§ 5 p.m.
§ Mr. HayhoeI beg to move Amendment No. 49, in page 20, line 43, at end insert:
' and the amount of guarantee payment payable to an employee in respect of any one week shall not exceed the amount which when added to any earnings in respect of any work actually done during that week, equals that employee's week's pay, which shall be calculated by applying the provisions of Part II of Schedule 3 to this Act'.The object of the amendment is to ensure that in the operation of a guaranteed payments system as outlined in these clauses an individual employee will not end up with more money as a result of their operation than he would receive for 266 normal full-time working for a normal week.We debated this matter at length in Committee, and the Minister assured the Committee that he would seek to meet what he accepted to be the reasonable arguments that the Opposition made. He concluded his remarks by saying:
However, I shall look at this question again and try to find some way of dealing with it on Report, so that we can introduce a guaranteed safeguard element for the week without introducing these enormous complications and difficulties."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 19th June 1975; c. 605–6.]We recognise that there are difficulties in trying to cover these eventualities in the legislation, but we think that some effort should be made to do so. However, the Opposition's drafting does not necessarily achieve all that we would wish, and it may have some wholly unintentional damaging consequences. So by putting down this amendment again we 267 hope that further assurances will be forthcoming from the Minister, since clearly he has been unable to find a way to achieve this during the interval between our discussion in Committee on 19th June and today, that perhaps during the Summer Recess his experts and officials may be able to come up with a formulation of words which can be considered in another place.
§ Mr. John FraserI appreciate the tone in which the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) introduced the amendment. My hon. Friends and I have considered this matter, but without coming to a conclusion that the Bill should be amended. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot give any assurance that an amendment to meet the hon. Gentleman's points will be introduced in another place.
The essence of the problem is to decide what is the simplest and most effective scheme both from the point of view of the employee who ought to be able to understand what he is entitled to and from that of employers who have to administer the scheme. We have come to the conclusion that it should be a scheme based on a daily entitlement. To introduce a ceiling on guarantee pay plus earnings in a week would virtually mean grafting a weekly guarantee on to a daily scheme. The mixture of the two would produce inordinate complexities, and we have not been able to find any solution that would not mean that the cure was worse than the disease.
The chief difficulty lies in the way it would complicate entitlement rules. A weekly ceiling such as is proposed could mean in a particular case that an employee got only, say, £1 or £2 for a day's layoff. Should this day count against his five days? Obviously it would be grossly unfair if it did, for other employees would be getting £6 for each of their five days. It is when we try to get over this difficulty that we come up against the horrifying complications that I have already mentioned.
My impression in discussing this Bill with employers and with representatives of the CBI is that the general feeling outside this House is that our legislation should be simple to understand for the benefit of those who have to implement it. 268 They cry out against undue complications in legislation. If we tried to graft a weekly limit on to a daily entitlement, we would create complications with which they would find it extremely difficult to live.
We have a choice between a simple comprehensible scheme based on practical experience and of trying to devise one based more on anomalies and perhaps flights of imagination than typical circumstances. Weighing up the two, we feel that it is better to have a simple, comprehensible scheme.
It is not impossible to conceive of a situation where an employee works extremely hard and puts in extra effort for, say, four days a week not knowing that on the fifth day a boiler will explode or that some event will take place denying him a fifth day's work. In those circumstances, it would be unfair to penalise him by reducing the daily entitlement for the fifth day.
We have looked at this carefully, but I am afraid that the cure may be worse than the disease. Therefore, with the assurance that we have looked at this proposal carefully, I hope that the Opposition will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
§ Mr. HayhoeThe hon. Gentleman's comments about extra effort are important, and they were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) when he introduced this amendment originally in Committee. We recognise that there are difficulties in seeking to cover all these possibilities by legislation.
The plea of the Under-Secretary for simplicity is echoed on the Opposition benches. It comes ill from a Minister sponsoring a Bill of unparalleled complexity to argue for simplicity as we move through this rich quarry of unintelligible legal jargon. However, perhaps I should not touch upon these wider questions at this stage, especially when we are making such good progress.
Obviously it will be open to interested associations and organisations outside which are following our proceedings with care to make further representations to the Minister between now and the Committee stage in the other place, and, if a formulation of words which has the 269 advantage of simplicity and fairness can be produced, I am sure that the Ministers will not shut their minds to it.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.