HC Deb 16 June 1967 vol 748 cc1013-6

In page 3, line 9, leave out paragraph (a).

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

The Amendment gives power to the Minister, in granting a licence, to include conditions relating to fees and the levels of charges which employment agents may make. My hon. Friends and I expressed grave doubts whether this was a wise power to give the Government.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member has not spoken in this debate.

Mr. Ridley

I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) moved the Amendment and my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) was on his feet when we adjourned. I have some views which I should like to put concerning the Amendment. I take as my starting point the economic effect of controlling any form of charges by law.

I want to return to the example of New York, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, where the fees of employment agencies are controlled. I am told that all 800 agencies in the City of New York have levelled up their charges to the allowable maxima, thereby charging higher fees than they would otherwise have done. We feel that this provision will have the effect of removing the freedom of competition and, at the same time, creating higher fees than would otherwise obtain.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science—the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams)—who then piloted the Bill through the Committee on behalf of the Ministry of Labour, claimed—in col. 127 of the report of the proceedings—that we might have to take power, by subscribing to the International Labour Organisation Convention, to control fees as a condition of our entering the Common Market.

I have checked with Brussels and can assure the House that this is not so. There is no question of our entry being prejudiced in this respect. The letter I have received says: As far as I understand, there is no obligation whatsoever at present on a member State to implement any I.L.O. Convention collectively simply because they are member States of the Community. There is no legal basis at all for them to do so: it is up to each national Government concerned to decide what it wishes to do in this connection. There would therefore be no ground at all for any of the Governments of the Six to take objection to the fact that the United Kingdom had or had not implemented the said Convention, and/or only Part 2 or Part 3 of it. The people in Brussels I contacted were most definite on this point, as I mentioned it to you in my previous letter. … That this is an official letter from the delegation to the Community proves that there is nothing in that point.

To claim that this power is vital for our ratification of the Convention is not borne out by the facts. The number of I.L.O. Conventions which we have ratified is very small and we have not ratified at all 41 out of the 118 which exist. To say that we should be bound by this is clear neither from considerations to do with the I.L.O. nor from considerations to do with the European Economic Community, and, therefore, we need not take that power for either reason.

There are many different types of employment agent. The range is so great that the Minister would have a formidable task if he had to set maximum levels of fee for all. They include office staff, catering staff, domestic staff, au pair girls, exhibition staff, accountants, fashion and clothing staff, hairdressers, nurses, drivers, management consultants, executive recruitment bureaux, theatrical staff, models—a whole range of professions.

When one considers the different categories in those professions, from the top man down to the most lowly people, one sees that there may be thousands of different levels of fee to be determined. This is borne out by an examination of the existing position—

Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney)

I fear that the hon. Gentleman has it wrong. This Amendment has nothing to do with the Common Market but would simply make the Minister's powers less free than we propose and the whole Bill more rigid. He has it wrong; let him withdraw his Amendment, when the Minister will have much greater freedom to be reasonable and flexible towards employment agencies whose interests he serves.

Mr. Ridley

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes that attitude. The Amendment would remove the Minister's power to do something which I find objectionable, which is why I want to remove it and why I do not intend to withdraw the Amendment.

I was amazed, incidentally, to see the letter from the Minister which circulated in Standing Committee, to the effect that the Ministry knew so little about the level and type of fees charged that they did not intend to use this power immediately but would spend several years discovering what it was all about first. This is a classic example of the bureaucratic mind, that they should want to take power to stop something of which they have no knowledge. Surely it would be wise to find out what they want to control before taking power to control it.

It shows an extraordinary state of mind that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) should wish to control a whole series and range of fees, when not even the Ministry's professional advisers were able to tell the Committee the levels of fees or how they will set about fixing maximum levels.

If I may go back to where I was a few minutes ago before I was interrupted, it is not surprising if one thinks of this vast range of different types of people—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Monday next.