Lords amendment: No. 24, after clause 17, insert the following new Clause:
.—(1) This section applies where—
(2) Subject to subsections (3) to (5), the amount of the worker's computed remuneration that is to be attributed to either the relevant period or the remaining period for the purposes of this Part shall, if not apparent from the terms of the worker's contract, be the amount which bears to the total amount of the workers's computed remuneration the same proportion as the relevant period, or (as the case may be) the remaining period, bears to the total time worked by the worker in the week in question.
(3) Where any particular amount falling to be added or subtracted under section (Computation of remuneration) (1) as it applies to any week is exclusively referable to the relevant period, the amount of the worker's computed remuneration to be attributed to that period for the purposes of this Part shall be determined by either—
(4) In subsection (3) "the unattributed balance", in relation to the particular amount in question means so much of that amount as is not taken into account for the purpose of determining the amount to be attributed to the relevant period in accordance with subsection (2).
(5) Where any particular amount falling to be added or subtracted under section (Computation of remuneration) (1) as it applies to any week is exclusively referable to the remaining period, subsections (3) and (4) shall apply to any particular amount as if—
(6) The preceding provisions of this section shall apply to a piece worker as they apply to a time worker but as if—
Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 30, in clause 25, page 28, line 23, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—( ) Notwithstanding section 14(3)—
- (a) where a worker is employed partly for the purposes of his employer's business and partly not, nothing in any order under section 14 shall apply to the worker in his employment otherwise than for the purposes of that business, and
- (b) where a worker is employed for the purposes of his employer's business both in an employment to which an order under section 14 applies and in one to which that order does not apply, nothing in that order shall apply to the worker in the second of those employments."
§ Mr. Trippier
Amendment No. 24 introduces a new clause that modifies the provisions of the new clause after clause 16, which we have discussed. It states how that clause is to be applied in cases where a worker's employment is only partly within the scope of a wages order, or within the scope of more than one such order. Essentially, it is a matter of apportioning the amount of remuneration calculated as paid to the worker between the in-scope and the out-of-scope work. The apportionment is to be made according to the proportion of time spent on work of each type, except where the worker's contract provides otherwise. In the event that any element of the remuneration is attributable wholly to work of one type, the calculation of apportionment has to take account of that fact.
Amendment No. 30 is related to the inclusion of the new clause after clause 17. As presently drafted, subsections (3) and (4) include the phrasenothing in this Part …. shall be construed as applying".The amendment replaces that withnothing in any order under section 14 shall apply".The amendment also qualifies clause 14(3), which would otherwise have the effect of making a wages order applicable to workers whether they were employed either fully or partly on work to which the order applied. The new clause, in effect, carries forward the similar provision in clause 18 of the Wages Councils Act 1979. I commend it to the House.
§ Ms. Clare Short
This is an enormously complicated provision, similar to the one that we have just discussed. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) is not here to add up the words and length of the sentences. It is all about how to calculate the relevance of the statutory minimum wage to workers who are partly covered and partly not covered by a wages council order.
Given that position, such complicated provisions are necessary. We put it to the Minister before we discussed the Bill, and I put it to him again now, how much better it would be to rationalise the coverage of wages councils orders. We gave the Minister example after example in Committee of workers, parts of whose jobs were covered by wages councils orders and other parts which were not 501 so covered. The Minister also gave examples of someone who cleans as well as works in a shop who is covered by two different wages councils orders.
The Government's refusal to make any provision in the Bill for the review of scope to rationalise these anomalies is another example of the point made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) that the Bill has a hidden agenda underpinning it—to phase out, minimise and undercut wages councils and make them less and less effective so that they will be brought into disrepute and can eventually be killed off.
The necessity for this very complicated provision is simply that the the Government will not rationalise the coverage of wages councils orders. We must accept that now, but the better remedy would be to ensure that most workers were covered all of the time by one wages council order and not to have people partially protected. There is the example of the post office in which someone working behind the sweet counter was protected but not protected if he went to sell the stamps. That ridiculous mess will not be put right because there are no provisions in the Bill to correct that position.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.