HC Deb 04 August 1971 vol 822 cc1678-89

Lords Amendment: No. 118, in page 46, line 26, after "which" insert: on any date within a financial year of the undertaking".

7.45 p.m.

Mr. R. Carr

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Perhaps it would be convenient for the House also to discuss the following Lords Amendments: No. 120, in page 46, line 27, after "persons" insert: other than excepted persons". No. 121, line 30, leave out "periodical statements" and insert: in respect of that financial year a statement". No. 122, line 32, leave out from "shall" to end of line 34, and insert: be issued not later than six months after the end of the financial year to which it relates". No. 123, in line 40, leave out from "relates" to end of line 5 on page 47, and insert: and who is not on that date an excepted person". No. 125, in page 47, line 36, at end insert: ("() In this section "financial year", in relation to an undertaking, means a period for which the accounts of the undertaking are made up (including any such period part of which is before and part after the commencement of this Act); and for the purposes of this section a person is an excepted person on any date if on that date—

  1. (a) he is employed under a contract which normally involves employment for less than twenty-one hours weekly, or
  2. (b) he has been employed in the undertaking in question for less than thirteen weeks, or
  3. (c) he is outside Great Britain and is a person who under his contract of employment ordinarily works outside Great Britain.")

Mr. Harold Walker

We have no objection to that course.

Mr. Carr

These Amendments are designed to clarify Clause 55 and also to stop one possible loophole. Although they achieve more than one object, they are so closely linked that they must be considered together. They fall into two groups. The first concerns the calculation of the number of persons referred to in subsection (1); that is, 500 as written in the Bill, but reduced to a smaller number by a later Amendment. Unlike Clause 54, this Clause applies only to employers with more than the qualifying number of employees. The present drafting leaves in some doubt the manner in which and the time at which this figure is to be calculated.

Amendment No. 118 therefore provides that all employers who employ more than the minimum qualifying number of people at any one time in the financial year come within the scope of the Clause. Correspondingly, Amendments Nos. 120 and 123 make it clear that temporary, part-time and overseas workers are not to be included in the determination of the qualifying number. The reason is that these employees do not have the same degree of interest in the undertaking as have the normal full-time employees. It therefore seemed to us logical that they should not be taken into account in determining which undertakings should come within the scope of the Clause.

Agriculture provides a practical example, though there are other industries. Certain agricultural enterprises may well employ, and often employ, a large number of people for a short time in the year, during the harvest, but for most of the year employ considerably smaller numbers which would not anywhere near bring them within the qualifying numbers. The hotel and catering industry provides us with another example.

The thinking behind the Clause is that the need for statements and other forms of good communication is greatest in the largest enterprises. That is what has influenced our thinking on this question of size, and also on the question of the sort of people who should be included when calculating whether or not an undertaking qualifies under the Clause. We think that it would be anomalous to bring employers within the scope of the Clause merely because their activities required large numbers of people for a small part of the year.

It is right that this information should be made available, and we have no sympathy with those companies which complain about the trouble caused by having to give information to their employees. But we should be careful before causing that amount of trouble to undertakings merely because for some special reason and for a very short time of the year they have a very much higher number of employees than they have for most of the year.

Amendments Nos. 118, 121 and 122 and part of Amendment No. 125 are intended to stop a loophole. The Clause as drafted only requires periodical statements which relate to the previous year, and it would, therefore, be technically possible, we realised, for an employer to evade the whole spirit of the Clause by issuing a statement perhaps once every seven years, so long as when he did issue the statement it applied to the previous year. The obvious intention is that the statement should be issued annually. While we did not envisage that many employers would attempt to escape the intended obligation, we felt it right to eliminate this technical loophole.

The financial year has been chosen in preference to the calendar year because we think it more suited to the custom and accounting practice of individual employers. We expect, in any case, that much of the information in the statements will be financial, even though not all of it is, and so can be based more conveniently on the undertaking's financial year.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 119, in page 46, line 27, leave out '500' and insert '350'.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Harold Walker

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 1, leave out '350' and insert '50'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this proposed Amendment to the Lords Amendment we can take that to Lords Amendment No. 124, in line 1, leave out '350' and insert '50'.

Mr. Walker

I hope to deal with this matter very briefly because we have here a clear, straightforward, simple issue. The Lords Amendment initially provided that under the disclosure requirements the number should be reduced from 500 to 350. We welcome that. Then my noble Friends sought to reduce the number to 200, but we have since had representations that revelation of information is of equal importance irrespective of the numbers in the establishment. Why should people be discriminated against just because they work in a small establishment rather than in a big place? It seems to us to be just as easy, if not easier, for a small employer to provide the information as it is for a large employer.

In reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debates in another place I noted the intervention of the noble Lord who is, I think, the Leader of the Liberals there—Lord Beaumont of Whitley—who said that he saw no reason why the obligation should not apply to every firm. He described the obligation as the absolute basis of good industrial relationship no matter what the size of the firm.

The noble Lord having been so anxious to reduce the numbers, we had hoped on this present occasion to have the support of Liberal hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] It is a matter of deep regret that not only have the Liberal hon. Members not graced our debate this evening but, as far as I can recall, they have—with the very eloquent and useful exception of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson)—been absent almost throughout this stage of the Bill's progress. We note the absence of Liberal hon. Members who would have been able to support us in seeking to extend this beneficial provision to smaller employments. The difficulties that were once thought to exist are not, I am convinced, any longer a real obstacle.

Mr. R. Carr

With the spirit of what the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) said, and with his ultimate intention, I have no reason to disagree. This is one of those maddening cases where Governments often tend to be stuffy for what they conceive, rightly or wrongly, to be sound, cautious reasons not only of administration but of feeling one's way. I have always been a very strong believer in the desirability of giving the people who work in an under taking the maximum possible information about that undertaking's affairs and its more general prospects and plans—

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Including U.C.S.

Mr. Carr

One of the troubles there was that the employers did not themselves know what they were doing, so they were not exactly the people to tell their employees.

As I was saying, I believe in giving information. Nevertheless, this is a new concept of general practice. Many companies, large, medium-sized and small, have done this for a long time. Unfortunately, in terms of the total number of companies, this is still the exception rather than the rule. Once the Bill becomes law, it will become increasingly the rule rather than the exception.

8.0 p.m.

There will be some need for experiment, for trial and error, in the best ways of giving the sort of information which is most meaningful to employees. One could simply say that every company, or at least every public company, should send a copy of its annual report to all its employees. That would be better than nothing; but I sometimes find annual reports difficult to understand. They vary in their comprehensibility.

There is no question of wanting to give employees less information than shareholders, far from it; but time will be needed for experiment and for trial and error about the most meaningful ways in which to give information to employees once it becomes a statutory requirement to do so rather than something which companies have developed, as I think rightly, as a matter of good practice.

We feel that we ought to start rather cautiously. As we believe that the main need for this provision is in the larger companies and as by definition the larger companies are of a relatively small number, we think it right to start with a relatively small number of larger companies and to learn by experience, but subsection (7) of the Clause empowers the Secretary of State to vary the figure when experience suggests that is desirable. It would be my intention to vary the figure downwards as quickly as possible.

My first judgment was that we should make 500 employees the minimum qualifying figure. As a result of pressure in another place, where 200 was suggested by the Opposition, as one noble Lord pointed out with great skill, we arithmetically exactly split the difference between 500 and 200 and came up with the figure of 350, which was acceptable to another place. I must advise the House that, to start with, this is as low a number as we should reasonably have and to go down in size would be greatly to increase the number of undertakings involved.

I believe that we should get the practice needed with this small number of undertakings in the first year or two and learn by trial and error before greatly increasing the number. I have to admit that this is a matter of judgment. This is our judgment, and I advise the House to stick to it. However, I can tell the hon. Member for Doncaster that I am in complete agreement with the spirit of what he says, and, for what it is worth, I assure the House that it is my intention to use the powers of subsection (7) to reduce the number sooner rather than later.

Mr. Frederick Lee

Did we not have an Amendment from the Government to postpone the date upon which the giving of information became obligatory in certain cases? The right hon. Gentleman then said what he has just repeated about the large number of small companies, and one understands that. But could he now be more explicit? The Lords Amendment would reduce the number of employees from 500 to 350, and my hon. Friends are asking for an even smaller number. Is 350 the kind of figure which the right hon. Gentleman has now power to postpone? He was not able to say earlier what kind of figure he had in mind, and he was able to give reasons for that, but we are now discussing figures and it is important for the House to know at what stage the employers we have in mind will be bound to give information to their employees.

At the moment, no matter what the figure is, it is apparently still the case that workers in a comparatively small factory will not get this information for some time. Until the right hon. Gentleman believes that the first stage is on course or has been accomplished, he will not make it obligatory for employers to give this information. We shall not know at what stage the giving of information by employers will be mandatory until we know what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. For how long will he operate the power of deferment which he obtained in that earlier Amendment?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the need for information, especially in small firms. The bigger firms do not have as much difficulty about getting this kind of information, but the smaller are most backward in organisation. We do not yet know at what stage the firms of 350 employees and fewer will be able to ask employers for information.

Mr. R. Carr

I assure the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) that I intend in this instance to move straight to the figure of 350 and not to get down to it in stages. I cannot tell him precisely when, because once the Bill is law there will be many areas about which I shall have to consult, and this is clearly one where I shall have to consult closely with industry and the trade unions about the sort of regulations

needed to get the sort of information which is available to employers and useful to and wanted by employees. However, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall go straight to the 350 and as soon as possible thereafter use the regulating powers in subsection (7) to reduce the number still further.

Question put, That the Amendment be made to the Lords Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 247.

Division No. 464.] AYES [8.09 p.m.
Albu, Austen Faulds, Andrew Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. Lipton, Marcus
Allen, Scholefield Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B' ham, Ladywood) Loughlin, Charles
Archer, Peler (Rowey Regis) Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.) Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Armstrong, Ernest Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Ashley, Jack Foley, Maurice McBride, Neil
Ashton, Joe Ford, Ben McGuire, Michael
Atkinson, Norman Forrester, John Mackenzie, Gregor
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Fraser, John (Norwood) Mackie, John
Barnett, Joel Freeson, Reginald Maclennan, Robert
Beaney, Alan Galpern, Sir Myer McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Garrett, W. E. McNamara, J. Kevin
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Gilbert, Dr. John Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Bidwell, Sydney Golding, John Marks, Kenneth
Bishop, E. S. Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Marquand, David
Blenkinsop, Arthur Gourlay, Harry Marsden, F.
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Grant, George (Morpeth) Meacher, Michael
Booth, Albert Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Mendelson, John
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Millan, Bruce
Bradley, Tom Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Miller, Dr. M. S.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Hardy, Peter Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Buchan, Norman Harper, Joseph Molloy, William
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'bnrn) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Cant, R. B. Hattersley, Roy Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Carmichael, Neil Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Moyle, Roland
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Heffer, Eric S. Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Horam, John Murray, Ronald King
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Ogden, Eric
Cohen, Stanley Howell, Denis (Small Heath) O'Halloran, Michael
Coleman, Donald Huckfield, Leslie O'Malley, Brian
Conlan, Bernard Hughes, Mark (Durham) Oram, Bert
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Orme, Stanley
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Hughes, Roy (Newport) Oswald, Thomas
Crawshaw, Richard Hunter, Adam Paget, R. T.
Cronin, John Janner, Greville Palmer, Arthur
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Jay, Rt. Hn. Doublas Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.) Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Dalyell, Tam Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Pendry, Tom
Davidson, Arthur John, Brynmor Pentland, Norman
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Perry, Ernest G.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Prescott, John
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil) Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Probert, Arthur
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Delargy, H. J. Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Roper, John
Doig, Peter Judd, Frank Rhodes, Geoffrey
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Kaufman, Gerald Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Kelley, Richard Rose, Paul B.
Driberg, Tom Kinnock, Neil Sandelson, Neville
Duffy, A. E. P. Lambie, David Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Dunnett, Jack Latham, Arthur Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Eadie, Alex Lawson, George Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Edelman, Maurice Leadbitter, Ted Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick Silverman, Julius
English, Michael Leonard, Dick Skinner, Dennis
Evans, Fred Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Small, William
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.) Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.) Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Spearing, Nigel Tinn, James Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Spriggs, Leslie Tomney, Frank Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Stallard, A. W. Torney, Tom Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham) Tuck, Raphael Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon) Varley, Eric G. Woof, Robert
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John Wainwright, Edwin
Strang, Gavin Walker, Harold (Doncaster) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley Wallace, George Mr. Alan Fitch and
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.) Watkins, David Mr. William Hamling.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) Whitehead, Phillip
NOES
Adley, Robert Fookes, Miss Janet McLaren, Martin
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Foster, Sir John Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Fowler, Norman McMaster, Stanley
Atkins, Humphrey Fox, Marcus Macmillan, Maurice, (Farnham)
Awdry, Daniel Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) McNair-Wilson, Michael
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Fry, Peter McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Gardner, Edward Maddan, Martin
Balniel, Lord Gibson-Watt, David Madel, David
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Marten, Neil
Batsford, Brian Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Mather, Carol
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Maude, Angus
Bell, Ronald Goodhart, Philip Mawby, Ray
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Goodhew, Victor Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Benyon, W. Gorst, John Meyer, Sir Anthony
Berry, Hn. Anthony Gower, Raymond Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Biffen, John Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Biggs-Davidson, John Gray, Hamish Moate, Roger
Blaker, Peter Green, Alan Money, Ernle
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Grieve, Percy Monks, Mrs. Connie
Body, Richard Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Monro, Hector
Boscawen, Robert Grylls, Michael Montgomery, Fergus
Bossom, Sir Clive Gummer, Selwyn Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Bowden, Andrew Gurden, Harold Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Braine, Bernard Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Mudd, David
Bray, Ronald Hall, John (Wycombe) Murton, Oscar
Brinton, Sir Tatton Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Neave, Airey
Brocklehank-Fowler, Christopher Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Normanton, Tom
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hannam, John (Exeter) Nott, John
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Onslow, Cranley
Bryan, Paul Haselhurst, Alan Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Hastings, Stephen Osborn, John
Buck, Antony Havers, Michael Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Bullus, Sir Eric Hawkins, Paul Page, Graham (Crosby)
Burden, F. A. Hay, John Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Hayhoe, Barney Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Carlisle, Mark Hicks, Robert Peel, John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Higgins, Terence L. Percival, Ian
Channon, Paul Hiley, Joseph Pink, R. Bonner
Chapman, Sydney Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Pounder, Rafton
Chichester-Clark, R. Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Churchill, W. S. Holt, Miss Mary Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Hordern, Peter Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Hornby, Richard Raison, Timothy
Clegg, Walter Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Cockeram, Eric Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Redmond, Robert
Coombs, Derek Howell, David (Guildford) Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Cormack, Patrick Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Rees, Peter (Dover)
Costain, A. P. Hunt, John Rees-Davies, W. R.
Critchlay, Julian Hutchison, Michael Clark Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Crouch, David Iremonger, T. L. Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Curran, Charles James, David Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Jessel, Toby Ridsdale, Julian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James Jopling, Michael Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Dean, Paul Kaberry, Sir Donald Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Dixon, Piers Kilfedder, James Rost, Peter
Dodds-Parker, Douglas King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Russell, Sir Ronald
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec Kinsey, J. R. Scott, Nicholas
Drayson, G. B. Kirk, Peter Scott-Hopkins, James
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Knox, David Sharples, Richard
Dykes, Hugh Lambton, Antony Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Lane, David Shelton, William (Clapham)
Eyre, Reginald Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Sinclair, Sir George
Farr, John Le Marchant, Spencer Skeet, T. H. H.
Fell, Anthony Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Longden, Gilbert Soref, Harold
Fidler, Michael Loveridge, John Speed, Keith
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) McAdden, Sir Stephen Spence, John
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) MacArthur, Ian Sproat, Iain
McCrindle, R. A. Stanbrook, Ivor
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Helper) Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) Weatherill, Bernard
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, w.) Trafford, Dr. Anthony Wells, John (Maidstone)
Stokes, John Trew, Peter Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom Tugendhat, Christopher Wiggin, Jerry
Sutcliffe, John Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin Wilkinson, John
Tapsell, Peter van Straubenzes, W. R. Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Vaughan, Dr. Gerard Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart) Vickers, Dame Joan Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) Waddington, David Worsley, Marcus
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.) Walder, David (Clitheroe) Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Tebbit, Norman Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Temple, John M. Wall, Patrick TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret Walters, Dennis Mr. Jasper More and
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth) Ward, Dame Irene Mr. Tim Fortescue.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to

Forward to