WAGES ORDERS (Hansard, 23 July 1986)

HC Deb 23 July 1986 vol 102 cc491-9 491

§ Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 16, line 1, leave out "section 17(4)" and insert section (Computation of remuneration) (2(b) and 3(b)

§ Mr. Trippier
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Lords amendments: No. 16, in clause 16, page 18, leave out lines 12 to 32 and insert— 16. — (1) If, in the case of any worker to whom an order under section 14 applies, the amount of remuneration paid to the worker by his employer in respect of any week is less than the statutory minimum remuneration provided for him by the order in respect of that week, the worker shall be taken to be entitled under his contract to be paid the difference between those two amounts as additional remuneration in respect of that week. No. 17 in page 18, line 33, leave out "relation to" and insert "respect of" No. 18, in page 18, line 34, leave out "remuneration not less than" and insert an amount of remuneration equal to, or exceeding, No. 19, in page 19, line 16, leave out from "(a)" to "by" in line 19 and insert the statutory minimum remuneration provided for the worker in respect of the week in question No. 20, in page 19, line 21, leave out "actually so paid" and insert "paid to the worker" No. 21, in page 19, line 42, at end insert— ( ) Any reference in this section, in relation to a worker, to remuneration or statutory minimum remuneration in respect of a week shall be construed as a reference to remuneration or statutory minimum remuneration in respect of the following, namely—

(a) in the case of a time worker, time worked by the worker in that week, and

(b)in the case of a piece worker—

(i) work executed by the worker in that week, and

(ii) any such time as is mentioned in section 15(4) occurring during that week."

No. 22, after Clause 16 insert the following new clause—

§ Computation of remuneration —(1) For the purpose of determining, for the 492 purposes of this Part, the amount of remuneration paid to a time worker by his employer in respect of time worked by the worker in any week there shall be added together—

(a) the total amount of any money payments made by the employer to the worker, on or before the relevant pay day, by way of remuneration in respect of time worked by him in that week, and
(b) the total amount of any deductions made by the employer (whether in accordance with Part I or not) when making the payment of wages which consisted of or included those money payments, apart from deductions falling to be left out of account under this paragraph by virtue of subsection (2),

and then, from the aggregate of those amounts, there shall be subtracted the aggregate of—

(i) the worker's necessary expenditure in connection with his employment to the extent that such expenditure consists of payments to persons other than the employer, is attributable to that week and is not met, or designed to be met, by an allowance paid to him by the employer, and
(ii) the total amount of any payments received from the worker by the employer (whether in accordance with Part I or not) and falling to be taken into account under this paragraph by virtue of subsection (3).

(2) The following deductions shall be left out of account under subsection (1)(b), namely—

(a) any deduction in respect of the worker's necessary expenditure in connection with his employment to the extent that the deduction is attributable to the week in question,
(b) any deduction in respect of the provision of living accommodation for the worker by the employer to the extent that the deduction exceeds any limit for the time being in force in relation to the worker by virtue of section 14(1)(c), and
(c) subject to subsection (4), any other deduction made by the employer for his own use and benefit (and accordingly not attributable to any amount paid or payable by him to any other person, or to any authority, on behalf of the worker).

(3) The following payments by the worker shall be taken into account under subsection W(ii), namely—

(a) any payment in respect of the worker's necessary expenditure in connection with his employment to the extent that the payment is attributable to the week in question.
(b) any payment due from the worker in that week in respect of the provision of living accommodation for him by the employer to the extent that the payment exceeds any limit for the time being in force in relation to the worker by virtue of section 14(1)(c) , and
(c) subject to subsection (4), any other payment due from the worker in that week and retained by the employer for his own use and benefit (and accordingly not attributable to any amount paid or payable by him to any other person, or to any authority, on behalf of the worker).

(4) Subsections (2)(c) and (3)(c) do not apply—

(a) to deductions made or payments received by the employer on account of any of the following matters, namely—

(i) any conduct of the worker or any other event in respect of which he (whether together with any other workers or not) has any contractual liability,
(ii) any advance under an agreement for a loan or any advance of wages, or
(iii) the purchase by the worker of any shares or other securities or of any share in a partnership; or

(b) to deductions made or payments received by the employer on account of any goods or services supplied by the employer with the worker's prior agreement or consent to the extent that any such deductions or payments do not result in the 493 employer recovering from the worker an amount exceeding the cost to the employer of supplying the goods or services in question;

and accordingly any such deductions shall not be left out of account under subsection (1)(b) and any such payments shall not he taken into account under subsection (1)(ii). (5) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b) the cost to an employer of supplying any goods or services shall—

(a) where he supplies goods or services of the kind in question in the course of his business, be taken to be the amount which he would have obtained for the goods or services if they had been supplied in the course of that business; and
(b) in any other case, be taken to be the amount of expenditure incurred by the employer in connection with the supply by him of the goods or services.

(6) The preceding provisions of this section shall apply to a piece worker as they apply to a time worker but as if, in subsection (1), any reference to remuneration in respect of time worked by the worker in any week were a reference to remuneration in respect of—

(a) work executed by him in any week, and
(b) any such time as is mentioned in section 15(4) that occurs during the week.

(7) In this section— deduction" does not include any such deficiency in the payment of wages as is mentioned in section 8(3); "money payment" means—

(a) a payment in cash,
(b) a payment by cheque or by a money or postal order issued by the Post Office, or
(c) a payment (however effected) into any account kept with a bank or other institution;

"relevant pay day", in relation to any week of a worker's employment, means the day on which his remuneration in respect of that week is payable; wages" has the same meaning as in Part I. No. 23, in clause 17, page 20, line 7, leave out Clause 17.

§ No. 27, in clause 19, in page 23, line 44, after "of" an amount of"

§ Mr. Trippier
This group of amendments relates to the enforcement of wages orders and the method of calculation of remuneration to be regarded as paid to the worker for the purposes of comparison with the statutory remuneration due under the order. They are technical amendments. I hope that the House will accept them.

§ Mr. Nellist
I want to use this as an illustration of a point that has been made twice before this evening. We are debating new clause 17.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We are debating the Lords amendments. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stick to them.

§ Mr. Nellist
These amendments have the effect of introducing new clause 17. It renumbers the clauses and alters the operation of the former clause in the Bill when it left this House.
There was very little debate in the other place on this group of amendments. It amounts to four columns of debate in the Official Report. The typeface of the Official Report in the other place is significantly larger than that of this House. The printing of the new clause took up a further two and a half columns. A further column dealt with requests from various peers for notes on clauses. At that point Lord McCarthy said that he had not yet understood the amendments to the clause. He has wide experience of industrial law and industrial relations law.
494 If, over the days and weeks of debate in the Lords, he could not understand it, how can we be exepected to understand it in nine or 10 hours today?
On Report in the Lords, this group of amendments was briefly discussed in a debate covering three columns of Hansard. Lord McCarthy said: We feel that it is still a most dreadfully written and complicated clause." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 8 July 1986; vol. 478, c. 244.] 12.45 am
The reason for all the points of order yesterday and today is that last night in the Lords on Third Reading, this group of amendments was subject to further Government amendments to tidy up the introduction of new clause 17 which defines wages. Even the Government failed to understand what they were doing in early July, and last night in the Lords they were still amending the Bill. Despite that, we are expected in a few hours to comprehend and grasp everything they have done. The Government spent last night clarifying and improving the Bill by tabling this group of amendments. That is further proof of the justice of the points of order that we raised. This is a totally unacceptable way for the people that we represent, low-paid workers, to have their future decided.

§ Ms. Clare Short
We all know that it is late and none of us wants to stay up any longer than necessary. I am surprised that the Minister did not talk at rather greater length about new clause 17. It is an extremely important clause, and without further comment he simply said that they are technical amendments and told us that he assumed they are acceptable.
I have the same difficulties as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) about new clause 17. I have tried to go through it and it seems to be an improvement on old clause 17, but I not sure of that because I have not had enough time to give it close scrutiny. It needs to be scrutinised in Committee, when we could go through it line by line and delve into it. When we scrutinised the other parts of the Bill in Committee we came up with all sorts of inadequacies and the Government made a number of changes. I fear that there are probably loopholes and faults in new clause 17 which none of us have had time properly to scrutinise.
It is welcome in new clause 17 that necessary expenditure in the course of a worker's employment on such items as tools and clothing that he might have to wear in his employment is deducted before it is decided whether or not the rate he is being paid is the statutory minimum. It is also welcome that any excessive charges for accommodation should be excluded, although I find that provision odd, because under the provisions of the Bill wages councils have power to set limits to the charges for accommodation for those over 21.
In future we expect to see under-2l-year-olds being charged for accommodation when they work, for example, in a hotel at a rate well above that charged to the adults whom they work alongside. That would be a major injustice. Given that it would be illegal to overcharge, it seems odd that that provision has been included, but perhaps there is some explanation for that.
I am afraid I have another query on new clause 17(4). The notes circulated by the Department of Employment tell us that if a deduction is made for any conduct of the worker or any event for which he is contractually liable, either personally or along with other 495 workers. This includes disciplinary deductions such as fines for lateness, recompense for damage to the employer's property, etc such a deduction would not be included in a reference to the statutory minimum wages council. Why is that so? Why are deductions of that sort not to be counted in calculating the national minimum wage? That seems wrong and inappropriate.
It is obviously right that there is a provision in the new clause which means that workers cannot in future be paid in truck by being given some of the goods that they produce. That practice is growing in my constituency in the new appalling low-paying sweatshops that are springing up in the west midlands. Some of the Asian women working in those sweatshops are given a number of garments at the end of the week together with measly and illegal sums of money. The garments are supposed to count towards their wages. There is a provision that says that vouchers and things like that which are given to workers and which can be exchanged for goods will not count towards the statutory minimum wage. That is obviously a good thing.
It is ironical that we have been told throughout discussions on the Bill that the Government are in favour of simplification so that wages councils orders can be understood by everyone, and then we have clause 17 which is horrendously complicated and difficult to understand. I am sure that many lawyers will make a lot of money out of it on the backs of the low-paid workers who will be paid even less in future as a consequence of the Bill.

§ Mr. Wainwright
Whatever the purpose of the amendment — the Government would have us believe that it is benign—it undoubtedly adds further obscurity to an already incomprehensible clause. That should not be tolerated even at this hour and under the extraordinary time pressure which the Government have thought fit to inflict upon the House.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) has said, the lengthy language of the findings of some wages councils in the past is positively lucid compared with this and one or two other clauses in part II. So the Government's case that they are somehow getting rid of a lot of bureaucratic language and introducing a simple system is bogus and will be seen to be bogus when the Act is circulated to employers.
We must ask the reason for this obscurity. I acquit Ministers of revelling in obscurity for its own sake, but there is no doubt that the obscurity arises because the Government are determined to cast a death spell over the whole system of wages councils. Rather than honestly abolish them, because that would have provoked some of the kinder Conservative Members to expostulate, they are slowly poisoning them by the grotesque device of confining wages councils to single awards only. Only a Government steeped in early Victorian attitudes could possibly suppose that single awards could conceivably even begin to cover the vast complexity of modern industrial and commercial arrangements.
Having once set out on the demeaning path of confining wages councils to single awards and single hourly rates, the Government have been caught up in a web of bureaucratic language. I confidently predict that even this amendment will not put matters right. This will not be an effective part of the statute and the courts will soon ridicule—as I hope the courts always will ridicule 496 bad legislation—the manifest defects of this unfortunate part of the Bill. It is only with a heavy heart that one can even begin to contemplate accepting the amendment.

§ Mr. William Cash (Stafford)
I rise to agree with much of what has just been said. The clause is particularly difficult to understand and I am amazed to find it at a time when we are doing everything possible to reduce the complexity of legislation, particularly when it affects people who are often at a considerable disadvantage. One must bear in mind that such legislation impinges on the daily lives of people who often do not have the advantage of being able to understand the law. That is therefore all the more reason why it should be less complicated.
I speak as one who has taken a considerable interest in trying to reduce the obscurity and complexity of the law. In a previous incarnation I had some responsibility for drafting legislation. Indeed, I helped to draft the Small Business Bill, and it took only two clauses — [Interruption.] But there is a serious point to be made despite the somewhat cynical attitude displayed by Opposition Members, including one of my colleagues on the European Legislation Committee. I am sure that he will acknowledge that I have repeatedly spoken about the obscurity of legislation.
I am anxious to ensure that we simplify the law. Ordinary people, particularly those who are less well off and less advantaged than others, find that it is not easy to gain access to legal advice, which is often expensive. They should at least be able to understand the provisions in question. I urge the Government to consider what the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) has said. I agreed with much of it.

§ Mr. Mikardo
I rise briefly to respond to what the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) said about the obscurity of this legislation and to what the hon. Member for Colne Valley called the horrendously complicated nature of it.
Subsection (1) of the new clause consists of a single sentence of 232 words. It should go into the "Guinness Book of Records". I defy anyone to disentangle a single sentence of 232 words, especially if it begins not with a principal clause, but with a sub-clause, and then a sub-subclause within the sub-clause in the very first line. It starts with a parenthesis and a parenthesis within the parenthesis in the first line, which consists of only 10 words or so, and then goes on for another 222 words before reaching the main clause.
Those of us who were taught parsing and about Nesfield and the purity of the English language cannot begin to understand. The hon. Member for Stafford was right to say that we should try to draft legislation so that the ordinary chap does not have to pay a lawyer £1,000 to go to court to discover its meaning.

§ Mr. Wainwright
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Lords amendment No. 14 either has one parenthesis mark too many or one too few? It is clear from the second line of the amendment that there is an opening bracket but no closing one. Will the Government explain their drafting?

§ Mr. Mikardo
We had a similar example earlier. It is a bit much if ordinary workers are supposed to understand and to rely for their protection on that sort of language. I know that it is not easy to draft legislation, but I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of parliamentary draftsmen to split 232 words into three "short" sentences of 80 words apiece, which would be surely long enough.

497

§ Mr. Trippier
rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Does the Minister have the leave of the House to speak again? I take it that he has.

§ 1 am

§ Mr. Trippier
It is probably stretching credulity to breaking point for the House to believe, as the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) has suggested, that the man in the street is expected to understand Bills or Acts. I have never believed that, but I am sympathetic to many of the arguments which have been advanced by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
When the Bill was in Committee, no complaint was made about the complexity of the clause. References to the Hansard reports of the debates in Committee will make that clear. Opposition Members were concerned because they did not believe that the Government were protecting workers. That was the issue raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). They did not accept that workers were being protected in the way that I suggested in Committee and I agreed to reconsider the clause. The main reason for presenting the clause in its proposed form—it would be silly of me to deny that it is more complex now—is to meet the objections made by Opposition Members in Committee, and many of those who are in their places this morning were members of the Committee. An effort has been made to meet what they had to say about the unscrupulousness of some employers, which would be evident if they were to circumvent their obligation to pay workers any less than the statutory minimum laid down by the wages council.
The following are the four main changes which have been made. First, the calculation of remuneration paid now relates specifically to the amount paid to a worker for time worked, or, in the case of a piece worker, work done in any week, and to the deductions or payments made by the worker to the employer which have been made in or are attributable to the same week. Secondly, in accordance with the undertaking that I gave hon. Members in Committee, the worker's necessary expenditure in connection with his employment which is paid to a third party is to be subtracted from the amount of money paid to the worker by the employer unless this has been met by an allowance paid by the employer. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) was especially anxious that I should try to meet that point. Perhaps he will recall that and have an opportunity to express his thanks.

§ Mr. Nellist
It is not that late in the day. I accept that we are grateful that we received the departmental notes yesterday, so we have had one day more to consider them than we had to consider notes at a previous stage in the Bill's consideration. The explanation of the necessary expenditure makes a division between travel costs in connection with the employer's business and travel-to-work expenses. Why do the Department and the Minister think that it is all right to take account of travel costs on the employer's business and not the employee's costs in getting to the business in the first place?

§ Mr. Trippier
If the hon. Gentleman had listened—I am sure he did, actually—to what I was saying prior to allowing him to intervene, he would understand. If we are 498 talking about outworkers or homeworkers, his case is somewhat weak. It would be travel to collect the work from where the homeworker would do the work. I was referring to the issue which was raised specifically in Committee.
Thirdly, provision has been made for any charge made for any goods or services supplied by the employer with the worker's prior agreement or consent to be an allowable deduction or payment, provided that the charge made does not exceed the amount that the employer would have obtained for the goods or services in the course of his business. That was another issue that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East asked me to meet, as did the hon. Member for Ladywood, and it has been met.
I apologise, especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who is as keen as I am to simplify on every conceivable occasion, for the complexity of the provisions that are before us. I hope that I can persuade my hon. Friend, if not Opposition Members, that is has not been possible to simplify and to meet the issues that were raised by hon. Members in Committee. I think that it is safe to say that if we have not been able to cover the loopholes to which I have referred, the ability of others to do so can be safely challenged.
I know that there is a compelling case, put by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar, when he asked how one expected the man in the street or the worker to read the legislation. Not only the average man in the street, but many Members of Parliament, do not understand the Bills that they are expected to consider on the Floor of the House or in Committee. That includes the hon. Gentleman. No one is an expert on that. The hon. Gentleman, on an earlier point of order, referred accurately to the fact that the whole Bill is complex. He is absolutely right; it is extremely detailed.
I again apologise to the House that we have not been able to cover the loophole without this precise wording.

§ Mr. Wainwright
Will the Minister give the House the correct version of the second line of Lords amendment No. 14, which, as it stands, is manifestly incorrect? A bracket starts that never ends.

§ Mr. Trippier
It must be a printing error.

§ Mr. Nellist
Resign.

§ Mr. Trippier
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is a matter of resignation. He must forgive me if I do not wish to meet him on that point, because the House is about to rise and I am looking forward to the recess.
The simple solution is to omit the first bracket. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) should be satisfied with that, and I shall endeavour to meet him on that point.

§ Question put and agreed to.

§ Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 17, line 19, after "time" insert "being"

§ Mr. Trippier
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)
With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments: No. 26, in clause 19, page 22, line 20, leave out "has dealings" and insert "is dealing" No. 28, in clause 25, page 27, line 4, leave out "under his contract" 499 No. 29, in page 27, line 9, at end insert and "employed", in relation to a worker, accordingly means employed under his contract;

§ Mr. Trippier
I am sure that these amendments will be widely and warmly welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I ask the House to accept them.

§ Question put and agreed to.

§ Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.