terms of our Amendment, which would obviate these difficulties and ensure that no transferred officer is likely to suffer as a result of something which is in no way his fault and which arises directly from the Government's scheme.
There are three major grounds for suggesting, in addition to the one that I have mentioned, why our Amendment is superior to the Government Amendment. In the first place, there is the general question of principle about local government officers and the nature of their employment. Undoubtedly, many who have chosen this career have done so because they welcome not only the type of work and the constructive nature of most of it, but because there was a considerable element of security. Once they were in local government service, then, provided that they were satisfactorily performing their duties, they could look forward to a continuous period of employment, with a pension at the end of it.
Many of them, particularly in the case of the county services, the L.C.C. and the M.C.C., are highly qualified officers who could, no doubt, have secured greater employment benefits in private industry. But there are additional risks which would mean, of course, that their period of occupation was less certain than being a staff member of one of the great county councils, or other London bodies, which, in many ways, are doing work similar to that done by the Civil Service, particularly in the higher grades. Through no fault of their own, but entirely as a consequence of the Government's scheme and the whole structure of local government being overturned, they are being transferred to new jobs. We want to ensure that those who are transferred do not suffer financially and do not have to run the hazards which, I think, will arise because of the difficulty of grading new jobs with the old and, therefore, exposing some officers to loss.
The second consideration is this. It might be thought that if we gave an absolute guarantee that every officer should not suffer financially on transfer that would be subjecting the public purse, 58 the ratepayers' purse, to very heavy demands. I think that this is not so. My belief is that this structure of government will not cause ultimately any reduction in staff. My belief is that because of the duplication of much of the work that has to be done—references which have continually to be made to the Minister in planning, is one—the ultimate staff employed will be probably greater.
Therefore, I do not think that the number of officers who cannot be found jobs of the calibre of those which they have been doing, or at the remuneration which they have been enjoying, will be very many. But I hope that no one will use the amount of money, the cost, as an argument for resisting our Amendment.
The third point, which I have already made, is the question of difficulties about what is comparable employment and how we can be certain that those who are to carry out this task will be able effectively to evaluate the worth of a new job under a new authority and the difficulty, which I expressed earlier, which arises in connection with the phrase "similar duties" in the Minister's Amendment.
It is, of course, true that if an officer is transferred, and it is decided under the new scheme that the work he will be doing will not attract the remuneration that he previously received because it is not of a similar character, there is a measure of compensation. But the compensation will not bring the salary enjoyed by the transferred officer in those circumstances up to the salary that he had been enjoying before transfer.
4.30 p.m.
Perhaps I can best illustrate this by giving a specific example. An officer in the children's department of the London County Council, administrative Grade I, has a salary range at present of £1,610 to £1,760. Assume that this man is 40 and has twenty years' service in the children's department and that he is now in receipt of salary of £1,730 and is to be transferred.
Then, if we assume that the most favourable scale is likely to be applied by a local authority outside the special staff arrangements for remuneration in the London County Council which appears to be the National Joint Council's administrative, professional, technical 59 and clerical scales, he will attract a remuneration of between £1,405 and £1.580.
If he were transferred to the new authority, and if his work were considered to be exactly the same as he was doing before, no difficulty would arise because presumably he would continue to enjoy the old salary. But, on the other hand, the post may not be regarded as comparable in a new London borough, for example, and the officer would, therefore, receive only partial compensation for his loss of salary right. For twenty years' service he would get £1,580 salary plus twenty-sixtieths of the difference in remuneration of £130.
Therefore, his loss in the first year would be £87 and in every subsequent year, for the remaining number of years service, he would lose £137. This is a large sacrifice to ask any officer to make, particularly in view of the fact that his transfer has nothing to do with him, but entirely results from the Government's action.
It may be said that it is very difficult to write a provision of this sort in a Statute, but I must draw attention to the fact that it has been done in other instances. I quoted in Standing Committee the Local Government Act, 1929, which dealt with the transfer of Poor Law officers. This was a large transfer of staff, but it was a simpler transaction in the sense that the whole Poor Law department, as it were, went over to the county. Therefore, all the people were kept together and their grading was untouched. I quoted this to show that this could be done by Statute.
The legal point which is raised is that it is not possible to guarantee this by Statute, but the 1929 Act shows that it can be done. But a much nearer statutory parallel to what the Amendment seeks to do is the orders made as a consequence of the Water Acts of 1945 and 1948. Precisely what we are seeking here was done in that case under orders to give transferred staff a measure of absolute protection. They are not exposed to this hazard of regrading and they get a guarantee which ensures that no reduction will be made in their remuneration. I draw the Minister's attention to the regulations made under those Measures 60 because at some future date the whole staff of the Metropolitan Water Board will be transferred. Therefore, those people will be very interested in the conditions which they already enjoy consequent on the changes made by Statute fifteen years ago.
My last point which I hope will commend itself to the Committee and to the Minister is this. On page 53 of the booklet entitled The Reshaping of British Railways it is said:
men who have to move from their appointed post to another one in a lower grade will in future retain their old rate of pay for up to five years, unless they can be reinstated in their former grade in the meantime.If British Railways, with all their difficulties, financial and otherwise, can give this guarantee to their staff, I am sure that the new boroughs and Greater London Council, with their greater resources, could ensure that no transferred officer suffered.The number of people for whom comparable employment will have to be found will be very small. Compensation proposals are intricate to work out. I ask the Minister to overcome all the administrative difficulties and doubts in connection with grading by ensuring that anyone who is transferred does not suffer as a consequence of this legislation.
§ Mr. David Weitzman (Stoke Newington and Hackney, North)I have listened on many occasions to arguments from hon. Members opposite about the sanctity of contracts. They have said, "We dare not offend against the sanctity of contracts."
The strongest argument which appeals to me here and which persuades me of the lack of generosity on the Minister's part is this. Many people who entered the service of the L.C.C. accepted less money than they would have got for a comparable job elsewhere and relied on the authority carrying out the contract made with them. In other words, they believed that the sanctity of the contract would be preserved. The Government have destroyed the sanctity of contracts, and the Minister has been less than generous in tabling an Amendment which does not fully meet the aim of the Amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). I hope that the Minister will look at this again and 61 will accept our Amendment in fairness to members of the staff involved.
I do not wish to repeat the arguments which have been put forward, because our time is limited, but I understand that we can discuss the Minister's Amendment at the same time. I ask him to explain how it makes any sense. It seems to me that it is divided into two parts. It first says that
The provision required by subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall include provision to secure that any person who on 1st April 1965 is transfelted under this Act from the employment of one authority to that of another shall hold office by the same tenure and on the same conditions as immediately before that date".Clearly, the words "same conditions" imply the same pay, same prospects, and so on.Then the Amendment goes on to deal with a particular class and says:
and, while he is engaged in similar duties to those in which he was engaged immediately before that date, shall receive not less salary or remuneration than that to which he was entitled immediately before that date.The second part of the Amendment seems to imply that there is a class of people who will have "not less salary" if they perform similar duties. What about the other people? Are not they under the Amendment to be treated as holding office "by the same tenure" and on the same conditions as they had "before that date"? Unless I am wrong, there is a contradiction here, and the Amendment does not make sense.Whether the Amendment makes sense or not, I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, particularly since many people have relied on the fact that they had a contract. It would be unfair and unjust on the Government's part to act in the way that they propose. I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.
§ Sir K. JosephWe would all be wise to accept the final words of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) on this difficult and important subject. He said—and I think that this is absolutely right—that the numbers of staff for whom equivalent employment will not be found are likely to be very small. Secondly, he said that the detailed consideration of exactly what is equivalent employment and what the effect of the compensation provisions 62 as at present agreed will be constitute a very intricate and difficult problem. I hope, therefore, that what I am going to say will be taken in the light of those two comments of his with which I thoroughly agree.
The Government Amendment—let us first clear the ground there—goes a long way towards meeting the case of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It puts into the Bill the requirement that transferred staff, whatever the job to which they are transferred may be, shall retain the tenure and conditions on which they were previously employed, that is, whether they were on temporary or permanent establishment, their hours of work, their leave arrangements and sickness arrangements. It goes on to limit their right to the same salary to a position where their new employment is equivalent to their old. That is the Government Amendment, not the Opposition Amendment. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman want to quarrel with that? It is the Government Amendment.
§ Mr. WeitzmanThe Minister will appreciate the point I was putting to him. I was asking him for his explanation of what I regard as an important point as to the meaning of the Government's Amendment. I suggest that it does not do what he is putting forward. It divides the staffs into two categories. I hope that the Minister listened to what I put forward.
§ Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)Will the Minister address his mind to this—whether the word "conditions" includes salary and remuneration?
§ Sir K. JosephIn answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), I am advised that "conditions" does not include salary and remuneration. It is no good the hon. and learned Gentleman expostulating. That is the legal definition I have got. It is on that basis that I am going to advise the Committee—both on that basis and on the substance—not to accept the Opposition Amendment. But I do not want to make any false claim here. It is true that the Government Amendment would still leave those few people who may be transferred to a job not the equivalent of their previous employment earning a lesser salary than before, and it is for those people that 63 the compensation provisions, for better or for worse, are available.
I should like to leave the whole question, which is a very complicated one, about the exact definition of what is or is not equivalent and the exact definition of the effect of compensation for consideration under the order making power. It is a complicated subject which will need to be discussed with the employing organisation and the staff associations. Before orders are made under Clause 82 we shall inform ourselves in detail of the sort of case the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hayes and Harlington was making about his hypothetical children's officer to make sure that all these factors are taken into account before orders are made.
Let me come to the substance of the case here. It is true that under local government reorganisation, if it is to be effective, there is bound to be a big impact on the staff, but let us, too, recognise that the purpose of local government reorganisation is to strengthen and not weaken local government, and the outcome, as the hon. Gentleman himself said, is more likely to be greater opportunity than lesser. But this generalisation is no comfort to individual officers who may find themselves with less good employment, and that is why I think we should focus for a few minutes on those people, particularly chief officers and senior officers of the counties, who may feel some jeopardy about their future employment, because it is this section which is most at risk.
4.45 p.m.
I would say here that, although there will be some who will be entitled to compensation because either they are redundant or their employment is not equivalent to what it was before, we must bear in mind that 90 existing authorities being reduced to 33 larger authorities does not necessarily mean that there are to be large numbers of officers for whom room will not be found. Obviously, the larger authorities may well have chief and deputy chief officers who may be better paid and have more power and scope than chief officers and senior officers of smaller authorities, and on the details of this we shall need to be fully informed after close consultation before we come to make the orders.
I come to the claims of the staffs affected and what their position is at the 64 moment under the Bill. Really, the staff associations are, I think, asking for five main features to appear in the Bill for their protection. First, they are asking that each single member of the staff employed by any of the affected authorities just before the appointed day should have continuity of work in front of him. We are to some extent meeting this case. The Bill now provides that everyone employed by the local authorities concerned shall be transferred to one or another of the new authorities.
Secondly, the staff, particularly senior staff, are anxious that those people who stay on with counties or loyally to finish jobs with authorities which are disappearing shall not be penalised by finding that the queue has been jumped and there are no posts vacant for them when they come to seek their next employment. It is particularly with this sort of consideration in mind that the staff commission is to be set up. As the Committee will remember, the staff commission is now mandatory; it is no longer at the discretion of the Government.
I hope that I shall shortly be able to publish at least the name of the chairman of the staff commission. It is to this sort of problem that the staff commission will straight away be requested to address its mind. It is most important that loyal staff should not be penalised for their loyalty to disappearing authorities.
The third protection which staff naturally seek is that there should be some guarantee over a period of years—a period of something like three to five years has been mentioned—of their getting continuity of employment at their existing salaries. It is here, really, that the Government begin to find themselves at odds with what the staff ask. We are thinking here not just of the local government of London, but of local government all over the country, and although the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hayes and Harlington was very persuasive in saying that the numbers would only be small and that, therefore, the cost to the public purse would be little, it still would be a very serious thing for the Government to concede that people should be paid for a number of years to carry out a job which they were no longer doing, which they were no longer employed to do. We really cannot concede that point, 65 anyway at this stage. I am quite prepared to think about it yet again.
Then there is the fourth protection which the staff claim, their claim that those who transfer to work with new authorities should take with them their existing pay and conditions of service. That is particularly the claim of the L.C.C. staff association, that the Greater London Council should be required initially, for the transitional period, to adopt the pay and conditions of service of the L.C.C. The Government Amendment goes some way to meeting this case, but only some way. It does say that whenever staff are transferred, even if it is not to an equivalent job they shall carry with them their conditions of service; that is to say, whether they are temporary or permanent, and their hours of work, their leave arrangements, their sickness arrangements, and the like.
§ Mr. LubbockAnd superannuation?
§ Sir K. JosephI will come to superannuation in a minute, as a separate subject.
What the Government are not willing to concede is that the particular conditions of the L.C.C. should be carried over to the Greater London Council even for an initial period. Although the Government were not willing to concede that, the Standing Committee took the bit in its teeth and last week defeated us on this point. However, there is an Amendment later to delete that error of judgment when we reach the Second Schedule. I ask the Committee now to recognise that the Government have already gone a long way to meet the case about conditions of service put forward by the staffs. The hon. Member for Orpington asked about superannuation arrangements, and the staff have naturally sought safeguards for these. Of course, I undertake that they will be protected, and this will be done by order.
That is the state of play. The difference between the Government and those who are urging the requests of the staff is really limited to two features. First, the Government are not willing to put upon the public purse the cost of a salary previous to the appointed day for a man or woman who, after the appointed day, is transferred to a job that is not equivalent. For such people there are 66 compensation arrangements, and the Government will go into such arrangements in great detail with the staff associations and future employers before making orders under Clause 82.
Secondly, the Government are not willing at the moment to contemplate requiring the Greater London Council to give, even for an initial period, the pay and conditions now enjoyed by L.C.C. staff transferred to it. But, on the other hand, we shall be debating this further, no doubt tomorrow, on a later Amendment. I have shown how far the Government have gone in the Bill as drafted, in our own Amendments and in our acceptance of others, to protect the staff and meet their requests. But there are two sticking points—the first on the main request of the staff associations and the second concerning the L.C.C. staff association alone.
The House should contemplate the effects of local government reorganisation not only for Greater London but over the country as a whole, and should recollect that there are compensation provisions which have been carefully worked out with staff associations to provide for any of the admittedly few cases where equivalent employment is not found. I hope, therefore, that the Opposition Amendment will not be pressed and that, if it is, it will be defeated and that the Government Amendment will be approved.
§ Mr. WeitzmanBefore the right hon. Gentleman sits down, perhaps he can answer this question. Suppose a servant leaves my employ and I agree to reemploy him on the same conditions. Is the right hon. Gentleman claiming that conditions do not include pay?
§ Sir K. JosephI am advised by the lawyers that for this purpose it does not include pay.
§ Dr. Alan Glyn (Clapham)What will happen about the capital sum given to a person in compensation for the loss of what he might have received without these changes?
§ Sir K. JosephI cannot summarise the exceedingly complex compensation code in this way. It is a very formidable document.
§ Mr. LubbockThe hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) 67 moved his Amendment extremely adequately but the term "same conditions" in the Government Amendment requires further explanation by the Minister. One would have imagined that "conditions" included salaries and remuneration. If an advertisement in the Press offers "good conditions of employment", one does not expect to find that luncheon vouchers and free train fares are provided but a salary of only £100 a year. That would be surprising.
§ Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth (Hendon, South)The Government Amendment also refers to "the same tenure" in covering conditions of service.
§ Mr. LubbockThe phrase I am referring to is "on the same conditions". I should be glad to hear from the Minister that the word "conditions" includes pension rights.
§ Sir K. JosephWhether it does or does not, I give a firm undertaking that pension rights are protected and will be protected by order. I will take further advice on this matter.
§ Mr. LubbockThe Minister's reply shows that we do not really know what we are talking about when we discuss the Government's Amendment. Before we come to a conclusion on either of the Amendments before us, we must have a more precise statement about what is meant by the words "same conditions".
One can pursue this question on other aspects. For example, does the right hon. Gentleman say that, in spite of the fact that a person may be transferred to a job in which he will not get the same salary, he will get the same car allowance? I believe that the custom in certain local authorities is to grade the car allowance on the assumption that the cars of certain higher officers have a higher capacity. Then there is the position of an officer transferred from a defunct authority to a new one where, in every respect except that of salary, the conditions of employment are the same.
The right hon. Gentleman emphasised his agrement with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington that the number of such people involved would be very small indeed. But, in that case, why cannot he accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Member? Surely the only 68 possible argument that he can put against it is financial. If he accepts the thesis that the number involved will be very small he should have been able to form some idea of the cost. Perhaps he will enlighten us. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington made a very valid point but the right Gentleman made no comment on it.
I hope that I am not out of order in referring to it, but the Railways Board, in its compensation arrangements, has provided that when a person is transferred to a lower grade he should retain his old rate of pay for five years. The Minister ought to envisage similar arrangements for staff affected by this Bill, where, indeed, financial considerations are not so urgent as they are on the railways.
The right hon. Gentleman also admitted that the definition of the words "similar duties" will present great difficulties. I have thought about this myself and I endorse his view. I do not see how this is to be done. I shall not quote figures because an illustration I can give makes an obvious enough case without them. Supposing that three existing local authorities are integrated. At the moment each has a housing manager but there can be only be one housing manager in the new borough. One of them gets the job and another becomes deputy housing manager. Which is the more responsible job—to be housing manager of an urban district serving a population of 80,000 or deputy housing manager of a new borough serving a population of 250,000? I defy any hon. Member to answer that sort of question off the cuff.
The difficulty here is that any answer given today must be entirely subjective The Staffing Commission could well look at this matter, but I can see that it will result in endless argument between the representatives of the staffs and the new authorities. For these reasons, the Committee should reject the Government's Amendment, which does not in any way adequately deal with the problem.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. ReynoldsThe right hon. Gentleman said that he could not concede that people should be paid for work they were not doing and that he was not willing to put any such charge on the public purse. That is a 69 surprising view for him to take, for he would not be breaching a principle. He has been doing something similar every month. I have with me an Order which came into operation on the 7th February last. It is No. 261 sent out under the seal of the Minister and signed by one of his civil servants. It is an Order which sets up a water board to deal with the Northallerton and Dales area, and it provides:
As from the day of transfer the Board shall take over and employ every officer or servant who immediately before that day is employed by a constituent council wholly or mainly in connection with the water undertaking of that council or by an existing board (and who is willing to enter the service of the Board) on terms and conditions not less favourable than those on which he was employed as aforesaid.It then goes on to lay down the various aspects.This is one of several orders which the Minister makes every year dealing with the transfer of water staffs and the staffs of local authorities employed in their water undertakings. It seems to me that in this case we are coming to a position where if a man is employed in a section of the local authority dealing with water supplies and there is an amalgamation he will be guaranteed the same conditions as he enjoys at the moment. As I say, these are orders which are being made every year. Another such Order came into operation on 11th February, 1963, which set up the East Shropshire Water Board, in which, I think, the same words are used. It says:
All the staff shall be transferred on terms and conditions not less favourable than those on which they were employed by a transferor council or the company, as the case may be, immediately before the appointed day.Therefore, as I say, this sort of thing is going on all the time.
§ Mr. SkeffingtonIf the Amendment which we have proposed is not accepted it may have the effect that when the staff of the Metropolitan Water Board transfer its members will come in under worse conditions than their colleagues employed by other water undertakings.
§ Mr. ReynoldsI cannot see how the Minister can provide for the transfer of the L.C.C. staff under one set of conditions and then provide for the transfer of other staffs under different conditions, staffs who over the years have had a comparable agreement with the L.C.C. Indeed, one staff has used the conditions of 70 the other staff to bolster up its claim. I do not see how the Minister could transfer them on different conditions from those provided for the L.C.C. staff or on different conditions made under the Order.
§ Sir K. JosephI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, and if I can save the time of the Committee, as we are working on a timetable, I will do so. I did say—perhaps the Committee did not hear me clearly or perhaps I did not make the matter clear—that while it might be difficult for me to move in the direction desired by the hon. Gentleman, I would reconsider the whole point in the light of the speech of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). I then said that there would be certain difficulties about imposing on the public purse the payment of the salary of a man who was not doing the job for which the salary was originally designed, but in the light of the argument advanced I undertook to consider the matter. I would point out that I am advised that the Opposition Amendment fails completely to achieve its purpose because I am advised, again by the lawyers, that "salary" is not covered by the term "conditions". As I say, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene.
§ Mr. ReynoldsI did not get that impression from the latter remarks of the Minister, because the right hon. Gentleman said that it would be a serious thing—and he would not be willing to do it—to put on the public purse the cost of paying salaries when the people concerned were not doing the work. The Minister is now saying to the Committee that he is going to look at the matter. But he has already said that he is not willing to do exactly what we are asking. It is a double-edged way of dealing with the matter.
I agree that the debate is governed by a timetable, but that is not the fault of hon. Members on this side of the Committee. The Essex Water Bill, which will be before the House, sets up a private company under various councils and places an obligation on that company to give transferred servants the same salaries, emoluments and conditions as they previously enjoyed. This is being done all the year round for water board staffs employed by local 71 authority water undertakings. I cannot see why the people employed in the one authority, the Middlesex County Council, who are doing work other than of water supply should be treated differently.
§ Sir H. Lucas-ToothAs I moved an Amendment during the Committee stage which had something in common with the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), I should like to say a word or two on the subject. As I understand the matter, both the Opposition and the Government propose that, where possible, transfers shall take place on what one might call level terms, that is to say, similar work, similar conditions and similar remuneration. The difficulty arises in those exceptional cases where a person has to be transferred to do less responsible work than he was doing before the date of transfer.
The first Amendment proposes that those transfers should take place on what may be called a mark-time basis of remuneration, that is to say, that the person concerned should carry his existing remuneration with him and stay on that rate of remuneration until events overtake him. My right hon. Friend's Amendment would not give that, but, instead, it would leave the individual concerned to get compensation under sub-section (3) of the Clause. As I understand it, that compensation is to be payable to anyone who suffers loss of employment or loss by diminution of emoluments. It seems to me that, assuming that the compensation is full and fair, there is nothing financially between the two Amendments. There may be a considerable difference in the way in which the compensation is paid.
§ Mr. LubbockThe compensation provisions do not give nearly as much protection, because a person could suffer a very substantial drop in income and the compensation would represent only a small fraction of that loss.
§ Sir H. Lucas-ToothThe hon. Gentleman says that without any knowledge of what the actual provisions are. Of course, the drop in salary might be for only a year or two whereas the compensation might be payable for the rest of the person's life. If the compensation 72 is fair, it will compensate fully. It seems to me that there may well be circumstances where a lump sum might be much better, fairer and more acceptable than some rather artificial method as that proposed in the first Amendment. For that reason, it seems to me that there is a good deal to be said from the point of view of the individual himself for having the Government scheme rather than that proposed by the Opposition. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has brought this scheme forward because I believe it will do better justice for those concerned than that proposed in the earlier Amendment.
§ Mr. M StewartThe Minister's speech has made clear what a small matter it is, from the point of view of the public purse, that divides us. The simple question is this. When persons are transferred to duties which are not held to be similar duties, are they to have the same pay as they are now receiving? That is the straight issue. The Minister has narrowed the matter still further by giving the Committee a categorical assurance that he will safeguard the pension rights of those persons. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman has considered what is involved in that.
Supposing, as I think is usual, that the amount of pension is determined by the amount of salary which a person has been drawing years before he retires. Is the Minister going to say, "Here is a man transferred to duties that are not similar. As a result, his pay goes down"? If that is so, then, following the normal working of pension arrangements, his pension would drop too. Is the Minister saying that he will take special action to see that such a person's pension does not drop but remains what it would have been if his salary had been unchanged? If that is what the right hon. Gentleman means, I do not think that he has power to do that as the Bill now stands. I think that he may have pledged himself more than he realises and given a pledge which he cannot carry out unless he goes further and says that a man who is transferred to duties not similar shall get the pay which he is now receiving.
That is really all that divides us, and everyone is agreed that from the point of view of the public purse and from the administrator's point of view it is a small matter, and that the only difference is that 73 we should not then have the very tricky question of defining what are and what are not similar duties. That will present many headaches. But if it is small from the point of view of the public purse it may be very grave from the point of view of the small number of individuals concerned—more grave than is realised by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth)—because we know the nature of the compensation terms that the Minister is proposing. They are not set out in the Bill, but we know what they are. One of their provisions is that the compensation shall not in any circumstances exceed two-thirds of the loss of salary. That would mean that if people are left not protected in the way that we propose to protect them they might be perceptibly worse off.
If, for example, a senior child care officer earning about £1,350 leaves the L.C.C. and, in the new set-up, becomes a borough child care officer, will he be regarded as carrying out similar duties? I am glad that I shall not be a member of the court that has to answer that question. But if the answer is that the jobs are not similar it might mean that the man would suffer a loss of £250 a year under the Minister's compensation provisions. The sum would naturally vary according to the length of service. That is what is in issue for the people concerned. That is what we are up against; it is a very small issue from the point of view of the public purse but a very grave one for the individuals concerned.
When I refer to the public purse, whose purse do I mean? We are not asking the Exchequer to pay this. A very little of it may come indirectly out of the Exchequer—otherwise we should not be dealing with the matter on recommittal—but in the main this will be met by local authorities. I think that I am right in saying that no local authority objects to our proposal. They will have to work with these people, and they do not want to have new staffs smarting under a sense of injustice from the start.
In those circumstances it is not for the Minister to step in and tell local authorities, in effect, "You must do these people this injustice". I know that sometimes, even when the effect on the public purse, locally or nationally, is 74 small, it may be right for the Government to resist, on the ground that a wrong principle is involved. But that case cannot be pleaded here. That argument has been decisively destroyed by my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) and Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds). The principle that we are urging upon the Minister is one that is accepted, as has clearly been brought out. If we do not accept that principle we shall create anomalies, as between one local authority employee and another, to which far more serious objection could be raised on the ground of principle than could any objection raised to what we are proposing.
The Minister says that he is advised that our Amendment does not do what it sets out to do. The Amendment was not constructed without advice. I have taken it literally word for word. This Amendment was put down in Committee by a group of hon. Members opposite; it was not put down by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We have followed the advice of hon. Members opposite and have put down their Amendment.
I must correct the Minister immediately on one point. This is not the matter on which we defeated the Government. This matter is one in respect of which we did not press the Amendment—but only because the Minister made a speech in which he expressed a sort of half or quarter agreement with us. We therefore thought it proper to leave the matter to be dealt with on Report.
§ Sir K. JosephI think my punctuation went wrong. I thought I made it clear that the point in respect of which the Government were defeated was that which transferred to the G.L.C. the L.C.C. conditions.
§ Mr. StewartI do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should say' anything about that on this point. That point will come up for discussion on a different Amendment.
§ Sir K. JosephI talked about it because I was listing the claims of the staff associations, and that was part of a claim by one of the staff associations. I was reviewing what the Bill does about those claims.
§ Mr. StewartI agree that when one is supposed to be talking about an Amendment concerning something that a staff association has not got it is far more agreeable to talk about one in respect of which it is getting what it wants. But in Committee we did not press this matter to a vote, because the Minister made conciliatory noises, although he did not promise to go the whole way with us. He does not promise that now.
§ Sir H. Lucas-ToothDid not the Minister also say that the proper way of dealing with this matter would be by compensation? Having pointed that out, is it not clear that this Amendment would involve depriving those concerned of certain compensation rights? That is the real point at issue.
§ Mr. StewartWith great respect, it will not deprive them of their rights to compensation; it will put them in the position where they will not need compensation. Since compensation cannot exceed two-thirds of what they lose, they are clearly in a better position under the Amendment.
§ Sir H. Lucas-ToothNo.
§ 5.15 p.m.
§ Mr. StewartIt is no good the hon. Member's denying that. The only person who could deny it is the Minister—but I do not think that he disputes it. Without the Amendment these people will suffer a loss. By way of compensation they may get two-thirds of it back, but they cannot get more. If we save them from incurring the loss altogether we are surely benefiting them more than if we say: "You may suffer a loss, but by compensation you will regain two-thirds of it." That is the issue, and the hon Member cannot get away from it. It is not a question of two different methods achieving the same result. The result achieved by the Amendment is different from that achieved by compensation, and the compensation result is decidedly less attractive, financially, to the persons concerned.
It is understood that the words "terms and conditions" include salary. The Minister says that the word "conditions does not, and he may be right. But is he also advised that" terms and conditions" does not include salary? He will probably agree that we know 76 what is in dispute between us. If the Committee divides on the Amendment and it is carried it will be expressing the view that these men should get the same pay, and if the Committee expresses that view it will clearly be the most strict obligation of honour on the part of the Government to make sure that the wording of the Bill in its final form is such as to fulfil the wish of the Committee. I ask the Minister to consider what is involved.
The difference between us is very small, in terms of the effect upon the public purse, but it is a very grave matter to the individuals concerned. The weight of argument and the principle is in favour of effecting the change which we want effected. We hesitated to press this matter to a Division before, because the Minister said that he would consider it again. If he cannot now say that without bothering about the legal wording he agrees that these men should go on receiving the pay that they are now receiving, and that he will make sure that in the end the Bill produces that result, I do not see how the Committee can avoid dividing on the Amendment.
§ Dr. Alan GlynWe all agree that, in principle, the object of the exercise is to make sure that the remuneration of the staffs, whether by compensation or by continuation of terms and conditions, remains substantially the same. It seems to me that it is entirely a question of how we should do this. The Minister suggests that it should be by way of compensation, but the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) rightly says that compensation may be only two-thirds of the loss incurred in transferring. But if the compensation is a capital sum it must be considered in an entirely different way.
I ask my right hon. Friend whether he thinks there will be a great deal of difference to the public purse whichever way we do it. We are in a difficulty, because the Amendment does not cover the point which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would wish it to cover. I ask my right hon. Friend whether or not the difference between the two sides can be adjusted, as he hinted earlier, thereby avoiding a Division on the issue.
§ Sir K. JosephThis is certainly more important because of the possible effect on a relatively small number of individuals than the number of individuals concerned might indicate. I accept that, as the hon. Member for Fulham {Mr. M. Stewart) said, the effect on the public purse might be relatively little, while the effect on the individual might conceivably be significant for that person. It is also true that we are considering something here which might set a precedent for other parts of the country and we should hesitate before doing something which has not been done before.
There are two things which have not been brought out in the discussion and which perhaps I should make clear. The hon. Member for Fulham and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) have been quoting—I have no doubt absolutely correctly—from the existing compensation provisions. They and the Committee will know that new compensation provisions have been under discussion with the local authority associations and the views of staff associations have been sought. Those new compensation provisions are very nearly ready. I am not able to tell the Committee categorically that the new compensation provisions will remove altogether the limitation as to two-thirds, but they are an improvement on the existing compensation provisions. That goes to narrow the existing difference between us.
The second fact is that arguments from the Water Act are not very powerful. It is true, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) indicated, that there is an obligation on a new authority to take over the staff of the previous authority at a salary not less good than previously, but there is no requirement on the new authority, so far as I am aware—speaking without that particular Order in my hand—to keep that person for more than a day or so. It can at once, if it wishes, transfer the man to a less good job or dismiss him, in either of which cases the compensation provisions under the Water Act would come into effect.
§ Mr. ReynoldsThe right hon. Gentleman is now rather casting doubt on the standing of water boards set up under his seal. Would he not agree that any 78 local authority servant can be dismissed at any time and that that is not an argument relating to this case?
§ Sir K. JosephI think that the whole Committee will agree that if we were to put into the Bill a requirement to continue on a previous salary any employee of a previous authority it would be purposeless unless there were a period of time attached to that obligation. I am sure that this will appear sensible to hon. Members.
§ Mr. ReynoldsWhy put it in the water legislation?
§ Sir K. JosephI shall have to look at the water legislation, but my own knowledge is that the water legislation contains a compensation code to meet just the sort of case where a present employee is given less good employment or is even dismissed.
I have undertaken, and I am undertaking, to reconsider this particular narrow point about the continuing salary for people not given an equivalent job. I quite see that it would have administrative advantages. I undertake to consider it again, although I cannot give a firm undertaking as to the answer I shall give. Therefore, I must expect the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington to press his Amendment to a Division. I ask him, however, to reflect that his Amendment may not on purely legalistic grounds achieve exactly his purpose. I shall therefore have to ask the Committee to reject the Opposition Amendment on legalistic grounds, because it does not even achieve what the Opposition set out to achieve, and, if it were to achieve that, because on grounds of substance I think it would be against all precedent and possibly wrong to impose on local authorities an obligation to pay the same salary whatever that salary may be.
I have undertaken to consider the narrow point again in the light of the possible effect on a few individuals and to see that if necessary an Amendment is put into the Bill on a later occasion, but I ask the Committee to reject the present Amendment and to accept the Government Amendment which will follow.
§ Mr. WeitzmanWill the Minister say on what legal grounds the Amendment 79 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) is not a good one? Let him define the legal grounds.
§ Sir K. JosephThat is a phrase behind which Ministers are justified in standing.
§ They are given legal advice, which means advice from the Department flowing back to the Law Officers.
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 155, Noes 219.
81| Division No. 84.] | AYES | [5.25 p.m. |
| Alnsley, william | Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) | Pavitt, Laurence |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Harper, Joseph | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) |
| Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central) | Hart, Mrs. Judith | Pentland, Norman |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(Rwly Regis) | Plummer, Sir Leslie |
| Barnett, Guy | Hill, J. (Midlothlan) | Popplewell, Ernest |
| Beaney, Alan | Hilton, A. V. | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. | Holman, Percy | Probert, Arthur |
| Bence, Cyril | Houghton, Douglas | Pursey, Cmdr. Harry |
| Bennett J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr) | Rankin, John |
| Benson, Sir George | Hunter, A. E. | Redhead, E. C. |
| Blackburn, F. | Hynd, John (Attercliffe) | Reynolds, G. W. |
| Boardman, H. | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Rhodes, H. |
| Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics.S.W.) | Irving, Sydney (Dartford) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) | Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas | Robertson, John (Paisley) |
| Bowles, Frank | Jeger, George | Ross, William |
| Boyden, James | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Royle, Charles (Salford, West) |
| Bradley, Tom | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Kelley, Richard | Short, Edward |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | King, Dr. Horace | Skeffington, Arthur |
| Callaghan, James | Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) |
| Castle, Mrs. Barbara | Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) | Small, William |
| Chapman, Donald | Lipton, Marcus | Snow, Julian |
| Cliffe, Michael | Lubbock, Eric | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Collick, Percy | MacColl, James | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Stewart, Michael (Fulham) |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Mackie, John (Enfield, East) | Stones, William |
| Cronin, John | McLeavy, Frank | Straehey, Rt. Hon. John |
| Crosland, Anthony | MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) | Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.) |
| Darling, George | Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.) | Swingler, Stephen |
| Davles, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Manuel, Archie | Taverne, D. |
| Deer, George | Mapp, Charles | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Delargy, Hugh | Mason, Roy | Thomas, George (Cardlff, W.) |
| Dempsey, James | Mayhew, Christopher | Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Diamond, John | Mellish, R. J. | Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) |
| Dodds, Norman | Mendelson, J. J. | Thornton, Ernest |
| Donnelly, Desmond | Millan, Bruce | Tomney, Frank |
| Driberg, Tom | Mitchison, G. R. | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. C. | Monslow, Walter | Warbey, William |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Morris, John | Watkins, Tudor |
| Edwards, Walter (Stepney) | Moyle, Arthur | Weitzman, David |
| Fitch, Alan | Mulley, Frederick | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Fletcher, Eric | Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) | Willey, Frederick |
| Ginsburg, David | Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.) | Williams, LI. (Abertillery) |
| Gordon Walter, Rt. Hon. P. C. | Oram, A. E. | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) |
| Gourlay, Harry | Oswald, Thomas | Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Greenwood, Anthony | Owen, Will | Winter bottom, R. E. |
| Grey, Charles | Paget, R. T. | Woof, Robert |
| Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) | Yates, Victor (Ladywood) |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Pargiter, G. A. | |
| Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. | Parkin, B. T. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Gunter, Ray | Mr. Rogers and Mr. Lawson | |
| NOES | ||
| Agnew, Sir Peter | Bossom, Clive | Cary, Sir Robert |
| Aitken, W, T. | Bourne-Arton, A. | Channon, H. P. G. |
| Aliason, James | Box, Donald | Chataway, Christopher |
| Ashton, Sir Hubert | Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John | Chichester-Clark, R. |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) |
| Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham) | Braine, Bernard | Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) |
| Balniel, Lord | Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter | Clarke, Brig. Terence (portsmth, W.) |
| Barlow, Sir John | Brown, Alan (Tottenham) | Cleaver, Leonard |
| Barter, John | Buck, Antony | Cole, Norman |
| Beamish, col. Sir Tufton | Burden, F. A. | Cooper, A. E. |
| Berkeley, Humphry | Butcher, Sir Herbert | Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. |
| Biffen, John | Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | Corfield, F. V. |
| Blggs-Davieon, John | Carr, Compton (Barons Court) | Costain, A. P. |
| Bishop, F. P. | Carr, Robert (Mitcham) | Coulson, Michael |
| Courtney, Cdr. Anthony | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Prior, J. M. L. |
| Craddock, Sir Beresford | James, David | Profumo, Rt. Hon. John |
| Crawley, Aidan | Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) | Quennell, Miss J. M. |
| Critchley, Julian | Jennings, J. C. | Ramsden, James |
| Cunningham, Knox | Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin |
| Curran, Charles | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Rees, Hugh |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Johnson Smith, Geoffrey | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) | Renton, Rt. Hon. David |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith | Ridley, Hon. Nicholas |
| Drayson, G. B. | Kerans, Cdr. J. S. | Ridsdale, Julian |
| Duncan, Sir James | Kerby, Capt. Henry | Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool.S.) |
| Elliot, Capt Walter (Carshalton) | Kershaw, Anthony | Robson Brown, Sir William |
| Elliott, R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.) | Kimball, Marcus | Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) |
| Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J. | Kirk, Peter | Roots, William |
| Farey-Jones, F. W. | Kitson, Timothy | St. Clair, M. |
| Farr, John | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Scott-Hopkins, James |
| Finlay, Graeme | Langford-Holt, Sir John | Seymour, Leslie |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Sharples, Richard |
| Forrest, George | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Shaw, M. |
| Foster, John | Lilley, F. J. P. | Sheet, T. H. H. |
| Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) | Linstead, Sir Hugh | Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick) |
| Freeth, Denzil | Litchfield, Capt. John | Smyth Rt Hon. Brig. Sir John |
| Gammans Lady | ||
| Gardner, Edward | Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield) | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| Gibson-Watt David | Longbottom, Charles | Speir, Rupert |
| Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk Central) | Longden, Gilbert | Stanley, Hon. Richard |
| Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clampham) | Loveys, Walter H. | Stevens, Geoffrey |
| Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm |
| Goodhew, Victor | Mac Arthur, Ian | Storey, Sir Samuel |
| Gower, Raymond | McLaren, Martin | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Grant-Ferris R. | Maclay, Rt. Hon. John | Tapsell, Peter |
| Green, Alan | Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) | Temple, John M. |
| Gurden, Harold | McMaster, Stanley R. | Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Hall, John (Wycombe) | Macpherson, Rt,Hn.Niall(Dumfries) | Thomas, Peter (Conway) |
| Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) | Maddan, Martin | Thompson, Sir Richard(Croydon,S.) |
| Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) | Maginnis, John E. | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| Harris, Reader (Heston) | Maitland, Sir John | Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon |
| Harrison, Brian (Maldon) | Marshall, Douglas | Turner, Colin |
| Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) | Marten, Neil | Tweedsmuir, Lady |
| Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd) | Mathew, Robert (Honiton) | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) | Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Hastings, Stephen | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Vickers, Miss Joan |
| Hay, John | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. | Wakefield, Sir Wavell |
| Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | Mills, Stratton | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek |
| Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) | Miscampbell, Norman | Wall, Patrick |
| Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) | Nabarro, Sir Gerald | Webster, David |
| Hirst, Geoffrey | Nicholson, Sir Godfrey | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Hobson, Sir John | Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard | Williams, Dudley (Exeter) |
| Hocking, Philip N. | Oakshott, Sir Hendrie | Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) |
| Holland, Philip | Osborn, John (Hallam) | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John | Page, Graham (Crosby) | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Hornby, R. P. | Partridge, E. | Wise, A. R, |
| Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. | Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives) | Peel, John | Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard |
| Howard, John (Southampton, Test) | Percival, Ian | Woodhouse, C. M. |
| Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John | Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth | Woollam, John |
| Hughes-Young, Michael | Pitman, Sir James | |
| Hulbert, Sir Norman | Pott, Percivall | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Hutchison, Michael Clark | Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch | Mr. Batsford and Mr. Pym. |
| Iremonger, T. L. | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
§
Amendment made: In page 92, line 13, at end insert:
(2A) The provision required by subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall include provision to secure that any person who on 1st April 1965 is transferred under this Act from the employment of one authority to that of another shall hold office by the same tenure and on the same conditions as immediately before that date and, while he is engaged in similar duties to those in which he was engaged immediately before that date shall receive not less salary or remuneration than that to which he was entitled immediately before that date.—[Sir K. Joseph.]
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.