§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 15, line 32 at end insert
'and in section 15(3) (which specifies the number of relevant days for the purposes of the said section 15(2) for the expression " not exceeding five " wherever it occurs there shall be substituted " not exceeding two ".'.The amendment concerns the subject of guarantee payments. It is a simple, moderate and sensitive measure, and as the Government are a moderate, if not to say simple and sensitive, Government I hope that they will be able to accept it.On both sides of the House and in the country there has been concern for a long time about the different conditions of employment between white-collar and blue-collar workers. The situation has been divisive, discriminatory and to an extent degrading, in that whereas white-collar workers—in nineteenth century terms—have been looked upon as valued members of the company, some blue-collar workers have been looked upon as a brutal and inconsequential group of hired hands, liable to be picked up and put down at the whim of management.
The previous Labour Government introduced the concept of guarantee payments and I believe that many people had sympathy with the measure at the time that it was introduced. Of course, circumstances change and the period that was initially envisaged was five days. There are now problems, because industrial and commercial circumstances are changing and the Government, being aware of those problems, have made a change in the provision. The five days does not now apply for three months from the start of any particular month. The measure stipulates five days within any 13 consecutive weeks. That means that the liability for guarantee payments will be slightly less than it was before. 1454 No doubt the Government are introducing this proposal for good reasons and no doubt there is secure logic behind those reasons. I seek to extend the logic of what the Government are attempting to do by reducing the guarantee payment period in any consecutive 13 weeks from five days to two days. I shall explain why.
At the moment some of our industrial companies are faced with severe problems. Over the last year sterling has increased in value against other currencies by about 20 per cent. At the same time, our cost of living has risen at a higher rate than the cost of living in other countries. Therefore, for many of our manufacturers—some of whom are threatened by import competition and some of whom are operating in overseas markets, as important exporters—this is a difficult time for marketing their goods.
In those circumstances the companies most likely to be affected by guarantee payments are the very companies now in difficult circumstances, because they have not got the markets and the throughput. In many cases they also do not have the cash. If, given that unfavourable state, they need to lay people off because there is no work and at the same time have to find guarantee payments out of their limited resources, at a time of high interest rates—though it looks as though they will come down—some of those companies will go under. Some of them are bound to die, though others are viable and will recover. The additional burden of having to make guarantee payments will tip some of those companies over the edge and some potentially viable companies—which would last out the storm, recover, grow and create more jobs—will, unfortunately, be destroyed.
I accept that the original measure was a sensitive and humane one. People less charitably disposed to the Opposition than I am might say that that measure was the Danegeld paid by the previous Labour Government to the industrial vandals at Congress House. I believe that it was a humane and sensitive 1455 measure. However, continuing with that measure in its present strength could be destructive and damaging. This, after all, is an employment Bill.
There are great pressures on some of our fine, young, small and medium-sized companies, which have great potential. Those companies could, in a short time, topple over the edge of the ravine into that area presided over by the liquidator and the receiver. As this is an employment Bill I think that the Government would wish to prevent that happening wherever they could.
I await a sympathetic hearing from my right hon. Friend. I await what he has to say before deciding whether I wish to press the amendment to a Division.
§ The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior)My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) moved his amendment in a reasonable and sensible manner. With him, I entirely take the point that until recently there was a great difference between blue-collar and white-collar workers. There were many instances where white-collar workers were covered by some form of guarantee payment. A number of blue-collar workers were covered, but by no means all.
The basis of guarantee payments—let us face the fact that we are talking of five days in a three-month rolling period—is to try to move towards a concept of single-status companies. I am a great supporter of single-status companies. One of our industrial relations problems is that we have differing degrees of status for different types of employee in a company. That quickly creates bad blood. I am glad that my lion. Friend supports the concept of the single-status company.
7 pm
We believe that five days of guaranteed pay in any one three-month period is not an unreasonable burden for a company to bear, particularly since the current maximum daily rate is set at £8 a day. It is not by any means high. That is the maximum that could be claimed.
My hon. Friend referred to a company getting into difficulty and going on to short time or otherwise having to make people redundant because it could not 1456 afford to employ them. That situation could be covered by the temporary short-time working scheme. From what my hon. Friend said, I think that it would be better if such cases were dealt with in that manner.
As for the reduction from five days to three days in a three-month period, we believe that a good employer will want to give his employees that sort of basic protection. It is pretty basic. It is not a great protection. Of course, it does not apply when there is a lay-off, or when the short time results from a trade dispute involving any employee of his employer or of any associated employer.
It seems to us, and from what my hon. Friend said, that many good companies would regard cutting back on the guarantee payments in this way as a retrograde step and would not wish to support it. I believe that for these reasons it is wise for us to stick to the five days in three months.
As my hon. Friend said—I think that I should tell the House again—we made a change in the arrangements. At one time the year was split into four quarters. We realised, particularly during the lorry drivers' and steel disputes, that as the quarter ended at the end of January and the next quarter began at the beginning of February, it enabled a guarantee payment to be made for 10 days in a comparatively short period. We thought that was going too far. Therefore, we have now made it a rolling three-month period.
At one time employers were not happy that there should be a rolling period. They wanted a fixed period. We consulted widely on the point, and from that consultation it became clear that there was almost complete support among employers for the rolling period proposal. That is why we inserted it into the Bill this time round.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not feel that he ought to press his amendment to a Division. We believe that five days in any three-month period is not an unreasonable period to be covered by guarantee payment provisions. Many employers already have considerably higher guarantee pay arrangements than that. This is setting a fair, reasonable minimum.
Despite what Labour Members have said, we have been trying to be fair as 1457 between the rights of employees and employers. Because we felt that the balance was wrong, we have been, as it were, shifting the balance of bargaining power back in favour of the employer. The Government believe that to go to the extent of reducing the lay-off guarantee payment from five days to two days in three months would be shifting it too far back and too much against individual employees.
For those reasons, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.