HC Deb 27 May 1938 vol 336 cc1588-93

12.7 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen

I beg to move, in page 9, line 29, after "fund," to insert: or any appropriate voluntary deductions made by an employer in response to a request in writing signed by the worker concerned. This is to make the position clear that these sums can be deducted in the same way as superannuation funds and provident funds. It is merely to clarify the position.

12.8 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I am afraid that the matter is not quite so simple as the hon. and gallant Member appears to think. In the first place, the Amendment is unnecessary, and in so far as it would affect the point he has in mind, it raises serious objections. In cases where an employer at the request of a workman takes a sum out of the workman's wages for a superannuation fund or some other object indicated by the worker, so that money passes out of the control of the employer, that sum is not regarded as a deduction from wages, and, consequently, is taken into account as the remuneration of the worker. To that extent the Amendment is unnecessary. In so far as it is a voluntary deduction for the purpose of paying money to the employer and remains in his control, it raises rather serious objections.

Colonel Sandeman Allen

After the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, ' That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

12.10 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams

I want to raise a point on Subsection (3). I wish I had appreciated the significance of this Subsection earlier and had put down a motion to leave it out. This Sub-section deals with the case of a man who, part of his time, comes under the provisions of this Bill and for another part is doing other work. He may be a shop assistant, an employé of a gas company or a local authority engaged in electrical work. While he is driving a vehicle his rate of remuneration may be so much per hour, and when he is doing another job his rate of remuneration may be different. If a man employed for 45 or 48 hours a week is for 20 hours doing work at a remuneration of 1s. 2d. an hour and for the other part at a remuneration of 1s. 6d. per hour, you at once get an argument that he should never be engaged at any time on Work for which he is paid 1s. 2d. an hour. There is going to be ceaseless trouble if this Subsection is passed. A man will say "I did 10 hours on 1s. 2d. last week, why not let Will do it this week?" I think it is an absurd position to have men who may be part of their time in a normal working week engaged at one rate of pay and for part of the time at another rate. From the sensible point of view a man should have a consolidated rate of pay so that he is not affected adversely. You are going to have a great deal of trouble inside any industrial occupation and many disputes between individual workers on the ground that they have to do an undue proportion of the work at a lower rate of pay. The more I look at this Subsection the less I like it, and I hope some consideration will be given to this matter.

12.12 p.m.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne

I rise to support the remarks of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) I have had various representations made to me, and I have no doubt other hon. Members have had similar representations, from those who have to engage men to run vans and vehicles for an hour or two in the morning. They are very upset at this provision in the Bill, and are somewhat worried as to the position it will create. I hope we shall have a clear statement from the Minister as to how these people will be affected.

12.13 p.m.

Mr. Annesley Somerville

I have also had representations from an association of butchers in my constituency, who point out that there are a number of people employed for two or three hours in the mornings driving vans, and for the rest of the day employed is some capacity in the shop. They are anxious as to how this provision will work. I hope that further reconsideration will be given to this point.

12.14 p.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith

I hope there will be no opposition to the Clause standing part. During the passage of the 1933 Bill when we sought to get C licence holders included, the butchers made out their case and C licence holders were excluded. No hon. Member opposite has said that he is willing to amend the Bill so that the higher rate of pay shall always be paid. They desire that as the majority of the work is being paid at the lowest rate, the lowest rate shall become the rate of pay for these people. We desire to get a proper equipoise between what is road haulage work and other work, and to get a remuneration fixed which will be equitable.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown

I can assure hon. Members that without exception this is the most difficult and complicated issue in the range of road haulage. It was because of the fears expressed that any attempt to bring in the small man who is employing a shop assistant part of the day driving a van, and in another part of the day in the shop, would be so complicated and was considered so insoluble a problem in 1933 that it was decided not to do so. All the fears expresed by those who opposed have in the last five years been shown to be well founded. We set ourselves to find a solution, and when the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) asks me to give consideration to the matter I reply that not only have we given consideration to it but we have given months of consideration. The Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Transport, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Labour and myself have seen round about 70 to 80 separate deputations and organisations on the subject and the solution of our problems is this particular one.

We have provided a solution which is the fairest possible to the employer. This Sub-section provides that a man is under the Act when he is a motor driver, and when he is carrying on his ordinary occupation he is subject to the ordinary agreements or arrangements of that occupation. Road haulage comes under road haulage regulations. I have been asked to give a practical, illustration. In some cases there will probably be no indication in the contract of any allocation of pay as between road haulage and non-road haulage, the only fact stated being that a worker was employed on mixed work and was paid an upstanding wage for that work. It is just that sort of case that the Sub-section will meet. The amount attributable to the road haulage work is to be deemed to be an amount bearing the same proportion to the total remuneration as the time spent on road haulage work. In a simple sentence, that is a pro rata arrangement. If one-third of a man's time is spent on road haulage work and two-thirds on non-road haulage, and if he has an upstanding wage of £3, the remuneration for road haulage is £1. On reflection I think that the bulk of those who in all kinds of trades, not only butchers, in the smaller country towns and villages have had this problem, will be satisfied that we have really done our best to provide a practical solution for what up to now has been an insoluble problem.

12.18 p.m.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne

I am not going to oppose this Clause because I realise that the Minister and his advisers have gone about their work very completely. I appreciate that in the illustration the Minister gave, of one-third and two-thirds, the matter is very simple, but I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the position of the very small man who perhaps runs a van for an hour in the morning six days a week and the rest of the time his employé is engaged in the shop or on other work. Really it will become a very complicated calculation in a very small matter indeed. The Minister tells us what consideration he has given to the subject, but it would be well worth considering whether there is not some limit beyond which the Bill shall not apply.

Mr. E. Brown

There are hundreds of thousands of people who conduct operations of all kinds in all kinds of industries and in all kinds of circumstances. What we have done has been to try to provide a solution which will be a safeguard to all concerned, and I think we have done it.

12.20 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams

As to the power to make regulations with regard to timekeeping, take the case of a man, a plumber with his mate, sent to do some plumbing. They have to travel by a vehicle. While they are travelling on the road their time might come under this Sub-section. They go to a house to fix a new washer on a tap, and then the plumber comes under the other provision. Knowledge of the time-keeping lies entirely with the workman; the employer has knowledge and can have no knowledge of it. I am certain that in administration, in spite of the 70 deputations the Minister has received, there is going to be trouble in this matter. I forecast that if the Clause goes through in this form, in due course an amending Bill will have to be brought forward. Those who have had a variety of industrial experiences are familiar with the kind of business. The problem will arise during periods when the workman is away from the employer's premises travelling. He has to keep a record of the time spent travelling and of the time he worked on this job and that job. He may go from one house to another on a ten minutes' journey, and finish that second job in an hour. He then goes to a third house. The problem of administration is going to be very difficult, and when under Clause 7 you proceed to a prosecution the whole of the information on the subject will not be in the possession of the prosecuted person. I hope my right hon. Friend will give the matter some further consideration.

Mr. E. Brown

Of course records have to be kept under the rules. We are not in ignorance about the practical difficulties. We have given months of consideration and discussion to this very point, and the Minister is very used to difficult and practical points arising under all kinds of legislation, and indeed under the Trade Boards Act. My hon. Friend is therefore a little late in making his prophecy, because in the Second Reading Debate I said that this was the latest but not necessarily the last Bill on this subject.

Colonel Sandeman Allen

My right hon. Friend says that records have to be kept. Does that mean that a butcher has to keep a record of the time a boy is on his van?

Mr. Brown

I am advised that that is so.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.