HC Deb 05 August 1975 vol 897 cc425-8
Mr. Hayhoe

I beg to move Amendment No. 211, in page 139, line 11, after 'conditions', insert 'substantially less favourable than'.

The schedule, with Clause 99, forms one of the most controversial parts of the Bill, one in which there is, perhaps, the widest difference of judgment about its effect and implications. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the matter, and to reflect more accurately the purposes which Ministers have from time to time said are behind their proposals.

The phrase: general level of terms and conditions". which has been around for a long time, as part of the fair wages resolution of this House of 1946, is not precise. What does it mean? Is it the numerical average or the arithmetical mean, or a median figure? It seems to be fairly certain that there is no clear and precise definition. I am advised that in one judgment in 1973 the Industrial Arbitration Board came down on the side of its being the numerical average. If that view were endorsed by the Central Arbitration Committee that would give a powerful push to inflationary wage or salary increases. The effect might well be greatest in white-collar employment.

12.45 a.m.

In our earlier debate about the low-paid we heard of the problem that if the lowest group within a general body of workers is taken up to a figure close to the average that in turn pushes up the average, which means that a new group can move up to the average. It is a never-ending spiral which can have damaging inflationary effects.

The fair wages resolution has not been much used over the past 30 years. I think that it has resulted fewer than 50 times in hearings before the industrial arbitration tribunals. But that is no guide for the future, because publicity has been given to these matters, and people may well now be seeing how they can best use the provisions to serve their own interests, particularly as the provisions seem to be outside those governed by the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act. They may provide the possibility of driving a coach and horses through that measure.

The Minister has said on a number of occasions that the purpose of these provisions was to deal with certain pockets of low pay. We fear that their effect may well go much wider. I have no general quarrel with the Government's stated purpose, but I have grave doubts about their actions. I hope that they will accept that there are genuine fears about the way in which the provisions might be used.

I appreciate that it is unlikely that the Government will be prepared to accept the amendment, but if they will consider the arguments carefully—I know that representations have been made to them on these matters by the CBI—I shall seek to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

I should like to ask the Minister of State a question which affects an industry of which he has personal knowledge. If the amendment were accepted, would it—as I hope—prevent the schedule being used to upset a wages pattern within a district in the shipbuilding industry? I think particularly of the situation on Clydeside. In Upper Clyde there is a tradition of having the steel workers all on one basic rate, whereas in the lower reaches, only a few miles down the river, there is not that tradition, and the platers and welders receive substantially more than other steel work trades. It would appear that the schedule, if unamended, could be used to remove a pocket of low pay and upset a wages pattern, thereby causing a great deal of industrial disruption.

Mr. Booth

The schedule would not touch on the situation that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) described, because it is qualified, and where there are existing agreements it would not bite. I should be very surprised if most of the wages, terms and conditions in the shipbuilding industry on Clydeside were not settled through collective agreements already in force and subject to national agreements.

The effect of the amendment is hard to predict, because it very much depends on what is meant by "substantially". Therefore, I take it a little amiss to be told that the terms we are using are rather imprecise. They are very similar to those used in the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act and the fair wages resolution. These terms have not had the result feared and predicted by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe). But I think there is an idea which we have not considered in Committee and which is worthy of con- sideration. I do not think we could accept the amendment in these terms, if only because the term "substantial" might have such an effect that somebody who was seeking to make a claim for an increase from £28 to £35 a week might succeed on the ground that £7 a week was a substantial difference, and this could be followed immediately by somebody, starting from a base of £31 a week, making a claim in exactly the same circumstances and being told that the difference was not substantial in that case. No doubt those concerned would feel greatly aggrieved by that situation.

I say this only to indicate that I would not be prepared, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, to accept the amendment at this stage, but we shall be prepared to consider it, without any commitment whatsoever, because it raises something we have not looked at before, and we are anxious to set at rest what we think are the unjustified fears of many people in relation to Schedule 11 of the Bill, which we think will have the effect of dealing with very low pay areas and particular anomalies which exist in the general level of terms and conditions.

Mr. Hayhoe

I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that he will look at the point again. Of course, one does not pretend that the words on the Notice Paper are the final answer. I am advised that "substantial" means something to the lawyers in a fairly clear sort of way, but these are matters where technical advice is needed, and I hope that the Minister will now, in discussion with outside authorities, try to achieve a result which will allay their fears without detracting from his intended purpose for this clause, which is to deal with pockets of low pay. If words could be found to limit the impact of Clause 89 and of this schedule it would be a great advantage all round.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to