HC Deb 01 May 1963 vol 676 cc1175-80
Mr. Graham Page

I beg to move, in page 6, line 31, to leave out "or to" and to insert "in".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston)

With this Amendment, we can take the following one, in line 35, leave out "(2) and (3)" and insert "and (2)".

Mr. Page

Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

The Clause excludes certain categories of employee from the effect of the Bill. As the Amendment is expressed in such short terms, it would be as well if I read it into the Clause so that hon. Members can see what is intended. With the Amendment, subsection (5) would read The Minister shall have power by order—

  1. (a) to provide that all or any of the foregoing sections of this Act shall not apply to persons in employment of such classes or descriptions as may be prescribed by the order, and
  2. (b) to vary or revoke any of the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of this section."
Reference to subsection (3) is omitted.

I believe I am right in saying that there was an unintentional result from an Amendment in Committee. It was agreed on both sides that the Minister should have power to take out of the Bill employees who came within statutory schemes. In subsection (1), the dock workers' scheme was referred to and subsection (2) referred to certain schemes relating to seamen. Thus, in subsections (1), (2) and (3) there were three categories of employees who were to be exempt from the effect of the Bill. The first two related to persons within statutory schemes.

The third category in subsection (3) was entirely different and comprised members of a family. Subsection (3) states: Section 4 of this Act shall not apply where the employee is the father, mother, husband, wife, son or daughter of the employer. As the Bill stands, the Minister is taking power to alter subsection (3). Is there any reason to give him power by order to alter the category of relatives set out in the subsection? I recognise that he should have the right to alter subsections (1) and (2) by order when new statutory schemes for workers are introduced, but what reason can there be for altering the categories in a family? This was not considered in Committee.

Subsection (5), giving the Minister power by order to do certain things, was discussed with the addition to the Bill of the two previous subsections. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said: It may also be that experience of the working of the Bill will bring to light changes in exclusions which are desirable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 2nd April, 1963; c. 420.] What could be the circumstances arising which would make it desirable to say, for example, that the Bill shall not apply to the employer's mother but shall apply to all other relatives of the family; or, under paragraph (b), which says "vary or revoke", to vary "mother" to "mother-in-law" or to revoke all the relatives except the daughter of the employer? No circumstances will arise which would make it desirable to alter that Clause of the Bill in that way. It is a matter which was not considered in Committee, and I think that it was an unintentional result of these Amendments.

I suppose that I ought to be gratified if the Parliamentary Secretary says that he will look at this matter again, but, frankly. I do not want another look at it; I want acceptance of the Amendment here and now. It was obvious that in Committee this result was unintentional, and I am proposing a simple Amendment. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary can suggest that there is anything wrong in the drafting of the Amendment. It is so extremely simple—inserting the word "in" instead of "or to" and merely altering an "and" and making it refer to two subsections instead of three.

I have said that I think that this was unintentional. When the Parliamentary Secretary was putting the Amendment, with others, in Committee the example which he used in seeking to give the Minister power to vary these subsections by order was that of the dock workers. That was the only example which he used, and the Committee was led to think that this power would relate only to the alteration in a statutory scheme for workers. It was not called to the Committee's attention that the Minister would have power not only to alter the effect of the Act on employees within certain schemes but also to alter the effect of the Act on the employer's family. I am sure that that was not intended. I have endeavoured to remedy what I think was an unintentional result of the Amendment in Committee.

Mr. Whitelaw

I will certainly not disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page); I will not say that I will look at the Amendment. Moreover, I can assure him that it was not an unexpected result. I remind him that throughout this consideration there was a considerable desire on both sides of the Committee, which has been mentioned again today in another aspect, that we should have power to vary categories, because we cannot know all the time exactly what will happen in the future. I thought that such powers were only reasonable.

The effect of the Amendment would be that an order under Clause 5 varying the scope of the Bill could be applied only to persons in particular categories of employment and not to persons defined in some other way by, for example, their relationship with the employer. Secondly, the exclusions under Clause 5(3), which provide that the requirements in respect of the written statement are not to apply where the employer and the employee are closely related, are not to be varied or revoked.

I am a little puzzled about why my hon. Friend wishes to do this. If a Minister is to have powers to vary exclusions from the Bill, I see no point in restricting them in this way. I suggest to my hon. Friend, for example, that in the light of experience it might be necessary for my right hon. Friend to expand or even, alternatively, to reduce the present list of relatives to whom Clause 4 is not to apply. He would be prevented from doing so if the Amendment were accepted, and I cannot see what sense there is in preventing him from doing something which clearly might be accepted by all sides of the House as desirable.

8.45 p.m.

I do not think that it can be suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby that there is any danger that the powers will be abused. After all, if the House agrees to the Amendment which we are about to discuss, the use of these powers will be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure, and I would have hoped that that would have given my hon. Friend considerable satisfaction as it is exactly what he pressed me to do. With this safeguard, there is very little reason to fear that any Minister will attempt, let alone successfully attempt, to abuse the powers to vary exclusions in their present form. I think that it is reasonable to give him power to do so when it may well be necessary in the light of subsequent developments. In those circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friend will not feel it necessary to press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Whitelaw

I beg to move, in page 6, line 40, to leave out from "this" to the end of line 42 and to insert: section shall be made by statutory instrument, but no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House". Clause 5(5) and (6) give the Minister power to alter the scope of exclusions from the Bill by means of orders. As Clause 5(6) stands, orders of this kind are to be subject to the negative Resolution procedure. The Amendment will make them subject to an affirmative Resolution of each House instead.

We discussed this matter in Committee and I then gave an undertaking that we should consider it carefully in the light of the views of the Committee. It was clearly the general feeling of the Committee that it would not be adequate to leave Orders as important as these subject only to the negative Resolution procedure. After all, they will result in people being taken outside or brought within the scope of the Bill. I hope that on this occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will admit that I have overcome the prejudices of my past, or previous, incarnation and that I have deferred to the general view of the Committee on this matter. I hope that the House will agree that the Amendment should be adopted.

Mr. Graham Page

I think it only courteous of me to thank my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for this Amendment. It deals with a matter which was seriously discussed in Committee and it deals with it very satisfactorily. When the Minister brings forward There is the difficulty of enforcement if a draft order extending or reducing the

Amendment agreed to.