GENERAL EXCLUSIONS FROM RIGHT UNDER SECTION 22 (Hansard, 29 October 1975)

§ Mr. Booth

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

The effect of the amendment is to take from employees the right to guarantee payments where lay off or short-time working results from an interruption of fuel and power supplies beyond the control of their employer. Clauses 22 to 26 establish a right in the first five days of any lay off in any quarter of a year to be paid a calculated daily payment subject to a £6 limit. There is a general exclusion in Clause 23 of those cases where the lay off results from a strike or lockout involving the employer or an associated employer. The amendment would extend the exclusion to fuel and power strikes and lockouts.

It is not logical to make an extension to one group of strikes outside the realm in which the employer or employees are concerned and not extend the principle into other strike areas. I can recognise the logic of the argument that no guarantee payments should be paid to anyone whose lay off is the result of a strike, but that is not the argument in the amendment.

The amendment would have a much wider effect. It would cause those who were laid off or put on short time as a result of a breakdown in electricity supplies, a failure of fuel delivery or anything in that area, also to lose their rights to guarantee payments. That is another objection. 1653 If it is argued that because an employer has no control over an interruption in fuel and power supplies he should not contribute to guarantee payments, it should also logically be argued that anything else over which he has no control should free him from that obligation, but the whole purpose of guarantee payments is to insure the employee in a limited way, to guarantee him this payment for the first five days of any lay off or short-time working in a quarter.

That is a modest right. Most white-collar workers expect, as a normal feature of their terms and conditions, far better guarantees against such contingencies. It would be wrong for the House to agree with the amendment and reduce still further a limited but important right of employees who, in, unfortunately, all too many cases, suffer from lay off and short-time working.

§ Mr. David Madel (Bedfordshire, South)

This amendment has become very relevant in view of the disputes and difficulties that there have been in the nationalised industries in the past few years. I expect the Government to say that that has all changed and that we have such a peaceful scene on the industrial relations front that it could not happen again. However, there could perfectly easily be an interruption in coal, electricity or gas supplies. That is why this amendment was moved in another place.

The other point that is highly relevant is the fact that, with the rise in unemployment and the downturn in demand, some industries are in such a difficult and precarious position that if there were a breakdown in the supplies of fuel and power they would be put in an even more difficult position. In another place it was pointed out that when there is an interruption in fuel and power supplies the private employer is helpless and that the private employer has not been party to the negotiations which in that particular industry may have resulted in a breakdown in the supplies of fuel and power. The private employer has no income with which to pay the work force and is, therefore, put in an impossible situation.

The Minister asked, if we were to allow this exception, would there not be a danger that many other exceptions would 1654 be used? As fuel and power are essential to a factory, and without their supply the factory is at a complete standstill, we believe that, in logic, we can draw this narrow line, as was done in another place.

The Minister who answered the debate in another place, Lord Melchett, said that the employer could take alternative action: for example, by arranging for different sources of supply, rescheduling work, and so on."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22nd September 1975; Vol. 364, c. 118.] That is an unrealistic answer to the points raised earlier in that debate. The employer is not in that position if there is an interruption in the supply of fuel and power.

The Minister here did not answer this point fully in his remarks this afternoon. We know how difficult the situation is for industry at present. We know, from what has happened in the past three to four years, the impossible position industries are in if there is an interruption in these supplies.

In the interests of time we do not intend to divide the House on this amendment, but we reiterate that we can, in logic, draw this distinction between an interruption in fuel and power supplies and other alterations or difficulties which might occur.

We regret that the Minister cannot accept this amendment. If it were agreed to, the circumstances envisaged would not necessarily arise very often. Should we again—and we hope we do not—have an interruption in these supplies, we warn the Minister that some firms will face enormous difficulties in having to meet this guarantee payment.