HL Deb 14 June 1938 vol 109 cc924-33

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The object of the Bill is to make provision with respect to the remuneration of workers employed on motor goods vehicles. The Bill follows in the main the recommendations of the Baillie Committee, published as Command Paper No. 5440. The workers covered by the Bill are, briefly, the travelling staff who accompany a vehicle to drive it or to attend to it or its load. They include the driver, the person who sits with him, known officially as the statutory attendant, and the person who sometimes sits in the tail of the vehicle, ho may be either a man or a boy. Loading and unloading are included, if done by the travelling staff; and incidental work and such waiting time as is a necessary consequence of the work are also included. Those workers are excluded, however, who merely travel on the vehicle for the purpose of reaching the place where they are to perform work other than road haulage work. For example, engineers who are taking engines or machines from one place to another. If they travel on the vehicle in order to set up the machinery at the place of destination they would not come under the provisions of this Bill. In the same way, as any of your Lordships who may have moved houses know, there are expert packers who pack china and pieces of furniture, and who accompany the van to its destination; but these would not come under the provisions of this Bill. The workers who are covered are the travelling staff, who really belong to the vehicle.

The Bill is divided into two main Parts, on the basis of the kind of licence required for the vehicle under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. I might here say that those licences are of three kinds: A licences, required for those who let out their transport; C licences—I take them next in order—for those who provide their own transport; and B licences for those who both let out and provide their own transport. Provision is made in Part I of the Bill, by Clauses 1 and 2, for the establishment of a Central Wages Board for Great Britain, a Scottish Area Wages Board, and area boards for ten areas in England and Wales, corresponding to the existing traffic areas. Area boards will consist of equal numbers of representatives of employers and workers, appointed by the Minister of Labour. Before determining the number of members of which any area board is to consist, and before appointing any member, the Minister will consult with organisations representing employers and workers in the area. The Central Board will consist of not less than twelve nor more than eighteen representative members appointed by the Minister of Labour. One half of these members will be persons representing employers of workers on A and B licensed vehicles, and one half will be persons representing such workers. Before appointing any such members and before determining the number of such representative members, the Minister will consult any organisations appearing to him to represent such employers and workers respectively. There will be a further twenty-four members, comprising one member from each side of each area board in England and Wales, and two members from each side of the Scottish Area Board. For each such member the Minister will appoint a substitute member, and before appointing any member or substitute member the Minister will consult the area board concerned.

The Minister will also appoint not less than three, nor more than five, independent members, of whom one will be Chairman and another Deputy-Chairman of the Central Board. These independent members will be persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, have no connection with the transport of goods. In Clause 3 your Lordships will see that the Central Board will be empowered to submit to the Minister of Labour proposals for fixing remuneration (including holiday remuneration) to be paid. The Minister will be empowered to make an order bringing the proposals into force unless he considers it necessary to refer the proposals back to the Board. The remuneration specified in the Minister's order will be known as "statutory remuneration." In the case of Scotland special provision is made for the Area Board to initiate proposals for fixing remuneration Workers whose remuneration is the subject of other statutory wage regulation, and road transport workers employed by railway companies whose wages and conditions are determined by agreements between the companies and the railway trade unions, are excluded from this Part of the Bill.

Part II of the Bill—that is, Clauses 4 and 5—contains provisions for the regulation of remuneration of workers employed on vehicles for which a C licence is necessary, for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business, but not for hire or reward. This Part will come into operation on the date on which the first Minister's order under Part I comes into force. In Clause 4 it will be seen that a worker or his trade union, or a trade union representing a substantial number of road transport workers, may complain to the Minister of Labour if they consider that the remuneration paid is unfair. Such complaints are to be referred to the Industrial Court, unless frivolous or unless withdrawn after the Minister has made representations to the employer concerned. If there is in existence joint machinery for settling disputes, any complaint concerning an employer whose organisation is a party to the joint machinery must be referred to that machinery for settlement, and can only be referred to the Industrial Court at the request of both sides.

In Clause 5 it is laid down that if the Court thinks that the remuneration is unfair it will be the duty of the Court to fix the remuneration to be paid. This remuneration will also be known as "statutory remuneration." The Court when fixing "statutory remuneration" must have regard to the foregoing provisions and also to any collective agreements concerning the remuneration of similar workers in comparable trades or industries, and to the general level of wages of other classes of workers in the trade or industry to which the reference relates. In any procedings on a reference to the Industrial Court the right to attend and to be heard is given to any organisation of employers or trade union which, by reason of its membership, appears to have an interest in the matter referred. "Statutory remuneration" fixed by the Court will apply to the case of the worker concerned in the reference, and to any other workers employed on similar work by the same employer. The Court is given power to make its decision retrospective for a period not exceeding six months in the case of the worker concerned. Persons employed on work for which a minimum rate of wages has been fixed by or under any other Act of Parliament are excluded from this Bill. I then come to Part III of the Bill, which is really the longest Part, Clauses 6 to 17. This Part deals generally with the enforcement of "statutory remuneration" fixed by an order of the Minister under Part I of the Bill or by a decision of the Industrial Court under Part II. Under Clause 16 it will be observed that special provisions are laid down as regards Scotland.

The Bill will directly affect a quarter of a million licence holders and 500,000 vehicles, worked by between 500,000 and 600,000 men. The Bill will also, we think, improve the conditions under which good employers are working; that is to say, men who have been trying to work fair wages agreements and have found themselves up against other employers who were perhaps not so inclined. And, in addition, it will have another important effect; I think, and the Government think, that it will increase the chances of safety on the road. It is a matter of justice to a very hard working section of our people, and it is, I should hope, in this House as in another place, entirely uncontroversial, and for that reason I commend it to the judgment of your Lordships. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)

LORD ADDISON

My Lords, I intervene for a few minutes only to say how heartily those with whom I am associated wish to support the Bill and the principles which it embodies. It embodies the results of the kind of negotiation which has proceeded for a good many years between the representative associations of employers and of workers, and it would be very helpful if it were imitated much more widely. It relates to an exceedingly difficult and complicated set of conditions, and I think that those concerned deserve a tribute of admiration for having evolved this scheme of conciliation and agreement out of such diverse and often conflicting circumstances. I would make a reference to one or two of the findings of the Baillie Committee, to which the noble Lord has referred, because they emphasize conditions of which this Bill provides an example which one cannot but hope will be followed. The Committee, recognising that in some conditions good employers have been prejudiced, or are prejudiced, by the fact that all others do not observe as good conditions with regard to their employees, insist that it is necessary that the organisations concerned should be fully representative of their industries, and that the findings of the Court should be made applicable to all. That I am sure is very obviously necessary, and it was a condition for which some of us struggled many years ago when joint industrial councils were first set up.

There are, however, one or two points connected with the C class of licence to which I should like to refer for a moment. I notice that in paragraph 74 of the Report of the Committee, a very important principle is laid down which I hope the noble Lord will consider between now and the later stages of the Bill in order to satisfy himself that it really has been given effect to. The Committee in their Report express the opinion that uneconomic conditions should be checked. They say that it is undesirable to regulate one section of the industry (that is A and B licence holders) and leave another section entirely uncontrolled, which is clearly right; and they go on to state the very important principle that the fixing of wages for the industry is a necessary first step to a standard wage, but it should not depend upon a prior determination of rates. I wish we could get that splendid principle embodied much more widely than in this Bill. If it had been embodied, we will say in agriculture, we should not find agricultural labourers, highly skilled workers, among the worst paid of any workers in the country. We should find then that we had a condition of prices which enabled proper wages to be paid, and that is the principle which is sought to be embodied in this Bill. I for one rejoice at its recognition by His Majesty's Government.

Coming to look at the Bill itself for a moment, I see that Clauses 5 and 6 relating to the conditions of employment of those employed under C licences appear to be almost limited to the fixing of remuneration, and there does not seem to be much said about the conditions under which they are to drive. As we all know—and I am glad to see my noble friend (Lord Alness) the Chairman of the Select Committee in his place—safety on the road is very much affected by the conditions under which men drive for long hours and under pressure of working to a schedule and all the rest of it; these may be the cause of a good many accidents and undoubtedly have been. I am not quite sure, reading the clauses of the Bill, whether these other conditions of employment apart from remuneration are fully dealt with. We shall probably receive more light on that point when we come to the Committee stage.

In connection with that, I would direct the attention of the noble Lord to Clause 9. That is a clause which prescribes, in respect of those who nominally own their own vehicles and use them for the transport of goods, but who may in fact be hired by a clearing house or some system of that kind, that their remuneration shall be as if they were employed. I am not quite sure that Clause 9 as it stands would safeguard them in that respect, because it provides that what they are paid shall be calculated after allowing for necessary expenditure in connection with the work—that is, the maintenance of the lorry, payment for oil, repairs, and all the rest of it. Who is to determine what the necessary expenditure is to be? It seems to me, as far as I can read the Bill, that that determination will be made by the parties who hire. If so, it may be that the intention of the Bill will be evaded. This applies to a very large number of drivers, and I hope the noble Lord will look into the matter between now and the Committee stage, when I shall specifically raise the point in order to clear the situation, because it is evident, if we are to produce uniformity in the conditions of employment on the roads, it will not do to pass a Bill with what would be, in fact, a large hole in it applying to one section of drivers—in fact the most numerous section—affected by the Bill. Apart from these detailed criticisms, I would like on behalf of my noble friends to give the Bill my most cordial support.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

My Lords, may I intervene for a short time, in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, to ask the noble Lord in charge questions on two points. I want to emphasize what my noble friend has just noted, which is that this body of workers with whom we are dealing have very heavy work to do, and it is of the utmost importance not only that their remuneration but their hours of work should be protected. I know that there is by Act of Parliament a statutory limit to the hours that should be worked by these lorry-men, but anybody who has been on the road a good deal must notice that in all probability there are many cases in which these hours are exceeded. There is nobody so dangerous on the road as an overworked and tired man driving one of these large vehicles. In subsection (4) of Clause 5 hours are mentioned only to the extent of laying down the number of hours which must be worked in order to estimate the weekly rate payable and also the number of hours overtime. What I should like to ask is whether the Court can find out by that means whether this overtime exceeds the statutory limits already, and if some check on the working of these men for longer hours, which is notoriously done, can by this particular clause be applied.

The other point I would like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is perhaps a minor one, but I hope he will be good enough to explain it to me. On page 2 there is a proviso under subsection (2) of Clause r which states that the Act shall not apply to persons in the employment of any railway company whose remuneration falls to be determined by machinery established by agreement between such companies and the railway trade unions. I quite understand that that cannot be interfered with by this particular measure, but at the same time it would be an unfortunate consequence of this Bill if the remuneration insisted upon by the clauses of the Bill placed those who fall under it in a more favourable position than the lorry drivers employed by the railway companies. I would ask the noble Lord whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government, should this become law, anyhow to suggest to the railway companies that they should level up the remuneration of their lorry-men, who form a very considerable number of the lorry-men employed in the country, in order that they will not have a grievance in finding that those who come under this Bill are better paid then they are. I quite understand that it is a matter for the companies, and at the same time I believe that those who work under railway companies have certain privileges; but taking it broadly it would be a mistake to divide the lorry drivers of the country into two sections and not see that there is a uniform method of granting them the pay which is their due.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

My Lords, I am obliged to the two noble Lords opposite for their general support of the Bill. As regards the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Addison, in which he referred to paragraph 74 of the Baillie Committee's Report and to Clause 9 of the Bill, I am afraid these are not questions I could answer now across the Table, and I will, if I may, postpone them to the next stage of the Bill which, I may say for the information of your Lordships, I propose to put clown for to-day fortnight, June 28, so that there will be no hurry about the matter. I understood from the noble Lord that he would probably take the usual course and put down some Amendments on the Committee stage. I could then explain the view of the Government.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, raised the question, as I understood him, of whether under this Bill the hours of work of lorry drivers and other employees could be regulated as well as their wages. As the Bill stands I do not think they could, because if the noble Lord will look at the title of the Bill he will see it is a Bill to make provision with respect to the remuneration of persons employed in connection with the mechanical transport of goods by road, and with respect to the making of recommendations and reports, and the settlement of disputes, relating to matters affecting such transport. I do not think, without altering the nature of the Bill, what the noble Lord asked could be done, and if we made an alteration here I doubt whether it would be accepted by another place, but I will make inquiries. As to the question regarding the Court which is going to be set up to find out what overtime is being worked, I will also make inquiries and inform the noble Lord of the result of them at the next stage of the Bill.

The noble Lord also said that it was a pity that railway van workers were not included in the Bill. A precisely similar point was raised at the Committee stage in another place by an honourable member, Colonel Sandeman Allen, who in fact moved an Amendment to add certain words in page 2, line 20, so as to include these workers. This Amendment was refused by my right honourable friend the Minister for a number of reasons which I will explain to the noble Lord. At the present moment, as he knows, railway van drivers are not organised in a special union of their own. They are organised in the National Union of Railwaymen, and their rights are fully and very adequately safeguarded. Their wages, which I think are not unfavourable according to the Baillie Committee, were regulated by agreement as far back as 1920, that is eighteen years ago. Furthermore, the railway machinery is 100 per cent. effective in that decisions arrived at are carried out. I wish I could say the same of the haulage industry at present, but we hope that shortly such conditions will appertain in the road haulage industry. I think my noble friend will see that in the light of these facts any alteration would mean that the Central Board would have to include railway representation, and it would be a very strong representation. In the opinion of my advisers that would have an adverse effect upon the present excellent collective bargaining machinery. It was for these reasons, I think, that these workers were left out. As to the noble Lord's question whether it was the intention of the Government to suggest to the railways that they should level up their transport wages, I am afraid that is a question I cannot answer across the Table, but I will try to give the noble Lord an answer to that as well as to other points in a fortnight's time when this Bill is again considered. After this short but very friendly discussion I hope we may now get a Second Reading of the Bill.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.