HC Deb 03 April 1950 vol 473 cc941-9

Postponed proceeding resumed on Question, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 6th March, 1950, entitled the National Service (Part-time Service) Regulations, 1950 (S.I., 1950, No. 308), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th March, be annulled.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

When the Debate upon this Motion was interrupted to per mit a genial discussion about what should be done with dirty linen in the County of London, I was on the point which I think is the point of greatest substance on this Motion. The Minister of Labour was then present and was taking a note of the matter. This is now in the possession of his Parliamentary Secretary, and perhaps I may take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. Gentleman on being about to make his debut from the Box. I would add to those congratulations my own pleasure that he is likely to be able to do so upon, a not particularly controversial occasion.

The point of substance arises under Regulation 3 which deals with the procedure to be followed when a man is dismissed by his employer who wants to get rid of him because he does not like his part-time National Service obligations. The right of the man to proceed is given to him by Section 51 of the National Service Act, 1948. What seems to me objectionable is that under these regulations the aggrieved man must, subject to the right of the chairman of the reinstatement committee to grant further time, put in his claim within 42 days. That is a very rigid and narrow limitation, and it seems to be quite inappropriate where, as here, the remedy which the man will claim is, not reinstatement, but damages or, as it is called in the regulations, compensation.

If the man were to sue his employer at law on grounds of wrongful dismissal he would have, under the prevailing Limitation Acts, six years in which to bring his proceedings, unless he had the misfortune to sue a public authority, in which case the period would be one year. Against that, in this particular case he is limited to 42 days, and some hardship may very well arise if this is insisted upon. It is difficult even for hon. Members to be fully conversant with the law, which is changed with the assistance of some 3,000 statutory instruments a year, and it is really quite absurd to expect that every man performing part-time service under the Act will know within 42 days that he has these rights.

I am perfectly certain that the hon. Gentleman when he replies will say that notices informing them of these rights are given to the men. I hope and believe that that is the case. But it is quite a different thing for a man to be given a notice and to make quite sure that he will read and understand it. I cannot see why it is necessary to limit the period during which he can put in his claim for these damages to the very narrow period of 42 days. I do not think that that gives him time to inform himself of the matter and, perhaps, to take legal advice. There may be some explanation which the hon. Gentleman will give, but in the absence of such an explanation this provision seems to me to be objectionable.

There are other parts of the Regulations which I would venture to criticise, not so much for what they do but for the obscurity as to what they are intended to do. In particular I would call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to regulation 5 (b) (i), which deals with what is to happen to the contractual relations of employer and employee when they are interfered with by the National Service obligation of the latter. This provision seeks, quite properly, to relieve the parties to the contract of employment of obligation under the contract … relating to payment or remuneration, the performance of work, or the provision of work, maintenance (including medical or surgical treatment) or instruction. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us what remains. The only thing I can think of is pension rights. It is a little difficult to speculate as to what other things remain under the contract, but no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary, with the resources of his Department behind him, will be able to give the answer.

Sub-paragraphs (b) (ii) and (iii) of the same Regulation are a trifle confusing. Sub-paragraph (ii), as far as I can understand it, seeks to provide that where a contract is for a definite period and is interrupted by National Service, it shall be prolonged for the same period as the period of the interruption. On a closer reading, however, there appear to be two alternative possibilities, and I cannot understand clearly what is the difference between those two alternatives. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to clear this up.

I am equally not at all clear as to what evil paragraph (2) of regulation 5 is designed to provide against. It says: Nothing in this Regulation shall confer rupon any employer authority to make any contract or arrangement with reference to the period of training which he is not authorised to make under any power already possessed by him. What is contemplated there? On reading the Regulation I cannot see any provision which could possibly provide for any additional power being thereby conferred upon an employer. I cannot see what evil it is intended to guard against. No doubt those who draft these Regulations had something in mind when they inserted this paragraph. Perhaps, therefore, it will be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to clear this up also.

Those are the principal points, and I should like to make one general comment. It is extremely important when regulations of this sort are being made that they should not only be just, but that they should be comprehensible. They are designed to be understood by a large number of men, most of them in the nature of things young men and without that knowledge of procedure and drafting of regulations and Acts of Parliament which is forced upon hon. Members in this House in greater or lesser degree as the years pass. I think that those hon. Members who have the regulations in front of them will agree that even to them there are passages whose intention and purport are not immediately obvious.

It would, therefore, serve a very useful purpose if the Parliamentary Secretary would not only explain them to the House, but would take such steps as are possible to secure that they are clearly explained to those affected by them. Quite frankly, the explanatory note at the back of the regulations is no clearer to me than are the regulations. It gives admirably their general intention. It does not give with any precision their detailed effect, and for this reason a useful purpose will be served, not only by an explanation to this House, but by an explanation to the men affected.

Finally, I come to the general point which I wish to raise. I do not think the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will dispute that it is right that at this time, when part-time service on a compulsory basis will shortly come into effect, this House should have the opportunity to debate these Regulations. I have sought to discuss them in a friendly and interrogatory way. I make no apology, nor do my hon. Friends, for putting down the Motion, since the importance of the matter is such that it seems to me quite wrong that these Regulations should take effect without this House of Commons, on whose authority they are based, having the opportunity to discuss them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedfordshire)

I beg formally to second the Motion.

7.39 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Frederick Lee)

I very much appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) presented the Motion, and I apologise for not having been in my place when he started his speech. It seems to me that the whole point in his speech was not to challenge the substance of the Regulations which have been laid before the House by my right hon. Friend, but rather to get questions of detail—which, I agree, may be of importance—put more clearly to the House.

The first point which the hon. Member raised related to paragraph (4) of Regulation 1. He seemed to be under the impression that to include these words in the Regulation was to give my right hon. Friend a free hand in altering substantially the content of the form referred to, without having to come back to this House in order to do so. I assure him that is not the case. If there were to be any substantial alteration in the form, it would be incumbent upon my right hon. Friend to come to this House for permission to alter it. Actually he has in mind that it may be necessary to alter, say, the numbering of the form, or it may be necessary to alter the order of the questions laid down in the form. It is on questions of that type that my right hon. Friend wants a free hand, but, if there were to be any substantial alteration, any substantial difference in the form, he would have to return to this House for permission so to alter it.

There is perhaps an even more important aspect, and I am sure this point will appeal to the hon. Member, that by leaving the wording as it now is my right hon. Friend could accept a written application from the individual, without it necessarily being upon the form, so long as the written application contained the essential matter which is in the form. That gives greater liberty to the person concerned. He may feel he is freer than if he had to lay the form itself and if any failure to do so would mean that he would be disqualified. The hon. Member will agree that in that way we are giving greater freedom to the person concerned and it is necessary that these words should remain.

This is not by any means a new provision in Regulations. A like provision has appeared in other Regulations, not necessarily connected with this Ministry. For example, it appears in the National Service (Miscellaneous) Regulations and in the Re-instatement in Civil Employment (Procedure) Regulations, which have been approved by Parliament. I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel that, far from arguing for any wider powers, my right hon. Friend is, on the contrary, safeguarding the interests of those who will make the applications and is fortified by the precedents I have described.

I do not think the hon. Member raised any specific point upon Regulation 2, which prescribes the manner in which a man can apply for the cancellation or variation of a notice specifying his liability for part-time service, either on the ground that he is not liable to do any part-time service, or that he is liable to do a shorter period than that specified, in the notice. I turn to Regulation 3. The House will be aware that Section 51 of the National Service Act, 1948, provides that if an employer terminates the employment of an employee solely, or mainly, because of his liability to perform part-time service, the employee is, entitled to recover as compensation from his employer a sum not exceeding five weeks pay.

The hon. Member has raised the question of the time factor in making the application. I know that in the last analysis these questions are a matter of opinion. My right hon. Friend and believe that the time given, six weeks, is quite a generous period. It was made as long as six weeks to allow for the possibility of the young man concerned not being able to attend to this matter until after he had come back from his period of training, a period which cannot exceed three weeks. The House will be aware that in addition to the six weeks-we propose, the chairman of the reinstatement committee has the option in exceptional cases, such as illness, to grant an extension beyond six weeks. I believe that proviso will be used generously when exceptional cases come before a committee.

I wish the House to note particularly that the period laid down in the 1948 Act within which a man may apply for reinstatement after his whole-time service has been completed is before the second Monday after the end of his service—in other words, a period between a week and a fortnight.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Surely there is all the difference in the world between having a short time limit when a man is asked to be reinstated in a job and this case where it is merely a question of going for damages?

Mr. Lee

Apart from exceptional cases, such as sickness, I do not see any particular reason why a man cannot determine his rights and make his application within a period of six weeks, especially with the proviso that the chairman of the committee has the right to extend the period beyond six weeks. I agree that it is a question of opinion, but I believe the six weeks is ample for our purpose.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what he has said is quite contrary to the policy of Parliament over a great many years in providing a much longer period of years of limitation, up to six years in the case of private employers?

Mr. Lee

This is a man who has been dismissed by an employer. He has a six weeks period in which to put his case that the reason for his dismissal is in connection with his call up for part-time service. I believe that the six weeks period, especially when we consider that on return to civil life the man will go to the labour exchange and can be informed, if he does not know, of this provision, is ample security, especially as the six weeks limitation is not dogmatic in the sense that there can be no extension. If the man can prove that for some good reason, or a reason seeming good to the chairman of the committee, he could not have made his application within six weeks, the six weeks would not be considered final.

Regulation 4 simply lays down that the procedure to be followed by a reinstatement committee in connection with such an application and procedure in connection with appeals to the umpire on such applications shall, subject to necessary adjustments, be precisely the same as procedure in connection with applications for reinstatement. The hon. Member referred to Regulation 5. This is designed to secure in a commonsense way the fair adjustment of contracts of service, or apprenticeship, affected by call up for annual training. That training cannot exceed 21 days in one year and will normally be for a period of two weeks. In its broad effect it means that the employee and the employer who have made arrangements between themselves to deal with any or all the points arising can maintain those agreements. In other words, that would supervene over any of these regulations. Where, however, there is no arrangement catering for such a contingency as the calling up of a person for two or three weeks for part-time service, these Regulations would obtain.

We relieve the contracting parties of the obligations under any contract relating either to the performance of work, the payment of remuneration, the provision of work, the provision of maintenance, including medical or surgical treatment, or the provision of instruction. In the cases in which the contract is for a fixed period the period of the contract is extended by the period of training, or, where the contract is due to terminate during the period of training, by a period equal to so much of the period of the contract as was unexpired at the beginning of training. That extension naturally has to be treated as beginning when the contract would otherwise come to an end.

I assure the House that my right hon. Friend has not sought to impose restrictions in any way. He has consulted both sides of industry on these Regulations before laying them before the House. For instance, he sought the advice of the National Joint Advisory Council on the contents of these Regulations. I am sure it would please the House to know that both sides of that council, which as we know contains eminent men both from the employers' and employees' sides of industry, having considered these regulations in great detail at their meetings, have given them their approval. I hope that I have covered the main points which have been raised tonight. Having done so, I trust that the House will agree to these Regulations.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. McCorquodale (Epsom)

I wish first to offer our felicitations to the Parliamentary Secretary on having successfully negotiated his first and rather tricky hurdle. I do not think that the Ministry, for which I have, as he knows, a strong affection, has been quite so clever as usual in the wording of their Explanatory Note. I find the Regulations themselves more easy to understand than the explanatory note, but that is by the way. I should like further to congratulate the hon. Member because he has moved his constituency to that of our old friend in this House, Sir Robert Young, of whom all of us on both sides of the House were very fond. As it happens to be a constituency which my grandfather fought in the Liberal interest 70 years ago and was very properly defeated each time by the Conservatives, I have a personal interest in it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) spoke about Regulation 3 and the period of six weeks in which the applicant had to make his application for compensation for wrongful dismissal. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the Ministry should watch this matter, and, if at any time it was found that six weeks was too short a period, should not hesitate to come to the House and ask for an extension.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs)

indicated assent.

Mr. McCorquodale

I have no further comments to make on these Regulations, which are designed to meet an obvious need. I conclude by again wishing the hon. Gentleman well, especially in the valuable non-controversial parts of his work at the Ministry, in which I know he will find enjoyment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

In view in particular of the assurance given physically by the vertical movements of the Parliamentary Secretary's head, in conjunction with similar movements by his right hon. Friend, that the serious point of substance in connection with Regulation 3 will be watched, and in view of the most lucid explanation of the Regulations which the Parliamentary Secretary has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.