HL Deb 09 May 1950 vol 167 cc169-85

2.36 p.m.

LORD TEYNHAM rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying That the Coal Industry Nationalisation (Superannuation) Regulations, 1950, dated March 17, 1950, be annulled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Motion, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the debate on the Committee stage on Clause 4 of the Coal Industry Bill, 1949. The regulations which are before us today are, of course, based upon the subsequent Act. I find them extremely complicated and most difficult to understand, but I think one would say that they seek to provide for superannuation and compensation benefits to people engaged, or who have been engaged, in the coal industry. We on this side of the House raised the question of future expectations and a specific question was put to the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack. I think the question was whether His Majesty's Government intended to consider as the basis for compensation the present emoluments and length of service of a man, or whether that basis was to be as follows: that here is a man who is at present receiving certain emoluments after so many years' service, and it would have been expected of him, if his employment had not ceased, 'that he would eventually rise to a certain standard.

As I read it, the noble and learned Viscount gave a clear assurance that the basis of compensation should be on a man's expectation of increased emoluments had he remained in his old employment, and not merely on present emoluments and length of service. Perhaps I may be permitted to quote tie Lord Chancellor's statement. In Column 643, Volume 162 of Hansard, he is reported as having said: My understanding is the latter, because if it were the former, plainly I should not be paying the man fair and reasonable compensation for an expectation, and that is what I have to do.

The noble and learned Viscount presumably was referring to the specific question which I have just mentioned, which was put to His Majesty's Government by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. In fact, the noble and learned Viscount went on to say further that if he could devise more satisfactory words to make it plain that it was not intended to pay the man on the basis merely of what he has to-day, disregarding the future altogether, he would be only too pleased to do so. Again, there was a further assurance given. He said: that the compensation a man should receive should be no less than he would have received if he had been dismissed by his old employer without the Coal Board having come into it.

When we examine these regulations, under Regulation 3, paragraph 3 (b) we find something quite different. The provision for taking account of prospective increases of salary under a man's old employment is now limited to the period of service with the Coal Board, which I think is contrary to the assurance and meaning given by the noble and learned Viscount. The result of this limitation may mean a very different salary to, a basis for compensation, and certainly one very much lower. I may be able ID clear the matter a little by giving an example. Take, for instance, the case of a man aged thirty-seven on December 31, 1946, who has been employed by a colliery concern for twelve years, and his salary from the colliery company was £500 per annum with an expectation of progressive increments of £100 per annum up to a maximum of £1,500. This man is then taken into employment by the National Coal Board and his services are dispensed with after a period of three years, at which time his salary is £650. Owing to the concluding words of Regulation 3, paragraph (3) (b), which lays down that there are to be taken into account only emoluments received during the time of his service with the Coal Board, this man would be unable to claim compensation on the basis of yearly increments of £100 up to the total of £1,500 which he would have received had he remained in his old employment: under these regulations he will be able to claim on increments of £100 for three years only. As his salary with the colliery company was £500 at December 31, 1946, he would be able to claim on only three increments of £100, making a total of £800 in all instead of £1.500. I think that is the real point.

There is, as I see it, yet another condition under these regulations which appears to be somewhat unfair. Under Regulation 3, paragraph (4), although in the case of persons over forty years of age certain years are to be added in respect of compensation, in the case of those under forty there seems to be no provision at all for taking account of the prospective increase of salary. For instance, a man who is not taken into the service of the National Coal Board can claim compensation on the basis of his salary with the colliery company, but if he has not attained the age of forty he will be unable to claim anything for his expectation of increase of salary. These regulations certainly appear to be contrary to points which were agreed during the Committee stage of the Coal Industry Bill, and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will consider their withdrawal so that they may be amended to meet assurances which we were given and understandings we arrived at during that Committee stage. I beg to move.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying That the Coal Industry Nationalisation (Superannuation) Regulations, 1950, dated March 17, 1950, be annulled.—(Lord Teynham.)

2.43 p.m.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

My Lords, I do not desire to make a speech on this occasion, but I should like to put something to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor with a view to clarifying the matter before the House. I am not by any means expressing an opinion, for the point which my noble friend Lord Teynham has raised may be covered by the first part of paragraph (2) of Regulation 3. These regulations are very difficult even for a professional lawyer to understand. I would ask the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack to look at page 3 of the Regulations, and to let his eye travel down paragraph (2) of Regulation 3. He will there see the words: …where an expectation of accruer, whether as of right or under customary practice, of any particular benefits in favour of any such person … the Board shall provide in his favour … fair and reasonable compensation for the cesser of or prejudice to that expectation. I am not quite sure what the effect of that may be. No one here would desire that sub-paragraph (b) on page 4 should give a man a double increase of pension, by reason of there being two paragraphs which might conceivably have been designed to give him that specific increase of emoluments. That is a point on which I am not at all sure. If the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor does not think that the first part of paragraph (2) of Regulation 3 applies, then there is very strong around—indeed, I think there is an unanswerable case—for holding that the point raised by my noble friend Lord Teynham is a sound one. We are dealing with an increase in the emoluments to be given under this regulation to a person who has been in the service of, we will say, a colliery company, who afterwards goes into the service of the Board, and who, immediately before he left the service of the company, had a positive assurance that he was going to get an extra £100, £200 or £300 a year after that date. Surely that must be taken into account in reckoning what he is to receive under this regulation. If he has already received it under another paragraph, of course, he ought not to have it twice. I do not mind which way it is given to him. I do not know whether it would be better, but I am seeking to put to my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack that it may be feasible to make a slight alteration in the regulations to make it plain that a man is at least to get some emolument in respect of the increase of pay he would have received before he left the service of the company. I hope I have made this clear. I must admit that I am not very clear about it myself.

2.47 p.m.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lord Teynham in his Prayer against these regulations, I am concerned only with the question of expectation. Knowing the intentions of His Majesty's Government on the matter, as expressed at the various stages of the Bill, I have assumed that somewhere in these regulations there is implemented the desire to compensate a man in some degree for loss of expectation. In Regulation 2 I seem to find such a provision. On the other hand, when we come to Regulation 3, it appears to me possible—I do not say that it is probable—that the whole thing may have been taken away again by the words: being a time during his service with the Board. In other words it is stated that these expectations which he held for the future are not to enter into the calculation at all. Another fear that I have in my mind is whether Regulation 4 rules out any compensation for expectation for anyone under fort; I do not believe that it can be so, but there is a doubt in my mind because of the very difficult wording of the regulations. I should therefore like to ask the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack to explain, quite simply, how the expectation is calculated in the following broad categories. First let us consider a man who definitely must have had an expectation. If he is taken over by the Board, how is his compensation calculated? Or, if he is not taken over by the Board, how is it then calculated? I should then like both these categories divided into over-forties and under-forties.

2.50 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, in supporting my noble friend's Prayer, I feel that some of us who are not legal experts are in some difficulty, and my first request is one which I think will strike a chord in the minds of noble Lords who are not so qualified. Could not these regulations be framed in language easier for the layman to understand? They contain long sentences which are not broken up, varying between ten and twenty-two lines. If the reply of the noble and learned Viscount oil the Woolsack (to whom, with his experience, I suppose these regulations are simple) is that it is an essential part of the draftsman's skill and experience to express his case in this way, could there not be provided an explanatory note in simple language; just as we have explanatory White Papers on many of the complicated measures which come before your Lordships' House and another place? The adoption of either of these two courses would make our deliberations on such a matter as this somewhat easier.

I should like to raise one issue on these regulations—namely, the time of qualification for benefit under these regulations, which is placed at ten years. The regulations were issued originally on December 20, 1946, when they contained this provision of ten years' employment. Subsequently, His Majesty's Government introduced, and Parliament passed, measures for the nationalisation of electricity, the health services and transport undertakings, and in each of these cases the period of qualification was put at eight years. I cannot help thinking that those who have been employed in the coal industry and who are affected by these regulations are suffering because coal was the first of the nationalisation measures to be introduced. I should like to take your Lordships back to the debates in another place and give the gist of what the Minister of Fuel and Power and his Parliamentary Secretary said on this point of eight years as against ten. On March 9, 1949, in Column 1298 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, speaking on the electricity undertakings regulations, the Parliamentary Secretary used these words: We also repeated in these regulations what was done in the transport regulations to the effect that no person can receive compensation unless he was employed prior to vesting for a continuous period of not less than eight years after attaining the age of 18. The Government's first view on this matter was that ten years was the right period to fix. We ought to be sure that an individual who is to be compensated has his roots in the industry. As I say. the Government's view originally was that the number of years ought to he ten, but after consideration and discussion the period was brought down to eight years. Eight years is common to the transport regulations and to the National Health Service Regulations. I would ask your Lordships to consider one further quotation from the right honourable gentleman, the Minister of Fuel and Power, speaking on the same regulations. He said: What are the points of principle in the regulations? The qualifying period. Do honourable Members suggest that there should be no qualifying period for the payment of compensation? Certainly not…the Government started out with the idea that a qualifying period of ten years would be appropriate. In fact, the unions said that they thought that was an unnecessarily long period. I am being frank. Finally we compromised on eight years. The Minister then said something which I heartily support, and which I would particularly draw to the attention of the noble and learned Viscount. He said: We must approach these problems from a common basis. There are certain provisions in the Transport and Electricity Regulations. Later on, we shall have to introduce similar regulations for the gas industry. I do not say that every single sentence of the regulations should be the same; there might be good reasons for differences in drafting, as there are; but on the essential points of principle it would be difficult for the Government to have different principles. Those were the words used by the Minister of Fuel and Power, and we should like some light on what has made His Majesty's Government stick to ten years in coal and eight years in all other nationalised industries, when His Majesty's Ministers themselves say they wish to maintain uniformity.

I should like to make one more plea for reducing the qualifying period from ten to eight years. The ten years from 1935 to 1945 hit hardly on those who will be affected by the regulations. They were difficult years for the coal industry. There was a loss of export markets; there was Dunkirk; and there was a dropping away from the mines. All those factors made it difficult for a man to complete ten years' service. If the time of qualification were reduced to eight years, men who found difficulty in this period would come within the purview of the regulations. We are not pleading for highly-paid executives. The men who will be affected by the regulations are few in number and unorganised, and there is nobody to speak for them except members of your Lordships' House and of another place. The cost of making these regulations less harsh in respect of this period of qualification would not be great. While I know that we cannot amend the regulations, in the interests of fair play for these men could the Government not consider revoking the regulations and reintroducing them with a provision for eight years instead of ten? In that way I feel that a greater measure of justice would be done to the few difficult cases for whom I have tried to speak this afternoon.

2.53 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT)

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, seems to imagine that for me with my experience the reading of these regulations was a perfectly simple matter. I will tell your Lordships quite seriously that it was not a simple matter. I do not know whether it is that I am getting old or that my capacity for understanding is less than it was, but having immersed myself in these regulations for the last three days, I decided that I had never found anything so difficult. I am not going to adopt the common tactic of blaming the draftsman. I would much rather suspect my own intelligence. I suppose that if I were to discuss with Mr. Einstein his theory of relativity and, having listened to him, found that I understood very little of what he said, it would be a poor "get-out" to say that he did not explain himself well. What would be the matter would be that I should not have the capacity of understanding. I rather feel that in reading these regulations that is my trouble.

Noble Lords have had a good deal to say about the assurances I have given. The only assurance I can give now, or at any future time, is that, in expounding all the numerous matters which come before me and which I am expected to expound, I shall do the best I can. I cannot possibly assure your Lordships that I shall not make mistakes. I am perfectly sure that not infrequently I shall make mistakes. Whether or not I have made mistakes in expounding these regulations I do not know. The position is this. We had a discussion on the Committee stage of this Bill—and I stress the words "on the Committee stage"—and I then said this: I do not want to hold out expectations. I want these men to be compensated fairly and reasonably for everything they have lost, including their expectations. But I suggest that we should do greater justice and give more satisfaction by basing it on something which is fixed and ascertainable, rather than on a mere speculation with which it is impossible to deal. Obviously, if we are going to indulge in political controversy it is manifestly unfair to stop half-way through the sentence.

In another place (I am not suggesting for a moment that anybody here would be guilty of such conduct) on the strength of the first half of the sentence, without the second, I was accused of having given what is called an assurance. The whole point of the controversy, if anybody troubles to read it, was to this effect. I said: "Although we want to compensate everybody for his expectation, expectation is an extraordinarily difficult thing to assess." I gave all sorts of illustrations, showing that two men might go before the Board and, though their outward circumstances were the same, might get wholly different compensation, which would give rise to great heartburning. Therefore, I said: "When we assess this expectation, let us do so on some definite and definable principle." The two principles upon which we have sought to base it are, first, length of service, and secondly, the quantum of emoluments. It is those two factors playing upon each other that we have taken to enable us to assess w hat a man's expectation is. All other factors we leave out. Anybody who reads this debate will see that that is so. To use the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, we want a yardstick to assess these expectations and, in the nature of things, that yardstick can be only something which is definite and ascertainable. That is the point It is by reference to those two yardsticks that we assess the expectation.

To go back to the old controversy, if we did not do that, consider what sort of things we should have to do. One young man would say: "I had a very considerable expectation. I was walking out with the manager's ugly daughter, and I hoped that all sorts of things would happen to me." Somebody else would say: "I ant a very bright and intelligent young man—rather a late developer," or something of the sort. And then somebody else who had been there for some time would appear as rather a dumb sort of person. We should have to assess the expectation of all those people. It was because we all agreed that that was impracticable that we said we would take an arbitrary line and base this expectation on ascertainable factors; and the two factors are length of service and emoluments.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I should like to ask a question. Do those phrases which the noble and learned Viscount has used exclude an expectation of accruer under customary practice? I agree that that may sometimes lead to a little difficulty, but it is in the rules.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am coming to the rules presently. All I am saying for the moment is that we base the expectation—which I agree is the accruer the noble and learned Viscount contemplates—on those two factors, and eliminate all others.

I would invite your Lordships' attention while I consider and explain these regulations, as I understand them. First of all, I start with Regulation 3 (1). If your Lordships have that before you, you will see that it deals with contractual rights. It provides that where the matter concerned is that of rights, the Board shall give to the man either the same benefits, or not less advantageous benefits, than those he had by virtue of those rights. With regard to that, so far as I apprehend, there is no controversy. I now come to paragraph (2), to which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, has already referred, which deals with the expectation of accruer. Regulation 3 (2) provides for the case where such expectation either ceases or is prejudiced through a man losing his job owing to the passing of the Coal Act, 1946, Such a man is entitled—and is intended to be entitled—to receive fair and reasonable compensation for that loss. But, as I have said, that compensation should be based upon the consideration of the two factors—namely, the period of employment to which that expectation was ascribable, and the emoluments enjoyed during that period. Moreover, in the cases specified in the regulation account has to be taken of benefits which might have been expected to accrue by virtue of subsequent employment. So that this notional employment, and the notional effects which might have been expected during its continuance, are to be determined in accordance with Regulation 3, paragraphs (3) and (4).

That brings me to paragraph (3) of Regulation 3. This applies only to persons taken into the service of the Board, and provides that the period of employment shall be extended to cover the actual period of employment with the Board; that is to say, if the man served thirty years with the old employer and three years with the Board, and was thereafter declared redundant, according to this paragraph his period of employment shall be calculated as being thirty-three and not thirty years. But not only do we consider the period of employment, but we consider also the emoluments. These emoluments should be taken as either the amount of his emoluments in any year during his period of service with the Board, or, if less, the amount calculated in accordance with the Schedule, or the emoluments enjoyed by him in his pre-Act employment, together with any increase of which he had an assurance at the time during his service with the Board, whichever of these two is the greater.

I will consider next paragraph (4) of Regulation 3, and I will then try to sum up the effect of them all. This deals alike with those persons who were not taken into the service of the Board and those who, though taken into the service of the Board, have ceased to be employed by the Board. It provides that, so long as the man has reached the age of forty, and so long as he has been employed for ten years, one year is to be added for each completed year after the age of forty, subject to a maximum of ten years, not exceeding, however, the period between his loss of employment and his normal retiring age. I come now to the conclusion of that, as I follow it.

Let us take this simple case. A man enters the service of a colliery company at the age of twenty, and he serves for thirty years. Let us assume that he serves under a pensions scheme which provides for a pension at the age of sixty, and let us assume that the pension is based on the salary he was earning during the last year, on the principle of one-eightieth for each year's service. He is then fifty, having entered the service at twenty. I have taken the simple case where he is not taken on by the Board at all. If you adopted the ordinary one-eightieth principle, when his time for retirement arrived—that is to say, when he reached the age of sixty—you would give him thirty-eightieths of his last year's salary.

In order to try to take account of the possibility of expectations and so on, what we propose to do under this regulation is to give him not thirty-eightieths but forty-eightieths. In other words, we add an arbitrary ten years to take account of expectations. Take the case of a man earning £2,400 (which is an easy sum to divide), who has worked for thirty years and who, on reaching the age of sixty—which, on my hypothesis, would be in ten years' time—would, but for this regulation, have thirty-eightieths of his salary, which would be a pension of £900 a year. Instead of that, we are going to give him forty-eightieths, which gives him a pension of £1,200 a year. It is that factor which we bring in which is intended to account for the expectation. I hope I have made that plain to your Lordships. I am not giving any assurances; I am merely stating what I understand the effect of these regulations to be, and I believe that in that respect I am right. That is the combined effect of paragraphs (2) and (4) of this regulation.

Now let us take the next case, which is a little more difficult. It is the case of a man who never entered the service of the Board at all. So far as I know, I have not heard in this House, either to-day or upon any other occasion, any criticism of what we are doing to that man. Now it sometimes happens that a man enters the services of the Board for a short time and is then declared redundant. Let me take the case of a man who entered the service of a colliery company at twenty, serves for thirty years and, when he is fifty, the colliery is taken over under the Act and he enters the service of the Board for three years. What do we do for him? The result is just the same, but the formula is different. He has served thirty-three years and, therefore, by virtue of his service we give him thirty-three eightieths; but we add, in accordance with this formula, seven years—that being the number of years between fifty-three and sixty—so that in his case also forty-eightieths are given to take care of his expectations.

Now if we have gone together so far, there is one further step. What about the man who had expectations of accruer of salary and whose expectations materialised during his service with the Board? If they did not materialise—if they are mere speculations—we claim to have taken account of them in our formula of giving him the extra ten years. But supposing they did materialise. Let us assume the case of a man who, in his old colliery company, had a reasonable expectation of an increment of £100 a year. He is taken into the service of the Board and the Board give him that increment, carrying on, as it were, the old formula. Assuming he is earning £1,200 a year, the first year he receives £1,300, the next year £1,400, the next year £1,500, and then he is declared redundant. Under these regulations, what do we give him? Once more, we give him forty-eightieths, not of the £1,200 which he had when he entered the service of the Board, but of the £1,500 which he had when he was in the last year of his employment. That is always assuming—and to make this simple I am assuming—that the particular pension scheme which the Board took over is the scheme which bases the pension on the last year and not, as your Lordship; know is not uncommon, on the average of the last three years of service. There is no pension for anybody who has served less than ten years. It was thought, looking at the coal industry incidence, that that was the right figure to apply.

The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, was good enough to write to me and inform me of the points he was going to raise. I am not making any complaint, but he did not warn me that he would refer to the difference between eight and ten years. if I had known that that was going to be raised, I would have taken further instructions. I know that the actual incidence of the coal trade was most carefully considered, and ten years was considered to be the right period. After all, this is the position we should.all desire to adopt. Whilst on the one hand we do not desire to treat these men in a niggardly or unfair manner, on the other hand we are dealing with the taxpayer's money and we do not want to be lavish. It seemed to us that we ought not to regard these people as a kind of remittance men. If they have had an acquaintance with the industry of less than ten years, we thought they should be out of the scheme altogether, and the scheme provides that people who have served for less than ten years do not come in.

People under forty years of age come into the scheme, but as I understand it they do not get the benefit of the concession of the added ten years. For instance, supposing a man entered the service of a colliery company at the age of nineteen and served for twenty years, but is under forty. Now when his time for pension came he would get twenty-eightieths of the salary he was last enjoying, and we should not add ten years so as to give him thirty-eightieths. That is the scheme, and I hope I have been able to make plain to your Lordships what it is, as I understand it. We claim that we have taker account of expectations and taken care of them by an ascertainable yardstick. We have taken care of them by the formula by which we add years so as to increase the size of the fraction which we are going to make operate upon the quantum o the emoluments. Your Lordships have a perfect right, if you are so minded, to divide against these regulations and annul them. It is perfectly proper that you should have this right, because when we were discussing the Bill upon which this matter arose, long before the final stage of that Bill—and all my incriminating statements, be it observed, were made on the Committee stage, so far as I know—the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, after that Committee stage, suggested, and I accepted the idea, that our experts should get together to consult and see what emerged. Thereafter, on the Report stage certain further Amendments did emerge. That is the position.

These regulations have been drafted with great care. They have been considered by eminent accountants and actuaries and by all sorts of people who understand a great deal about mathematics—about which subject, I am afraid it has become only too obvious, I understand very little indeed—and they have come to the conclusion that these regulations are right. With regard to the forty-year-old people, I may tell the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that, although that is possibly an interesting point for discussion, so far as I can ascertain it has no practical substance at all. Of the nine people in that category whose life history has been put before me, none would come in at all; and, in fact, the controversy about the nine under-forties is a controversy which has no reality. Equally, I do not know of any case in real life where there is a controversy about the eight and the ten years. I have not heard of one, at any rate—but I would have made further inquiries about this matter had I know the question was going to be raised. In all these circumstances, I do not dispute that your Lordships have the right—and I hope you will use it—to consider the matter most carefully. I believe that the circumstances are such that you should do so. Yet, on the whole, having regard to all the work that has been done, I very much hope that you will not throw the matter back into the melting pot again. At the same time, if you are minded so to do, that is a matter for your Lordships' decision. I repeat, however, that great care has been taken in drafting the regulations and, on the whole, by adopting this added-years formula, I think we have taken care of expectation. Your Lordships accepted the principle that we must take care of that matter by certain ascertainable yardsticks rather than by leaving the matter completely at large and so making it impossible for an arbitrator to decide fairly between one person and another. I have done my best to explain this matter, and I assure your Lordships that it has caused me a great deal of study.

3.23 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, it calls for no mean courage on my part to intervene in this debate. The Lord Chancellor has already told your Lordships that with all his great legal experience—and, perhaps I may add, his clarity of mind—it has taken him two days to try to understand these regulations; and even then, he says, he is not quite certain that he has succeeded. I have not had that amount of time, and I have not had the same legal training. I will, however, do my best to put in as simple form as I can what I feel is the main point which was causing us anxiety.

The Lord Chancellor will appreciate that we have not raised this point with any desire to embarrass the Government. It is purely and simply because it appeared to us that there was a discrepancy between what was said in the House during the Committee stage of the Bill and the actual form of the regulations as they have been ultimately produced. The noble and learned Viscount said this afternoon that he did not give any assurance. I appreciate what he says, but he did use these words: I think we could easily agree, if it would be any satisfaction to your Lordships, that the compensation a man should receive should be no less than he would have received if he had been dismissed by his old employer without the Coal Board having come into it. That may be said not to be an assurance, in the strictest sense, but it was on the basis of that statement that your Lordships decided on the action they would take with regard to the word which was being discussed. Therefore it is obviously a matter which the House must scrutinise with the greatest possible care.

It seems to us that in one particular respect the Government have not quite carried out the intention that was expressed by the noble and learned Viscount when he spoke. I refer in particular to the wording of Regulation 3 (3) (b), which the noble and learned Viscount mentioned in his speech, As I understand the position, in assessing compensation in this particular case the Government or the Coal Board agree to take into account the emoluments enjoyed by the man during the employment to which his expectation was ascribable, together with any regular periodical increases or any specific increase in emoluments in respect of which he had assurances if that employment had been continued. The difficulty we see is that the man might have had a definite assurance from his old employer. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, gave a case of this kind, assuming an instance of a man with a salary of £500 a year and an expectation of £100 a year increase until a ceiling of £1,500 is reached. Suppose he had a similar assurance from the Coal Board, he would then, under this paragraph, be in the same position and would have no complaint. But suppose. having had an assurance from the old employer, he did not receive any assurance from the Coal Board, then they would be under no obligation to give him the compensation to which he would have been entitled had he remained with the original employer.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

There would be an expectation in such a case. "Expectation" is the word to use—not "entitled."

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That seems to be a matter in which the statement of the noble and learned Viscount on the Committee stage has not been implemented.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

We claim that we have taken account of that in giving him the bigger fraction. I quite agree that we do not give him the emoluments, hut we have given this better fraction.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

This is such a very complex and difficult matter that I do not think it would be right for me to ask noble Lords on this side to divide. It is a question that must be carefully examined. It may be that when the Government look at this matter fully they will find that there is, in fact, a gap here; I do not say they will, but they may. If they do, I hope they will consider an amendment of the regulations to meet that point. I do not want an assurance to-day, but I should welcome a promise that the responsible Minister will look at the matter again, with a view to carrying out the Government's intention. If that promise could he given, I am sure it would satisfy my noble friend Lord Teynham.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I can certainly give that assurance. The whole matter will he reported to the Minister —I will myself bring it to his attention. It may be that this matter will be coming back to this House again. If it does come hack to this House again, I sincerely hope that somebody other than myself will have to deal with it.

LORD TEYNHAM

My Lords, in view of the explanation given by the noble and learned Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.