HC Deb 01 February 1945 vol 407 cc1688-90
Mr. Summers

I beg to move, in page 15, line 13, leave out "three," and insert "two."

This Amendment seeks to reduce from three years to two the period during which proper records should be kept, for the purpose, no doubt, of seeing whether there has been any failure to comply with the Act. It has previously been stated that the field which the Bill covers will be wider than was formerly covered by the Trade Boards Acts. Many comparatively small employers with limited resources for bookkeeping, storage and so forth will probably be involved. Therefore, there should be the least practical hardship in the keeping of records consistent with the intentions of the Bill. I am advised that in the Catering Wages Act the necessary period for the keeping of records is two years and not three. Moreover, in Clause 11 the maximum period in which retrospective action for failure to comply with the Act can be taken is two years. It would appear on the face of it, therefore, as though records for a longer period than is required to ensure proper compliance are demanded under this Clause. With a view to simplifying the responsibilities of those affected, it would seem sufficient for all that is intended if records for two years only were required.

The Deputy-Chairman

May I suggest that this Amendment and the hon. Member's next Amendment, to leave out line 14, cover very nearly the same point and that we might, with the consent of the Committee, discuss the two together?

Mr. Summers

I agree. The words in line 14, "or such longer period as may be prescribed," would have no real meaning if this Amendment were made. It is a consequential point to a certain extent.

The Solicitor-General

I think that my hon. Friend has forgotten one minor aspect of the matter, that under Clause 11 (3) the court is entitled to go back for two years and make the employer pay up. My hon. Friend mentioned that, but he had not in mind that the payment is from the date of the offence. The prosecution for the offence can take place any time up to six months from its commission, and often the discovery of the offence does not take place for some time after it has been committed. Therefore, we must have a period of more than two years in order to cover that circumstance, and I suggest that the three years is a reasonable period. I do not want to be oppressive, but if the Committee will agree to leave it at three years I am prepared to consider the second Amendment to see whether any additional period is necessary or useful.

Mr. Summers

Will my hon. and learned Friend comment on the point that in a similar context two years is all that is asked for in the Catering Wages Act?

The Solicitor-General

I am not sure how far the period went back under the Catering Act. I do not want to take a bad point against my hon. Friend, but whatever we did in that Act I cannot see the answer to the point I put to the Committee that there must often be a time for the prosecution for the offence which does not come until some time after the offence is committed. Therefore, we need some period in addition to the two years in which back wages have to be paid. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is suggesting that if the Catering Wages Act does not contain that provision my right hon. Friend should introduce an amending Bill and put it right. If he does, I will consider that point.

Mr. Summers

Will the Solicitor-General give an assurance that it is not intended that a prosecution should go further back than it was required to do under the Catering Wages Act, and that the necessary records consistent with that are all that is required?

The Solicitor-General

I am afraid that I must ask for the three years.

Mr. Alexander Walkden (Bristol, South)

I should like to support the Government in the stand they are taking on this point. We had an important conference of the principal unions concerned in this type of machinery, and they were insistent on the full three years. As the Solicitor-General has shown, some months may elapse before a case can be taken into court. If there is to be benefit from a back-dating of two years on the award, there must be a period in which records are kept and made available as required for any action that is taken.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Summers

I beg to move, in page 15, leave out line 14.

I understand that the Solicitor-General is disposed to accept this Amendment.

The Solicitor-General

I said that I would consider carefully and sympathetically whether any period over the three years is necessary, and if we find it is we will put down the necessary Amendment on Report.

Mr. Summers

In view of that assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.