I should like to come back to the base date, which arises under this section. The Minister said the identical thing when we were discussing the Principal Act; that he would be flexible within a few days if an industry could show that they had let people off a few days before the 20th and that they would be brought in. I accept that, but I do not think that is much help now. In the light of what the Minister told us before on the Principal Act, I take it that the flexibility was perhaps three, four or five days. It does not help in the least in the case of an industry which since then—last autumn, last winter, this spring or this summer—finds itself in difficulties, lets off workers, but later on would like to reopen or to expand production and wishes to take on extra workers. In no way can it benefit from this Bill.
That is the problem. One has to take the number of workers the industry employed on 20th June last, or, if the Minister likes, perhaps on 15th, 16th or 17th June, 1975, and if they take on extra workers beyond that figure they can benefit from the premium, otherwise they cannot. For the whole of this year and the whole of the second half of last year, any industry that got into difficulties at that time and then wished to expand cannot benefit from premiums. That is still the position. When I heard that this amending Bill was being brought in I assumed, as a matter of course, that a new and more relevant, reasonable and up-to-date base date would be taken so that industries which in the past 12 months or so had problems would be in a position to benefit. It greatly limits the operation of the scheme by being worked in this arbitrary way.
I find the problem of the apparent average of 12 weeks during which premiums are being paid in respect of workers puzzling and I would be interested to know what the Minister has to say on it. I am not particularly happy about his point that he has the power to increase the premium from £7.50 next September. I am aware of that. One might wonder whether he will be able to get the money from the Minister for Finance, but that is another day's work.
A great part of the attraction of this scheme is that an employer can feel that, if he takes on extra workers beyond today's date, he will be paid the premium over a period. It is no great help in midstream, as it were, to alter the rate. It is the incentive that is important. The present position of an employer is that he knows that from the 17th September next the premium will be halved. Therefore, if there is to be any change made it should be made now. The Minister should not wait until September because by then the damage will have been done and employers will have assumed that there is only a relatively small time left for the £15 premium. The Minister, when he brought in the principal Act, at the very last minute brought in an amendment to include agriculture. This amendment, as we pointed out at the time, was framed in such a way that it was very unlikely that much use was made of it. As far as I remember, a farmer had to keep a man for the nine complete months before he was paid anything. We doubt if it will have much effect. I would be interested to know how many people in agriculture have received the premium.
