Wages Councils Act (Amendment) (Hansard, 19 October 1982)

§ Mr. Robert C. Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, West)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal section 16 of the Wages Councils Act 1979. In moving this First Reading I am deeply conscious of the fact that I can expect scant support from the Secretary of State for Employment, who firmly believes that school leavers should work for £15 a week, and who is committed to set aside the fair wages resolution of 1946 and to denounce convention 94 of the International Labour Organisation, but I hope that in spite of the widely held opinions of this disastrous Secretary of State the House will support me and the will of the people in their desire to see compassion afforded to our disabled people.

Section 16 of the Wages Councils Act provides that, where both sides of a wages council agree, and subject to the verification of the Wages Inspectorate, disabled workers can be paid a lower rate than that set out in the appropriate wages council order.

The types of disability vary widely. What they all have in common is the threat held over people's heads that they will lose their jobs if the lower rate is not agreed by the wages council. That is a dreadful threat and leads the few workers for whom an application is made to acquiesce in the permit application being made. Alternatively, in some cases it leads to the parents of the disabled youngsters pressing desperately—because of the need to keep the measure of independence that a job gives—for them to keep the job, even at any price.

I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister's response a few moments ago at Question Time, when she said "We roundly condemn any discrimination which could threaten people with the loss of their jobs." If the Prime Minister has any integrity left, she will be glad to support me in my efforts to have this modest amendment made to the Act.

Another feature that all such applications have in common is that the Wages Inspectorate, which validates the original application, does not ask whether the person for whom the permit is sought is a registered disabled worker. The assessment is made by the inspector, sometimes backed up by medical documentation and sometimes not. In all cases, however, the plea of the employer is that the person concerned does not work as fast as the able-bodied workers.

The Government own and run Remploy, a good institution for the employment of disabled workers. The company employs able-bodied and disabled workers on identical rates of pay. At Remploy, a lower output is required from disabled workers, and rightly so, but recognition is given to the fact that disabled workers need the same money—if not more money—to live on as other 232 workers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might well bear in mind, when he introduces his next financial statement, that people who have the misfortune to wear calipers wear out far more pairs of trousers than able-bodied people do. He might consider giving them a special allowance.

With the wages councils, the reverse is the assumption, with the ever-present threat of unemployment as the incentive to agree to wages below the minimum rate for the job. There are already over 213,000 disabled workers unemployed. The average all-grade rate for wages councils—it includes negotiated rates as well as the rates at the top of the skill ladder—is estimated to be about £74 a week. That is an increase of about 50 per cent. since the consolidating Act was passed, and we are all grateful for that. What is more important is that the number of permits applied for has increased even more.

When the Act was passed, the number of permits was 21 for 32 wages councils. A year later, when the average rate rose by 23 per cent.., the applications rose by a staggering 229 per cent., from 21 to 69. It is true that in 1981 there was a drop from 69 to 31. During the course of this year the average wage council increase has been about 7 per cent., and the first five months of the year saw 65 lower rated payments granted. If that pattern were to be extended to the year end, 156 permits would be granted this year—a 650 per cent. increase in the number of permits so granted. No one can say that in a three-year period the disabled seeking non-sheltered employment have risen in number by 650 per cent.

The section is mean-minded. In 1982 the total number of permits granted—that is, using the extension—is 0.01 per cent. of the entire work force covered by wages councils. In previous years the figures had been even smaller. I estimate that merely to administer the permit scheme costs a maximum of £16,000, and a minimum of £8,000, a year, simply to save a few employers a maximum of £384 a year, at a cost to the State of about £70 per worker. Therefore, the repeal is warranted on the grounds of morality and of cost. I hope that I shall have the support of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert C. Brown, Mr. Jack Ashley, Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. Neil Carmichael, Dr. John Cunningham, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. A. E. P. Duffy, Mr. Michael English, Mr. James Johnson, Mr. Giles Radice, Mr. George Robertson and Mr. Frank R. White.