HC Deb 27 May 1938 vol 336 cc1571-87

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Constitution of Central Board and of Area Boards.)

The Chairman

The first Amendment which I select is that standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Birkenhead West (Colonel Sandeman Allen), and with that can be discussed the next Amendment, which is in the name of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), who of course will have a right to a separate decision upon his Amendment, if necessary.

11.10 a.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen

I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, at the end, to insert: Provided also that workers employed upon road haulage work by railway companies shall enjoy remuneration and conditions of service not less favourable than other workers employed upon road haulage work. The object of the Amendment is perfectly clear, and I will not take up time by enlarging upon it, but it does seem necessary to prevent by an agreement upon wages uneconomic competition between the roads and the railways, and I move this Amendment in the hope that we can prevent anything of that kind occurring.

11.11. a.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith

Of course there will be very little objection from us if that position can be brought about. We hope very much that there will be some relativity, as it were, between the wages and conditions of railway workers and of those employed in what is, after all, a complementary and competitive industry. If something can be done upon those lines we shall welcome it very much.

11.12 a.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown)

I must tell the Committee at once that I cannot accept the Amendment. I need not go into the conclusions come to by the Baillie Committee that the fears which have been expressed are not justified by the facts, because the committee made it clear in various pas- sages of their report that on any general comparison with the roads, conditions on the railways are not unfavourable, but there is also a major point, which I think the House will appreciate. All interests desire the making of voluntary collective agreements. We wish to make voluntary collective negotiations more and more effective in the industrial and economic life of the country. To assist that object by improving the machinery where it is now defective is one of the major purposes of this Bill, but in attempting to improve what is defective machinery in the road haulage industry we ought not to do anything which would have any adverse effect upon the admirable machinery for collective bargaining in the railway world, and the decision to exclude railway van drivers rests fairly and squarely upon the views of the Baillie Committee. I will quote to the House the following passage, paragraph 70, of their report: The facts relating to the regulation of the wages and working conditions of road transport workers employed by the railway companies afford a refreshing contrast to the position existing in the road transport industry generally; and it is not surprising that when the existing National Joint Conciliation Board was constituted no step was taken to include within its scope representatives of the railway companies or their employees. We are of opinion that no departure from this position is called for, and that it would constitute a grave disservice to the principle of settling wages by means of organised voluntary collective bargaining if the present effective machinery for the harmonious settlement of wages by means of the railway machinery of negotiation were disturbed. I will add two or three words to make it clear what the position is with regard to railways. At the moment railway van drivers are organised in the National Union of Railwaymen and not in a special union. Their rights are fully and adequately safeguarded. Their wages, which it has been pointed out are not unfavourable, according to the Baillie Committee, were regulated by agreement as far back as 1920, which is 18 years ago. Also, the railway machinery is 100 per cent. effective in that decisions arrived at are carried out. I wish I could say the same, and I am sure the Committee do, about the road haulage industry, because if that were the case there would be no need for this Bill. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend will see that in the light of those facts any alteration would mean that the Central Board would have to include railway representation, indeed, a very strong representation. That would have an adverse effect upon the present excellent collective bargaining machinery. For these reasons I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Colonel Sandeman Allen

In view of the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.15 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, after "Board," to insert: and any area board appearing to him to be concerned. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) has an Amendment on the Paper, the result of which would be roughly similar to that of the Amendment which I am moving. If the area is to be altered it seems reasonable that the area board should be consulted. The wording of the hon. Member's Amendment would suggest that it was necessary for all area boards to he consulted about a matter which might affect only one. While we appreciate the point, we think that the Amendment which I now move is more appropriate.

Mr. Graham White

I rise only to express my satisfaction with the course taken by the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

11.16 a.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams

I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, at the end, to add: The constitution of each such new area shall be such as to provide from each area so combined representation not less effective than it obtained before combination. If hon. Members will look at the proviso on page 2, line 25 of the Bill, they will see that the Minister has power, after consultation with the central board, to combine areas, or to alter their boundaries. Then, if they will refer to the First Schedule, they will see in paragraph 2 a provision in regard to the constitution of the area boards. No doubt when the initial boards are set up, my right hon. Friend will, in the usual and sensible way as is the practice in this country, consult with the interests concerned. One hopes that all parties concerned will be satisfied with the initial personnel of the area boards. The time may come when, for good reasons, the Minister will use his powers under the proviso to Clause 1, with the result that an area is altered or two areas are combined, and then will arise not only personal difficulties, but difficulties of representation. He might decide for himself: "I will combine two areas, and the board of the new area shall be the same in number as that of a single board." In that case, half the people would have to go. The original board may have been selected in order that rival interests might serve upon it, and in the reorganisation some of those people would be cut out. It has been represented to me that some provision or check upon the Minister's power should be inserted in the Bill so that the efficiency of the representation originally fixed should not be diminished as a result of one of those combinations. It is purely a matter of machinery, the object of which is to secure that difficulties do not arise when combination of areas takes place.

11.19 a.m.

Mr. E. Brown

I appreciate to the full the desire of my hon. Friend, but the Committee will appreciate that there is not in the Bill any such thing as the constitution of a new area. Alteration of an area, whether by combining it with another area or otherwise, can be done only by order, and the new area would have established for it an area board, the constitution of which is governed by the Second Schedule. In constituting an area board the Minister is bound to consult the organisation and to appoint Members to represent the area. To that extent the Bill as it stands already meets the point of the Amendment. I can assure my hon. Friend that our usual common sense practice will prevail, and that we shall do our very best to see that those concerned are not worse off under the new arrangement.

Mr. H. G. Williams

I thank my right hon. Friend for his assurance, but I do not think he has quite met my specific point. Assume that there are two areas each with 12 representatives and that you proceed to combine those two areas. At the moment of combination you have 24 members. The new area will be very large and it may well be the case that you cannot give effective representation by an area board of 12 members, yet, having established the board, you are in the difficulty that you have to apply that principle as to membership.

Mr. Brown

The procedure laid down in the Second Schedule has been adopted. My hon. Friend must not attempt to legislate in advance. He can accept my assurance that I shall see that none of the parties is worse off under the new arrangement.

Mr. Williams

My right hon. Friend is a very reasonable person. I propose to accept his assurance and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Functions of Central Board and of area boards.)

11.22 a.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen

I beg to move, in page 2, line 37, after "workers," to insert "in any district."

This relates to the fixing of wages by district. Conditions in different districts might vary considerably and should be taken into consideration by the Central Board in fixing wages. I think I have made the point clear in those few words.

11.23 a.m.

Mr. E. Brown

I am bound to tell my hon. and gallant Friend that I think this Amendment is redundant and might be dangerous. From what he tells me, its intention is to make it clear that it is within the power of the Central Board to impose rates of wages upon a district basis. That object is already more secured in this Clause. When the Bill was in preparation, consideration was given to the powers of trade boards to fix rates of wages for workers in special classes or for any special area or any special class in any special area. In other legislation the term "special class" has been found in practice to be much too restricted. The present provision was drafted to allow the Central Board the widest possible latitude, and if the words proposed were inserted there would be a danger that the law courts would be the final authorities in the matter in proposing different wages for different parts of a district. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend would not desire that. The district rate would apply to all haulage workers.

Mr. Benjamin Smith

The existing practice in the old Conciliation Board was that in areas of varying conditions there were grades 1, 2 and 3, with the national trunk road rate over the whole, known as the national or trunk rate. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to follow the same principle with regard to the newly-constituted Central Board.

Colonel Sandeman Allen

In view of the explanation that my right hon. Friend has given, I have great pleasure in asking permission to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.25 a.m.

Mr. White

I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, to leave out "transmit a draft of its proposals to," and to insert "receive proposals from."

This Amendment raises a question of principle which I think means no explanation. Its effect would really be to make the position which the right hon. Gentleman proposes shall apply in Scotland apply also in England.

11.26 a.m.

Mr. E. Brown

As the hon. Gentleman has said, this Amendment, and the consequential Amendments which would follow on it, raise a question of principle, and it is one of the very first moment. It proposes to alter the whole structure on which this part of the Bill is based, and to give to the area boards the power of initiation. The Baillie Committee came to the conclusion, seeing that Scotland had always had its own joint industrial council and its own separate methods, that Scotland ought to be given the power of initiation; but to extend that to the whole of the area boards would upset the entire scheme of the Bill, and would in my judgment, in the worst circumstances, prevent what we are all attempting to do. The Baillie Committee, after weighing all the evidence, came to the conclusion that the power of initiation ought to be with the Central Board, and the great majority of those on the national conciliation board agreed with the Baillie Committee in that conclusion, as was ascertained after the most exhaustive conversations.

I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment because the road haulage industry is a mobile one, and its range of competition is very wide, so that, if we are to have an effective measure of agreement and regulation, we must ensure that the rates of wages in various parts of the country will bear a fair relation to one another. Even if the area boards separately could reach decisions as to the rates for their areas—which is very doubtful, bearing in mind the history of the last five years—it would be necessary to co-ordinate those decisions. The process of co-ordination would inevitably involve adjustments between the various sets of proposals, and the alteration by some other body of decisions reached by separate independent area bodies would not only be difficult, but would be a certain cause of the maximum of friction at the centre. I cannot think that the Committee would desire that, and I am sure that the majority of those in the industry do not desire it. It will surely be a great advantage to have a comprehensive scheme. The Amendment assumes that the area boards will be able to reach decisions, but, as I have already said, experience shows that that is unlikely.

The position now is not as it was in the old voluntary days, when complaint was made that the Central Board did not consult the area boards. The Bill provides amply and with meticulous care that the views of the area boards shall have due weight. They will be represented directly on the Central Board, and organisations of any size will also be represented on the Central Board. Before the Central Board publishes any proposals of the area boards, the draft proposals will have to be considered by the Central Board; and, after the proposals are published, any individual affected by them will be able to object, and the objections will be referred to the area board. Like the Baillie Committee, I have weighed the arguments for this Amendment very carefully, and I am bound to say that in the worst circumstances it might wreck the whole scheme, while at the very best it would only cause the maximum of confusion and friction at the centre.

11.32 a.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith

In the case of many Amendments the Mover says as little as he can about them, in the hope of their getting through. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), in moving this Amendment, has merely said that it would have the effect of doing in England what the Scottish board are going to do. The hon. Member is usually most meticulous and shows a complete mastery of details, but on this occasion, perhaps, he thought it would be nicer to say as little as he could. The fact is that, if this Amendment were carried, the Bill as it stands would be immediately changed in every detail. The machinery would be put back exactly where it is to-day, and it is because the machinery of to-day is bad, because in the areas they have been unable to come to agreement on account of the difficulties of boundaries and inter-running arrangements, that the present difficulties have arisen. Even in Scotland, which is separated from this country, experience has shown that the competitive element has developed as between Scottish hauliers running into England and vice versa, and the Scottish people have agreed to come into the scheme while retaining their own separate identity. The method is one of large national conciliation boards and large national agreements, with a Central Board radiating out to the areas and acting after consultation with the area boards. To take away the power of initiation from the Central Board and transfer it to the area boards would make the present confusion worse confounded. I hope the hon. Member will realise that, while he may be doing, as he thinks, a good work for certain areas, yet nationally it would be a bad thing if the Amendment were carried.

Amendment negatived.

11.34 a.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen

I beg to move, in page 4, line 9, to leave out from "employers," to the end of the Clause.

I do not think that this reference to voluntary organisations is really necessary, when there is an area board and arrangements other than voluntary are being made with the various organisations. In those circumstances, I cannot see that it is going to help in the least degree to have voluntary organisations coming in.

11.35 a.m.

Mr. E. Brown

Some employers fear that the Board might use excessive powers to force men to join trade unions. That is not the intention, nor is it the fact. The fact is that we want to get the most effective machinery we can as between the employers and the employees in the industry. History shows the necessity of doing all we can by persuasion and not compulsion to induce those who do not see their way to organise themselves to do so. The Baillie Committee dealt with the question in their report. They said: There is no royal road to industrial organisation. Whether the organisation of an industry arises from within or is brought about by pressure from without, or both, will depend on circumstances; and the type of organisation best suited to an industry must be relative to the nature of the industry itself. The National Board, as previously stated, has by its operation fostered organisation in the haulage industry. The Board should be so constituted that its activities will promote directly and indirectly an increasing interest in the essential condition of effective industrial self-government. Only thus can the industry expect to escape from the present chaos and lay the basis for sound progress in the future. That states the matter so succinctly that I need say nothing more, except to assure my hon. and gallant Friend and the Committee that the object is to persuade, and not compel. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will not desire to press the Amendment further.

Colonel Sandeman Allen

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

11.38 a.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen

On a point of Order. May I ask, Captain Bourne, that you give some guidance as to which Amendments are going to be called, so that we can be ready?

The Deputy-Chairman

I am afraid that is quite impossible, because in so many cases an Amendment in the name of one hon. Member covers a point which is dealt with in an Amendment in the name of another hon. Member. It depends on whether that hon. Member is here, whether I call his Amendment or an Amendment in the name of another hon. Member.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Power to refer questions as

to unfair wages).

11.40 a.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams

I beg to move, in page 5, line 20, to leave out from "member" to "considers," in line 23.

This Amendment raises a point of some substance. In the Clause there are three methods proposed by which a grievance regarding the remuneration can be raised. First, there is the case where the employed person himself takes the initiative; next, where the trade union of which he is a member takes the initiative; and thirdly, there is the case which I am proposing to leave out, or a trade union which in the opinion of the Minister represents a substantial number of workers employed in road haulage work. That the man himself should have the right is clearly well established, and that he should have the right to do it through his trade union is clearly well established; but if you are going to authorise a trade union of which he is not a member to do it, the chances are that you will have a good deal of trouble. There was, and still is I think, in existence something known as the cinema strike. A few weeks ago we passed the Cinematograph Films Bill under which, by a certain Amendment, moved I think by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), the industry was stimulated into recognising the trade union of the theatrical and cinema employés. A certain other union, thinking that these people ought to belong to them, proclaimed a strike and sought to intervene regarding the terms of employment of a number of people who did not belong to their union, because they thought it a good opportunity to bring them in. There is a good deal of poaching in the trade union world. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not now!"] What is the use of saying "Not now"? It happened a fortnight ago.

Mr. Benjamin Smith

Is there none between the employers' organisations?

Mr. Williams

That is irrelevant. We are discussing poaching between trade unions. It is very undesirable that it should continue. We all remember the struggle some years ago between the Workers' Union and the skilled engineers' unions, which had serious consequences. I refer to the moulders' dispute in 1919, which inflicted tremendous damage on this country just when we were trying to recover from the Great War. I think there is a strong case to be made against giving a statutory right to any organisation of which a person is not a member to intervene on his behalf. We are not raising the issue of the employment of a group of people; we are raising a particular grievance. If these words remain in the Bill it is going, in the long run, to cause a great deal of trouble, due to poaching; and the effect may be to bring about industrial disputes. Even in the well-organised coal-mining industry we have seen the question arise of whether certain people not engaged in the actual physical work of mining but otherwise employed in the industry should be members of the miners' union, and strikes have arisen from that cause. I hope that I shall receive substantial support for the Amendment.

11.43 a.m.

Mr. Oliver

I hope the Minister will not accept this Amendment. I suggest that there is no analogy between the cinema dispute and the words that the hon. Member seeks to delete from the Clause. This Bill seeks to promote uniformity of wages. Parliament is determined that the wages paid in this industry shall be made uniform; and what does it matter whether it be the man himself or the trade union to which he belongs or some other organisation that brings forward the complaint that the wage he is receiving is wrong having regard to the determination of Parliament? The question will have to be investigated by the appropriate tribunal, and if they find that the complaint is well founded it will be upheld; if not, no further action will result.

11.44 a.m.

Mr. E. Brown

I always admire my hon. Friend's dialectical skill and the way he puts his arguments, but I hope the Committee will not be misled by his topical reference to the cinema dispute. It has no relevance. This is not a question of one union against another; it is a question of how a complaint is to be made and by whom. We are providing that the rate of wages paid shall not be unfair. My hon. Friend says that he has no complaint with regard to the first two methods of raising the matter, but that he has a complaint with regard to the third. It is not a question of recognition at all, but whether, in the opinion of the Minister, any trade union, not a union of which the worker is a member but which has a substantial number of workers employed in road haulage work, shall be able to make a complaint. I think that the Committee will agree that that is reasonable. I will not be led into a long discussion about contending unions. Trades unions can be left, as are employers' organisations, to look after themselves in that matter. I can tell my hon. Friend and the Committee that the trades unions are willing to stand that risk and are strongly in favour of this provision and there is nothing to be said further. We are dealing with an industry the organisation of which has been notoriously weak and in regard to which it has been hard to get complaints made. A worker may not like to make a complaint himself, although he is aware that he is not being paid the wages that the law would desire. In that case, surely, he ought to have the backing of an organised body representing a substantial proportion of people in this industry and whose members themselves are also vitally interested in maintaining the standard as a whole.

The Committee must keep the past and the present history of the matter in mind. There are some who desire us to go a good deal further than we have, and there are others who wish we had not gone as far. On another issue the position is reversed, and some people think that we are doing too much while others think that we are doing too little. If we are to make this thing effective, we must provide the appropriate machinery for complaints, and we think that the worker or his own union or a union representing a substantial body of workers in the industry, should be able to act. I am fortified by the fact that there is another Amendment on the Paper which takes exactly the opposite point of view from that of my hon. Friend, and desires that not only the union should have the right, but the employers' organisation also. It is an exactly opposite point of view. For these reasons, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Benjamin Smith

The net effect of the Amendment would be to perpetuate a system where a large body of people not being organised and having any means of reflecting the fact that they are underpaid, would continue to be underpaid. The object of the Bill in embracing the A, B, and C licence holders is to see that if an unfair wage is paid some machinery is set up and some representation is afforded to the man who has been afraid to complain because of victimisation, to refer to the proper body coming within the terms of the Act.

11.49 a.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams

Would my right hon. Friend accept, if an Amendment were proposed and the Chair would accept it, the insertion of the words: "with the consent of the worker"? If he makes a complaint to an organisation of which he is not a member, I can visualise a case in which the organisation might raise the issue, without any knowledge on the part of the individual concerned, for the purpose of prejudicing the individual on the ground that he had declined to join the union that made the application. It is all very well hon. Members saying that trades unions do not sometimes bully men. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members opposite do not like having it stated, but it does not do them harm sometimes to be criticised. They spend a large part of their lives criticising a system of which they do not approve, and there is no reason why they should not be subjected to a little criticism themselves.

Mr. Benjamin Smith

The object of this Bill is to deal with employers who have never hitherto paid proper wages.

Mr. Williams

That may be, but the hon. Member must not prejudice the whole issue by dragging in one aspect of the matter without taking some cognisance of the other. We know that from time to time men are driven out of their employment by trade union action.

Mr. R. J. Taylor

Just as the doctors are.

Mr. Williams

The threat is sometimes made, in fact, frequently in South Wales, that, unless a certain man joins a union or is dismissed from his employment, the other members will stop work. It is no good saying that this terrorism does not exist at the present time. That is why I have moved the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

11.51 a.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen

I beg to move, in page 5, line 23, after "work," to insert "or an organisation of employers."

This is slightly different from the Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams). The object of the Amendment is to have power to refer questions of unfair wages to the Minister in the same manner that the road haulier worker can get the trade union to do it for him. They have that power and a large number of employers—the Motor Users Association, the Conciliation Boards, the Associated Committee of C Licence holders, which has 20 organisations in it, and the Association of Road Users—would like to have this Amendment inserted. If they wanted to put a case to the Minister, as the Bill stands, they would have to have it done through the trade unions. The trade unions would, no doubt, be able to raise this question, but, I think, the Committee will agree that the employers should have the right themselves. Take, for example, the hypothetical case of a large baker who employs a road haulier to do his work for him. He decides to buy his own lorries and run them with his own men—half bakers and half hauliers. He might have to cut down his expenses by a reduction of wages, and the haulier who is going to lose his contract on this account should have the right of approaching the Minister and pitting the case to him, just as have the trade union, who would probably take it up themselves. We feel that the employer himself should have the right in the Bill, as have the trade unions, to put the case before the Minister.

11.53 a.m.

Mr. E. Brown

There are two points here, one of which is rather more reasonable than the other. My hon. and gallant Friend has said that there are some organisations who desire this, but it is equally true to say that there are more organisations which do not desire it. In the long, interesting and helpful discussions which we have had on this matter we have taken into consideration hundreds of points, one of which is that a private carrier should have the right to complain. That would mean an internecine war between one employer and another, and I am sure that the bulk of employers would not desire that that should be possible. The other point is that an employers' organisation should have the right to complain as against another employers' organisation. The case for that is much stronger than the other, but even there the objection is great. It would undoubtedly lead to what is undesirable. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) referred on the previous Amendment to war between union and union. This would be war between employers' organisation and employers' organisation. An organisation of any kind is not likely to act without reason, and I understand that the general body of employers are against having this right. The Industrial Courts Act does not recognise a dispute between employers, either individually or collectively, as being a trade dispute to which the provisions of the Act are applicable. A trade dispute is defined in that Act as a dispute between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen. In the light of what I have said, my hon. and gallant Friend will see that the first part of the Amendment is undesirable, although there is something to be said for the second part.

Colonel Sandeman Allen

There is only one part of my Amendment.

Mr. Brown

The Amendment falls into two parts. One part affects a private carrier and the other an organisation. The hon. and gallant Member must see that to give an unlimited right to any private carrier would be very undesirable.

Colonel Sandeman Allen

The right hon. Gentleman is evidently referring to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White). In this case, east and west do not agree.

Mr. E. Brown

The first Amendment has been called, but we must have regard to the structure of the Clause and must take the two Amendments together. The second Amendment would be necessary to make the first effective. That issue is clear. There are two points involved, the private carrier and the organisation, and the argument that I have put is relevant to both Amendments, one of which the Chair may or may not call.

Mr. Benjamin Smith

The custom is that if an employer is under the impression that what the hon. and gallant Member has referred to is in contempla- tion, the first thing he does is to call the attention of the trade union to the matter, and the trade union will take it up.

Colonel Sandeman Allen

I think that the course suggested in my Amendment is the more desirable, and I hope the Committee will accept it.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In page 6, line 5, leave out the second "a," and insert "any."

In line 17, leave out "a," and insert "any."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

11.57 a.m.

Mr. E. Brown

I beg to move, in page 6, line 19, at the end, to insert: (d) it is equivalent to the remuneration payable for that work to similar workers by employers in the district engaged in the same trade or industry as the employer, in pursuance of any decision of a joint industrial council, conciliation board, or other similar body, regulating the remuneration for similar work of workers employed in that trade or industry; or. This Amendment is designed to remove any possibility of doubt, which has been expressed, as to the status of the rates of wages determined by Joint Industrial Council. There are agreements which are agreements and there are other points which are regarded as decisions. We are not quite clear whether the Clause as it stands will remove doubts and therefore this Amendment is inserted to make it clear that a decision is operative equally with an agreement.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. E. Brown

I beg to move, in page 7, line 8, at the end, to insert: (5) Where, upon an application made to him, a matter is to be referred by the Minister for the settlement in accordance with the provisions of the last foregoing sub-section, the matter shall be so referred within one month from the date on which the application was received by the Minister unless in his opinion the special circumstances of the case make it necessary or desirable to postpone the reference of the matter. Fear has been expressed that there may be undue delays with regard to the processes under the Bill, especially with regard to complaints to the Industrial Court. Under Clause 4 (4) the first thing that will happen after a complaint is made is that the Minister will decide whether it is frivolous or vexatious and will make representations accordingly. In order to avoid delay in getting a decision we are proposing this Amendment, in which it will be noted that we stipulate: the matter shall be so referred within one month from the date on which the application was received. That shows that we do not desire any frivolous or undue delay in getting a decision.

Amendment agreed to.

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

12. p.m.

Mr. Ross Taylor

Some doubt has arisen as to the precise meaning of "remuneration" in this Clause. Can we be assured by the Minister that it covers not only ordinary wage rates but overtime? If it does not do so, then it is obvious that a serious conflict of jurisdiction may arise. I think the doubt has arisen from the drafting of subsection (4). If the doubt is unwarranted, I think it ought to be dispelled.

Mr. Brown

I can give my hon. Friend a complete assurance that that doubt is unfounded.

Question put, and agreed to.

    cc1587-8
  1. CLAUSE 5.—(Power of Industrial Court to fix statutory remuneration.) 447 words
    2. cc1588-93
  2. CLAUSE 6.—(Duty to pay statutory remuneration). 1,941 words
    3. cc1593-8
  3. CLAUSE 7.—(Remedies for default.) 1,650 words
    4. cc1598-9
  4. CLAUSE 9.—(Persons working under arrangements to be deemed to be employed.) 403 words
    5. cc1599-601
  5. CLAUSE 10.—(Duty of employers to keep records.) 893 words
    6. cc1602-3
  6. CLAUSE 11.—(Appointment and towers of officers.) 359 words
    7. cc1603-22
  7. CLAUSE 13.—(Financial provisions.) 7,042 words