PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SS. 2 AND 3 (Hansard, 14 May 1986)

§ Mr, Trippier
I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 5, line 30, leave out subsection (1) and insert— '(1) In this section "final instalment of wages", in relation to a worker, means—
(a) the amount of wages payable to the worker which consists of or includes an amount payable by way of contractual remuneration in respect of the last of the periods for which he is employed under his contract prior to its termination for any reason (but excluding any wages referable to any earlier such period), or

(b) where an amount in lieu of notice is paid to the worker later than the amount referred to in paragraph (a), the amount so paid,
in each case whether the amount in question is paid before or after the termination of the worker's contract.'.

§ Mr. Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 36, 37 and 40.

§ Mr. Trippier
These are a set of technical amendments to the first three subsections of clause 4. The subsections ensure that the limits on deductions to payments related to cash shortages or stock deficiencies established by clauses 2 and 3 do not apply to the final payment of wages.

§ Mr. Eastham
As the Minister rightly said, these are technical amendments. I was intrigued by the Government's subtle use of the word "instalment", as, originally, the word "payment" was used. I do not understand the reason for that change, and I am always suspicious when sophisticated language is used. As a consequence of that change, how much more will workers lose? I am not a lawyer, and perhaps the answer is obvious to a barrister or solicitor.
I also wish to ask about the reference to an amount in lieu of notice. We are sometimes, rightfully, suspicious when an employer decides to get rid of an employee who, if he must leave the premises immediately, is entitled to pay in lieu of notice. I wonder whether the amendment has been drafted in such a way that the accumulation of 10 per cent. deductions, which could be fabricated, could mean that an employer could withhold the pay in lieu of notice, thus practically sending the worker home with nothing. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify those points for me because I am a little baffled.

§ Mr. Caborn
I wish to follow that point by asking about people who have accrued holiday pay. Sometimes the accumulation of holiday pay depends on the time served in a company or at a place of work. If holiday pay were to be paid to a person leaving a company, would that also be subject to the type of deduction to which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) has referred?
Will the Bill have a different effect if the new type of pay slips which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced recently were implemented, in which 20 per cent. of one's wages can be tax-free? If so, does that mean that it would also be deduction-free in relation to the 10 per cent.? I should be interested to know the answer, because it might throw a new light on the Bill, given the new wages structure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer apparently wants to introduce.

§ Ms. Clare Short
The Minister spoke extremely briefly to the amendments. He did not explain why the Government had introduced them. Perhaps that was because he got into something of a muddle in Committee about what clause 4(1) really meant, about what was covered and about what was included in the final payment of wages. I suspect that the amended drafting is considered to be better, and it probably is. However, it would be interesting to hear the Minister explain its introduction.
We must not let this opportunity pass without saying how strongly we object to the Government's definition of the final payment of wages, and the way in which they have exempted that final payment from any protection, such as the 10 per cent. limitation for a small group of retail workers who are accused of cash shortages or stock deficiencies. The way in which the amendment provides for payment in lieu of notice to be treated is an invitation to an employer to confiscate the whole payment in lieu of notice when someone is being sacked as a result of a dispute. It is outrageous that the Government should invite employers to treat their workers like that. If there is a case for giving a 10 per cent. protection to workers, it also extends to the final payment of wages.
Judging by the way in which the Government have drafted the provision and have drawn attention to money 796 paid in lieu of notice, they are telling employers that, if they decide to sack someone and to accuse them of something that they have not done, they can deduct all the money paid in lieu of notice. The Government are saying that they can do that if they want to be spiteful, and that they will go to great trouble to draft the Bill to enable them to do so. We have here yet another example of the Government's mean-mindedness, which infects every part of the Bill.

§ Mr. Trippier
That is a bit thick. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said that the Government were mean-minded. The hon. Lady knows from the amendments that I have tabled that I have been anxious to meet many of the points made in Committee. She has been churlish in remarking on the Government's attitude and my attitude, and has claimed credit every lime she thinks that the Labour party has pulled something off. There has been no recognition of the fact that we debated the matter fully in Committee and that I sometimes accepted the points made. That is unfair.

§ Ms. Clare Short
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Trippier
I shall give way in a moment. The attitude adopted by the hon. Member for Ladywood would not, I am sure, have been adopted by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). But I shall try to respond to some of the points made in this short debate.

§ Ms. Short
It is, perhaps, appropriate that we should fall out at this late stage. But we have made it clear to the Minister throughout that the Bill is rotten. The Bill's whole nasty approach will lead to an increase in poverty among the poorest paid workers in the country. We also made it clear that we did not think that there was much point in simply getting angry with one another. We wanted to make a detailed case against the Bill, and that is what we tried to do in Committee, instead of shouting at one another incoherently.
In the course of that long dispute, some minor concessions were won. We were grateful for every scrap that we could get. Each time we got a scrap, we said that it was a scrap and that it did not affect the fundamentally objectionable nature of the Bill. However, we were grateful for the scraps, because they would protect some workers. That remains the position. The Minister knows it. There has never been any dispute about it. For him to suggest that we are somehow changing our position at this late stage is quite wrong.

§ Mr. Trippier
I am not suggesting in any way that the Opposition have changed their position. I respect the fact that they have opposed the Bill throughout and, have done so, as far as they were able, in a constructive manner. I am simply saying that I think the hon. Lady has been unfair today. I was referring not to the Opposition, just to the hon. Lady.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) referred to holiday pay. Clause 7 deals with the meaning of wages and what is incorporated in the definition of wages under clause 4. The hon. Gentleman's point is covered in clause 7(1)(a).
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Ladywood when she says that the Opposition do not like the fact that any outstanding moneys which are due to an employer could not or should not be collected on the last day that a payment is made to a worker. If money is due to an 797 employer, it is absolutely right that it should be collected. If there is not sufficient money in the gross pay which is paid in the last payment, it is absolutely right that the employer should have recourse to a court of law, which he does through civil proceedings, for collection of the money, although I suspect, as I have said in Committee, that on many occasions an employer would not go to that trouble.
I am under an obligation to deal with a point raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham). The amendment changes the term "final payment of wages" to "final instalment of wages". Although that is of no legal consequence—I do not want the hon. Gentleman to read anything into this—it conveys more satisfactorily the concept that the payment is the final one in a series of periodic instalments of wages. The amendment also shortens and clarifies the proposed subsection. If the Opposition wish to be consistent—they have said that they like the shorter wording in the Bill—perhaps they will agree to the amendments which are purely technical.