HC Deb 21 July 1965 vol 716 cc1732-8
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport (Knutsford)

I beg to move Amendment No. 38, Clause 16, in page 14, line 5, at the end to insert: (3) Section 1 of this Act shall not apply to any person in respect of his employment as a theatrical artiste provided that his contract of employment is one that has been agreed by the appropriate organisations of employers and trade unions concerned with theatrical employment. Although I shall take only a few minutes in commending the Amendment I want to emphasise that there are certain points which I shall raise which are causing the greatest anxiety in the theatrical profession. If this Redundancy Payments Bill is intended to cover employment of such people as professional actors and actresses, I suggest that it is an unsuitable arrangement for such employment, and that some words should be added to this exemption Clause, Clause 16, and elsewhere, to take them outside its scope. Whether the phrase wording of my Amendment will commend itself to the Minister I do not know, but in any event, if he approves the principle of it, the necessary steps can be taken by him to amend the Bill before it reaches the Statute Book. It may, for instance, be necessary to make some consequential Amendments in later Clauses which oblige employers to contribute to the Redundancy Fund, and so forth.

During the Second Reading debate on 26th April the Minister referred to the problems which might arise in certain types of employment where the employment was of a casual nature, such as shipbuilding, and he suggested that a possible answer to that was for the employers and the employees to work out an alternative scheme and to apply to him for exemption under Clause 11. It does not seem to me, however, that this would necessarily provide the right answer so far as the theatre world is concerned.

Basically, it seems wrong that when a theatrical artiste is fortunate enough to be a member of a company which enjoys a long run for two or three years or more he should get a large redundancy payment from the producing manager at the end of the run when other people in the theatrical profession who have performed in a play which has unfortunately come off after a few nights or a few weeks through loss of public support will get no benefit at all from the scheme.

If there are to be redundancy payments in the theatrical world at all there might well be more merit in making them available when a play collapses after a few nights rather than if it runs prosperously for several years. But the basic fact to remember is that no producer is in a position to remunerate his aristes at all, let alone pay them redundancy payments, if the public cannot be attracted to the theatre concerned.

I do not wish to say any more at this stage, but I hope that the Minister will be able either to explain why this Bill is appropriate for employees in the theatrical profession or, if not, what he proposes to do about it. As the Minister knows there are already long-standing and elaborate arrangements in the theatre for arranging standard contracts between employers and employees. These are settled in the first place by the trade unions and employers' associations concerned, and the seal of approval is then given to them by the London and Provincial Theatre Councils, whichever may be concerned. My Amendment suggests that so long as these approved contracts exist there is no need for any special application of redundancy payments by a Bill of this kind.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Thornton

I listened with interest to the arguments advanced by the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport), and I think we would all concede that there are a number of special features about employment in this profession. There is a wide variety of practice. Some people in the profession are on fixed-term contracts of long enough duration to come under Clause 14, which means that they can be contracted out of rights to redundancy payments on the expiry of their contract if the parties so agree. Some are on shorter fixed-term contracts, and others are on contracts of indefinite term. Some are in more or less permanent employment, where it may be that the provisions of the Bill would be entirely appropriate. Others are engaged only for as long as a particular play or show runs. Then there is the question of where one draws the boundaries of theatrical employment, and how to treat related industries, such as the film industry and the musical world.

I do not think that it would be right to resolve the situation here and now by accepting the Amendment and excluding theatrical artistes completely from rights under the Bill. We are not in a position now to say that that is the right answer. It is surely up to the two sides of the industry to consider their position and how they will be affected by the provisions of the Bill. It may be right that the Bill should apply, without modification at any rate, to some parts of the profession. We should not pre-judge the issue at this stage.

If it appears to those immediately concerned that the statutory provisions do not fit the case in all respects, it will be open to the two sides to negotiate an alternative scheme for payment on the termination of employment and to seek an exemption order under Clause 11 on the basis of such an agreement. That is the purpose of Clause 11, to provide some flexibility to meet special circumstances.

If, on examination by the employers and employees concerned it should prove that some modification of the statutory provisions is desirable, an exempted scheme under Clause 11 should be the first possibility to be considered.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Has the hon. Gentleman had discussions with either side of the theatrical profession? This profession's anomalous position should have been anticipated, and it would help very much if the hon. Gentleman could tell us that he has had discussions with the theatrical profession.

Mr. Thornton

I cannot say that I have discussed this with the profession, but it is something that we might perhaps call to its attention, and my right hon. Friend's Department and my Department will certainly give any help and advice that they can.

As I said, if on examination by the employers and employees concerned it should prove that some modification of the statutory provisions is desirable, then an exempted scheme under Clause 11 should be the first possibility to be considered. There is also, however, the Minister's power under Clause 16(5) to exclude particular classes of employment from the provisions of Part I of the Bill, or to apply the provisions with appropriate modifications. This will enable us to do by Order, which would be subject to the affirmative Resolution, what the Amendment seeks to do if, in the light of consultations with those affected, that appeared to be the right course.

All this calls for careful consideration by the employers in the profession. The provisions of the Bill are sufficiently flexible to accommodate whatever solution may be arrived at. We should not prejudge the issue at this point, before those concerned have had a chance to form their views. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will consent to withdraw the Amendment in the light of my explanation. If not, I must advise the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Godber

I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary feels that he cannot go along with the proposals of my hon. and gallant Friend. I thought that he made a convincing speech in respect of a profession which he has clearly studied closely. He made a strong case. It is true that there are possibilities in regard to Clause 11, but whether it would be feasible to invoke that Clause is something we should have to consider carefully. There are also certain possibilities in regard to Clause 15 and fixed-term contracts, whereby it is possible to contract out of some provisions, although it would not be possible to contract out of the weekly payments.

That is one aspect of the matter which my hon. and gallant Friend might care to look at, because the real problem of this profession—and it probably applies to others—is that the provisions of the Bill, with which we have great sympathy, cannot be made to fit in. My hon. and gallant Friend having made a convincing speech, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree to study the matter further and perhaps be more sympathetic at a later stage.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

I took a different view of the Parliamentary Secretary's speech from that taken by my hon. Friend. I know that he has to use the words which will satisfy his Department at this stage, so that it can keep the matter tidy in its own filing cabinets, but reading behind those words I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary was agreeing with my hon. annd gallant Friend. Before he asks leave to withdraw the Amendment, therefore, I hope that we may have confirmation that the hon. Gentleman was agreeing with my hon. and gallant Friend. I took the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to mean that he accepted entirely that in the case of the theatrical profession there were grounds for looking at the matter separately. I thought that he was really saying that between now and when the Measure comes back from another place he will find words to give effect to what my hon. and gallant Friend is asking for.

I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend will insist on his form of words—they are merely the hook on which to hang his formidable case—but I should like some confirmation that the principle behind those words is accepted by the Financial Secretary and that he will do something about the matter.

Mr. Godber

I hope that I have not wronged the Parliamentary Secretary. If my hon. Friend's interpretation is right nobody will be more happy than I.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Behind all those words, read out so nicely by the Parliamentary Secretary, I thought he gave almost a promise that this was a separate and different case, and that something will be done about it. I hope that before the Amendment is withdrawn we shall have confirmation to that effect.

Mr. Thornton

To clear up any misunderstanding, may I say that I recognise that special problems and considerations are involved in relation to this very complex profession, but I certainly would not commit myself to any line of action on behalf of my right hon. Friend. We think that consideration should be given to the question by both sides of the industry, so that they can see what arrangements can be arrived at. Then, if they come to my right hon. Friend, he will certainly be prepared to do what he can to help.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport

Will the hon. Gentleman have another look at it or not?

Mr. Thornton

I could not undertake that any special provision would be made unless my right hon. Friend received representations from both sides of the industry. If he did, and those representations were to the effect that there was a possibility of an agreed scheme which could qualify under the exemption Clause, my right hon. Friend would be prepared to look at that. It must be on the basis of agreement between both sides of the industry or profession.

Mr. A. R. Wise (Rugby)

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's undertaking at the moment is extraordinarily similar to that given by the First Secretary of State on a previous occasion in this House, when he said that the Government would gladly look at anything—[Interruption.]—I cannot see that it is better than that. I find the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation singularly inadequate. I recognise that it is very difficult for him to commit his right hon. Friend, but his right hon. Friend is entitled to commit himself. I therefore suggest that someone sends for his right hon. Friend, so that he can give us an answer.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport

As the hon. Gentleman will not look at it again, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment, because I have no doubt that this Amendment will be considered in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Thornton

I beg to move, Amendment No. 39, Clause 16, in page 14, line 9, to leave out from "any" to the end of line 11 and to insert: person in respect of any employment which". Subsection (4) of Clause 16 exempts from Clause 1 certain categories of employees who are not Crown servants but who are in employment analogous to that of Crown servants, for example, employees of public bodies like the Forestry Commission and certain National Health Service employees, like Executive Council staff. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide for people employed in this capacity part-time and who work elsewhere for the rest of their time. The present effect of the subsection is that such a person would be excluded from the effects of the Bill even if he became redundant from his other job, in respect of which, he would, in the normal way, have been entitled to a redundancy payment.

For example, a cleaner might spend part of her time cleaning the offices of a building of one of these public bodies, but most of it in cleaning the offices of a private firm. We do not want the mere fact that she was employed for a few hours a week in the first of these jobs to mean that she would be deprived of a redundancy payment if she became redundant from the second, the main source of her livelihood. I am sure that the House will agree that this is right.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 14, line 19, at end insert: (5) Without prejudice to any exemption or immunity of the Crown, section 1 of this Act shall not apply to any person in respect of his employment in any capacity under the Government of an overseas territory.

In line 29 leave out "(4)"and insert "(5)".—[Mr. Thornton.]