HC Deb 25 April 1967 vol 745 cc1340-6

(1) Where all the functions of the authority have been transferred to one board, that board shall take over and employ, as from the second appointed day, any person, who immediately before that day was employed by the authority solely in connection with those functions, where that person is willing to enter the employment of the board on terms and conditions which, so far as practicable, are not less favourable than those on which he was employed by the authority immediately before that day.

(2) Where the functions of the authority have been transferred to more than one board, any person employed by the authority solely in connection with the functions transferred to one of those boards immediately before the second appointed day shall be taken over and employed by that board where that person is willing to enter the employment of that board on such terms and conditions as aforesaid.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker

It is suggested that with this new Clause we discuss Amendment No. 26, in Clause 19, page 11, to leave out from the beginning of line 44 to the end of line 7 on page 12.

Dr. Mabon

I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for bringing in the reference to Amendment No. 26, which is consequential on the new Clause.

In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Archie Manuel), who also studies these matters with avidity and spots deficiencies here and there with the same determination as others—

Mr. MacArthur

Not so well as we do.

Dr. Mahon

This matter has been impressed upon us by relatively few people compared with the previous one, which was impressed upon us by, among others, the British Waterworks Association. But let us not go over that.

My hon. Friend pursued me in Committee on the subject of Clause 19 and the Amendments which he sought to insert with reference to making it mandatory on all authorities to offer continuing employment to employees engaged in the water service at the date of transfer, that is, making it mandatory that they should be offered jobs. I explained the difficulties which I envisaged —I think that I gave four categories which I could think of right away as presenting difficulty—but, under pressure from my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig), I accepted that, if I had a difficult choice here, I would commend to the Secretary of State the view that it should, on balance, be mandatory rather than permissive.

4.0 p.m.

The Clause deals with a restricted number of people. We estimate that about 3,800 are involved and that the Clause will cover about 75 per cent. of that number. In other words, following consultations with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I have been able to get as near as is possible to what was sought, considering all the difficulties concerning part-time employees.

If Clause 19 were completely mandatory, its effect would be that the people concerned need be given a job only so long as was necessary to work out the period of notice to which they were entitled. Since the boards will be in existence well before the second appointed day, they could, if so minded, give advance notice to those whom they did not wish to employ, in which case those employees would qualify for compensation under the Bill as drafted. The best arrangement, which I am suggesting to the House, seemed to be to make the Clause mandatory in relation to whole-time employees whose duties are wholly transferred to one board, even though the functions of the local water authority have been divided between more than one board.

For the remainder, by virtue of paragraph 21 of Schedule 4, the boards will be able to take over anyone employed partly on water duties. From informal soundings we have made through the Department, we are confident that there should be jobs for all professional staff, including operational maintenance staff who want to transfer. I assure the House that we feel from the assessment we have made that, if anything, we are short of key personnel, and will need everyone available who wants to take up work in this way.

For those who cannot or will not transfer, because they share their part-time water duties with another job and prefer to stay in it rather than be part-time in this capacity, any loss of employment or diminution or loss of emoluments will be subject to the compensation provisions of Clause 22.

We state in subsection (1) of the new Clause that the take-over of an employee shall be on …terms and conditions which, so far as practicable, are not less favourable… than those on which he was previously employed. That limitation is needed to cover the case of the water engineer who is the chief professional officer of a water authority, but who, after the transfer, finds himself as the deputy in the new regional board. I thought that I should say that in case hon. Members read into those words something sinister which is not there.

This is the best I have been able to do and I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) are content that we have tried as far as we can to meet their case. The House would want to see us doing this kind of action if we can, and I hope that the whole House can endorse it.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne (South Angus)

Can the Minister confirm that snaking the requirement on the new board mandatory by the new Clause will in no way affect compensation which employees of existing water authorities might obtain under the Redundancy Payments Act? I take it that if individual employees decide that they do not want to carry on in employment with the new water authorities, the fact that the obligation is made mandatory by the new Clause on the new regional boards would not in any way affect the rights of employees who wish to terminate their employment under that Act. I should like that assurance, and I am sure that the Minister can give it.

The second point that worried me slightly was that the Minister indicated that as far as the Government could see the existing employees should be taken over by the new regional boards and seemed to infer that there would be a need for additional recruitment. I always find it slightly alarming to hear that reorganisation involves an increase in the number of officials required. Is the Minister really saying that, and can he give any indication of how extensive that new employment might be?

Mr. Manuel

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State on trying to meet the point I made in Committee, aided very strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig). I wish just to ask him about subsection (2) of the new Clause, which states: Where the functions of the authority have been transferred to more than one board, any person employed by the authority solely in connection with the functions transferred to one of those boards immediately before the second appointed day shall be taken over and employed by that board where that person is willing to enter the employment of that board on such terms and conditions as aforesaid. Does that cover the employee who, for three-quarters of his time was previously employed solely on water functions by a water board and for one-quarter of the time by a local authority on another duty? If, as my hon. Friend suggested, there will be a shortage of workers, it would appear that all those part-time workers would be offered employment, and if that is so he should say so.

I hope that the Minister can give an answer so that those people who wrote to me and who will be watching our proceedings here very carefully, because of their interest in the staff in Ayrshire and elsewhere, will feel that we have got the point which we tried to get in Committee.

Mr. Peter Doig (Dundee, West)

I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has met the point we made and protected the interests of the employees concerned. However, I am a little puzzled by the attitude of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who appears to be saying that he wants someone who is merely to transfer from one employer to another, but continuing the same job, to get a redundancy payment if he does not want to take that transfer.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

No.

Mr. Doig

That was the way the hon. Gentleman framed his question. He appears to want any person who will be entitled to carry on with the same job at the same remuneration and with the same prospects to get a redundancy payment. If he is arguing that, it is wrong to do so, and I should not think that the Redundancy Payments Act can be stretched to that extent. If it can, it is time its provisions were changed.

Mr. MacArthur

We had a very good debate in Committee about this matter of principle. My hon. Friends and I very much supported the view put forward by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), and I am very glad that the major principle then advanced has been accepted in the new Clause.

I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) has some disagreements with my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) from time to time. During consideration of this Bill and of others, the hon. Member for Dundee, West has somehow managed to get the wrong end of the stick. I say that with the greatest respect and greatest tribute to his knowledge of these matters. This is yet another occasion when he has not quite succeeded in following my hon. Friend's argument.

However, I am sure that the hon. Member will agree with me that this is as reasonable a proposal as one could expect to meet the very real problems that will confront the full-time professional employee, who might be faced with redundancy unless he had some certainty of employment with the new body, which, after all, simply takes over the functions of the body that employs him at present.

Mr. Doig

Will the hon. Member kindly explain what he thinks his hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said if he did not say what I thought he said, because the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) appears to know what his hon. Friend said?

Mr. MacArthur

I am always glad to say what my hon. Friend says because he speaks with such lucidity, but I find it a little difficult to understand what the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) is arguing.

However that may be, I urge my hon. Friends to accept the new Clause which, I think, fulfils the purpose which was advanced by the hon. Member for Central Ay-shire and other hon. Members in Committee.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

By leave of the House, I think that I had better reply to some of the points which have been made. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig), I did not understand what the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said if, as he kept protesting, he did not say what my hon. Friend thought he said. I thought the hon. Member for South Angus was making a case for compensation in circumstances where the officer concerned had been offered a job. If the officer has been offered a job and has refused, clearly there can be no grounds for compensation. Redundancy payments follow only as a consequence of an inevitable redundancy where by definition no job has been offered.

If we have got this wrong perhaps the hon. Member will correct me. If he is asking for an assurance that we shall operate the compensation provisions adequately, I can give him that assurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) thought that we might be defective under the 1960 provisions, but we have seen to that and the payment is only operative where a man has not been offered a job. If the hon. Member for South Angus wishes to make his position clear, I will give way.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

The case I tried to make—I apologise if I did not make it clearly—was that of an employee who is offered what the new board regards as comparable employment, but what he does not regard as comparable employment and he is not prepared to accept as comparable employment and, therefore, he goes out. All I am concerned about is whether by putting a mandatory obligation on the new board we might be enabling it to escape obligations by an offer of a rather bogus comparable employment which it would not be able to escape if the obligation were not mandatory.

Dr. Mabon

We are coming to another Clause which makes clear that if there are disputes the Secretary of State can appoint an arbiter. This is governed by Clauses 17, 18 and 19 and new Clauses 1 and 2. I do not envisage this situation arising, but if it did the employee would, naturally, appeal through his trade union or professional association on the ground that he was being unreasonably offered a bogus job rather than one which he could accept. That is an entirely different case from the one which my hon. Friend and I assumed that the hon. Member for South Angus was raising earlier.

We accept that with the shortage of professional talent in Scotland and the need for water engineers those anxious to continue in the water service should find no difficulty in doing so. I noticed that the hon. Member referred to officials while my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire used the word "workers" rather than employees or officials who might appear to be drones. I used the phrase quite deliberately when I said that there ought to be jobs for all professional staff, including operational maintenance staff. I chose those words deliberately because these are the people we are talking about. One of the reasons for regional organisation is to make use of regional talent.

4.15 p.m.

My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire rightly raised a point about a part-time worker doing three-quarters of his time in the water service. We are concerned about including these workers in water authorities which generally are water boards which will disappear under the Act. I hope that they would be covered in the remainder of the provisions if we agreed to Amendment No. 26. I am glad that the House appears to want to endorse this new Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.