HL Deb 19 November 1976 vol 377 cc1635-40

43 Page 34, leave out line 47 and insert "182 out of the last 208 weeks, the last 50 of which have been for the current employer"

The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:

44 Because the Amendment proposes too long a qualification period.

Lord PEART

My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 43, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 44.

Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 44.—(Lord Peart.)

Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord SWAYTHLING

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 44A as an Amendment in lieu of Amendment No. 43 to which the Commons have disagreed: 44A Page 34, leave out line 47 and insert— 144 out of the last 156 weeks, the last 50 of which have been for the current employer". I must first say that I know it is not very usual to move manuscript Amendments in your Lordships' House on Third Reading, but in view of the fact that the printed list of the Commons Reasons was not available until this morning. I had no other alternative. In particular, I notice that the Commons have said, in disagreeing to Amendment No. 43, that the Amendment— proposes too long a qualification period It does not say a word about the last half of the Amendment: the last 50 of which have been for the current employer To my mind, that is the very important part of the original Amendment. But in view of the fact that on Committee stage and on Report the length of time necessary for qualification was very fully argued, the agriculture industry considered the two years in the Bill much too short. The agriculture industry considered five years should be the correct time, but eventually we put down four years.

If the other place decides that four years is too long, I propose, in this Amendment, to compromise between the two years and the four years, and to make it three years. But it has the proviso, as I have said, which is the important part, that the worker should have spent a year in the cottage in which he is applying for security. If this proviso were not in the Bill, a man could work in agriculture for two or three or four years (whichever we decide); he could then move to another farm where he has possibly a better cottage; after being there a fortnight or a month he could give notice and go to work somewhere else and obtain security of tenure of this cottage, which deprives the owner of the cottage for his lifetime, or possibly even for his widow's lifetime, quite unfairly, because he has never worked for that farmer for more than a fortnight or a month. I think it is essential that the one year with the current employer should he in the Bill. I beg to move.

12.52 p.m.

Lord MIDDLETON

My Lords, that some qualifying period is essential the Government, of course, accept. As we have said so many times, it is a matter of judgment how long that period should be. I think we said during the early stages that in our judgment the original two years is too short, and the argument in favour of a longer period roughly runs like this. First, by restricting the numbers of rehousing cases you lessen the burden upon already over-burdened housing authorities. Secondly, you make it more difficult for the man envisaged by the Government—and these are the words in the Consultation Document: … who is going to use the agricultural industry as a rapid passage transit camp through which anyone seeking rented accommodation in rural areas could obtain this and obtain it more swiftly than the generality of citizens". I believe that the Commons Reason, that four years is too long, is not the correct judgment. I like the three years proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, better, but I must admit that I am not entirely happy about the last one year on the one farm.

Lord MONK BRETTON

My Lords, the reason why I like Lord Swaythling's proposal better is simply that I believe that the period which the worker has worked in the industry before he qualifies for this entitlement as regards his housing should be somewhat longer than the period of apprenticeship. I think the Agricultural Training Board apprenticeships run for two years, and I believe a year over that would in fact be very much wiser. I do not want to go into further details now because I know this matter has been pretty fully discussed before, but I would just make that point.

Lord MONSON

My Lords, I should like to say very briefly that I support the noble Lord's Amendment. I think it is a reasonable compromise. It is a compromise that the Commons have not had a chance to look at, and I think it reasonable, therefore, that we should send it back to them for consideration.

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, once again the Parliamentary programme and the difficulty of obtaining papers and the pressure of business is such that we have been forced into a situation which I think with great ingenuity the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, has endeavoured to take us through. Here is a situation which is in many ways a repeat of what took place at two earlier stages of the Bill. We are endeavouring to meet the Government's point and declared intention in the Consultation Document and in previous debates in both Houses, that there should he a qualifying period. The length of that qualifying period must be subject to discussion. I think that the previous compromise suggestion, which was jointly agreed by my noble friend Lord Ferrers and the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, was one which could produce the Amendment we are looking at now.

The only reason why we hesitate before supporting the noble Lord's Amendment is the final point, the question of the one year. This has given rise to the argument that there could be a situation where someone was employed in the industry for a comparatively long period—perhaps 20 or 30 years—and who, during the final year of his employment, fell upon some misfortune, some unfortunate accident to either his employer or himself, which would make him unable to sustain his job in the industry. He would not qualify for occupation of that house. This is a real difficulty. We do understand it. Further, we addressed our minds to the problem of the agricultural worker in retirement, and we adduced arguments which the Government rejected in regard to this particular problem.

Having taken a particular part in those debates, I would find it very difficult to join the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, in the Lobby on this issue. I wholly agree with him that the three-year period is infinitely preferable to the two-year period proposed by the Government. I think that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Monk-Bretton, is very significant, because here is a suggestion which the Government have probably not addressed their mind to, that the period of apprenticeship should be taken into consideration. I hope that, in replying to this Amendment, the noble Lord the Leader of the House will give us his reasons why he believes that the two-year period is finally preferable.

Lord PEART

My Lords, this is an important Amendment, but there are differences of opinion, as we have seen already in the debate. I am not complaining about having this issue raised again. The noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, very kindly informed me what he was going to do when I met him this morning coming up in the lift. He was very busy, and good luck to him, but I am afraid I cannot accept his arguments I know he has suggested a compromise; that is, that the test should be three years work in agriculture with one year for the current employer. Again, I am afraid the arguments which we have used previously still hold. It is a matter of judgment. The district councils think two years. Our consultations led us to believe that this was the right decision. The Agricultural Workers' Union wanted one year; I think the National Farmers' Union wanted four to five years. We think two years is about right.

I have been asked about the question of apprentices. My immediate reaction to that is that this would not really change my view point in relation to the two-year period. We are dealing here with a different type of worker, a young man going into the industry; and I want more apprentices. I think this is a developing situation in the industry. The Agricultural Training Board have done a marvellous job, and more farmers are beginning to use the apprenticeship system. I think this is something we should have to look at when we see how the apprentice scheme works. It is a positive point and a constructive point, and I recognise it as such, but I hope we can still keep the two-year period.

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, it is all very well for the noble Lord to say that we will see how the apprentice scheme works; it may, of course, work in the opposite direction from what the noble Lord expects. Supposing a young man undertook a two-year training in the dairy industry, and at the end of that period, having occupied a house for a period, he decided not to enter the industry after all but to do something else.

Under the Bill as drafted, he would have a statutory right to retain the use of that property. I believe that this is a serious problem and I do not feel that the Government have paid sufficient attention to it. It is an abuse. My noble friends have pointed out the possible abuses and we feel that it is something the Government should consider.

Lord PEART

My Lords, I said that the Government would consider the point. I thought that I was being constructive. Clearly, at the last minute, there is not time to examine this further. As I have said, this could be a problem in the industry. As the noble Lord knows, many farmers take apprentices on the farm itself and this is something that we should have to consider in the light of the development of what is becoming an important part of the industry. However, for the moment, I think that we are right to do what we are doing.

Lord SWAYTHLING

My Lords, I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, say that he could not have much sympathy with the last part of the Amendment which specifies 50 weeks with the current employer, particularly as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and his noble friends supported the original Amendment to which the Commons have now disagreed. Your Lordships passed the Amendment with a substantial majority on Report. I feel that this is an important Amendment which should have more consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, said that it had been sprung on the Government at the last minute, but I feel that there should be time for more consideration.

Lord PEART

My Lords, the noble Lord has stated his point clearly and, indeed, we have discussed this on a previous occasion, but I still think that there are clear and persuasive arguments for not pressing the Amendment. The suggestion that there should be a qualification of one year's service with the current employer would mean that workers would lose protection for a period every time they moved their job. I believe that that would bear especially harshly on long-serving farm workers who had been with one employer for a considerable length of time. Its further effect would inevitably be to discourage the mobility of labour. I believe that I argued this on a previous occasion. Agricultural workers would think twice about moving if that meant losing their security for a period. I believe that that would be particularly unfortunate where young skilled workers are concerned. We have definitely discussed this, and I hope, for the reasons that I have given, that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.

On Question, Motion disagreed to.

Back to