7.11 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 82, line 6, after the word "perform," to insert the words: or required to perform duties at some place which is outside the area within which he was as such officer or servant as aforesaid required to perform any duties, and which is so remote from that area as to involve the transfer of his place of residence. I desire to move the Amendment although it stands in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle, Central (Mr. Denville) and the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. H. Williams). It seems to the Labour party to be an excellent Amendment. It makes provision for compensation in the case of servants who are required, as a result of the amalgamation, to perform services far distant from their homes—services which they cannot perform without moving their households and are, therefore, put to the expense, by reason of the Bill, of finding new homes. It is a case we have certainly overlooked. Its origin would not necessarily lead us to a sympathetic consideration of it, but when we see a good thing on the Order Paper we look to see how we can assist its passage.

7.13 p.m.

When I find on the Order Paper an Amendment in the names of my two hon. Friends actually moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) I am suspicious. I should not expect oil and vinegar to mix, and I cannot understand how my hon. Friends put down an Amendment such as this. The Bill provides that compensation shall be given to people who are deprived of their positions in consequence of this amalgamation, or are justified in resigning their posts because they are asked

to undertake some duty different from that which they formerly performed. I should have thought that that was a liberal piece of legislation. It has been embodied in similar Acts and, perhaps, is consecrated. It is very liberal towards the people concerned. The proposal is that if a man on the West side of London, five or six miles out, is asked to move his home to the East side he is to be entitled to sit on the doorstep and claim compensation. I have sometimes thought that one of our difficulties at the present time is the immobility of labour. In former generations people used to go out into the world and seek their fortunes. It is an immobility which is affecting all classes of the community. They are all too much inclined to think they are going to have everything brought to them mixed up ready to swallow, instead of going out and seeking their fortune.

I am not prepared to accept an Amendment which allows a man who is asked to perform a duty in a different part of the Metropolis, in the north instead of the south, to say that he is entitled to resign his position and live on the fruits of the compensation. It is a novel proposal. No employé of any big trading corporation in this country is immune from the possibility of having to move hither or thither just as his employer lays down. He is a lucky fellow if he is not told to go from London to Singapore and move his home there. These people are being asked to move, say, from Ealing to Croydon, and the proposal is, if they are asked to undertake anything so dreadful, that they should be entitled to compensation. It would be placing a wholly unfair burden upon the Transport Board if the Amendment were accepted, and I hope that the House will do nothing of the kind.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 29; Noes, 234.

7.23 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 82, line 8, to leave out from the word "servant," to the word "suffers," in line 10, and to insert instead thereof the word "who."

This and the two following Amendments are to make plain that the loss for which compensation is to be paid must be a loss in consequence of the passing of the Act. The Amendments are on all fours with the provisions already contained in the Local Government Act, 1929.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 82, line 11, after the word "Act," insert the words: by reason of such abolition or relinquishment of his office or post or otherwise.

In line 36, after the word "deemed," insert the words: for the purposes of the last preceding subsection."—[The Attorney-General.]

I beg to move, in page 82, line 42, to leave out the words "part of the remuneration or emoluments," and to insert instead thereof the word "sum."

This and the next two Amendments are in order to meet a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu), who was afraid that sums which were paid to a man for loss of office might in some way get mixed up with the sums paid to the concern, in which he was a managing director and held a share interest, in consequence of the transfer of the undertaking. These are Amendments in order to make it plain that a careful distinction has been drawn between the two classes of compensation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 83, line 1, after the word "servant," insert the words: by reason of any financial interest held by him in the undertaking or part of the undertaking (whether as a partner, shareholder or otherwise).

In page 83, line 3, leave out the words "part of the remuneration or emoluments, "and insert the word" sum."— [The Attorney-General.]