HL Deb 29 June 1938 vol 110 cc387-410

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee. In making that Motion I should like, if your Lordships would allow me, to carry out the undertaking I gave to two noble Lords opposite, Lord Addison and Lord Ponsonby, on the Second Reading of this Bill. They asked me certain questions to which I promised to give an answer on the next stage; that is, the Motion to go into Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, said that Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill did not seem to contain any provision about conditions of work as distinct from the remuneration of the workers. That is quite right; and Lord Ponsonby also asked me, referring to the same matter, whether it was possible under the Bill as it stood, or whether the Bill could be adapted, to embrace some regulation of hours of work. As I said on the Second Reading, that is not possible. Any attempt to do such a thing in this Bill would be outside its scope altogether.

I would point out that the Bill follows the precedent of previous legislation for the regulation of wages and does not make provision for the regulation of conditions of service or conditions of employment. I should like, however, to remind the noble Lord, Lord Addison, that it will be possible under the Bill to fix "remuneration" for overtime and to specify the number of hours beyond which overtime remuneration must be paid. The Bill, however, cannot be used for the alien purpose of introducing a statutory maximum number of hours of work, either in the interests of public safety or otherwise. I should like to say also that the limitation of the scope of the Bill to "remuneration" and the exclusion of "conditions" was in fact made with the concurrence of the present voluntary National Joint Conciliation Board, which includes three national employers' organisations and four trade unions.

Lord Ponsonby also asked a question, as to whether it is the intention of the Government, should this Bill become law, to suggest to the railway companies that they should level up the remuneration of their lorrymen, in order that they will not have a grievance in finding that those who come under this Bill are better paid than they are. I could not give an answer at the time, but I thought I knew what the correct answer was, and I find I was right. The answer to the inquiry of the noble Lord is definitely in the negative; and briefly the reasons are, as I think I said on the Second Reading, that the railways machinery of negotiation, by which the wages of railway van drivers are settled, is joint machinery, to which the parties are both the railway companies and the three trade unions which cater primarily for railway workers. The noble Lord, I see, is not in his place, but I think he would agree that it really would be a wholly unprecedented step for a Minister of the Government to suggest to the parties to voluntary machinery for collective bargaining that the bargains which they have reached are not adequate. I hope those two answers that I have given will satisfy the two noble Lords and I beg to move that this House do resolve itself into Committee.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Functions of Central Board and of area boards.

(3) In making proposals for fixing remuneration under this Part of this Act, the Board shall have regard to the various conditions of service of workers employed on road haulage work and the varying conditions under which and circumstances in which such work is performed and may frame their proposals accordingly, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of the said paragraph (a) empowering the Board so to do, the Board shall, in particular, have power to specify the time during which a worker must be employed on road haulage work to which this Part of this Act applies in any day or in any week respectively in order to render payable any daily or weekly rate proposed by the Board, to specify the number of hours of employment by his employer after which any overtime payment proposed is to be payable, and generally to make such provision as may be necessary for specifying the work for which any remuneration proposed is to be payable and for enabling the remuneration payable to any worker to be ascertained.

EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (3), after "Act," where that word first occurs, to insert "the Board shall obtain from the area boards and shall consider their recommendations as to the initial schedule of rates and wages and conditions of service in their respective areas and,". The noble Earl said: The first Amendment which stands in my name is, I am afraid, one which is to a certain extent controversial. I have a good many Amendments on the Paper, and the reason why a lot of these Amendments have to be moved is very largely to be found in the fact that the Bill was so hurried in its passage through the House of Commons, where the Committee, Report and Third Reading stages were all taken on one day, that quite a number of points in the Bill were only very slightly discussed. Therefore it becomes necessary to move rather more important Amendments here. I might perhaps be allowed to say how interested I was to hear the remarks which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, when moving that the House should go into Committee, because it will be observed that while the road haulage industry is going to be closely limited, so far as wages and so on are concerned, the same vehicles running under railway administration are apparently going to operate under quite a different set of conditions.

With regard to the first Amendment which stands in my name, the whole principle of it is to try and make the Bill more elastic. This Amendment is proposed in order to correct what appears to be a vital defect in the Bill as regards road haulage interests. The Bill, we think, will probably fail unless it takes into consideration as a leading principle the difference in wages and conditions prevailing in different localities throughout the country. In this industry, as in many others, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to have one scale of wages mid conditions applicable to the whole country automatically, and the past history of attempts at the regulation of wages and so on proves the truth of this assertion. The Joint Conciliation Board has failed, we think, because it has lost sight of this fact. It will be remembered that this Bill is the result of the Report of the Baillie Committee on the regulation of wages and conditions of service in the road motor transport industry. The Committee was set up by the Minister of Labour following on representations made to him as to the difficulties encountered by the National Joint Conciliation Board. The Report of the Baillie Committee shows that the Board endeavoured to impose upon the industry rates and conditions without having the experience of the local area boards, and therefore failed to get its findings adopted by the area boards.

There are one or two passages in the Report of the Baillie Committee which I would like to read. With reference to the difficulties of the existing National Joint Conciliation Board, the Report says: There can be no doubt from the foregoing that the Board was functioning under difficulties from the start; and it is not surprising that, while it has performed most valuable service to the industry, the results of the operations of the Board soon gave rise to disappointment within the Board and dissatisfaction outside it. On the evidence before us we may briefly place on record the main difficulties it encountered and the criticisms directed against it. The Report, in paragraph 27, goes on to say: At the first stage in the operations of the Board local organisation, if any, was such that consultation was very difficult. But the Board felt obliged to establish a scheme of wages-rates as soon as possible in order to determine 'fair wages' and so enable effect to be given to Section 32 of the Act. The Board fixed three grades of scales of wages to be applied to the whole country outside London and the Metropolitan area. The area boards were merely given the power to fit the towns and districts in their respective areas into their appropriate grades, but not to vary the rates proposed by the National Board. Some areas readily accepted the Board's decision; some did not, as the rates proposed were considered too high. There cannot be any doubt that by its procedure in this matter the National Board went at first too far and too fast. This Bill in its structure shows that there is a great danger of the same evil being perpetuated under the method indicated by the provisions of this Bill.

It will be observed that under Clause 2 the Board are to submit proposals to the Minister for fixing wages. They are to frame their proposals and transmit them to the area board, and the area board are to consider them as directed in the Second Schedule. The Central Board may, if they think fit, amend the proposals. The fundamental objection is that the initial step in the framing of proposals ought to come from the area boards. We think that the area boards alone are sufficiently closely in touch with the problems in their areas to frame proposals, with their special knowledge of local conditions. The principle of powers of initiation on the part of area boards has been accepted in the case of the Scottish Road Haulage Area Wages Board in Clause 16 of the Bill, subsection (1) of which reads as follows: The Scottish Road Haulage Area Wages Board may at any time make recommendations to the Central Board as to the remuneration to be paid to workers in Scotland to whom Part I of this Act applies, and the Central Board shall consider any such recommendations. I think that we should extend this principle to the whole of this country. This Amendment was raised in very much the same form in another place, but the reply of the Minister definitely did not satisfy the interests for which I speak, and I hope it may yet be possible for the Government to consider the Amendment and meet it in some way.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 23, after ("Act") insert ("the Board shall obtain from the area boards and shall consider their recommendations as to the initial Schedule of rates and wages and conditions of service in their respective areas and").—(Earl Howe.)

LORD TEMPLEMORE

As my noble friend said, this Amendment is on similar lines to one which was moved in another place by, I think, the honourable member for West Birkenhead (Colonel Sandeman Allen), and was refused there. I am sorry that I cannot accept it, because it runs counter to the whole principle of this Bill. Its object is to give the area boards the power to initiate proposals in respect of wages. This would mean adding one more stage in the procedure and thus making it more complicated. There would be eleven area boards acting in isolation, proceeding on different bases, and possibly producing incompatible recommendations. The Central Board would, of course, have to co-ordinate these various sets of recommendations, and in the course of so doing would inevitably have to reject the proposals of some, if not all, of the area boards. The Central Board, on which, it must be remembered, all the area boards will be represented, will be in a much better position to formulate co-ordinated proposals, which will then have to be sent to the area boards for consideration. Transport, unlike ordinary industry, is mobile, and obviously only a Central Board can make proposals in respect of the wages of transport workers, who are required to travel all over the country. It is quite true that there is also local transport, but the provisions of the Bill, I think, adequately safeguard the local position in the areas by requiring the Central Board to consult the area boards on any proposals which are made. This Amendment is entirely contrary to the recommendation of the Baillie Committee, which took exhaustive evidence on the subject, that the initiation of proposals should lie with the Central Board, and not with area boards. I hope that my noble friend will not press the Amendment.

LORD ADDISON

I was glad to hear that the noble Lord was not willing to accept the Amendment. This is certainly not a matter that has been rushed. It has been the subject of prolonged negotiation of a very particular kind by employers' associations and trade unions, and the proposals of the Bill represent the agreed scheme of operations. It would make it almost unworkable if the procedure suggested by the noble Earl were adopted, and at least two out of the three employers' associations, I think, are not parties to this proposed Amendment. The Bill is now agreed as the result of prolonged negotiations and it represents a triumph of conciliation. I think a great debt is due to the Ministry of Labour, who conducted this matter, and I should like to thank the noble Lord for his explanation. I and my noble friends are very sorry it is impossible to do anything in this Bill in regard to hours, but we accept things as they are. We cannot get more than one thing at a time in this world.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "their" ["their proposals"] and insert "its." The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Bertie of Thame has asked me to move this Amendment for him. If your Lordships will look at page 3, line 43, you will see that the Central Board takes a singular verb, and it would be more than singular therefore if in line 27 it took a plural possessive pronoun.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 27, leave out ("their") and insert ("its").—(Lord Saltoun.)

LORD TEMPLEMORE

I am much obliged to my noble friend and I accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "for" ["for which any remuneration"] and insert "in respect of." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and several others which follow later on are purely drafting, in order to bring the wording into conformity with the words which are used at the beginning of the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 39, leave out ("for") and insert ("in respect of").—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, after subsection (3), to insert: (4) In framing proposals for fixing remuneration under this Part of this Act in respect of any work, the Board shall take into consideration any decision of a joint industrial council, conciliation board or other similar body relating to the remuneration of workers employed on road haulage work which may be brought to the notice of the Board.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is proposed as the result of representations made to the Minister by the National Association of Furniture Warehousemen and Removers. This body of employers is a party, with the Transport and General Workers' Union, to the joint industrial council for tae furniture warehousing and removing industry. Household removal work is normally undertaken for hire or reward and the vehicles used must accordingly be authorised under A or B licences. It seems to the Minister that where such a body as a joint industrial council exists it is right that the Central Board should be required to take notice of its decisions but, of course, to be under no obligation to adopt or follow them. The Amendment is concurred in by the Transport and General Workers' Union.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 41, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Templemore.)

EARL HOWE

It seems to certain interests for whom I speak that there is an objection to this Amendment based on points which I have already raised in my earlier Amendment, requiring proposals for wage rates to be initiated by the area boards. I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Addison, said about my former Amendment, and I can quite understand that this Bill in its present form meets with his approval and the approval of his Party; but those who followed the proceedings on the Bill in another place will have noticed that it was received with some anxiety and a certain amount of criticism from the Party to which I belong. It was rather curious that, notwithstanding, the Government pushed most of the Amendments through without giving way very much.

With regard to this Amendment, we should like to know why it is really necessary. It directs the Central Board to take into consideration the decisions of a conciliation board, which would include the National Joint Conciliation Board. The danger here is that the Central Board if so directed will attempt to frame national wage rates without adequate consideration of the differences in local conditions. It is submitted therefore that the Central Board should start de novo, untrammeled by earlier decisions, and, knowing the difficulties which have led to the failure of National Joint Conciliation Board, they are the more likely to avoid the pitfall of attempting to regulate wages on a national basis.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

My noble friend evidently thinks that the Central Board will recommend wages which are not suitable to the different areas. May I point out to him that the Central Board in every case has to consult the area boards in all matters connected with wages?

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Submission of proposals and making of road haulage wages orders.

(2) If the Minister refers back to the Central Board any proposals submitted to him, the Board shall reconsider them having regard to any observations made by the Minister, and may amend the proposals and may resubmit them to the Minister.

(5) The Central Board may make proposals for the amendment or cancellation of any road haulage wages order in force under this Act, and the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to any such proposals as they apply in relation to original proposals.

EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (2), after "them," to insert "in conjunction with the appropriate area board or boards." The noble Earl said: This Amendment necessitates some consideration of the fundamental principles of the Bill, which may be briefly stated in this way. Firstly, there is the general desire for regulation of wages and conditions of service in the road haulage industry by means of orders made by the Minister of Labour. Secondly, there is the establishment of area boards and a Central Board for the purpose of framing proposals for the regulation of wages and conditions of service. Thirdly, we have recognition, by the appointment of area boards, that there are differences in wage rates and conditions between one area and another and that the Central Board in framing its proposals must have regard to those differences. Fourthly, under Clause 2, proposals for fixing wages will be prepared by the Central Board in consultation with the area boards, and under Clause 3 these proposals will be submitted to the Minister of Labour so that he may give effect to them by making a Road Haulage Wages Order. This Amendment is proposed in order to ensure that the Central Wages Board shall discuss with any area board affected any observations made by the Minister of Labour on proposals for fixing wages submitted to him by the Central Board.

Under Clause 2 (1), the Central Board will have previously framed its proposals in consultation with the area board concerned, and the Second Schedule confirms the principle of discussion between the Central Board and the area board of wages proposals affecting the area of the board. It is only reasonable that if the Minister of Labour makes any observations on the proposals involving an alteration, the matter should again be discussed with the area board. That is really a very important thing. We want to be sure that any alteration proposed can be rediscussed with the area board and will not go through over their heads without further reference. If this Amendment is not made there is no safeguard against the Central Board dealing with the Minister's observations without reference to the area board. That is the reason for this Amendment, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 23, after ("them") insert ("in conjunction with the appropriate area board or boards ").—(Earl Howe.)

LORD TEMPLEMORE

My noble friend's fears are really groundless, as I shall try to explain as fully as I can. When the Central Board's proposals have been submitted to the Minister in the first place, they may be referred back to the Central Board by the Minister. Clause 3 (2) provides that it shall then be the duty of the Central Board to reconsider their proposals having regard to any observations made by the Minister. The Amendment proposes that the Central Board's reconsideration of the proposals shall be made in conjunction with the area boards. If as a result of the consideration by the Central Board of the Minister's observations they make any important alterations in the character of their proposals, the Board are required under Clause 3 (3) to consult the area boards in the same way as if the amended proposals were fresh proposals. In this case, therefore, the Amendment in our opinion is unnecessary. On the other hand the reference back by the Minister to the Central Board may be on some trivial point, and in such circumstances the House will agree that consultation with the area boards would be unnecessary. I would remind my noble friends that representatives of all the area boards will be sitting as members on the Central Board, as provided in the First Schedule. The Government consider that the safeguards already in the Bill are adequate and that the proposed Amendment, besides going counter to the principles of the Bill, would add a further stage to the proceedings and render them more complicated.

EARL HOWE

May I ask the noble Lord whether it is really quite clear, supposing any change is to be made, that the Minister really will consult with the area boards—that there is no question of any important change being made without any consultation?

LORD TEMPLEMORE

I have studied the Bill, and I am advised that there is no doubt whatever. I knew that that was the fear in my noble friend's mind, and before I entered the House I consulted with my advisers, and they tell me that the noble Earl's fear is quite groundless.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (5), after "Board," to insert "or any area boards." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to provide that any area boards, equally with the Central Board, shall have power to make proposals for the amendment or cancellation of any Road Haulage Wages Order in force under the Act. The interest of an area board in the matter is recognised in the provisions of Clause 2, where proposals for the making of a Road Haulage Wages Order are being framed. They are equally entitled to be consulted when proposals are made for the amendment or cancellation of an order. It seems to us also that there may be precedents for such a proposal. Take the case of the Transport Advisory Committee. I understand that the Transport Advisory Committee can initiate legislation and are able to make representations to the Minister. Then, again, in the case of the London Traffic Advisory Committee, there is an analogy for what we propose in this case. At the present time the area boards, so far as we can understand the Bill, have no power whatever to raise any question. They can only deal with a question if it is referred to them, and we should like them to have the power to be able to raise questions themselves, if necessary. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 8, alter ("Board") insert ("or any area boards").—(Earl Howe.)

LORD TEMPLEMORE

I am sorry to be so disobliging to my noble friend. He says he wants these area boards to have the power to raise the question of wages. That is just what His Majesty's Government do not want and what this Bill does not do. I am afraid therefore I cannot accept this Amendment. The effect of it would be to enable any area board to make proposals for the amendment or cancellation of a Road Haulage Wages Order in force under the Act. Such an order will, of course, have been made by the Minister as a result of proposals by the Central Board. Obviously the Central Board is in the circumstances the proper body to make proposals to the Minister for the amendment or cancellation of such an order. If any area board were given this power a position might arise where some area boards were asking for an order to be amended or cancelled whilst other area boards took a different view. In any case we consider it is unnecessary to give the area boards such a power, as it will be possible for representations to be made by any of the road transport organisations whose members will be on the Central Board.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Power to refer questions as to unfair wages]:

LORD TEMPLEMORE

If the Lord Chairman and the Committee agree, I would move the Amendments to this clause together. They are all drafting Amendments.

LORD RAGLAN

May I ask why these Amendments are necessary? Why should we not retain the word "for" instead of "in respect of"?

LORD TEMPLEMORE

I cannot believe that my noble friend was here when moved the first Amendment. It was then explained that the object is to bring all the various phrases into line with the phrase used in Clause 1.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

With your Lordships' permission I shall put the Amendments moved by Lord Templemore en bloc.

Amendments moved—

Page 5, line 36, leave out ("for") and insert ("in respect of")

Page 6, line 1, leave out ("for") and insert ("in respect of")

Page 6, line 7, leave out ("for") and insert ("in respect of")

Page 6, line 11, leave out ("for") and insert ("in respect of")

Page 6, line 18, leave out ("for") and insert ("in respect of")

Page 6, line 20, leave out ("for") and insert ("in respect of")

Page 6, line 26, leave out ("for") and insert ("in respect of")

Page 6, line 31, leave out ("for") and insert ("in respect of").—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Power of Industrial Court to fix statutory remuneration.

Provided that while statutory remuneration is in force under this section as between an employer and any worker, the employer or any such worker or a trade union of which such a worker is a member may, in the prescribed manner, make an application to the Minister for a review of the remuneration and thereupon the Minister shall refer the matter to the Industrial Court …

LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in the proviso in subsection (6), after "employer" ["employer or any such worker"] to insert "or an organisation of employers of which he is a member." The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment is that it enables the C Licence holder to leave the matter of applying for a review of the decision of the Industrial Court in the hands of his organisation. This Amendment is identical with one moved by the honourable member for South Croydon in another place, and the Minister on that occasion undertook to consider the matter, and the present Amendment is the result. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 8, after ("employer") insert ("or an organisation of employers of which he is a member").—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Duty to pay statutory remuneration.

6.— (1) Where under this Act statutory remuneration is or is deemed to have been in force in respect of any work during any period as between an employer and a worker, the employer shall in respect of that work during that period pay remuneration to the worker not less than the statutory remuneration clear of all deductions, and if the contract between the employer and the worker provides for the payment of less remuneration in respect of that work, it shall have effect as respects the said period as if for that less remuneration there were substituted the statutory remuneration clear of all deductions.

(2) In the foregoing subsection the expression "deductions" includes deductions in respect of any matter whatsoever other than deductions under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, the National Health Insurance Act, 1936, or any enactment authorising deductions to be made from the remuneration of a worker in respect of contributions to any superannuation or other provident fund; and where any payment authorised to be received by an employer under Section one, Section two or Section three of the Truck Act, 1896, is made by a worker to his employer, the employer shall, for the purposes of the foregoing subsection, be deemed to have deducted the amount from the remuneration of the worker.

EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), after "deductions," to insert "except as in this section hereafter provided." The noble Earl said: This Amendment together with the one further down on page 10, line 2, to the same clause more or less hang together. Under Clause 6 deductions can be made by the employer from the remuneration of the worker in respect of contributions to, amongst other things, superannuation and other provident funds. We submit that contributions in respect of sick benefits, insurance schemes, sports clubs and so on, where they are made for the benefit of an employee, are closely allied to contributions to superannuation or provident funds, and the employer should therefore be entitled to make such deductions; providing however that that is done in response to a request in writing by the employee, in exactly the same manner as the employer is allowed under the Bill to make deductions in respect of superannuation or provident funds. Your Lordships will notice that in the next Amendment which stands in my name these deductions must be entirely voluntary, and the request must be made in writing and must be signed by the worker concerned. We consider that that provides ample safeguard for the worker, and therefore the Minister may perhaps see his way to accept these Amendments.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 31, after ("deductions") insert ("except as in this section hereafter provided").—(Earl Howe.)

LORD TEMPLEMORE

This Amendment is in a way consequential on the noble Earl's next Amendment to which he has made reference. I will reply to both Amendments. I should like to point out that we consider the Amendment unnecessary because where an employer at the request of a worker pays out of the worker's wages a sum for example to a superannuation fund, or towards some object indicated by the worker, so that the money passes out of the control of the employer, that sum is not regarded as a "deduction" and consequently is taken into account as remuneration paid to the worker. In so far as the Amendment would cover a voluntary deduction for the purpose of paying money to the employer, it is open to objection since such deductions are illegal under the Truck Acts, and the Amendment would run counter to the whole principle of the Truck Acts. I may say that I think the position my noble friend has in mind may be met to some extent by an Amendment which I propose shortly to move in this clause.

EARL HOWE

After what the noble Lord has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD TEMPLEMORE moved to leave out "In the foregoing subsection" at the beginning of subsection (2) and insert: For the purposes of the last foregoing subsection the net remuneration obtainable by a worker in respect of any work after allowing for his necessary expenditure, if any, in connection with the work shall be deemed to be the remuneration paid to him and. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is for the purpose of making it quite clear that the net remuneration received by a road haulage worker (which must be at least as much as statutory remuneration), shall be arrived at after allowing for any necessary expenditure incurred by the worker. For example, if the worker has to buy his own cleaning materials, the remuneration actually received by him must be calculated after the allowance for this expense, and if the amount paid by the employer, after deducting the amount of this necessary expense, is not as much as statutory remuneration an offence has been committed. This is in accordance with the provisions of the Trade Boards Acts.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 37, leave out ("In the foregoing subsection") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "other than" and insert "except." The noble Lord said: I should like to point out that the Amendments to Clause 6, page 9, line 39, to page 10, line 2, and to page 10, line 4, really all hang together, and I will deal with them all now. The effect of these Amendments would be that in addition to deductions under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, the National Health Insurance Act, 1936, or any enactment authorising deductions to be made from the remuneration of a worker in respect of contributions to any superannuation or other provident fund, which are permitted to be made from remuneration, there would also be permitted to be made from that remuneration any payments or deductions that are authorised under Sections 1, 2 or 3 of the Truck Act, 1896. The clause as it stands does not allow such payments or deductions to be made. The clause was based upon the Trade Boards Act, 1918, and the reason for that was that it was felt that since the minimum rates of wages to be fixed under the Trade Boards Acts would be fixed in trades in which the general level of remuneration was unduly low, the workers should be safeguarded from having their wages reduced below the minimum fixed. This consideration does not apply with the same force in the case of the business of carrying goods by road, since, although there is considerable diversity in the levels of wages obtaining among road haulage workers, it cannot be said that the general level of road haulage workers' remuneration is unduly low. The Amendments are proposed with the concurrence of both sides of the existing National joint Conciliation Board, which includes representatives of three employers' organisations and four trade unions. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 39, leave out ("other than") and insert ("except").—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

The next two Amendments down in my name to this clause are consequential. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 10, line 2, leave out from ("and") to ("under") in line 3, and insert ("except any deduction or payment authorised to be made") Page 10, line 4, leave out from ("1896") to the end of the subsection.—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Remedies for default.

7.—(1) Any person who in contravention of this Act fails to pay remuneration not less than the statutory remuneration, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine … and on proof of the failure the court may order the employer to pay such sum as is found by the court to represent the difference between the amount which ought to have been paid during that period to the worker by way of remuneration, if this Act had been complied with, and the amount actually so paid.

(2) Where an offence for which an employer is under this section liable to a fine has in fact been committed by some agent of the employer or other person, that agent or other person shall be liable to be prosecuted for the offence in the same manner as if he were the employer, and either together with, or before or after the conviction of, the employer, and shall be liable on conviction to the same punishment as that to which the employer is liable.

LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1), after "contravention," to insert "of the provisions." The noble Lord said: I beg to move this and the other Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Viscount Bertie. The object of the first Amendment is that instead of using the expression "contravention" only, the words should read "contravention of the provisions of this Act." My noble friend points out with some force that otherwise the phrase is elliptical, and not very correct. You cannot contravene an Act; the correct expression is "contravene the provisions of the Act." I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 21, after ("contravention") insert ("of the provisions.").—(Lord Saltoun.)

LORD TEMPLEMORE

I am much obliged to my noble friend. I accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SALTOUN

The next Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, is of a similar kind. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 34, after ("if") insert ("the provisions of").—(Lord Saltoun.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (2), after "agent," to insert "whether the agent of an individual or a body of persons corporate or unincorporate." The noble Lord said: I also move this on behalf of my noble friend Viscount Bertie, who feels that he is not quite clear as to the exact meaning of the expression in line 38. He points out that in most Acts there is a provision to make directors and officers liable to a penalty just the same as an ordinary individual if a company contravenes the provisions of an Act. He is in some doubt as to the meaning of the expression that appears in the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 38, after ("agent") insert the said words.—(Lord Saltoun.)

LORD TEMPLEMORE

I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment because we consider it would make the clause definitely wrong. I should inform my noble friend that by the Interpretation Act the singular includes the plural and therefore "agent" includes "agents" and agents themselves may be bodies of persons. The provision in the Bill is found in various other Acts of Parliament, for instance, Section 7 of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, and Section 5 of the Trade Boards Act, 1918. Accordingly the insertion of the proposed new words in this Bill would do definite harm as throwing doubt upon the meaning of the other Acts in a case where no doubt has ever yet been raised.

LORD SALTOUN

In those circumstances I am sure my noble friend would not wish me to press this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD TEMPLEMORE moved to insert: (8) If any person is convicted under Part I of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, of using a goods vehicle for a purpose for which an A licence, a B licence or a C licence is required, otherwise than under such a licence, any road haulage work performed by a road haulage worker in connection with the vehicle while it was being so used shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to have been road haulage work in connection with a goods vehicle specified in an A licence, a B licence or a C licence granted under that Act as the case may be, and the provisions of this and of the last foregoing section shall apply accordingly.

The noble Lord said: The general effect of this Amendment is to prevent any person who unlawfully uses a goods vehicle from escaping altogether from the obligations which would have fallen on him in respect of wages if the vehicle had been lawfully used. The Bill as it stands applies only to road haulage workers who are employed in connection with goods vehicles which are "specified" in a carrier's licence or are authorised to be used under a carrier's licence. Under these provisions the Bill does not at present apply to a vehicle which either has no licence but ought to have one, or has a particular kind of licence (A, B or C) but is being used for some purpose for which another kind of licence is required. Penalties are, of course, provided in the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, for the unlawful use of a goods vehicle, but without the present Amendment there would be no protection of the wages of the driver of a vehicle which is being used unlawfully.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 35, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Templemore.)

LORD SANDHURST

I would like to ask a question which arises in respect of a certain type of vehicle about which there is apparently some doubt in law at present—namely, the vehicle known as a utility van. Suppose the owner of a shoot, for instance, uses a utility van for carrying his game from his shoot back to his game lodge. Under the law as it stands at the moment that van is not subject to a C licence apparently, although it is definitely subject to the thirty-mile an hour limit, because cases have been won on that point. Is the driver of that van going to come under this clause?

LORD TEMPLEMORE

I am afraid I am altogether unable to answer that question now. It is too complicated. I will, however, make inquiries and let the noble Lord know either privately or on the Report stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9:

Persons working under arrangements to be deemed to be employed.

9. Where any person engaged by way of trade in connection with the mechanical transport of goods by road makes an arrangement expressed or implied with any worker in pursuance of which the worker performs any work with respect to which statutory remuneration would, if the worker were employed by that person, be in force under this Act, the worker shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be employed by that person and references in this Act to an employer shall be construed accordingly, and the net remuneration obtainable by the worker in respect of the work, after allowing for his necessary expenditure in connection with the work, shall be deemed to be the remuneration paid to him.

LORD TEMPLEMORE moved to leave out "engaged by way of trade in connection with the mechanical transport of goods by road makes," and insert "who is the holder of a licence granted under Part I of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, or who carries on the business of a goods transport clearing house makes by way of trade." The noble Lord said: The object of this clause, which is a most important clause, is to prevent a road transport employer from escaping his obligations to pay a statutory remuneration by making some sort of arrangement with a person to perform road haulage work for him. I am informed by my advisers that a good many of these so-called arrangements are made by employers with their men in different parts of the country. An employer pretends that a man is a partner and thus gets away without paying him a proper wage, and there are other cases of that kind. This clause provides that if, in fact, there is some arrangement and work is done in pursuance of it by a worker, then that worker shall get statutory remuneration.

The first Amendment on the Paper makes it clear that the obligation under Clause 9 is to apply to any licence holder and to any person who operates a goods transport clearing house. The present words of the clause are open to the interpretation that the clause applies to a person such as a shopkeeper or manufacturer who does not own a motor vehicle but merely makes arrangements with a vehicle owner to do transport work for him. Therefore it is necessary to define clearly the persons to whom the clause applies. The second Amendment on the Paper is to clarify the position of the owner-driver and to enable a licence holder or clearing house operator who employs an owner-driver to know the extent of his obligation. Under the conditions of the clause as it stands a person employing a working owner-driver is required to pay him statutory remuneration over and above the "necessary expenditure" incurred by the owner-driver in connection with the job. "Necessary expenditure" would, of course, include such items as petrol and oil, insurance, overhead expenses and so on, and it would be difficult to arrive at the amount properly attributable to this expenditure.

The third Amendment, in paragraph (a), accordingly enables an A or B licence holder or a clearing house operator to avoid this difficulty by providing that if the owner-driver has received in respect of the work given out to him an amount within 10 per cent. of the amount received by the person who gave him the work, then the provisions of the Bill are satisfied. Paragraph (b) of that Amendment will relieve all C licence holders and all persons such as traders, manufacturers and shopkeepers, who do not operate any goods vehicles of their own, from all responsibility in connection with the remuneration or necessary expenditure of an owner-driver engaged by them. These Amendments have been drawn up in consultation with, and have the concurrence of, the National Joint Conciliation Board for the road transport industry.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line leave out from ("person") to ("an") in line 6 and insert ("who is the holder of a licence granted under Part I of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, or who carries on the business of a goods transport clearing house makes by way of trade").—(Lord Templemore.)

EARL HOWE

I have an Amendment on the Paper to leave out Clause 9. That Amendment was placed upon the Paper before the noble Lord's Amendments were put down. The position really is that the interests for whom I speak feel that the clause is still a little obscure. Since this Bill reached your Lordships' House the road haulage industry have been in conference with the Ministry of Labour on the subject of this clause, and as a result the Government have proposed these Amendments to clarify the clause. The noble Lord's third Amendment on the Paper refers, in paragraph (a), to an amount "not more than ten per cent. less" than the amount payable to an employer. The interests for whom I speak this afternoon say that examination of typical contracts made between owner-drivers and road haulage contractors shows that 12½ per cent. is a more usual percentage than 10 per cent. of the contract price which is retained by a road haulage contractor when he engages an owner-driver as a sub-contractor for a load. If, therefore, 12½ per cent. could be accepted by the Government no further objection to the clause would be raised. I am wondering whether it would be possible for the noble Lord to give a little further consideration to the figure of 10 per cent. in his Amendment. If it would help in any way I am certain that the interests for whom I speak would be only too glad to attend any conference and the matter could again be raised on the Report stage.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

I am always ready to consider any suggestion made by my noble friend or by any other member of your Lordships' House. If my noble friend thinks there is still any obscurity I am quite willing to give an undertaking that the matter shall be reconsidered before the Report stage. Of course, I cannot promise now that there will be any alteration.

EARL HOWE

Naturally.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TEMPLEMORE moved to leave out all words after "accordingly." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really consequential. The words proposed to be left out deal with the net remuneration obtainable by a worker in respect of his work after allowing for necessary expenditure. This provision has been transferred to Clause 6 (2) by the Government Amendment to Clause 6 at page 9, line 37. Clause 6, which deals with the duty to pay statutory remuneration, is the proper place for such a provision. Accordingly, the words in Clause 9 which are now proposed to be left out are unnecessary in that clause.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 13, leave out from ("accordingly") to the end of the clause.—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TEMPLEMORE moved to add to the clause: Provided that where the only work performed by the worker in pursuance of the arrangement is work in connection with a goods vehicle specified in a licence of which the worker is the holder, being an A licence other than a licence granted under subsection (1) of Section seven of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, or a B licence, then—

  1. (a) in a case where the arrangement was made by way of sub-contract with the worker for the purpose of enabling the employer to execute a contract for the trans- 409 port of goods entered into by him, the employer shall be deemed not to have contravened the provisions of Section six of this Act if he proves that the sum paid to the worker in respect of the work performed by him was not more than ten per cent. less than the amount payable to the employer under his contract in respect of that work;
  2. (b) in a case where the employer is neither the holder of an A licence or a B lice nee nor a person who carries on the business of a goods transport clearing house and the arrangement was made only for the carriage of goods for or in connection with any trade or business carried on by the employer, the foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply.
(2) In this section the expression 'business of a goods transport clearing house' means the business of arranging for the mechanical transport of goods by road.

The noble Lord said: This is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 17, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 [Duty of employers to keep records]:

LORD TEMPLEMORE

This Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 26, leave out ("they") and insert ("any such records")—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 [Interpretation]:

LORD TEMPLEMORE

This is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 37, at the beginning, insert ("road haulage").—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17:

Short title, extent, repeal and commencement.

(3) Subsection (2) of Section eight and subsection (2) of Section thirty-two of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, are hereby repealed.

(4) Part II of this Act shall come into operation on the date on which the first road haulage wages order comes into force.

LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert "as from the date on which Part II of this Act comes into operation." The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment would be to postpone the date of the repeals from the date of the Royal Assent to the date on which the first Road Haulage Wages Order is made under Part I of the Road Haulage Wages Act. The period of postponement would necessarily be one of several months, since before the Minister can make a Road Haulage Wages Order he will first have to establish a Central Board and eleven area boards, and the boards will have to go through the procedure laid down in the Second Schedule to the Bill. Although the provisions to be repealed have been largely ineffective in their operation, it is thought desirable that such effect as they have should continue until Part I of the Bill has become effective in respect of the remuneration of persons employed in connection with A and B licensed vehicles. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 35, at end insert ("as from the date on which Part II of this Act comes into operation").—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TEMPLEMORE moved an Amendment to make subsection (4) commence "The Minister shall by order bring Part II of this Act into operation" instead of "Part II of this Act shall come into operation." The noble Lord said: This Amendment will have the effect of requiring the Minister to make an order at the time when Part II of the Act comes into operation. This, as I explained on the last Amendment, will be some months after the passage of the Bill, and it is felt to be only proper that the event should be formally signified. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 36, leave out ("Part II of this Act shall come") and insert ("The Minister shall by order bring Part II of this Act").—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

First Schedule: