Duty Of Employer To Consult Trade Union Representatives On Redundancy
I beg to move Amendment No. 177, in page 72, line 27, leave out 'consult' and insert 'notify'.
The Minister will recall that we moved this amendment in Committee, at our twenty-sixth sitting, and in reply the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), the Under-Secretary of State, indicated that the Government accepted the spirit of the general approach which we then proposed and suggested that they ought to take it on board and respond to it. The hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that we would regard that as "an adequate response" and would on that basis withdraw the amendment, which we did. The matter was covered in a brief debate—reported in cols. 1396–9 of the Official Report—and in order to probe the Government's thinking a little further we have put down this amendment for Report. I shall be grateful if the Minister will now give us a little more information.The effect of the amendment would be to require only notification rather than consultation in the case of small redundancies, since by later provisions the consultation process would be built into redundancy situations affecting more than 10 people. We have given this matter consideration but have come to the conclusion that it is right even in the case of small redundancies—I say "even", but one hardly means that—that an opportunity for consultation would be appropriate, and we do not consider that it would be right to leave to the employer the decision on whether there should be consultation. In our view, trade unions can be trusted in such cases not to waste time in lengthy discussions where these are unnecessary.
In conclusion, perhaps I should add that, from my own experience, I do not believe that all small employers are the most avuncular and most generous people with whom to deal. We have given the matter consideration, and we think it right to follow the general principle that consultation should take place. We hope that that will not result in waste of time, and we do not, for the reasons I have given, wish to accept an amendment to the Bill in this respect.As I said, there was not a firm commitment by the Government.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Business Of The House
Ordered,
That the Employment Protection Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Laurie Pavitt.]
Employment Protection Bill
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
We do not agree with the Government, and certainly we do not agree with what the Minister said about small employers. It is not right to make such generalisations. However, this was a smallish point of difference between us. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move Amendment No. 179, in page 73, line 41, at end insert
'(10) (a) The Secretary of State shall in consultation with employers and independent trade unions representing employees publish a scheme for the payment of redundancy benefit to those seafarers including fishermen who are employed voyage by voyage or trip by trip or under any maritime or fishing articles of agreement.
The amendment, designed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), who unfortunately cannot be here tonight, deals with a particular section of workers who are probably the most disadvantaged in this country. The clause is limited to those areas of redundancy where there are over 100 people involved or over 10 involved. It is apparent from the nature of the limitations that exclusions, perhaps not by intention but by effect, take place. Fishermen, similarly to seamen, serve on vessels where the crewing can be up to 30, but it can be as low as four or five on small types of fishing vessels. They are, therefore, outside the scope of the clause because not all members of a vessel are normally made redundant at the same time. We come up against another conditioning factor which limits the provision of benefits to this type of worker in that they serve under articles. That is a somewhat technical term, but it has an important conditioning effect not only as regards redundancies and benefits under the redundancy legislation but as regards many other factors including the rights guaranteed to workers. The articles of agreement which a fisherman or seaman signs with the shipowner or captain set out conditions as terms of employment. They normally apply for the duration of a voyage, and a voyage for a fishing vessel can be anything from 14 days up to three months for a large freezer-type vessel. This means that the articles of agreement or conditions of employment apply only for the duration of the voyage. By definition they would last for 14 days up to three months. That in itself would put this category of workers outside the terms of the clause and outside the terms of the redundancy legislation, bearing in mind the requirement of two years' continuous employment. Fishermen may well be employed in the industry for all their working lives or for varying periods, but they will not be entitled to the provisions under the clause as they have moved from ship to ship or from company to company. The rights and benefits which usually continue under present legislation, and which guarantee certain terms and conditions and employment rights, do not apply in this instance. There are over 23,000 fishermen in this country. We have the third largest body of fishermen in the EEC. However, the fleet has declined from approximately 375 trawlers in 1973 to an estimated 290 in 1975. That decline has thrown hundreds of fishermen out of work. Many of those men have given a considerable time to the industry, and in a shore capacity they could have normally expected to receive redundancy payments as a conditioning factor to help them in these particularly difficult times. As I have pointed out, there are difficulties. By the very definition of the terms conditioning redundancy legislation benefit is denied to fishermen and seamen to a considerable extent. It is clear that the legislation allows for exclusion. Merchant seamen, dockers and share fishermen—namely, the fishermen who own their own boats and share the money from their cargoes—are exempt. The exclusions allow for the development of other schemes. We hope that the Government will consider publishing a scheme which will guarantee benefits to fishermen. The amendment is designed to deal with this problem. The original benefits applied to fishermen who were employed voyage by voyage, or trip by trip. That is the key to the amendment. In other words, we need a scheme that takes account of the special conditions of employment undergone by fishermen which will guarantee their rights. The exclusions in respect of the merchant shipping industry allow contributions paid by employers to be paid back to the employers' fund—in other words, to the State—and for that money to be used to fund the medical severance scheme or some form of redundancy scheme so that some money can be made available to meet the special conditions in the industry. Last year a sum of £330,000 was returned to the shipping industry in respect of redundancy contributions and that money was used to facilitate the medical severance scheme. At present when the fishing industry is begging for more money—the industry has had over £6 million in the last six months and has now been given £2¼ million for a further six-month period—many of my constituents who are now unemployed find it strange that the Labour Government should hand out money to the fishing industry, while at the same time not guaranteeing workers in the same industry conditions of employment and rights accorded to other workers on shore. This is a matter of concern to my constituents. The provision calls upon the Department to publish a scheme to meet special conditions to guarantee fishermen the same rights as are enjoyed by other workers when they are made redundant. In the fishing industry the figures throw up a higher-than-average rate of accidental death, nervous disease and other stresses. Therefore, they have greater need to be accorded the same rights as are enjoyed by other workers. Why is it that the Government seek to exclude this small class of workers from the provisions? We hope that the Department will look seriously at this matter and will consider establishing a charter of rights for fishermen so as to give them the same rights, privileges and benefits as are given to shore workers. In this way we seek to establish guaranteed conditions of work for fishermen. I believe that we should seek to end the casual nature of an industry in which the employers pay off the fishermen at the end of the voyage, throw them on the mercy of the dole, and then hope for those workers to return when the ships are ready to voyage once again. The employers are paid money to subsidise trawlers, but nothing is done to guarantee workers' minimum conditions of work in an industry where on occasions the conditions are barbaric The Government later will need to consider legislation involving subsidies and the requirements of EEC legislation about social conditions. The Government should seek to use subsidies, as the EEC requires, to retrain workers who are affected by the conditions in their industry. At present the Government are supplying the money without seeking to impose any requirements. This is the responsibility of the Department. I call on the Department to have an urgent inquiry into the conditions of fishermen and to take steps to give them rights already accepted as the normal for shore workers. This is vital. It has been denied them for far too long, and it is about time that it was done.(b) Such a scheme shall be subject to negative procedure under the Statutory Instruments Act 1946'.
As the House knows, fishermen work in a most unusual, if not a unique, situation. Hon. Members representing fishing constituencies such as Hull, Fleetwood and Lowestoft have constituents who sail to the Arctic and return with fingers missing and all sorts of other injuries as a result of which they are unable to carry on their work and who, at the end of their days, after perhaps 30 or 40 years in the Arctic, get not a stiver. At the same time, probably living next door to them, there are men working on the docks who get redundancy pay of £4,000 or £5,000. Our fishermen are in a parlous position.
Somehow, the fishing industry is subsidised by unemployment benefit. We have heard about the millions of pounds which the owners have made in past years and which they have put into land speculation. Those owners today have just received £6 million or £7 million in subsidy. But the top and bottom of it all is that few fishermen whom I know have had two years' continuous employment. If they are in receipt of social benefit once or twice in the 24 months, they do not qualify for redundancy pay. Here we have a position where the owner pays for the stamp. But it must be said that not a man jack has not had a week or two off in the past two years. The situation must be changed and changed, of course, by this House. But we have to find out how it can be changed. I have never understood why the owners are not prepared to help. As I understand it, they will pay possibly 10 per cent. of redundancy pay. The Government out of social security money find 90 per cent. of the final payment to these men. As we all know, the weekly pay fluctuates. But let us say that there are 1,000 men who will leave the fleet in the next year or two, which is not impossible in view of the difficulties facing them. If they each get £4,000, the owners will be paying only 10 per cent. of £4 million, as I understand it. I find it difficult to know why in an industry like this which is racked and torn by bad labour relations we cannot have some scheme of this nature and get these men what they deserve. If we do that—and I think that we must as quickly as possible—it will mean that the fishermen will be on a national register. That in turn will mean that all those engaged in deep sea fishing will find themselves in the position of having to do as they are told. They will go to sea—as a worker on shore goes to work. At sea, they work in what are floating factories, so they should at least qualify for the benefits and the conditions applying on shore. I do not know the answer to this. Fishermen like their liberty. They can be on a voyage of perhaps 21 days or they can be on a voyage of seven weeks. They can pick and choose. It is interesting to find that certain firms have a work force which is with them month after month and year after year. As Fleck said in 1961 and as the Commission also said in 1969 about the conditions of fishermen, there is no doubt that the good men gravitate and stay closely locked to a good owner. But this makes conditions worse for those men who are sometimes at sea and sometimes not and are working for bad owners. 10.15 p.m. We must have a strict register, which implies some code of discipline. We must carry the workers with us. I believe in participation. These men should be organised in their union, but, more important, we should know how they feel about a register. The only answer is a ballot such as the NUM uses. That would show, I believe, that the men wanted this change. I believe that the TGWU, which organises the deckhands, will be vindicated over decasualisation and severance pay, and in its claim that men who work on floating factories should have the same conditions as those in factories on land. The owners and others ask us whether the men are interested in this. Of course they are. The House should show its faith in men who do the toughest job. These are men who go to the Arctic in conditions 40 degrees below when one has to chip ice off the winch with an axe. One thinks of the men in the "Gaul" who went down in such conditions and were never seen again. These men above all are worthy of legislation which benefits them.The Government deserve one cheer at least for having extended some part of these provisions to all seamen, whether fishermen or others. I congratulate them on that step in the right direction. For the first time, they have accepted that seamen should have the same rights as other workers. They have not only given them the protection of the Bill but have ensured, I believe, rapid movement towards the normalisation of seamen's conditions.
The argument for keeping the conditions of seamen deplorable has always been the difficulties and peculiarities of the industry. The decision taken today, although it has not achieved all that we wanted, has shown that the Government's sympathy is in the right place. I hope that, as he considers the points made, the Minister will remember that these people are the same as other workers and should have the full protection of the Bill.The Redundancy Payments Act applies to a fisherman employed under a contract of service, but such contracts may be of relatively short duration, and perhaps with different employers, and that is the reason why it is difficult for the fisherman to build up the necessary 104 weeks' continuous service to qualify him for a redundancy payment.
This kind of situation has been recognised before. It was recognised in the 1965 Act. Section 11 of that Act empowers the Secretary of State to make an order exempting from Section 1 of the Act employees covered by a suitable agreement made between employers and unions. The effect of such an exemption order is that the employers continue to contribute to the redundancy fund and can claim rebate, when a redundancy payment is made under the scheme, on the basis of continuous service with the group of employers covered by their agreement. We understand from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Trade, both of which have interests in the matter of fishermen, that the Transport and General Workers' Union, which has 75 per cent. membership on deep sea trawlers, with a smaller percentage on smaller vessels, have in mind a decasualisation scheme similar to that in force under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1946. That is a similar scheme to that for registered dock workers. But the fishermen themselves are little enamoured with the implication of being directed from one berth to another. It is of the essence in any kind of scheme that there is as part of that scheme a restriction on the choice of somebody when he leaves one boat and is about to go on another. A group of Lowestoft employers and fishermen tried a scheme of full-time contracts but this did not succeed because of the restriction of choice on both sides. The scheme would involve that kind of arrangement for deemed continuous employment when the fishermen changed from one employer to another. I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment as it stands. I urge employers and unions to get together with a view to negotiating a workable and mutually acceptable scheme, perhaps port by port. I understand that in Hull, for instance, bobbers are employed ashore by the local trawler owners association to unload the fish from the trawlers and thereby get the benefit of continuity of service and payments. Provided that any agreement allowed for reference to industrial tribunals of disputes about redundancy payment entitlement, the Secretary of State could then consider a Section 11 exemption order. It would be possible to devise a scheme which had been incorporated in an order which could be laid under the Redundancy Payments Act 1965. I do not think this goes as far as my hon. Friends have been asking—Is the Minister speaking in the context of the last dispute or the dispute that we are in the middle of, in which bobbers have been discharged from St. Andrew's Dock? Is that the context in which he is speaking?
I am not speaking in the context of a dispute. I am giving one example of an arrangement which was sought to be reached for providing continuity of employment so that people employed at sea were given some continuity of employment by having a shore job. I am not in a position to go into the merits of any dispute.
I recognise the points put forward by my hon. Friends. It would be rash of me if I were to say that my right hon. Friend would be willing to set up an inquiry. It would not be possible, on the information and the degree of co-operation which exists at the moment, to publish a scheme to meet the wishes of my hon. Friends. However, my hon. Friends have put forward a matter which is worth while exploring further. There are considerable difficulties. I wonder whether I may give an invitation to my hon. Friends to come and discuss this matter in greater detail. It is not a simple matter. It involves the co-operation of employers, trade unions and the men themselves, but it is a matter which is worth exploring further. If my hon. Friend would be willing to withdraw the amendment, we could perhaps arrange to discuss the matter at greater length and see whether some kind of scheme which would meet his wishes could be put forward.I thought this amendment was an ingenious method of getting a discussion on the decasualisation of fishermen's work. A new clause was put down, but not called, and I congratulate the hon. Members for various Hull constituencies on getting their amendment into order. I join with them in paying tribute to fishermen. I have never been out as far as the Arctic, but I once spent 14 days on a Lowestoft trawler and I was sick for 10 of the 14 days.
I have never underestimated the life led by fishermen at sea. I know that fishermen are an extremely proud and independent group of people. When a full-time contract scheme between employers and fishermen was tried in Lowestoft, it broke down because it restricted the fishermen, even more than the owners, especially in not being able to move from ship to ship, skipper to skipper and owner to owner. It is not easy to devise a suitable scheme. The industry needs a thorough investigation and the opportunity ought to be taken then to look at these problems sympathetically. The situation is far from satisfactory and this is recognised by employers as well as by employees. The difficulty has always been in building up the number of weeks' service to qualify for redundancy pay. I think something could be done under the exemptions, about which I know very little, but which have been mentioned tonight. They could be pursued further. I would certainly support any measures which enabled fishermen to bring their standard of living and the protection they are afforded at work more into line with dockers for example. There is something rather remiss about a society that enables dockers to have enormous handshakes if they leave their industry while such people as fishermen are denied them. This produces bad blood between the fishing industry and the docks industry. If anything can be done to help, it would meet with the approval of this side of the House. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said, the fishing industry has been reduced from 375 trawlers to 290 in the past two years and is going through a very difficult time. Since the new clause was put down, I have consulted some people in the industry and they have a good deal of sympathy with the spirit behind it, but they feel that the cash is not there to do anything about it—let alone the other difficulties that have been mentioned in the debate. I hope that the Government will carry out further investigations and not confine them to their own side of the House. The all-party Fisheries Committee might have a view that could be useful and so, too, might the British Trawler Federation and the Transport and General Workers' Union. We support the Government's view but have a good deal of sympathy with the case put forward by those who have spoken in favour of the amendment.
10.30 p.m.
I have listened carefully to what has been said. I want to disabuse the Minister of the idea that the exemption under Clause 107(11) is a possibility for this industry because the shipping industry is under this exemption and it pays out very little in redundancy payment, primarily because of the nature of the employment contract in the articles.
The more difficult part of the problem is that the employer would still be asked to find 50 per cent. of redundancy pay at a time when the industry is begging for more and more money and says that it cannot afford anything. It is hardly likely to agree to a scheme that will cost a lot of money in redundancy payments. Mention was made of an investigation being carried out into the industry. I should like to point out that the grants given and reviewed in September would also be tied to whatever agreement is reached in the EEC, and there is a condition that they should be tied to social conditions. Therefore, the Department will have to examine social conditions. I hope it does. The industry, particularly the fishermen, are fed up with all the tributes to their bravery and all the sympathy given when crews are lost or when ships go down, no matter how well-intentioned they may be. It still means that they do not get even the rights of other workers. I give notice to the House that we would co-operate with hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies and with trade unions who are giving thought to this problem. We wish to co-operate. However, the time is short, and so is the fuse. This body of workers has not had the rights that should be given to them. In view of what has been said, we are prepared at this stage to withdraw the amendment, but we sincerely hope that we shall get some action in the next few months on these matters. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 92
Complaint By Trade Union And Protective Award
I beg to move Amendment No. 181, in page 75, line 6, leave out 'A' and insert 'An appropriate'.
With this it is convenient to take Amendment No. 182, in page 75, line 6, after 'union', insert:
and Government Amendment No. 183.'which is recognised by the employer as representing employees of the class whom he has dismissed as redundant or proposes to dismiss as redundant'.
The purpose of these amendments is to make it clear beyond all question that only a trade union recognised by the employer for the description of employees concerned in the redundancy is entitled to bring a claim before an industrial tribunal for failure to consult. I believe I am right in saying that this means the same as Opposition Amendment No. 182.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 183, in page 76, line 9, at end insert:
' (7) "Appropriate trade union", in relation of an employee of any description, means an independent trade union recognised by his employer in respect of that description of employee '.—[Mr. John Fraser.]
Clause 95
Reduction Of Rebate On Failure To Notify Redundancies
Amendments made: No. 236, in page 79, line 36, leave out 'purporting to be'.
No. 237, in page 79, line 39, at end insert:
'; and a document which purports to be such a certificate shall be taken to be such a certificate unless the contrary is proved'.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]
Clause 97
Supplementary
Amendments made: No. 184, in page 79, line 42, leave out 'negotiation' and insert:
'collective bargaining'.
No. 185, in page 79, line 44, leave out '12(8)' and insert:
'15 '.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]
Clause 100
Power To Confer Jurisdiction On Industrial Tribunals In Respect Of Damages, Etc, For Breach Of Contract Of Employment
I beg to move Amendment No. 235, in page 83, line 20 leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
or, if an order under this section to provides, it satisfies both those conditions. '.'(3) Without prejudice to the power conferred by subsection (1) above to specify a description of claim which may be brought before an industrial tribunal, this section does not apply to any claim mentioned in subsection (2) above unless the claim satisfies either of the following conditions, that is to say—(a) it arises or is outstanding on the termination of the claimant's employment; or (b) it arises in circumstances which also give rise to proceedings already or simultaneously brought before an industrial tribunal otherwise than by virtue of this section;
With this amendment we may debate Amendment No. 187, in page 83, line 21 leave out from beginning to end of line 26 and insert
'which arise out of or in relation to the facts before an industrial tribunal relating to a complaint which has been brought before an industrial tribunal otherwise than by virtue of this section'.
The effect of the Government amendment is to enable the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Scotland to introduce a breach of contract jurisdiction for industrial tribunals to cover either every type of breach of contract claim connected with, or outstanding on, the termination of an employee's employment, or any breach of contract claim which arises directly from a claim under one of the tribunal's other jurisdictions, or to cover both.
I urge the House to reject Amendment No. 187, as it would confine the scope of the order-making power of the Minister to deal with such breach of contract claims. It is important to retain the power for Ministers to make an order for tribunals to exercise a breach of contract jurisdiction in respect of any claim for wrongful dismissal, whether or not linked with a complaint under one of the tribunals' existing jurisdictions. I therefore ask the hon. Member concerned to consider not moving Amendment No. 187.I shall not move our amendment. I do not pretend that the Government amendment fully meets our points, but it is sufficiently close to what the Opposition have in mind for it to be undesirable for us to proceed with Amendment No. 187 at this stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 103
Amendments Of The Employment And Training Act 1973
I beg to move Amendment No. 223, in page 85, line 10, at end insert
'and requiring him to report periodically to Parliament thereon'.
With this amendment we are to take Amendment No. 224, in page 145, line 7, at end insert
We may also take Government Amendment No. 225.'and shall require the Secretary of State to report thereon every three months to each House of Parliament'.
Clause 103 and Schedule 13 deal with the temporary employment subsidy. They involve general enabling powers which are tacked on to the Employment and Training Act 1973. We have become somewhat sceptical about these plans, which have been well trailed before being revealed. First, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made much of them in his Budget speech. Then the Secretary of State said on Second Reading how important they would be, and in Committee on 17th July the Minister of State gave an indication of what was involved in the subsidy. In his statement about unemployment on 24th July the Secretary of State said that the plans would be revealed later. I do not know whether he was unaware that his Minister of State had revealed them in Committee only a few days before, whether new plans were to emerge, or whether the Minister of State had been misleading the Committee, or had been outflanked or outdated. The Prime Minister has often used Question Time to make references to the temporary employment subsidy, and even the Leader of the House has used the subsidy as an argument to get himself out of one of his traditional difficult spots.
As reported at column 1575 of the Official Report of our Committee proceedings on 17th July, the Minister of State said that the subsidy would apply where there was a minimum of 100 redundancies. He outlined its object as being to carry people over, and said that if there were a real chance that the enterprise and the jobs could be kept going under reasonable conditions by help for a short period this would be provided on the basis of a £10-a-week subsidy for three months, with the possibility of an extension for another three months. The Minister of State indicated in his estimate that probably the number of workers involved would be 13,000. At the going rate of rise in unemployment, that is roughly a week's rise. The latest figures are showing quite startling rises per month in the number of unemployed. The number of people involved, on the basis of what the Minister of State told us, is relatively small, and the gross cost of the scheme would be £3 million to £4 million. It was difficult to estimate the net cost. On the assumption that the same individuals would otherwise be entitled to unemployment benefit, it may well be that the net cost would be nil, or there might even be a small profit. The Government would be paying out less in temporary employment subsidy than they would be paying in unemployment benefit. Putting all this together, it seemed right for us to put down Amendment No. 223, which requires the Secretary of State to make periodic reports to Parliament about what is happening with this subsidy. The powers being taken are essentially very arbitrary indeed. The enabling powers will be tacked on to Section 5 of the Employment and Training Act of 1973. It is right that reports should be made to Parliament periodically as to what efforts are being made. Amendment No. 225, being taken with Amendments Nos. 223 and 224, flows from an undertaking which the Ministers in charge of the Bill gave in Committee that these particular powers—the ability of the Government to use public funds for this temporary employment subsidy—would be for a limited period and could then be extended only by the affirmative order procedure. We welcome Amendment No. 225, which was tabled by the Government to this end. It may well be that in the interval between mid-July, when the Minister of State revealed how little they are involved in the temporary employment subsidy, with plans for only a limited number of people, there has been re-thinking in the Government and it is now on a much wider basis. As I said in Committee, albeit that a limited number of people may be involved, it would be highly significant for the individuals who were enabled to stay in work as a result of the temporary employment subsidy and did not therefore suffer unemployment. It would be difficult to overestimate the importance of these proposals to those individuals. At no time, in thinking of the temporary employment subsidy and matters connected with it, should one overlook what this may mean to men and women and their families and children who will be directly affected. But, having said that, it seems to us that, with all the excessively heavy trailing and enormous pre-advertising of the temporary employment subsidy, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget onwards, what has finally emerged—at least in what was revealed to us at the Committee stage—is a very small initiative indeed. Perhaps the Secretary of State will have wider news for us later, and we shall listen to him with great interest. I know that he will appreciate that the scepticism we have about this is reasonably based, in view of the long history that has preceded our debate this evening.10.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) welcomed Amendment No. 225, which the Government are moving, and I presume that he will be prepared to withdraw his amendments. Despite his scepticism, to which I shall refer later, he will agree that the amendment carries out the undertakings given by the Minister of State during the debates in July in Committee. It deals with the parliamentary control aspect of the problem. I hope he feels that that is satisfactory. I trust that the House will accept Amendment No. 225.
In view of the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman and the general interest in this subject, the House will permit me to comment on the scheme which we propose to introduce shortly. I do not wish to enter into any great argument with the hon. Gentleman about how many references to the temporary employment subsidy have previously been made. A reasonable way for us to proceed is to make an announcement in the Budget and to hold discussions with some of the bodies which may be especially interested and come to the House with specific proposals—which is what we are doing today. I am glad to inform the House about our plans to introduce the temporary employment subsidy scheme. This is one of several measures designed to assist in combating the rising unemployment figures. It is by no means the sole measure. That is part of the answer to what the hon. Gentleman said. It is intended to alleviate some of the effects of high unemployment in the worst-hit areas by providing for a short-term subsidy to be offered to firms which are prepared to defer planned redundancies. It is hoped that, at the end of the period of payment of the subsidy, the company's business would have recovered sufficiently to enable the company to retain the workers concerned in employment. In other cases, however, the period of subsidy might be used to facilitate the redeployment of the workers—for example, through retraining—into other jobs, whether within the company or elsewhere. Accordingly, the subsidy would normally be made available where there were reasonable prospects that, with its assistance, the workers concerned would be kept in employment for the period of the subsidy and either retained in the firm or redeployed more effectively thereafter. The temporary employment subsidy, for which powers are being taken under Clause 103 and Schedule 13 of the Bill, is a temporary measure to meet exceptional circumstances. We intend to review the need for it in the spring and we do not envisage it continuing beyond one year at most: that is to say, applications would have to be received within 12 months of the date of introduction. The scheme is discretionary and indeed, being untried, to a large extent experimental; the detailed provisions will be reviewed in the light of operational experience. Employers' participation will be voluntary; they must judge in the light of their individual circumstances and in consultation with the unions concerned whether the scheme is likely to be beneficial in their case. I have given careful consideration to the areas in which the subsidy should be available and to the size of qualifying redundancy, and have decided, after consulting the TUC, the CBI and the Manpower Services Commission, and in the light of comments made in Standing Committee, that the scheme should apply to redundancies affecting 50 or more workers in an establishment in an assisted area. This definition of scope will, I hope, help significantly to limit additions to unemployment in these particularly hard-hit areas. For instance in the period 1970 to 1971, the last period of high and rising unemployment, redundancies affecting 50 or more workers accounted for 77 per cent. of all redundancies of 10 or more. All employment in the private sector of industry and commerce in assisted areas will be covered, provided that the workers affected work on average not less than 21 hours per week. The amount of subsidy for each deferred redundancy of a full-time worker will be £10 per week. The subsidy will be payable in each case for a period of three months and may be extended for a further and final three months if the qualifying conditions continue to be satisfied. One of these conditions is that there are reasonable prospects that, with the assistance of the subsidy, the workers concerned will be kept in employment for the period of the subsidy and then either retained in the firm or redeployed more effectively elsewhere. Another condition is that the employer must provide evidence of good faith in the decision to declare the impending redundancy. Support for the application from the unions concerned is required. To qualify for the subsidy firms will have to give an undertaking to the effect that they are not in- solvent or near to insolvency. The scheme is intended to encourage the retention of workers in employment but not to enable companies to continue trading when otherwise they would be unable to do so. Finally, as announced in the White Paper, "The Attack on Inflation", the subsidy will not be available to any firms which breach the pay limit. It is my belief that this scheme will contribute significantly to limiting additions to unemployment in the particularly hard-hit areas by helping employers to get over temporary difficulties and to maintain their labour force and by enabling work people either to avoid the upheaval of redundancy or to gain time for retraining or redeployment. The number of jobs the scheme will temporarily safeguard will depend on the incidence of redundancies affecting at least 50 workers, and the proportion of these cases where employers in consultation with their unions decide to apply for the subsidy. If, for the sake of illustration, 25 per cent. of eligible firms applied for and received the subsidy it is estimated that between some 30,000 and 40,000 workers might benefit and that the gross cost to the Exchequer would be of about £8 million to £9 million. On the other hand, if the take-up approached 50 per cent., 60,000 to 80,000 redundancies might be deferred at a gross cost to the Exchequer of about £16 million to £18 million. The net cost to public funds would, of course, be very much less as most of the workers would otherwise have been in receipt of unemployment benefit. The Government promised in the White Paper to introduce the temporary employment subsidy scheme as soon as possible. The serious level of unemployment underlines the need for early action and I am, therefore, arranging that the scheme will come into force from Monday 18th August.In Committee the Minister of State, in talking of a scheme which had a minimum figure of 100 instead of 50, said that it would cover 60 per cent. of all redundancies—as opposed to the 77 per cent. which the Secretary of State now says will be covered as a result of reducing the minimum figure to 50—which on the 25 per cent. eligibility ratio would cover 13,000 workers. Either that figure or the figure just quoted by the right hon. Gentleman must be wrong. As far as I can judge, it is impossible to line up the figure of 30,000 or 40,000 given by the Secretary of State with the 13,000 given by the Minister of State in Committee. Will the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about that?
I do not think that there is any such conflict between the figures. If there is, I shall be eager to sort it out.
The illustrative figures I have given of the 25 per cent. which would lead to 30,000 to 40,000 benefiting if the minimum figure of 50 were taken are perfectly accurate. That is why the 50 per cent. and above figure would be between 60,000 and 80,000. I believe that the figures are accurate, although all these figures are estimates of the take-up and no one knows for certain what will be the take-up of the scheme. The scheme is experimental and that is why we should proceed in the way we are proceeding and decide how the scheme should be applied on the basis of what happens in experience. As a scheme in this form has not been applied in any other country it is right that we should proceed in this way. I believe that it can make a significant contribution. We do not pretend for one moment that the scheme will deal with the major increase in unemployment which has occurred.Will this sort of scheme apply to Norton Villiers?
No. It would not apply to Norton Villiers unless it was a case of Norton Villiers claiming, with the assistance of its work force, that, if given a temporary subsidy, it would be able to overcome its difficulties and was not in danger of insolvency altogether. Moreover, in the case of Norton Villiers, it would depend partly on where the industries were situated because the scheme deals with the development and intermediate areas.
We do not claim that this is a scheme to deal with all the problems. We do say that it, along with the other schemes, is the way in which we can assist in dealing with the unemployment problem. What we have to do is take a whole series of measures in different ways to deal with the different problems which arise in different parts of the country. Partly we are going to deal with those problems through the great expansion of the training services; partly by the special measures which will have to be taken for school leavers—another development which will come later; but also we have to take other measures. Beyond this there are measures under the Industry Act, which are different again. But I do not believe that it would be right for hon. Members and the country to think that one can deal with an unemployment problem of this scale by any single measure. We have to take a whole series of measures and, of course, in the main, the method of overcoming the unemployment problem depends on the success of our measures for dealing with the economy as a whole. That is the major way of dealing with the problem.The right hon. Gentleman said that this scheme had not been tried in any other country. A scheme of this kind was implemented in Japan. Are there any lessons to be drawn from the Japanese experience?
I do not think that the Japanese scheme bore any relation to ours, but certainly if their experience in applying their method was useful or relevant to this country, we would look at it. But I do not think that the Japanese scheme is like ours. I am not boasting about it. What we are trying to do is to devise a scheme which can be of special assistance in this year ahead. I am not making any exaggerated claims for what we are proposing, and we have not at any stage done so.
I believe that this scheme, along with the others, is a sign of the determination of the Government to take steps to try to deal with the special dangers of the unemployment problem, but I recognise that it is a problem of tragic proportions and that we have to take a whole series of measures to deal with it.Will my right hon. Friend direct his attention to what I was told in an Adjournment debate, when the Minister referred to all these schemes as they were going through the pipeline of the parliamentary system? In St. Helens, a glass factory which produces television tubes is about to close down, and 750 men face redundancy. Would the temporary employment subsidy apply to that case?
It depends on the circumstances of each case. I have set out some of the conditions in my statement. One of the conditions is that the firm could not be a firm which was facing insolvency. I am not passing any comment about the firm—Pilkington's—in my hon. Friend's constituency or about its economic condition, because that would not be right. I am saying in general terms that one of the conditions is that the firm is not facing insolvency.
This is not a scheme for dealing with so-called "lame ducks". It is not that kind of provision. It is a scheme for cases where redundancies can be made avoidable, where the firm can be tided over its awkward period and would be able to keep its workers permanently afterwards, or would have a better opportunity of providing them with a chance for retraining and moving elsewhere. 11.0 p.m. Once the scheme is announced—the full anouncement is being made in this statement today and will be in the newspapers tomorrow—employers and trade unions will be able to see the conditions to be applied. We expect to get a considerable number of applications over the next week or two which will have to be sorted out. As I said, the applications must be made by the employers in consultation with the trade unions concerned. Trade unions can also take the initiative with their own employers to see that an application is made if they think that the conditions are satisfied.The House is indeed grateful to the Secretary of State for spelling out the details of the temporary employment subsidy tonight.
I should like to express some misgivings about the effectiveness of the subsidy. I do so with some diffidence and difficulty because any measure introduced by any Government to mitigate the effect of unemployment must be welcomed by the House and the country. I hope that I shall be acquitted of any feeling of sentiment in welcoming any rise in unemployment or of the belief that unemployment is some mysterious weapon to be used to impose imagined discipline upon our economy. I am not of that school or sentiment at all. My first misgiving—this is not a debating point, but it is fair to make it—is that on 15th April the Chancellor announced the concept of this subsidy. We expected something in the Finance Act, but it did not come. We expected some detail in this Bill, and we have had no detail. We have had general enabling powers which have been specified tonight by the Secretary of State. This is not the right way to legislate. If a subsidy of this kind is to be introduced and to be justified, the Government, of whatever complexion, owe a duty to the House at a fairly early stage to specify the details so that they may be discussed and debated. In effect, we are giving the Secretary of State enabling powers, and he has specified what they are. I understand that the subsidy will be payable for three months for redundancies involving 50 people and that the gross cost will be between £8 million and £18 million. I do not think that the subsidy deals with the root cause of the troubles of our economy or with the problem of rising unemployment. I believe that it was conceived earlier this year when different themes were running through the Government's economic policy. I suspect that attitudes have changed.indicated dissent.
The Secretary of State shakes his head. However, recent statements by the Secretary of State for Industry indicate that the Government emphasis has shifted. I do not want to make a political or a debating point, but it is a matter of fact that the emphasis has shifted. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) posed a pertinent question on this matter. We must ask ourselves: what is the purpose of this subsidy? I believe that it is essentially cosmetic rather than curative.
I believe that this subsidy was devised earlier this year, when the Government thought that unemployment would not rise at the rate at which it has risen, to help companies to keep people on their payrolls and therefore reduce the number of unemployed. But events have moved on. The Secretary of State disagrees, but he must accept the facts. The Government have powers to help companies in the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman has already outlined. They have powers under the Industry Act 1972. If a company is in difficulties and has cash flow problems, it can apply to the Secretary of State for Industry and ask for financial support. That is provided in Sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act 1972. Basically we are dealing with the short-term cash flow problems of companies. It is short term because the Secretary of State has said it will last for only three months. That is the unreality of the subsidy. The right hon. Gentleman is saying that companies can suddenly say that they have a three-month problem. Which companies can say that? The right hon. Gentleman suggests that they will then say "We shall therefore apply for the subsidy". I believe that to be unrealistic.To obtain the subsidy, not only will companies have to make that declaration but they will have to declare that they will have to make many of their employees redundant although they wish to retain them. It seems psychologically damaging for employers to have to go to the brink and to declare that many people will have to be made redundant—many of those people may have worked for one company for a long time—before being granted the subsidy. That is hardly the way to improve relations in the companies concerned.
My hon. Friend brings me to my second misgiving. If a company has reached the stage of having to make 50 or 100 people redundant it will probably be eligible for the subsidy for three months, but will the right hon. Gentleman reflect upon the attitude that will be taken by the other 400, 500 or 1,000 people employed by the company when they know that 50 or 100 people are being kept on the books with no productive work for them? The psychological effect could be very damaging.
My third and final point is that this proposal is entirely negative. It is cosmetic. It is trying to dress up the fact that certain people will not be laid off when perhaps economic reality determines that that should happen. It is negative because the Government will be faced in the next six or nine months with an avalanche of redundancies. That is a regrettable fact, but I believe it is more sensible to face it at an early stage. I know that on this point I shall not have with me Labour Members below the Gangway. However, we must face the real ties of the situation. I shall not trespass upon a future debate, but the classic case is the motor cycle industry—The hon. Gentleman is dealing with the economic realities as he sees them.
Yes, I am. I would not expect to express the realities of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson). I believe that the preservation of jobs in the short term at all costs is against the creation of job opportunities in the long term. That can be seen in the case of the motor cycle industry. If reality had been faced at an earlier stage in that industry I am sure that more people in a year's time would be employed in the British motor cycle industry than will now be the case. The subsidy is a postponement of reality.
I express my misgivings as someone who deeply regrets the unemployment we shall see in the next six or nine months. This measure will not do very much to relieve that unemployment. Whether it will come in September, October or November I do not know, but we are waiting to hear some positive proposals for job creation from the Government. It will be known that I put forward this argument in Committee when the Minister of State made his speech about the subsidy. However, we have heard tonight about a defensive, negative subsidy. The country wants some leadership from the Government and from the Secretary of State. We want some indication of the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind for providing job opportunities for the tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of young people who today do not have jobs and who will not have jobs by Christmas. Indeed many of them will not have jobs by Easter. Where is the Government's creative thinking? Such thinking does not lie in the subsidy. We await other measures. The Secretary of State has had five months to think about these matters. I end by asking "Where are the Government's creative ideas?" So far all we have had is cosmetics.We are now witnessing a further strategy of the Government in the public sector, and indeed also in the private sector, to the extent that jobs are being lost almost as a direct result of Government action.
I find it strange that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, at this late hour, can present a scheme to the House in the way in which he has outlined it, and yet at the same time can support the idea advanced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry in respect of Norton Villiers Triumph. That was a firm in the private sector, with cash flow problems, which would have qualified for some kind of subsidy had it not been for the announcement made last week. Since some of the factories are not in intermediate development areas, they would not have qualified for assistance. However, some of the industries affected are in areas with an even worse unemployment record than that reflected in some of the intermediate areas—and this applies to the period of time when Labour was last in office and also to a period of Conservative Government. I am concerned about this cosmetic operation. I want to know what will happen following the giving of the £10 per week subsidy. Quite apart from cashflow problems, it is bound to increase an industry's profitability. The additional money will be used to ensure an extra degree of efficiency to provide additional liquidity for a firm. I am led to inquire what will happen as a result. Just as with the £6 limit, here we have a Socialist Government applying this cosmetic handing over of money to the private sector, but there are no controls being imposed as to where that extra money will go. If a firm is to be given £10 a week for its workers, the total sum eventually involved may amount to £25,000 or even £50,000 for the firm concerned, and there will be no guarantee that that additional money will be used for investment purposes. We as Socialists should insist on a degree of planning to ensure that any money destined for the private sector from funds provided by income tax should result in the alleviation of the unemployment problems and also should assist, if only marginally, in ensuring that the problem will not recur to the same degree. That has not been mentioned by my right hon. Friend. 11.15 p.m. Where is the social justice in this proposal, bearing in mind that we shall be allowing the public sector to have sackings and redundancies of the kind likely to be announced in respect of the 6,000 cut-back in the steel industry very shortly, perhaps some time later this week? Where is the social justice in sacking 6,000 steel workers in the public sector when at the same time another Government Department is trying by this series of measures to pick up a few of the crumbs in the private sector? I do not understand why there is no central strategy being developed by the Government not merely to resolve these immediate short-term unemployment problems in certain industries but to devise an overall economic strategy to see that we solve unemployment wherever it occurs. This is one of the weaknesses of the measures my right hon. Friend has announced. Facing this situation of chronic unemployment, we are all bound to accept suggestions of the kind that my right hon. Friend has made. But I am trying to impress upon him, first, that we want control of the use to which that money will be put, and, secondly, that we need to be told why we are assisting marginally some firms in the private sector and at the same time, as a result of public expenditure cuts to be announced by the Government, possibly after the Labour Party conference in October, we are to increase unemployment in the public sector. It does not make sense to me. It contradicts all that we stand for, and that is the real problem with which my right hon. Friend has to wrestle not only in the long term but in the short term if we are to avoid these massive unemployment totals that we seem likely to face in the near future.We welcome any method used to try to redress the problem of unemployment. But we have to ask ourselves whether this method will be effective and fair.
I think it is a pity that a statement of this importance should be made at 11 o'clock at night when it has been known for some time that it was coming. It ought to have been made at the proper time when Government statements are made, with copies to the other parties beforehand for scrutiny, so that a proper period of questioning could take place. I absolve the Secretary of State from that criticism, because I know of his courtesy to all right hon. and hon. Members. But there are others who are guilty, and it is a very serious matter. The Secretary of State says that this will make a significant contribution and that it will form part of a package of other measures. I think that he must be a bit more honest with us about what he means by "a significant contribution", and tell us how many people he is talking about and what these "other measures" are. How many jobs does the right hon. Gentleman reckon this subsidy will save in Scotland? How many jobs are budgeted for, because clearly he would not have come before the House tonight without having a clear assessment of the effect of this subsidy? How many jobs in Scotland will this save over the next three months? What special procedures will his Department set up to deal with claims? What does he intend to do to publicise this facility? Will he have a special organisation to deal with these matters? How will he decide between one case and another? The marginal cases and the grey areas will be enormous. If he is to spend some money—and I am unclear about how much, especially about how much will go to Scotland—would not it be more effective for that sum to be voted to the Scottish Development Agency for the creation of new jobs? Has the right hon. Gentleman evaluated this as an alternative possibility for the spending of Government money, or is it, as the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) said, purely a cosmetic exercise?I take it that the temporary employment subsidy is not intended to preserve jobs at all costs, to prop up uneconomic enterprises or to further uneconomic uses of labour, but that the purpose is to get over a hump firms which are genuinely economic and to keep together groups of workers—par- ticularly skilled workers—who otherwise would be dissipated, to the detriment of our total economic welfare.
I take it also that the net cost of the operation will be low—perhaps nil—or that there will even be a net saving on unemployment or redundancy payments. If I am right on those matters, there seems no case for confining the subsidy to development or intermediate areas. Unemployment is traditionally low in my constituency, but it is rising. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, in areas such as mine it is reaching the same levels as in intermediate areas and could even exceed them. A constituency such as mine depends heavily on one industry and one employer. A sudden reduction in the level of employment—if, for example the dominant employer took certain decisions or the bottom fell out of the market on which my constituency depends—could bring about high unemployment. Consideration should be given to extending the scheme to areas outside the assisted areas.Most hon. Members so far have considered only whether the subsidy is a good or bad thing. But my experience of the Secretary of State's schemes is that the most we can hope for is to discover what we are doing. Only this morning I was having discussions with some of the office bearers at my local church to see whether it was possible to pay a minister more than the £6 limit and how the pay discipline would apply to the Free Church of Scotland. This is a difficult problem, on which I have written to the Secretary of State. So it would help if we tried to find out some of the practical difficulties under the scheme.
The subsidy might create jobs among those who set themselves up as experts on new schemes and give advice to firms. In almost every subsidy created by the Government there is a provision that anyone providing misleading information in making an application will be subject to a penalty. Will such a condition apply to the temporary employment subsidy? What will be the position of an employer who makes an application for subsidy and says he will have to lay off 500 men unless it is approved? If that application is rejected and the men are not laid off, that employer will find himself in a very strange moral, if not legal, position. In confining the subsidy to development and intermediate areas, the Government might increase unemployment in those areas. The Secretary of State must know that many of the firms now considering redundancies are groups or holding companies with a number of factories throughout the country. Has he considered the possibility that a firm might say that if it is to shed labour, it would be sensible to do so in its operations in a development or intermediate area because of the substantial sums of money it might then receive? Firms might prefer that alternative to closing down a factory outside assisted areas and getting nothing. Will the subsidy apply to firms for which nationalisation proposals have been brought forward? The shipbuilding industry, in which I worked before coming here and in which I have an interest, is going through appalling times because of the scandalous uncertainty caused by the Government's proposals. The figures of Robb Caledon Ltd. will be published in tomorrow's Press and will show that a successful firm making smallish ships appears to be in a desperate financial plight. It has been baled out by a £2 million loan or guarantee from the Post Office—which has its own financial problems. It may seem unusual, but this kind of thing happens a good deal these days. Many shipbuilding firms are afraid to take on new orders because of the Bill produced by the Government and the substantial penalties that can be imposed for breaches of the rules laid down in the White Paper or the Bill. Many shipbuilding firms will be facing the possibility of lay-offs shortly because it is impossible for those threatened with nationalisation to take on difficult orders. The directors may be liable to penalties under the Bill if the yards are nationalised. The same situation applies in the aircraft industry where the dangers and potential losses on orders are even greater. Unless we get the facts straight, this scheme could create confusions. For instance, when the Secretary of State referred to employers making an appli- cation having to consult with unions, does this mean that employers must discuss with workers the precise areas in which redundancies will occur? I am genuinely scared that if an employer enters into a common agreement with trade unions or their representatives that certain of his workers will have to be made redundant—men over 50 years of age, or men in certain shops will be made redundant—if such a scheme goes forward and the application is turned down, or even if it accepted, it could poison relations in the establishment for a long time. Lastly, will the Minister say whether the temporary employment subsidy can under any circumstances apply to workers' co-operatives? He will know precisely the one I have in mind.11.30 p.m.
Will the Minister tell us to what level unemployment will have to rise in an area not covered by these proposals before he will sympathetically consider including it within their terms? Will he say whether he will rule out an application from a company which wishes to keep together a skilled team—whether it is a research and development team, or any other—which happens at the moment to be in a company which is outside the permitted area? I think the Minister understands now, even if the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) does not, that we have to pay our way in the world, and that it is essential to keep these teams together.
It may be that, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) has indicated, there are other ways in which this help will be forthcoming, but most hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House feel that these proposals are tinkering with the problem and that we shall not get investment and long-term stability in employment until different criteria apply. We believe that business must have stability and incentive before we shall see any resurgence of confidence, leading to fuller employment.I shall intervene only briefly. Unlike the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson), I want to say something on behalf of some areas which will be affected by this offer of help. I particularly concern myself with the amendment of which we are speaking, which provides that the Minister shall, if required, report to the House. The Minister already has powers under the Bill to provide temporary employment.
The Minister has a good deal of experience in terms of the Employment and Training Act in respect of which he could tell us of the extent to which the provision has already been used. This is particularly important to areas such as the North-West, which now has the dubious honour of being the second worst area in the country in terms of employment. There is a danger that the provision could be harmful to unemployment in the long term. Hon. Members have rightly said that the possibility is that the provision could reduce the call on public expenditure. It does not mean that there is not a cost; there is the cost of maintaining these jobs—a cost borne partly by the State and partly by the enterprises concerned. In paragraph 2(b) of Schedule 13 there is a general provision which gives the Minister power to give assistance inThe Minister has elaborated on that this evening, but none of that elaboration is in the Bill. He is therefore entering a valley of temptation. Although he may enter on this procedure with the best will in the world he is, at the moment, offering it to specific areas of high unemployment in three months' time, or six months' time, when the sort of structural problems that we have in the North-West and the problems in the country at large will not have diminished. We will be faced with them on an equal or perhaps even greater scale. The temptation will be there for him to shade the criteria which he will apply to the firms which are seeking his assistance. He will, perhaps, say that a firm is more viable in six months' time than he would today, applying the looser criterion than now. He will tend to accept that more firms are eligible for this form of assistance. I strongly and vehemently believe that if such a policy were pursued for any length of time it would make worse the deep structural problems of unemployment in the developing areas. The last thing we want is any form of assistance which appears to be kind and generous but which will make the situation worse by retaining a great deal of effort, time and money in the sort of industries and companies which should be diminishing. Rather, it should be diverted into industries which will be of greater benefit to us in the longer term and in particular to the training of young people who can be used properly when the economy is faced with an up-turn again."securing a temporary continuation of employment for persons…who in his opinion would otherwise be likely to be dismissed by reason of redundancy."
I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) that it is a pity that this debate is taking place at this time of night and that the Secretary of State did not use another opportunity to make a statement to the House. I do not want to criticise the right hon. Gentleman too much on that because he has done little more tonight than repeat what was available to us in Committee on 17th July when his hon. Friend the Minister of State made a statement.
What arouses fears and doubts by Conservative Members and probably by Labour Members is that the Government appear not to have given the scheme a great deal of thought. The scheme was announced by the Chancellor as long ago as 15th April. We heard very little about it until 17th July in Committee. Since that time we have heard a good deal about it from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech on the White Paper, from the Prime Minister and from the Secretary of State. Even since 17th July, when the Minister of State announced it in Committee, the scheme has been considerably changed. Governments just do not go around changing schemes in the space of 14 days if they have thought them out properly beforehand. I was amazed to read in an article in the News of the World—which, of course, I take every Sunday—that"Though the employers are strongly affected, the CBI claim that Mr. Foot has never discussed this plan with them.
It took from 15th April, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the scheme, until three weeks ago for any discussions to begin with the CBI on the effectiveness of the scheme. This does not suggest to me that the Government have thought the scheme through carefully, nor have they prepared it with the care that one expects from a Government Department. When my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) intervened to ask the Minister whether he had knowledge of the Japanese scheme, he did not even appear to have heard of it. I confess that I had not heard of the Japanese scheme, but I do not happen to be the Minister. We expect Ministers to come to this House with a proper scheme. I have all the suspicions that, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) said at the beginning of this week, this is not a scheme that has been thought out properly and is cosmetic in its effect rather than anything else. I shall give an illustration of this. When the scheme was announced on 17th July in Committee the Minister of State said that the minimum of 100 redundancies covers 60 per cent. of all redundancies affecting over 10 workers. The Secretary of State has today said that the minimum of 50 redundancies covers 77 per cent. of all redundancies affecting over 10 workers. The Minister of State said that 25 per cent. of all eligible redundancies would cover 13,000 workers. The Secretary of State now says that that percentage, under his scheme, would cover 30,000–40,000 workers. My arithmetic is not all that hot, but I believe that that arithmetical variation between the figures on 17th July and the figures announced today and on 3rd August suggests that the scheme has been cooked up in a great hurry, and not thought through properly. The situation is far too serious for schemes of this kind which have not been properly discussed with industry as a whole, which have not been thought out properly, and of which the House has been given two different versions within a fortnight, and which the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State have all said can make a contribution, in some cases a considerable contribution, to solving our problems. That is not good enough for the House and the people who will believe that they will receive help under the scheme and will probaly be disappointed. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone summed the matter up pretty well when he said that the preservation of jobs in the short term could be inimical to saving jobs in the long run. That is our worry about the scheme. It is to last for three months, which can be extended to six months. If it starts fairly soon that will take us into a pretty difficult time. I do not think that we shall get over the hump of difficulties in three months to six months. Employers will keep skilled workers on, and it is the unskilled or the semi-skilled who will suffer in the three months' or six months' period. In any case, I do not think that it would be long enough help for the skilled workers either. The hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) mentioned firms outside assisted areas and the difficulties that the scheme could create for them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) dealt with that point in Committee. The scheme has not been thought through enough. In all probability the money would be better spent on retraining, on job creation or on new industries, particularly for young people. The scheme is designed to last a year. The Secretary of State said tonight that he intended that it should last a year at most. Yet his amendment enables him to extend it for a further period not exceeding 12 months. What is the point of saying that it will last for only a year if he is moving such an amendment? I am not impressed by the way in which the Government have introduced the scheme. We believe that there are many better ways of helping to deal with what is a very serious problem. We do not believe that jobs can be satisfactorily preserved in the short run by such methods. All the experience of what the Government tried to do in their first 18 months, with Norton Villiers Triumph and in other cases, shows that it does not help employees to tell them that their jobs are secure and to put in Government money if the Government cannot see the matter through. For all these reasons, we are sceptical. We do not regard the scheme as one which will make any great impact. We are sorry that the Secretary of State has allowed it to be introduced in such a bodged-up manner. 11.45 p.m. The scheme needs thinking through far more carefully than it has been so far. We shall withdraw our amendment because we think that the right hon. Gentleman's amendment will give the House a better chance of discussing these things in the future, but I hope that before this is done we shall have the opportunity to hear the Secretary of State answer the debate.Three weeks ago they were sent a confidential draft of the scheme. Last week the CBI sent back its comments, expressing its serious reservations."
I shall try to reply as briefly as I can, without seeking to diminish the importance of the questions. My intervention has stirred up the controversy when many hon. Members were hoping that we should finish at a reasonably early hour, and I apologise on that account. But I do not apologise entirely for having made this statement during the course of the Report stage, because it seemed to me that, particularly as the matter had been raised during the course of this Bill, the proper time for me to make the statement was during the course of the Bill. If the statement had been made on a separate occasion I might have been criticised on that account.
I do not believe that is the most important aspect. The most important aspect is whether the scheme will assist in dealing with unemployment. I believe that it will provide one measure that will assist us, and I think the House would be unwise to treat the proposition in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has treated it—as a matter of no importance, as he appeared to say, or as a proposal which has been ill-prepared. We have built on the original proposals which we had, and we have expanded the scheme from the original idea. As to the right hon. Gentleman's arithmetic compared with mine, the increase in the numbers covered is smaller than expected, because most of those affected by redundancy are found in the larger firms. That is why the second figures are of the nature that I have already described. If the right hon. Gentleman applies his reason he may find it is better than his arithmetic, and he will be able to solve the matter in that way. With regard to the specific questions raised, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire. East (Mr. Henderson) asked whether I can say how many jobs in Scotland will be protected or sustained by the proposal. I cannot tell him the exact numbers in Scotland, but Scotland will benefit proportionately perhaps more than any other part of the country precisely because Scotland is more widely covered by special development area status. The whole of Scotland will have a special advantage because of its special area status. The right hon. Gentleman, too, will understand and, I am sure, appreciate that fact. It is rather interesting that some questions should be put to me by my hon. Friends which are more pertinent than those of the people who are not seeking to take advantage of this scheme. My hon. Friends are asking that the advantages of this scheme should be extended beyond the intermediate areas, and I appreciate how this scheme may assist. But a difficulty is that we should be applying the whole principle of regional policy, changing the areas of regional policy and changing the definitions of regional policy for this particular scheme. If we are to change the areas where a special development system applies, or an intermediate system, we shall have to do that generally for the whole country rather than applying it to this particular scheme. But I understand, of course, why my hon. Friends pressed that a scheme such as this should be applied in their areas, if possible, and if the scheme works as successfully as some of us hope it will, I have no doubt that the pressures will be sustained in that respect. We shall have to consider them, too. References were made to the way in which protection could be provided against abuse of the scheme, and to ensure that the scheme was not stretched and that misleading and false applications or claims were not made. We do not claim that the scheme is cast-iron in that sense. If people thought that such a scheme could be cast-iron proof against abuse there would be no scheme. Reliance must be placed on the signed declarations by employers. Great care will be taken to make the visits to employers. Local inquiries will be made to check every application both initially and at the three-month review stage. Special attention will be made in those inquiries to establishing the genuineness of the redundancies. There is a further aspect of the way in which checks can be made. Applications will be made with the assistance of the trade unions involved. A great deal will be known about the firms making the applications and why they are making them, and the validity of the claims. We need not create such obstacles in advance. We do not say that it can be known altogether in advance how the scheme will operate, in spite of what happened in Japan or the fact that this has not been applied in other countries. We believe that the right and sensible way for us to proceed is to apply the scheme with a sense of experiment. Many thousands of workers' jobs will be sustained by this process. Far from approaching the matter in the critical and often churlish spirit displayed by the Opposition, many people will be eager to see the scheme succeed. Replying to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), we do not claim that this is a major scheme for dealing with unemployment. The schemes needed to deal with unemployment on the present scale cover the whole range of economic policy. If we are to overcome employment on this scale we must take a series of measures. Some of those measures are of the nature which my hon. Friend described—planning agreements, the operations of the National Enterprise Board, the possibilities of fresh investment in industry. Those are the most important measures. I do not dispute that with my hon. Friend. We believe that long-term investment, or urgent investment, in the major industries is the most important aspect of the problem. However, that does not absolve us from taking many other important steps in the meantime. The Government have already taken much more important steps than any previous Government to provide places for training on a far bigger scale than has been attempted before, by means of the £50 million provided in the Budget and the subsequent £10 million. That process will be assisted by subsequent measures which the Government will develop for the purpose. This scheme will also make an important contribution, especially during this coming winter, to sustain firms and jobs which would otherwise go out of existence. The trade unions are the chief people who have urged us to carry this scheme through. We had consultations with the general council of the TUC.Not with the CBI.
It is wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to say that we did not have consultations with the CBI. We consulted the CBI, which, although critical of many aspects of the scheme, did not oppose it. We shall see whether firms facing these problems will make applications. We shall see who is right. Within months we shall know from the applications coming in whether the scheme is making a valuable—I do not say major—contribution to dealing with the unemployment problem.
Opposition Members are churlish to pick theoretical holes in the scheme. They do not like any scheme of Government intervention to help primarily the private sector of the economy. But the people who would otherwise be thrown out of jobs will be eager to see the scheme sustained, and trade unionists who would otherwise be threatened will be eager to see the scheme in full operation. I urge the House to give it a fair wind and a good chance to be put into operation. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) will be willing to withdraw the amendment and allow Amendment No. 225 to be carried.I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to get away with suggesting that I said that there had been no consultations with the CBI. I said that there had been no consultations with the CBI until three weeks ago. The scheme was announced on 15th April. For the Government to leave those consultations until three weeks ago shows that they do not give high priority to getting the scheme right. We are far from being churlish in trying to reduce unemployment. It is just that we are a little sceptical about the scheme.
I did not detect a note of welcome in the right hon. Gentleman's voice when he spoke earlier. If he is coming round to supporting the scheme, I welcome his intervention.
Before the Secretary of State sits down, will he meet the argument put forward from the Opposition benches that the scheme is negative and defensive, and that it will not save, though it may sustain for a short time, a certain number of jobs. When shall we hear from the Government their positive proposals for job creation and training opportunities for young people?
It is a pity that the Secretary of State did not answer the perfectly proper question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) in his initial speech and in his second intervention. Having grossly misrepresented what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said about consultation with the CBI, the Secretary of State has not even the grace—perhaps typically—to withdraw the misrepresentation he made.
The Secretary of State has put before us the scheme which, when I moved the amendment, I said we regarded with some scepticism. Everything he has said tonight has added to that scepticism and made clear that the scheme is ill-considered. The scheme has been oversold by the Secretary of State and his right hon. Friends. His attitude has been characteristic in that he is pleased if he can get the words right. He does not worry about the reality of the figures. His attitude and that approach deepen our scepticism about the measure. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 104
Amendments Of The Health And Safety At Work Etc Act 1974
I beg to move Amendment No. 188, in page 85 line 11, leave out Clause 104.
With this we are taking the following amendments:
No. 189, in page 85, line 13, leave out from 'which' to 'remove' in line 15. No. 215, in page 145, line 40, leave out Schedule 14. No. 216, in Schedule 14, page 145, leave out lines 45 to 47.12 midnight.
The associated amendments give us the opportunity to discuss amendments to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act proposed by the Government. The Under-Secretary of State will remember that in Committee we said that apart from our anxieties about the agricultural part of the Bill we would delay our debate until now.
It is a familiar debate, so I will be brief in enunciating the arguments. We have had this matter out many times before. We start from the proposition that we want to involve all work people in safety at work, whether they are or are not members of a trade union. A year after the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act reached the statute book, I felt it right to ask the Under-Secretary of StateThe hon. Gentleman replied:"if he will list those firms which have non-trade unionists on safety committees, those firms which have trade unionists an non-trade unionists on safety committees and those which do not yet have any safety committees as laid down by the Health and Safety at Work Act etc., 1974."
"The Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission informs me that this information is not available."
Thus, one year after the Act went on the statute book, we do not have this information about safety committees. Nor do we have any information to suggest that there is a great yearning among the TUC and trade unionists generally that subsection (5) of Section 2 of the Act should be wiped out. The TUC has issued a valuable and useful booklet called "Health and Safety at Work". I do not detect in it a great yearning to strike out subsection (5). The foreword to the booklet, referring to the Act, says:"The hon. Member will know that until regulations are made under Section 2(4) and (5) there is no statutory requirement for the appointment or election of safety representatives from among employees. He will also be aware of the Government's intention to repeal Section 2(5) of the Health and Safety Act through the Employment Protection Bill."—[Official Report, 18th July 1975; Vol. 895. c. 620.]
It goes on to say, in the introduction that the booklet"Among the major changes it makes is the recognition, by law, of the right of large numbers of workpeople to appoint their own safety representatives, with statutory responsibilities for monitoring, and setting standards of safety and health at work."
The booklet says, on page 9, that the Act"…is designed for those who need to know more about industrial safety, health and welfare problems, but who do not want to get too bogged down in technical and legislative jargon."
Later, it goes on:"…puts new general duties on employers, ranging from providing and maintaining a safe place of work to consulting with their workers."
and so on. A year after the Act, the TUC booklet and the Answer I received from the Under-Secretary of State do not suggest any need for the Government to strike out subsection (5). An article in Personnel Management in November 1974 stated:"In addition to these requirements, employers will need to provide their workers with a written statement of their safety policy…"
The article went on to tell of experience in other countries with the establishment of safety committees:"The industrial safety committee of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents told Mr. Foot, '…We consider that clause 2 may have a deleterious effect on safety inasmuch as subclause 4 restricts the appointment of safety representatives to the recognised trade unions". This in effect would exclude those work people who are not members of trade unions from participating in the selection and appointment of safety representatives. '
It said that in the Republic of Ireland"In France, for example, safety committees have been mandatory since 1947 for all those organisations employing more than 50 persons and it has been said that their safety record compares poorly with other countries not having such a requirement."
All this underlines our anxiety expressed at the time of the passing of the Act that this would be a slow process and that it would take a lot of education to get people at work—managers and workers—interested in health and safety. It is, therefore, wrong for the Government to strike out subsection (5) only a year after the Act reached the statute book. Why is there this rush? We do not see the TUC in its booklet pressing for the change. There is no evidence from outside organisations which suggests that there is a need for this change. We cannot see any arguments in the Government's favour for this proposal. It may be in three or four years that factories which are not 100 per cent. unionised will be lagging behind firms which are either closed shops or 100 per cent. unionised in the provision of safety committees. But let a little time elapse. We ask the Government to consider this matter again. There is no need to rush it. Time may prove the Government right. Time may prove us right in what we did in amending the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. But we suggest that in the 12 months after the Act became law there is not sufficient evidence to justify a change. I urge my Friends to support the amendment."…the 1955 Factories Act included a provision for safey committees which would be set up in the same way as that provided for in our own Health and Safety at Work Act. Today, in the whole of Ireland there are only some 187 committees, leaving a massive slice of Irish industry with no safety committees at all."
I think that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) has misunderstood the situation. The subsection does not prevent employers from consulting non-union employees. If the subsection is repealed, there is no reason why consultation should not take place. The repeal of the subsection will mean that the Secretary of State cannot and will not make regulations forcing employers to consult nonunion representatives on pain of possible prosecution. That is what must be removed. If that element goes, we are left with the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring employers to consult union representatives so as to bring recognised trade unions into the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, into the implementation of the rules and, one hopes, into the campaign to try to cut down the terrible toll of death and accidents in industry.
Once subsection (5) has gone, subsection (4) can be activated in a way which it has not been possible to activate it so far. It is not a question of rushing. Every day which passes without the Act being implemented in this way means that more people die or are injured. I believe that there is a great need to rush. The sooner we get it done, the better. We should get the matter right immediately by removing this subsection and enabling the proper regulations to be made by the Secretary of State as soon as possible thereby involving the unions completely in this work.I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 189 and 216. I will do so briefly.
The fact is that these amendments raise a fundamental issue which the Government prefer to face, and will have to, in the next 12 or 18 months rather than tonight. We heard a statement today by the Secretary of State for Trade on the issue of worker participation in industry, and so on. The real issue in that situation will be whether workers shall be represented only by trade union representatives or by representatives appointed by workers as a whole. That kind of principle is inherent in the amendments which we are now discussing. The view of the Liberal Party is that representatives of workers, be they on health and safety committees or on other types of committees, ought to be elected from the whole of the workers in a plant, not necessarily in a whole company, rather than be appointed from, by or with the consent of the trade union movement alone. In Committee, not only on this Bill but on other Bills on which I have served, I said that the continual strengthening of the powers of the trade union movement as opposed to the strengthening of that movement—I distinguished between its powers and its strength—was a rod which the Government were making for their own backs and one on which the chicken will ultimately come to roost ere long. It seems to be suggested that the only people who can represent in this way are those who are nominated by or on behalf of the trade union movement. What is the position of a person who is not a member of a union? I shall be moderate in my estimate and say that approximately 50 per cent. of employees are not members of a trade union, however much we may regret the fact. Clearly the implication of the clause is that health and safety committees shall consist of employee representatives who are representatives of the trade union movement. Bearing in mind the lateness of the hour I shall not detain the House on this matter, but I took the view, as did my hon. Friends, that we should at least table an amendment to make our view clear on the issue of employee representation. I believe it would be better for industrial relations and for the ultimate strengthening of the trade union movement if the Government could get away from the idea that the only people who should represent workers are trade union representatives rather than workers' representatives. It is vital that the Government get away from that idea. Our industrial relations would benefit as a consequence of such a move.I rise briefly to support the clause. I served for a long time on workers' safety committees. I point out to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) that in the overwhelming number of cases the representatives on safety committees are shop stewards who have been elected by the workers. That applies in almost every establishment where there is any sort of trade union activity. I make that clear because there seems to be a constant thread running through the arguments in Committee and on the Floor of the House that representatives will be directly nominated by the executive councils of the trade unions. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Let it be remembered that the representatives will come from the shop floor. They will be shop stewards. That has always been the position. Of course, in a large establishment not every shop steward can serve on the safety committee. If that were not the position there would be 40, 50 or 60 shop stewards serving on many safety committees. I have served on workers' safety committees—The hon. Gentleman is not the only one.
I know that I am not the only person who knows about these matters, but I am entitled to make a contribution to the debate. I have sat here all night listening to everyone who has taken part in the debate and I shall briefly give the House the benefit of my small experience of these matters. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Rochdale has served on a workers' safety committee—
12.15 a.m.
The hon. Gentleman might like to know that I have been secretary of a works committee, the chairman of a works committee, and also a parliamentary candidate on the Transport and General Workers' Union's approved list.
I was not asking the hon. Gentleman for his life story, but about his experience on works safety committees, on which I have served.
I was seeking to deal with the point about how works committees are formed. We should not lose sight of the fact that shop stewards who serve on safety committees have "teeth", whereas other representatives do not. In many establishments on which I have served managements have been reluctant to introduce measures to protect the safety of their workers. Too often workers' representatives have to threaten action to get anything done. I believe that the only people who can be responsible for representing the labour force are the democratically-elected shop stewards.I wish to express my concern that farm safety should remain with the Ministry of Agriculture. I declare an interest as a member of the National Farmers' Union.
We have had the benefit of the safety at work legislation for only a year and during that period the Ministry has worked hard on revising the regulations and on draft codes of practice. Furthermore, officials have examined ways in which the regulations can be made more effective. I think that it can be said that the farming industry is ahead of many other industries. I hope that the Minister will explain why he feels the need for change at this time. We are concerned to ensure that life on the farm should be as safe as possible, particularly at this time of the year when farms tend to be adventure playgrounds for children. The subject of safety falls very much within the responsibility of field officers. Having spoken to a field officer in my county, I discovered that his reaction was unfavourable to any change. Indeed, field officers had not even been consulted. He thought that the proposal would diminish the range of interest in his job and he emphasised the point about continuity. He stressed how important it was for him to be able to combine his other functions with visits to farms on a continuing basis, so that he could build up the confidence of the farmers in a whole range of activities. One worry within the farming community is to the effect that a change of responsibility may lead to delay in the payments of grants. If a safety officer has to give his approval, we shall require an undertaking that it will take no longer than it takes at present. The field officer has been described by one union official as 20 per cent. police officer and 80 per cent. farmer's next best friend. The change proposed by the National Union of Agricultural Workers has no doubt been introduced on that basis. Perhaps the Minister will be able to confirm it. Those who work on the land comprise as to two-thirds self-employed farmers. I understand that the Minister wishes to differentiate between the fanners who employ labour and those who do not. Perhaps the Minister in his reply will be able to say how he sees the future of the people who work for the Ministry and how the situation will affect farmers. I believe that safety standards may be put at risk. I am sure that no hon. Member would wish to see a lowering of standards. Why disturb arrangements which seem to have worked so extremely well? I should like to call the Minister's attention to the divisive effect of insisting on safety committees being composed exclusively of trade union members—and this regardless of how few people in a company are organised by the trade unions. There are classes of work people—whether they be women or older employees or those with special knowledge—who are in no way sympathetic to the measures which the Minister has in mind. Does the Minister envisage extending the provisions to rescue teams? Finally, I ask him to recognise the rights of the non-union employee.The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) reminded us that we have been over most of this ground on more than one occasion. What has been singled out as the cardinal issue in this debate—that of worker safety representatives and safety committees—has been the subject of dialogue and debate in this House for years. We have been round the course so many times that many of us are becoming dizzy. I think that it is about time that we reached a final decision, once and for all.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the agricultural provisions and the deletion of the special arrangements for agriculture from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. I find it astonishing that the Opposition, despite what has been said repeatedly in this House and despite some of the points put by them as recently as the last Question Time but one to my Department, should still want to perpetuate this piece of discrimination against agricultural workers, singling them out for special treatment as though, for some obscure reason, they should be deprived of the protection offered to other workers. That is a situation which will not be tolerated by anyone. I turn to the principal issue in this debate, which is whether safety representatives should be drawn exclusively from the ranks of trade unions or whether there should be, in non-organised or ill-organised situations, statutory provision for other than trade union representatives. I comment briefly on the provision inflicted upon this House in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act by another place last year. It said that regulations made by the Secretary of State could provide for the election in prescribed cases by employees of safety representatives from amongst the employees. Who did the other place think might trigger off this process? Was it thought that an individual employee might do it? If such a person who could not claim to be representative of anyone but himself approached his employer, the employer would assume that he was not representative and, therefore, would not take any action. Was it thought that an employer might do it? Was it thought that a group of organised employers might trigger off the process? If this provision were not in the Act, there would be nothing to stop that taking place on a voluntary basis. The point that I have just made would be essentially a voluntary process. So, first of all, there is no need for it, anyhow. I welcome the Opposition's change of heart. For many years they campaigned vigorously against the concept of safety representatives. Now they are saying that they merely think that everyone should have the chance to be a safety representative. I welcome that change of attitude. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South made the point that it was a year since the enactment of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. He will know that it became operative only on 1st April of this year. The commission was established last autumn. But I am second to none in my desperate anxiety to see these regulations made and the provision prevailing for the appointment of safety representatives and the creation of statutory joint safety committees. The reason for the delay is the insertion of Section 2(5) in the Act and the fact that the commission has been deeply divided about how to handle the situation. By getting this provision out of the way, we shall enable the commission to get on with the job. I sum up. First, the Government believe that safety representatives should be appointed by the trade unions. We believe in bringing the trade unions more fully into involvement in health and safety matters than they have been hitherto. It is a criticism of the trade unions that perhaps in the past they have been too obsessed with negotiating terms and conditions of employment, rather than getting themselves sufficiently involved in safety matters. This will bring them more fully into involvement. Secondly, when they are appointed, the representatives will need the special facility of an organisation like a trade union. Thirdly, I return to the point about Section 2(5) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. To do it in any other way than we have proposed would invite all kinds of spurious organisations to use the provisions as a side wind to secure recognition. I have spelled out these difficulties so repeatedly that I feel that I might be tilling the ground into dust if I continue. I think the House is familiar with the premise. As I said, it is time to make a final decision. Let us make it now.In our present drought conditions, the last thing I want the Minister to do is till the ground into dust. All he has done is put a little more fire and life into our debate at this late hour.
I will not prolong the proceedings. We have been around this course a number of times. We on this side—I believe that that applies to the Liberal Party and even the Scottish National Party—have never felt that we have had satisfactory answers. The Minister must not be allowed to talk this nonsense about agricultural workers being singled out for different or worse treatment. The whole purpose of trying to keep agriculture separate from the commission as a whole was to ensure that the expertise of the safety officers of the Minister would be available. I made a suggestion to the Minister in Committee which he felt was worth considering, although he gave no further undertaking about it. I hope that in another place their Lordships will return to this issue of the agricultural workers and the arrangements which have been working satisfactorily in the last year. I support fully the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer). We are trying not only to make progress, despite the Minister's efforts to raise the temperature, but also to approach this matter in a more conciliatory manner, particularly on the narrower question of agriculture. Because I hope that in another place a view will be taken about agriculture remaining separate, will not advise my hon. Friends to press this matter to a Division [Laughter]. If the hon. Member presses me too hard, we shall have a Division. Otherwise, I was going to ask my hon. Friend whether he would withdraw the amendment.I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 106
Restrictions On Contracting Out
I beg to move Amendment No. 190, in page 86, line 1, after 'above', insert 'or Part IV of this Act, '.
Any provision, agreement or contract of employment which would limit a person's right under the Bill is made void by Clause 106(1), save for one exception in subsection (2) to take into account the fact that the Secretary of State can set aside the guarantee payments provision in those cases where trade unions and employers jointly represent to him to his satisfaction that they have come to a better collective agreement. New Clause 98 requires a similar exception in respect of collective agreements on redundancy. That is the reason for the amendment. If I indicate that Amendment No. 198 is purely consequential on the insertion of new Clause 98, that might also help us to make progress.Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 191, in page 86, line 2, after '28', insert 'or, as the cat-e may be, section 98'.—[ Mr. Booth.]
Clause 107
Excluded Classes Of Employment
12.30 a.m.
I beg to move Amendment No. 196, in page 87, line 44, leave out '49, 50'.
Since we drafted the Bill, there has been fresh evidence on the basis of which we no longer feel that an outright exclusion of all seamen from Clauses 49 and 50 can be justified. Clearly, there will still be circumstances where an employer or his agent could not reasonably be expected to allow time off, but the duty on employers is only to do what is reasonable in all the circumstances. We think that the code of practice supporting these clauses will be able to outline reasonable and unreasonable circumstances. However, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is very anxious about this matter, that we still feel that it is right that Clause 51, which places a duty on employers to allow reasonable time off for the performance of certain public duties, should not be applied to seamen. It could, at best, benefit only a very few seamen; public duties of the kind covered by this clause cannot of course be performed on board ship, and nor can public bodies organise their meetings to suit the likely availability of seamen. We have therefore concluded that Clause 51 should not be applied to merchant seamen in present circumstances. If circumstances change, the Secretary of State may by order change the application of the clause, as is provided for in Clause 107(15).I will not detain the House for more than one minute. I want to put on record my grateful thanks to the Government for this amendment and for recognising that seamen do not have to be excluded from the rights granted to other workers.
I do not accept the argument for exclusion from the provisions of Clause 51. Many seamen are already magistrates or serve on statutory tribunals and education authorities. Councillors and other public representatives can and do carry out their duties adequately—especially with the number of short trips many of them are now doing. I do not intend to press the matter further tonight, but I note that the Secretary of State would be prepared to consider a review if there are further representations.Amendment agreed to.
Clause 109
Application To Crown
I beg to move Amendment No. 197, in page 91, line 12, leave out '16, 20, 21'.
This matter was raised in Committee when we proposed that application of the Bill to the Crown should not exclude Clauses 16, 20 and 21. Under the Bill as unamended the exclusion of the Crown from these clauses would mean that it would not be possible to enforce the provisions relating to recognition and the provision of information. We have considerable reservations about the principle behind these procedures and we have already expressed grave doubts about the appropriateness of the remedies for failure to recognise or disclose information. However, if it is thought proper that there should be remedies of this kind, we do not see why they should not extend to the Crown as well. No doubt the argument will be put forward that the Crown will be good boys and there is no need for coercive provisions of this kind, but that would be an argument against extending the provisions of any legislation to the Crown and that has not been accepted in the past. We do not see any reason why the Crown should not also be bound by these provisions. In Committee, the Minister indicated that there were special factors affecting the Civil Service which might make it undesirable for these provisions to be applied to the Crown. He did not explain what those special characteristics were. We felt a little suspicious and considered that these special characteristics were better known to the Government although there might be other special characteristics affecting other people in other employment which were not known to the Government but which were just as real and significant as the special characteristics of civil servants. However, we withheld our suspicions because we were promised a statement by a Minister for the Civil Service, who was carefully unidentified by the Minister of State in the debate in Committee. In the last two or three hours the presence of a certain Gentleman on the Government Front Bench has led one to expect and hope that a statement will be forthcoming from that quarter tonight. Although one's sense of mischief greatly tempted one not to move the amendment in order to see what would happen about the statement, one's sense of responsibility prompted one to give the Minister, who has been sitting here for so long, the opportunity to make a statement.In keeping with the undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in Committee I think it right that I should make quite clear the Government's intention that civil servants should receive essentially the same benefits from the Bill as do employees generally. For this reason, most of the provisions of the Bill apply directly to Crown service. There are, however, certain differences between Crown employees and private employees which make it necessary to proceed in a somewhat different way. This has long been recognised in the Whitley Council system, under which staff relations in the non-industrial Civil Service have been successfully conducted since the early 1920s.
I am proud of this long history of successful staff consultation and involvement in the Civil Service, and it is our objective—which I am sure we share with the National Staff Side—to maintain and continue to improve these longstanding practices of consultation and negotiation, together with the established procedures for arbitration, which have served us so well over many years. I should explain that in several respects the Civil Service has already anticipated some of the things now provided for for the first time in the Bill. I have mentioned arbitration. In respect of conditions of service such as maternity leave, we are already in advance of the Bill, and the same may be said of our policy of encouraging union membership and the provision of facilities for trades union representatives, including time off, and so on. There is therefore no question of the Government not being prepared to give their own employees the protection that other employees will enjoy under the Bill. At the same time, Ministers have a responsibility to this House for the operations of government—a responsibility which they cannot lightly set aside. Indeed, in this respect Ministers are more fully answerable for their management responsibilities than is any private employer. I do not complain about this—it is right that Ministers should be subject to the full rigours of parliamentary scrutiny—but it does mean that we need to modify certain provisions in the Bill, as they affect the Crown, in order that this responsibility to the House is not removed. Therefore, we propose that the legislation should allow a recognition issue to be the subject of an independent inquiry by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, but not of a reference to the Central Arbitration Committee, in the event of a dispute about the application of its findings. It would not, therefore, be possible for the CAC to make binding awards under Clause 16 on matters for which the Government must answer to Parliament. I can, however, give an assurance that, following a reference under Clause 11, under which the union would be able to develop in full its case on recognition, the Government would normally observe the recommendations of the ACAS. If the amendment were accepted it would mean that decisions on matters which could include conditions of service for civil servants could be taken, in effect, by an independent body rather than by Ministers responsible to Parliament. I cannot believe that hon. Members would readily accept a situation in which a Minister told the House that a par- ticular decision was none of its concern because it had been taken by the ACAS or the CAC. The same constitutional considerations apply to Clauses 20 and 21 which are concerned with the refusal of an employer to comply with a declaration of the CAC on the disclosure of information to a trade union, which would have been given after the union had argued its case in full. These are matters on which it is right that Ministers must remain ultimately responsible to Parliament. Equally, I can give an assurance that, following a finding by the CAC that a complaint on disclosure was well founded, the Government would normally accept that finding. For the reasons I have given this evening I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment moved so eloquently by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). I hope that I have demonstrated that it is the Government's intention, so far as is possible, to conform to the spirit and letter of the Bill so far as their own employer responsibilities are concerned.We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us this account. We have heard the authentic voice of bureaucracy and it does not get any less long-winded as time goes on. It was Sir Winston Churchill who once said that a certain statement used every cliché in the English language except "Prepare to meet thy God" and "Please adjust your dress before leaving".
The hon. Gentleman has exceeded even what Sir Winston described with the platitudes and clichés that we have heard in that statement. We are grateful to him for making it, because it was necessary. We hope that civil servants will become a little less long-winded as time goes on. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) will withdraw his amendment.I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 110
Orders, Rules And Regulations
Amendment made: No. 198, in page 92, line 37, after '28', insert '98'.—[ Mr. Harold Walker.]
Clause 113
Interpretation
Amendments made: No. 199, in page 94, line 4, after '"employee", ', insert '"employer", '.
No. 200, in line 32, leave out 'to' and insert ', 19 and '.
No. 201, in line 34, leave out 'Part IV of this Act' and insert
'sections 90 to 92 above'.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]
Schedule 1
Advisory, Conciliation And Arbitration Service
Amendments made: No. 202, in page 99, line 12, leave out 'sub-paragraph (3)( b)' and insert 'sub-paragraphs (3)( b) and (4)'.
No. 205, in line 25, after 'above', insert 'or sub-paragraph (4) below'.
No. 206, in line 26, at end insert—
'(4) The Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, appoint a further two members of the Council who shall be appointed so as to take office at the same time) and before making those appointments he shall—(a) as to one of them, consult such organisations representing employers as he considers appropriate; and (b) as to one of them, consult such organisations representing workers as he considers appropriate. '.
No. 207, in page 103, line 39, leave out 'this or any other' and insert 'any'.—[ Mr. Harold Walker.]
Schedule 3
Supplementary Provisions As To Maternity
Amendment made: No. 208, in page 107, line 21, leave out 'an alternative job' and insert 'alternative employment'.—[ Mr. Harold Walker.]
Schedule 11
Extension Of Terms And Conditions
I beg to move Amendment No. 211, in page 139, line 11, after 'conditions', insert 'substantially less favourable than'.
The schedule, with Clause 99, forms one of the most controversial parts of the Bill, one in which there is, perhaps, the widest difference of judgment about its effect and implications. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the matter, and to reflect more accurately the purposes which Ministers have from time to time said are behind their proposals. The phrase:which has been around for a long time, as part of the fair wages resolution of this House of 1946, is not precise. What does it mean? Is it the numerical average or the arithmetical mean, or a median figure? It seems to be fairly certain that there is no clear and precise definition. I am advised that in one judgment in 1973 the Industrial Arbitration Board came down on the side of its being the numerical average. If that view were endorsed by the Central Arbitration Committee that would give a powerful push to inflationary wage or salary increases. The effect might well be greatest in white-collar employment. 12.45 a.m. In our earlier debate about the low-paid we heard of the problem that if the lowest group within a general body of workers is taken up to a figure close to the average that in turn pushes up the average, which means that a new group can move up to the average. It is a never-ending spiral which can have damaging inflationary effects. The fair wages resolution has not been much used over the past 30 years. I think that it has resulted fewer than 50 times in hearings before the industrial arbitration tribunals. But that is no guide for the future, because publicity has been given to these matters, and people may well now be seeing how they can best use the provisions to serve their own interests, particularly as the provisions seem to be outside those governed by the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act. They may provide the possibility of driving a coach and horses through that measure. The Minister has said on a number of occasions that the purpose of these provisions was to deal with certain pockets of low pay. We fear that their effect may well go much wider. I have no general quarrel with the Government's stated purpose, but I have grave doubts about their actions. I hope that they will accept that there are genuine fears about the way in which the provisions might be used. I appreciate that it is unlikely that the Government will be prepared to accept the amendment, but if they will consider the arguments carefully—I know that representations have been made to them on these matters by the CBI—I shall seek to withdraw the amendment."general level of terms and conditions".
I should like to ask the Minister of State a question which affects an industry of which he has personal knowledge. If the amendment were accepted, would it—as I hope—prevent the schedule being used to upset a wages pattern within a district in the shipbuilding industry? I think particularly of the situation on Clydeside. In Upper Clyde there is a tradition of having the steel workers all on one basic rate, whereas in the lower reaches, only a few miles down the river, there is not that tradition, and the platers and welders receive substantially more than other steel work trades. It would appear that the schedule, if unamended, could be used to remove a pocket of low pay and upset a wages pattern, thereby causing a great deal of industrial disruption.
The schedule would not touch on the situation that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) described, because it is qualified, and where there are existing agreements it would not bite. I should be very surprised if most of the wages, terms and conditions in the shipbuilding industry on Clydeside were not settled through collective agreements already in force and subject to national agreements.
The effect of the amendment is hard to predict, because it very much depends on what is meant by "substantially". Therefore, I take it a little amiss to be told that the terms we are using are rather imprecise. They are very similar to those used in the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act and the fair wages resolution. These terms have not had the result feared and predicted by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe). But I think there is an idea which we have not considered in Committee and which is worthy of con- sideration. I do not think we could accept the amendment in these terms, if only because the term "substantial" might have such an effect that somebody who was seeking to make a claim for an increase from £28 to £35 a week might succeed on the ground that £7 a week was a substantial difference, and this could be followed immediately by somebody, starting from a base of £31 a week, making a claim in exactly the same circumstances and being told that the difference was not substantial in that case. No doubt those concerned would feel greatly aggrieved by that situation. I say this only to indicate that I would not be prepared, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, to accept the amendment at this stage, but we shall be prepared to consider it, without any commitment whatsoever, because it raises something we have not looked at before, and we are anxious to set at rest what we think are the unjustified fears of many people in relation to Schedule 11 of the Bill, which we think will have the effect of dealing with very low pay areas and particular anomalies which exist in the general level of terms and conditions.I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that he will look at the point again. Of course, one does not pretend that the words on the Notice Paper are the final answer. I am advised that "substantial" means something to the lawyers in a fairly clear sort of way, but these are matters where technical advice is needed, and I hope that the Minister will now, in discussion with outside authorities, try to achieve a result which will allay their fears without detracting from his intended purpose for this clause, which is to deal with pockets of low pay. If words could be found to limit the impact of Clause 89 and of this schedule it would be a great advantage all round.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 13
Amendments Of Employment And Training Act 1973
Amendment made: No. 225, in page 145, line 7, at end insert—
'(2) Paragraph (b) of the said section 5(1) shall cease to have effect on the expiration of the period of eighteen months beginning with the commencement of this paragraph unless continued in force by an order under this paragraph.
(3) The Secretary of State may by order—
(4) Any arrangements made before the expiration of the said paragraph (b) shall continue in force after its expiration and may be enforced and otherwise implemented accordingly.
(5) No order shall be made under this paragraph unless a draft of the order is laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Booth.]
Schedule 14
Amendments Of Health And Safety At Work, Etc Act 1974
I beg to move Amendment No. 217, in page 148, line 7, at end insert—
My hon. Friends and I put down this amendment because of the words used by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in the debate in Standing Committee, when he said:'21. In Clause 10, subsection 7, add at end "and the Secretary of State shall be answerable in Parliament for the Commission and the Executive"'.
Unfortunately, there is nothing which would meet the points we raised in the Standing Committee. This is a quite clear and straightforward amendment. We are seeking to ensure that Ministers answer in Parliament Questions tabled by Members of Parliament about the work of the commission. I think that many Members of Parliament are very concerned about the number of extra-governmental agencies which successive Governments have brought into being in the past few years. The end pro- duct is that invariably Members of Parliament find that the ycannot ask Questions about the subject. As the executive's powers increase, the powers of Parliament diminish. Millions of workers are affected by the work of the commission. I have referred on other occasions to the re-organisation of the Factory Inspectorate. Many of us in the trade union movement have been very concerned in the past that the Factory Inspectorate was badly understaffed and could not do the job Parliament had charged it to do. We doubt whether the re-organised Factory Inspectorate can do the job as laid down, but we cannot ask Questions in Parliament about this. To give an example from my own constituency, it is proposed that the Factory Inspectorate office in Warrington—the only growth area in the North-West—should be moved to Newcastle-under-Lyme, a distance of some 42 miles. This would be to the detriment of the workers in my constituency. Something like 1,000 workers are killed through factory accidents at work every year. Something like 500,000 are injured. Something like 23 million working days are lost because of accidents and injuries. This is an important area. It is estimated that the cost of accidents is in excess of £1,000 million, without counting the cost of industrial ill health caused by bad working conditions. Will the Minister accept the spirit of this amendment and enable Ministers to answer Parliamentary Questions? Members of Parliament should be allowed to table Questions about this matter, which is vitally important to millions of people."I know that my hon. Friend is not asking me to enter into any firm commitment, but I will look very carefully at what he has said so that on Report we may be able to add something which will provide the further reassurance that he seeks. I hope that on that basis he will feel inclined to withdraw the amendment."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 22nd July, 1975; col. 1604.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) reminded us that this matter was debated in Committee. There is undeniably a problem here. The Health and Safety Commission, with its heavy responsibilities, must clearly have considerable autonomy. There is no escaping that. It must have a clearly recognisable and separate identity. There must be a link with Government and Parliament, and control and accountability.
I considered this matter after the debate in Committee. I am satisfied that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act provides for the final sensitive balance which I think is necessary. I think that the present arrangement is right and that it would be wrong to make a change. I take to heart my hon. Friend's criticisms. He thought that we had information which in other circumstances might have been made available in replies to Questions and otherwise. We must look carefully at the question of giving maximum information and the most positive response to Questions. There will be areas of difficulty in future. I shall do whatever I can to ensure that whenever possible we give the fullest information in reply to Parliamentary Questions and in debate. Apart from the debate on this measure, unprecedented interest has been shown in the House in these matters during the past few months. This year we answered a record number of Questions on industrial health and safety matters. I welcome that interest. We want to see it maintained by playing our part in giving the right response to Questions.The Minister has done more than most to encourage Members of Parliament to push health and safety aspects. He said that he would do what he could to enable Questions to be answered. I ask him to help us in getting Questions tabled. There is no point in him offering to answer the Questions if we cannot get them passed through the Table Office. I tried to submit a Question about statements made by the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission on aspects of the Flixborough disaster. I was told that those Questions must be redrafted and that, as an official of the Department, the Minister could not answer them. He is not an official of the Department. We are grateful for the offer to answer Questions on aspects of the Health and Safety Commission.
Hon. Members experience considerable problems when endeavouring to put down Questions probing the murky areas of health and safety legislation affecting our constituents. The Minister wants to be positive. I know that he is positive. I think that ministerial contact with the Table Office would be appropriate.1.0 a.m.
There is an obligation on me to respond to that intervention and, with the leave of the House, I will do so. When in recent years the Government have hived off their responsibilities to extra-governmental agencies, often advice has been given to the Table Office that because the Minister is no longer responsible his Department cannot answer Questions on a whole range of matters. To the best of my knowledge, we have not tendered any such advice to the Table Office. I want to keep it as open as possible.
If my hon. Friend will let me know the matters on which he has sought to table Questions, I will look into them to see whether they are matters for which we should accept responsibility.I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Although we all appreciate the work he and his colleagues in the Department do, they may not always be there, and other Ministers may not take the line they take. My hon. Friend has always tried to help us.
With the assurance my hon. Friend has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 15
Minor And Consequential Amendments
Amendment proposed: No. 219, in page 163, line 45, at end insert:
'(1A) In that subsection, after the definition of "employee" insert—
""employer" (subject to subsection (2) below) means, in relation to a worker who is not an employee, a person for whom one or more workers work, or have worked or normally work or seek to work;". '.—[Mr. Booth.]
This is the last amendment we shall consider on Report. Because of the lateness of the hour we have decided to forgo the pleasures of a Third Reading debate, but that does not mean that we still have not many reservations about certain aspects of the Bill.
The Bill has been improved in Committee and on Report. More than 500 amendments have been made to it, about 50 of them moved by the Opposition or moved by the Government in response to suggestions we have made. Nevertheless, we still have reservations about the Bill. May I say to the Minister of State, who has borne the burden of carrying the Bill through Committee, that we who served on the Committee are most grateful to him for his unfailing courtesy?I very much appreciate what the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) said. I also appreciate the co-operation which he and his hon. Friends have shown during Report and also the co-operation of my hon. Friends. By way of response, I join him in his self-denying ordinance. I shall be a masochist and deny myself the pleasure of a Third Reading speech.
I can never resist these good moments. I should like to be associated with the expressions of gratitude.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.