WAGES ORDERS (Hansard, 15 May 1986)

§ Mr. Trippier
I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 14, leave out lines 10 to 12 insert— '(1A) Any such order may—
(a) make different provision under subsection (1) in relation to periods of time beginning with different dates;

(b) provide for any matter fixed by the order in pursuance of that subsection to have effect only as from a date later than that on which the order comes into force; but no such order shall provide for a limit fixed in pursuance of paragraph (c) of that subsection to have effect at a time when no rate or rates fixed in pursuance of paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection will have effect under the order.'.
This is essentially a technical amendment designed to remove a possible doubt that arises in the wording of the Bill as to whether wages councils will be able to continue to provide, within the space of one wages order, for staged increases in minima or reductions in the point at which the overtime rate becomes payable. As hon. Members may know, under past legislation the councils are free to stage increases if they so wish. It is not an everyday occurrence, but there are times in negotiations when both workers' and employers' sides are glad to make use of it.
It was never our intention that the reference in the new legislation to single rates should remove that flexibility from future negotiations and make it necessary for councils to meet all over again, issue new proposals and make new orders just because they wish an uplift in one particular item to be staged rather than implemented all at 919 once. It seems that they may have to go through that laborious, expensive procedure if we do not make this minor adjustment to the Bill. I am sure that negotiators on both sides would be disturbed if they found, on enactment of the Bill, that we had inadvertently imposed the extra burden of additional meetings upon them.
I ask the House to accept the desirability of the amendment in the interests of retaining the present flexibility for negotiators on both sides.

§ Mr. Trippier
I beg to move amendment No. 64, in page 14, line 36, leave out from 'In' to 'as' in line 37 and insert 'this Part any reference, in relation to a time worker, to time worked by that worker shall be construed'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)
With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 65 to 74.

§ Mr. Trippier
All the amendments in this group are for the purpose of clarifying the Bill and safeguarding workers' rights. Clause 14 requires any reference to time worked by a time worker in subsections (1) and (3) to be treated as including a reference to waiting time, which is time during which a worker is required by his employer to be available at his place or work and waiting for work to be given to him to perform, but where no work is available. The need for such a provision is self-evident.
Amendment No. 64 clarifies and strengthens the "waiting time" provision by making it clear beyond doubt that any reference in part II—not just in subsections (1) and (3) of clause 14—to time worked by a time worker shall be construed as including a reference to time during which he is required, whether in accordance with his contract or otherwise, to be available for work and is so available at his place of work.
This is a small but important additional safeguard which I commend to the House as being necessary to avoid any possibility that could result in workers somehow not being entitled to payment for "waiting time".
The intention behind amendments Nos. 65 to 74 can be simply explained. The amendment to subsection 1(3) is designed to make it absolutely clear that the offence of failing to pay not less than the statutory minimum requirement is normally tied to a particular week. This effect may well be achieved because, as the subsection is currently drafted, an employer is required to pay any worker to whom an order applies not less than the statutory minimum remuneration, which is defined in clauses 14 and 15. Nevertheless, it is considered desirable for this subsection, which creates a criminal offence, to be completely clear and unambiguous. The amendment achieves this objective.
If an employer is convicted of failing to pay a worker not less than the statutory minimum remuneration, clause 16(4) and (5) enable the court to award arrears of wages which have accumulated during the two-year period prior to the date of the offence. As drafted, the effect of clauses 16(4) and (5) is that all remuneration paid to the worker for the entire two-year period would have to be added together and compared with all SMR due for that period. Any shortfall in SMR would be the amount that a court could order the employer to pay to the worker. However, this method of calculation could produce the result that no 920 arrears might be due even though, for some periods during the two years, the worker had been underpaid, or indeed paid no wages at all.
The Government consider that this result is not within the spirit of the legislation and does not adequately protect the interests of workers. That is why we have tabled these amendments. Their effect will be that the court, in deciding the appropriate sum to award by way of arrears, will focus only on weeks or, where appropriate, groups of weeks up to four, during which the worker was underpaid in the two-year period prior to the date of the offence, ignoring weeks when the worker may have received in excess of the minimum, and to make an order for repayment on that basis.
It is necessary to make provision for periods of up to four weeks to be grouped because some workers—most commonly those who work in restaurants, shops and supermarkets—are paid under their contracts by reference to periods of longer than a week—usually a cycle or rota not exceeding four weeks—during each of which they may work a varying number of hours, but for which they are paid a fixed sum each week. Taking the whole of that cycle into account, it might be the case that no underpayment occurred even though, in individual weeks during the cycle, the worker's pay may have been above or below the statutory minimum. In this situation it would be unfair for the week or weeks of underpayment falling within the cycle of employment to be taken separately in the calculation of arrears when, over the whole cycle, the worker had not been underpaid.
These amendments are balanced and sensible and will assist part II to operate as intended. I commend them to the House.

§ Ms. Clare Short
The Opposition support any amendment that makes it more likely that workers who have been illegally underpaid will get their arrears of pay. This is a small adjustment, but it is welcome and the Opposition do not resist it.
May I ask the Minister to repeat the undertaking that he gave in Committee about the redrafting of clause 17? I am grateful to him for having raised the matter with me and for saying that it is still under consideration and that he intends to hold to his undertaking. It is right, however, that it should be on the record. Will the Minister give an undertaking that his promise to look at the clause and redraft it in the way that was suggested in Committee still holds?

§ Mr. Trippier
I am glad that the hon. Lady was kind enough to refer to the fact that earlier today we were in touch on this matter. I gave a clear undertaking in Committee, and I do not have the slightest wish to move away from it. We detected in Committee what we believed to be a dichotomy between part I and part II, and I said that on Report we would come back with a clear amendment, which I think will have to be to part II. The parliamentary draftsman says that he requires more time That is not to suggest, by any stretch of the imagination. that we are moving away from our undertaking. I give a clear undertaking now to the hon. Lady that the clause will be ready for amendment in the other place. I am sure that we shall be able to meet the point that the hon. Lady raised with me in Committee.