Debates — Employment Act 2008

2nd reading, Programme motion, Money resolution in the Commons

14 Jul 2008190 speechesView in Hansard ↗

The Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs (Mr. Pat McFadden)I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. I thought for a moment that the presence of the Leader of the O…
Speaker
The Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs (Mr. Pat McFadden)Labour
Quote
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. I thought for a moment that the presence of the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer and so many grandees indicated a sudden interest in minimum wage enforcement. However, as I observe the backs of Members leaving the Chamber, I realise that that may not be the case. The Government’s employment policy is rooted in the clear principle that the pursuit of economic prosperity must be combined with the pursuit of social justice. We do not believe that society should be forced to choose between those two objectives, and as the economy has grown and employment has grown over the past decades, people in work have enjoyed a better deal. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said recently that for over a decade, the United Kingdom has sustained low inflation and rapid economic growth—an exceptional achievement, the fruit of strong policies and policy frameworks, which provide a strong foundation to weather global challenges. The OECD also praised sound institutional arrangements and regulatory policies that promote efficiency and economic resilience. The International Monetary Fund has said: “Macroeconomic stability in the United Kingdom remains remarkable”, and that our “flexible and dynamic labour market” is one of the United Kingdom’s economic strengths. We understand the pressures faced by families as a result of global factors, but our economic record is no accident. Combining economic prosperity and social justice is not just complementary: it has been essential to the continued success of the labour market in Britain. The Bill makes changes to the dispute resolution procedures for people at work, and it strengthens the enforcement of the employment rights for which this House has legislated. In doing so, it offers better protection for people at work and is also in the interests of the vast majority of reputable businesses who obey the law and treat their workers fairly.
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mrs. Nadine Dorries (Mid-Bedfordshire) (Con)I hope to be called to speak later as my interests are wide and varied, but for now I ask the Minister to inform me why…
Speaker
Mrs. Nadine Dorries (Mid-Bedfordshire) (Con)Conservative
Quote
I hope to be called to speak later as my interests are wide and varied, but for now I ask the Minister to inform me why he feels that this Bill is more important than the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which we should have been debating today?
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. McFaddenThe House discusses many important issues, and I disagree with the hon. Lady if she feels that it is not important that…
Speaker
Mr. McFaddenLabour
Quote
The House discusses many important issues, and I disagree with the hon. Lady if she feels that it is not important that the House debates minimum wage enforcement and the other subjects that the Employment Bill addresses. I am glad we have this opportunity to debate them today. A clear, quick and effective enforcement regime will ensure that individuals are properly compensated if their rights are infringed. The Bill toughens enforcement of employment law by introducing new penalties for employers who do not pay the minimum wage, and it provides additional powers enabling employment agency inspectors to deal with rogue agencies. The Bill will reform the mechanisms for dispute resolution by repealing the statutory workplace dispute resolution procedures and replacing them with a package of non-legislative measures to help employers and employees resolve disputes earlier.
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con)Does the hon. Gentleman agree with what Michael Gibbons said about these regulations: that they are inflexible and rest…
Speaker
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con)Conservative
Quote
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with what Michael Gibbons said about these regulations: that they are inflexible and restrictive? Does he agree that this was an example of the policy being good but the execution being appalling?
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. McFaddenThe Gibbons report said these reforms had been well intentioned but had had unintended consequences. That is precisely…
Speaker
Mr. McFaddenLabour
Quote
The Gibbons report said these reforms had been well intentioned but had had unintended consequences. That is precisely why we are repealing them and replacing them with non-statutory measures. We estimate that the changes contained in the Bill will produce annual benefits of some £177 million, and these measures are just a part of the wider simplification agenda, which is set to deliver benefits over and above that over the next three years. In addition, the Bill clarifies the position of cadet force adult volunteers in relation to the minimum wage and permits the payment of a broader range of expenses to voluntary workers without triggering entitlement to the minimum wage. It also amends trade union membership law to comply with the European Court of Human Rights judgement in ASLEF v. UK. I shall now turn in more detail to the measures in the Bill, beginning with those on workplace dispute resolution. In March 2007, the Government published Michael Gibbons’ independent “Better Dispute Resolution: a Review of Employment Dispute Resolution in Great Britain” and an associated Government consultation paper, “Resolving Disputes in the Workplace”. While the current statutory dispute resolution system is based on well-founded principles, the review highlighted several drawbacks in the way the system is operating, such as the inflexibility and high administrative burden of the mandatory procedures affecting both employers and employees, and that the road to the tribunal is fixed too early, resulting in a significant proportion of cases reaching a tribunal hearing which could have been resolved beforehand between the parties. Access to tribunals is an important part of the dispute resolution system and an important recourse for employees who may be facing mistreatment at work, but it is also the case that if disputes can be resolved more informally or earlier, perhaps through conciliation, that is to the benefit of all concerned. The Government response to the consultation on dispute resolution shows that the responses were broadly supportive of the conclusions of the review. Some 76 per cent. of respondents favoured repeal of the 2004 procedures and only 20 per cent. opposed it. Clauses 1 and 2 provide for the repeal of the procedures and of linked provisions on procedural unfairness, but the review also made it clear that repeal of the statutory procedures must be accompanied by a package of other measures to encourage good practice in the resolution of workplace disputes and to ensure that Government-funded services promote early resolution as effectively as possible. So, to accompany the repeal, ACAS is revising its statutory code on disciplinary and grievance procedures. The draft code, which is out for public consultation, is concise and principles-based, and it will be supported by fuller non-statutory guidance.
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. HealdThe draft code does not seem to make clear the final date by which people must return their consultation replies. Is th…
Speaker
Mr. HealdConservative
Quote
The draft code does not seem to make clear the final date by which people must return their consultation replies. Is the Minister able to help by telling us what that date is? A date has been given in respect of the guidance—the end of this month—but it would be useful to know what the position is on the draft code.
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. McFaddenIf the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I may come back to him on the precise date. Michael Gibbons also argued for an inc…
Speaker
Mr. McFaddenLabour
Quote
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I may come back to him on the precise date. Michael Gibbons also argued for an incentive for compliance with the ACAS code. Clause 3 gives tribunals the discretion to adjust awards upwards or downwards by a maximum of 25 per cent. where they find that parties have unreasonably failed to comply with the code. The provision is designed to encourage compliance, but I emphasise that it is a discretionary power for employment judges to apply in the circumstances of the case, without the rigidity of the previous automatic link to the statutory procedures. The Gibbons review concluded that better advice and guidance and greater availability of conciliation as early as possible in a dispute could enable there to be more resolutions without recourse to the tribunal.
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)The Minister has said that the award can be varied upwards or downwards by 25 per cent. Will he explain to the House th…
Speaker
Mr. Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)Conservative
Quote
The Minister has said that the award can be varied upwards or downwards by 25 per cent. Will he explain to the House the circumstances in which there would be a downwards move?
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. McFaddenOne such example might be where an employee had been found to have a case, but they had not complied with the code. Alt…
Speaker
Mr. McFaddenLabour
Quote
One such example might be where an employee had been found to have a case, but they had not complied with the code. Although they still had a case, the tribunal might judge that the award to them should be lowered by up to 25 per cent. The Government are making substantial further investment—up to £37 million over three years—to improve the accessibility of the advice services provided by ACAS and to provide additional ACAS conciliation services for disputes before they become the subject of an employment tribunal claim. That is important, because we are not only repealing the statutory procedures in place; we are providing additional funding for the conciliation that we think can help to resolve more disputes earlier. ACAS has a good reputation among both employers and employees, and expanding its work in this way should give more support to the earlier resolution of disputes. Before I move on from discussing the Gibbons review, I am happy to inform the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) that the closing date for the code consultation is 24 July. The Bill also contains two legislative changes intended to maximise the effectiveness of ACAS conciliation. Clause 5 changes ACAS’s existing duty to conciliate in cases that are not yet the subject of a tribunal claim, on request of the parties, into a power. That will enable ACAS to prioritise its case load effectively within its statutory powers. Clause 6 removes the time restrictions on ACAS’s duty to offer conciliation to parties already involved in employment tribunal claims, thus ensuring that ACAS conciliation is open to parties right up until the tribunal hears the case. One of the effects of the current system has been that people’s minds are often not concentrated fully until the tribunal hearing is almost upon them, and that provision will enable ACAS to continue to offer its services right up until that moment. Michael Gibbons recommended that some tribunal cases, which hinge on the determination of facts in monetary disputes, could be dealt with more quickly. That could largely be achieved by changes to employment tribunal practice, but, again, legislative changes in the Bill provide support. Clause 4 creates additional safeguards, should the Government decide to activate as yet unused powers for employment judges to decide cases using written evidence without a hearing. Clause 7 simplifies the process for claimants who have suffered direct financial losses arising out of the employer’s non-payment of money due—such losses could arise as a result of bank charges for unauthorised overdrafts. In those circumstances, the tribunal would be able to make an additional award against the employer to provide compensation for such losses, rather than leaving the claimant to bring a separate action in the small claims court.
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. HealdThe Minister will know that tripartite decision making in the tribunals is strongly supported. The ability of laymen fr…
Speaker
Mr. HealdConservative
Quote
The Minister will know that tripartite decision making in the tribunals is strongly supported. The ability of laymen from the employers’ side and the employees’ side to be part of the decision making is very important. Will what he has just said affect that in any way? Will we see more cases dealt with just by the chairman—the lawyer—and fewer dealt with by the lay members, who bring their important knowledge to bear?
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. McFaddenI agree about the value of lay members to the tribunal process, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is not unh…
Speaker
Mr. McFaddenLabour
Quote
I agree about the value of lay members to the tribunal process, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is not unheard of for tribunal judges to sit alone in some limited jurisdiction cases. We are talking about the capacity not only for tribunal judges to sit alone, but for them to decide cases without a hearing, in limited circumstances that are set out in the clause to which I referred. The national minimum wage has been one of this Government’s proudest achievements. It was opposed by many, including the Opposition, before it was established. I see that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is in his place, but his party did not turn up for the vote on Third Reading. Despite that, it has become an important and widely supported foundation of fair treatment in the labour market. Some 1 million workers continue to benefit from the assistance of the minimum wage. Last week, the House approved regulations increasing the hourly rate from £5.52 an hour to £5.73 from October this year. Historically, low-paid groups have benefited more than most, including part-time workers and low-paid women. Since the introduction of the minimum wage, the lowest paid have seen their pay increase more quickly than the pay of many other workers. The vast majority of employers willingly comply with the legislation, but that is not always the case and there are exceptions. Most businesses want to obey the law and treat their staff fairly but there are those who are willing to break the law by denying their staff the minimum wage. That impacts on those workers who are underpaid, but also enables those dishonest employers who flout the law to undercut the vast majority of law-abiding businesses that comply. That is not only unfair, but uncompetitive, and through the measures in this Bill we are determined to take tougher action against it. We will crack down on the minority of rogue employers who fail to comply with the minimum wage. Between 2003 and 2006, we completed some 15,000 investigations and identified underpayments totalling £9.6 million. In the past year, the Government have helped to restore more than £3 million in arrears to more than 14,000 workers.
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. WalkerIn the Minister’s experience, which sectors of our economy are most prone to breaking the law relating to the payment o…
Speaker
Mr. WalkerConservative
Quote
In the Minister’s experience, which sectors of our economy are most prone to breaking the law relating to the payment of the minimum wage?
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. McFaddenIt is the traditionally lowest paid sectors. For example, this year we have targeted minimum wage enforcement on the ho…
Speaker
Mr. McFaddenLabour
Quote
It is the traditionally lowest paid sectors. For example, this year we have targeted minimum wage enforcement on the hospitality industry, which has a record of low pay. Most employers in that industry are happy to abide by the law, but we have seen some cases of underpayment. We consulted last year on proposals for a new penalty for underpayment of the minimum wage and a fairer way of calculating arrears. Our conclusion was that the enforcement regime should be strengthened in several respects. Clause 8 amends the method of calculating arrears owed to those who have been underpaid. They are currently paid at the rate in force at the time when the underpayment took place, which means that when arrears are paid to cover underpayments that took place over several years, the worker loses out from the upratings that have taken place in the meantime. The Bill will change that so that all arrears owed are paid at the current rate, helping to compensate for the potential loss of purchasing power since the offence originally took place. Clause 9 introduces an enhanced penalty regime, reflecting the serious view taken by the Government of employers who still do not comply with the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. Under the new regime, employers will be liable to a penalty if it is found that they have been making underpayments. The penalty will be based on the employer’s level of non-compliance—that is, the total amount of underpayment—subject to a minimum penalty of £100 and a maximum of £5,000. We want to encourage quick repayment, so the penalty will be reduced by one half if the employer repays all arrears to workers within 14 days.
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. WalkerOne thing that concerns many people in the House, particularly in relation to the hospitality industry, is the handling…
Speaker
Mr. WalkerConservative
Quote
One thing that concerns many people in the House, particularly in relation to the hospitality industry, is the handling of tips. Will the Minister take any action against those restaurants and establishments that include tips as part of the salary, as opposed to treating them as a gratuity paid by the customer to a member of staff for excellent service?
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. McFaddenWe have had representations on the subject, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, Nort…
Speaker
Mr. McFaddenLabour
Quote
We have had representations on the subject, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan), who has been very active on that matter. To clarify, everybody in an industry where tipping is common is entitled to the minimum wage, but when tips and gratuities are processed through the payroll of the employer it can, at the moment, count towards the minimum wage. That issue has been raised and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he is looking into it. Clause 10 ensures that officers enforcing the minimum wage can take records relating to it in order to make copies of them. Clauses 11 and 12 enhance the way in which we can deal with the most serious offenders by increasing criminal investigative powers and enabling offences to be tried in a Crown court with the prospect of an unlimited fine. The Low Pay Commission said in its report last year: “We welcome this determination to tackle recalcitrant employers, especially as evidence presented to us during our consultations over the last few years has highlighted the ongoing problem of non-compliance.” Those changes will ensure that everyone who is caught not paying will pay a penalty, with a potentially unlimited fine for the most serious cases. They send a strong message that paying the minimum wage is not an option but a requirement that must be taken seriously. Coupled with an increase in the enforcement budget of £11.6 million over four years, the measures underline the Government’s commitment to securing the fairest outcome for all. As I said, good employers have nothing to fear from the changes. In fact, it is in their interests that there should be a tough enforcement regime that stops illegal underpayment of the minimum wage.
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con)Will the Minister give the House an idea of the number of serious cases that the powers in the Bill are designed to dea…
Speaker
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con)Conservative
Quote
Will the Minister give the House an idea of the number of serious cases that the powers in the Bill are designed to deal with? We are giving considerable investigative powers and powers to deal with serious cases on indictment. Therefore, will he give us some idea of how many cases we are talking about?
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. McFaddenMost employers are happy to pay when the problem is pointed out. I can give the hon. Gentleman the figures for last yea…
Speaker
Mr. McFaddenLabour
Quote
Most employers are happy to pay when the problem is pointed out. I can give the hon. Gentleman the figures for last year as an example. The total number of employers who were found to be non-compliant with the minimum wage was 1,649. The total number of workers involved was just over 19,000 and the average arrears per worker were £202. That gives some idea of the scope of non-compliance that we know about at the moment.
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)Will the Minister say how many non-compliant employers have been prosecuted as a result of not paying the minimum wage?
Speaker
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)Liberal Democrat
Quote
Will the Minister say how many non-compliant employers have been prosecuted as a result of not paying the minimum wage?
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. McFaddenAccording to the figures from last year, 59 enforcement notices were issued and 25 penalty notices. The emphasis has be…
Speaker
Mr. McFaddenLabour
Quote
According to the figures from last year, 59 enforcement notices were issued and 25 penalty notices. The emphasis has been on compliance. It is partly because we think that that needs to be strengthened that we are proposing the changes. Prosecution will still take place only in the most serious cases, but we think it right that there be a penalty for employers caught not paying the minimum wage.
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire, North) (Lab)My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a national minimum wage for agricultural workers in Scotland, although it is…
Speaker
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire, North) (Lab)Labour
Quote
My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a national minimum wage for agricultural workers in Scotland, although it is under threat from the SNP Administration, who will scrap the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. Is there anything that my hon. Friend’s Department can do in that event?
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. McFaddenMy hon. Friend raises an important point. If anyone wants to know about the attitude of the SNP to the minimum wage, th…
Speaker
Mr. McFaddenLabour
Quote
My hon. Friend raises an important point. If anyone wants to know about the attitude of the SNP to the minimum wage, they should look not just at events a decade ago, when SNP Members did not even bother to turn up to vote for the minimum wage, but at their current proposals which, as he says, place a question mark over the Agricultural Wages Board for Scotland. I am sure that people in Scotland will have taken note of that question mark and are asking why such a thing should be the case.
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Emily Thornberry (Islington, South and Finsbury) (Lab)Will my hon. Friend help us by giving some examples of non-compliance, so that people have a clearer idea why we need e…
Speaker
Emily Thornberry (Islington, South and Finsbury) (Lab)Labour
Quote
Will my hon. Friend help us by giving some examples of non-compliance, so that people have a clearer idea why we need enforcement?
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. McFaddenI have already given the House some figures on non-compliance. As I said, 1,649 employers were found to be non-complian…
Speaker
Mr. McFaddenLabour
Quote
I have already given the House some figures on non-compliance. As I said, 1,649 employers were found to be non-compliant last year and the average arrears per worker are £202. For someone earning £5.52 an hour on the minimum wage, £202 is a lot of money, which is precisely why we want to strengthen the enforcement regime to send a clear signal that arrears should not be regarded as an interest-free loan from employers to employees but should attract a penalty when discovered.
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Sarah Teather (Brent, East) (LD)Has the Minister considered representations made by the unions and by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cab…
Speaker
Sarah Teather (Brent, East) (LD)Liberal Democrat
Quote
Has the Minister considered representations made by the unions and by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) to the effect that employers should pay interest on arrears so that they do not have an interest-free loan at the expense of their employees?
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. McFaddenThe payment of interest has been raised with us, but it would take us into complicated areas with regard to the tax tre…
Speaker
Mr. McFaddenLabour
Quote
The payment of interest has been raised with us, but it would take us into complicated areas with regard to the tax treatment of the interest. I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want workers on the minimum wage to have to fill out a separate tax return simply because they had received a small amount of interest. Unfairness was developing in the way in which arrears were being paid because, as I said, upratings were not being taken into account. By taking upratings into account and paying all arrears at the current rate, even if the underpayment goes back several years, we shall deal with the issue of what could, in effect, have been an interest-free loan. On cadet force adult volunteers, when the minimum wage was introduced, it was designed to enable the voluntary sector to continue to operate successfully and with certainty within the law, while minimising the chance of sub-minimum wage jobs emerging which could be unfairly badged as volunteering. Last year’s consultation showed that the rules were working well on the whole, but it also indicated that there was a need to clarify the position for cadet force adult volunteers, who occupy a unique role, as they are linked to the armed forces and undergo special training and security clearance. Cadet force adult volunteers devote a large amount of time and energy to engaging 130,000 young people in the cadet forces. I think the whole House will agree that we should be grateful for their dedication to making a positive difference to the lives of so many young people. Any confusion that may arise about eligibility for the minimum wage could seriously damage the ability of the cadet forces to continue to provide their services. For that reason, clause 13 amends the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 to make it clear that cadet force adult volunteers do not qualify for the minimum wage. I stress the fact that the provision does not change the current situation, but puts it beyond doubt in law. It will enable cadet force adult volunteers to operate exactly as they do currently and it will not affect any entitlement to the minimum wage that they may have outside cadet force activity. In addition to clarifying the position of cadet force adult volunteers, we have taken the opportunity to extend the range of expenses that voluntary workers can receive without triggering eligibility for the national minimum wage. That issue has been raised with us a number of times by voluntary organisations. Again, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House want the voluntary sector to thrive and unnecessary barriers to volunteering to be removed. Currently, voluntary workers can be reimbursed for expenses incurred only in the actual performance of their duties. That was designed to ensure that extra expenses were not used as a method to avoid paying the minimum wage. However, voluntary workers clearly necessarily incur expenses to perform their duties, such as those involving child care, travel or the cost of specialist clothing or equipment. We recognise that voluntary workers should not be financially burdened as a result of their activities. Clause 14 will therefore enable voluntary organisations to reimburse such expenses where they are legitimate. That will enable voluntary workers to continue to make their highly valuable contributions to society, while ensuring that they are not out of pocket in doing so.
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lorely BurtI wonder whether the Minister can explain to the House the reasoning for excluding accommodation costs.
Speaker
Lorely BurtLiberal Democrat
Quote
I wonder whether the Minister can explain to the House the reasoning for excluding accommodation costs.
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. McFaddenAccommodation can be directly provided, as part of a voluntary activity, but we were not keen to have what could be lar…
Speaker
Mr. McFaddenLabour
Quote
Accommodation can be directly provided, as part of a voluntary activity, but we were not keen to have what could be large amounts of rent changing hands. Large sums could be involved, and that could take us into a grey area in deciding what was expenses and what was not. So we have widened the definition, and accommodation can be directly provided. That is the judgment that we reached on the issue. Clauses 15 to 17 will change the enforcement of employment agency legislation. Under the Employment Agencies Act 1973, any breach of the Act or the regulations made under it that govern employment agencies is a criminal offence capable of being tried in a magistrates court. By making offences triable either way, as the Bill will do, we aim to increase deterrence against non-compliance by the prospect of the unlimited fines available in the Crown court for the worst offenders. Stronger investigative powers, including the right to take away documents to copy and to request financial information on non-compliant agencies held by financial institutions, should also enable more successful prosecution of the worst offenders. Alongside the strengthening of the enforcement powers, we are doubling the number of inspectors appointed under employment agency legislation. That will provide important additional resources, both to help legitimate agencies that seek to comply with the law and to enable inspectors to crack down on non-compliance. Finally, the Bill will amend trade union law to ensure that it complies with the European convention on human rights, following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of ASLEF v. the United Kingdom. According to that judgment, the current limitations on the ability of trade unions to exclude or expel individuals on the grounds of their membership of a political party breach article 11 of the convention. Clause 18 will therefore amend the sections of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that gave rise to the ASLEF v. the UK case. The case involved the inability of ASLEF to expel members of the British National party whose views were incompatible with those of the union.
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Jim SheridanWill my hon. Friend perhaps expand on the ECHR ruling on European law? Given that most, if not all, trade unions have a…
Speaker
Jim SheridanLabour
Quote
Will my hon. Friend perhaps expand on the ECHR ruling on European law? Given that most, if not all, trade unions have a rulebook agreed by the members and that, when someone joins a trade union, its rules are made perfectly clear, why is it not acceptable for trade unions to expel someone for breaking the rules when an employer can do so?
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. McFaddenThe ECHR discussed such rights in the ruling. Of course, there are rights to expression and freedoms of association, an…
Speaker
Mr. McFaddenLabour
Quote
The ECHR discussed such rights in the ruling. Of course, there are rights to expression and freedoms of association, and the ruling touches on both. During the Bill’s progress through the other place, there was much discussion of that issue, and the Government decided to amend clause 18 to add additional safeguards on the use of such powers. The version in the Bill also takes into account the views of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and others who felt that that the clause did not provide sufficient safeguards against possible abuse. They argued in favour of greater protection for individuals. The clause, although amended, still provides for compatibility with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. As long as trade unions act responsibly—I believe that they will—they should be able to act in accordance with the judgment. The Bill makes important changes to key areas of employment law, especially with regard to the effective enforcement of the laws passed in this Parliament. It will save businesses and individuals time and money through a widely supported reform of the dispute resolution framework. It provides more rigorous enforcement of the minimum wage and employment agency standards to benefit both the low-paid and the law-abiding businesses. It also clarifies the position of cadet force adult volunteers, who do such valuable work in the community, and allows necessary expenses to be paid to individuals carrying out voluntary work. It also makes necessary changes, as a result of an ECHR ruling, to trade union membership law. All in all, the Bill continues support for economic prosperity and fairness in the workplace, which we have promoted over the past decade. We have one of the highest employment rates in the G8 and among the lowest unemployment rates. We are rated by the World Bank as one of the best countries in the world in which to do business. We want to keep that record and to ensure that Britain is also one of the best countries in the world in which to work. I commend the Bill to the House.
Time
16:32
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)For the past decade, businesses of all sizes have had to cope with the steady drip, drip of employment legislation. Sin…
Speaker
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)Conservative
Quote
For the past decade, businesses of all sizes have had to cope with the steady drip, drip of employment legislation. Since 1997, the Government have introduced some 18 Acts and more than 280 statutory instruments dealing directly with employment, which have often left employers bemused, baffled and bewildered by the negative implications for UK employment. Last autumn, pre-credit crunch, a survey by the Federation of Small Businesses found that nearly 80 per cent. of small business owners handled paperwork themselves, and that a third of those businesses claimed that they would not be hiring new staff because of bureaucratic complexities. It is by that and other means that the Labour Government are continually damaging the flexibility of the UK’s labour market. Only a few weeks ago, a further deal was done between Labour and the trade unions to tamper with the laws on agency workers, which could be very damaging for already overburdened businesses. The Government made that massive and costly concession to their Back Benchers. They have fought in Brussels against the European agency workers directive for the past five years, but the sad reality is that they could no longer handle the pressure back at home. It is a testament to the Prime Minister’s weakness that Britain’s economic interests are being weighed up as less significant than his political survival. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform finally seems to recognise that the Government have gone too far. He recently admitted—of course, this was after the Government had passed 298 employment laws—that there was a “need to challenge the automatic assumption that the only way to deal with exploitation in the workplace is by passing new laws.” That is certainly something to support, but judging by the latest trade union wish list that has been floating around the media in advance of the Labour party’s Warwick discussions, he will have a big fight on his hands. As we enter this period of economic instability, it is critical that the Secretary of State ensures that flexibility remains a cornerstone of our labour market so that if unemployment begins to rise businesses have the proper flexibility to organise their work forces and can weather the storm. It is with that in mind that I shall examine the provisions of this latest Employment Bill. First, however, may I say that while the Bill’s passage through the Lords lasted for months, we were given only a few days’ notice of the debate, which was not ideal and not conducive to allowing Members to participate? Additionally, the Secretary of State has pulled out of leading on a Bill that he wishes to push through at such short notice, and we believe that that deserves some explanation from a Minister, perhaps during the wind-ups.
Time
17:06
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Angus MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about participation. Is it not indicative of what he says that only four Labour MPs…
Speaker
Mr. Angus MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)Independent
Quote
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about participation. Is it not indicative of what he says that only four Labour MPs are present to hear the debate on the Bill?
Time
17:06
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. DjanoglyThe hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. It is the second time that such a thing has happened; only a few weeks ago, the…
Speaker
Mr. DjanoglyConservative
Quote
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. It is the second time that such a thing has happened; only a few weeks ago, the Secretary of State failed to lead the debate on the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill. There are key Government Bills on deregulation and employment law, but the Secretary of State has not led on them. Business can draw its own conclusions from that.
Time
17:06
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Jim SheridanIf, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, employment legislation can lead to high unemployment, why is it that when his party…
Speaker
Jim SheridanLabour
Quote
If, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, employment legislation can lead to high unemployment, why is it that when his party was in office, 3 million people were unemployed, but during our party’s time in government there has been very low unemployment? What does that have to do with employment legislation?
Time
17:06
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. DjanoglyI will not answer that question, which is a thesis point, in any depth, mainly because I never said what the hon. Gentl…
Speaker
Mr. DjanoglyConservative
Quote
I will not answer that question, which is a thesis point, in any depth, mainly because I never said what the hon. Gentleman claims I said. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) may have had a point when she said that perhaps the Government wanted to avoid a debate on abortion today because of the by-election on Thursday. We can only speculate.
Time
17:06
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Emily ThornberryWill the hon. Gentleman assist us on one point? He seems to be saying that, on the one hand, flexibility is the corners…
Speaker
Emily ThornberryLabour
Quote
Will the hon. Gentleman assist us on one point? He seems to be saying that, on the one hand, flexibility is the cornerstone of our economy, but, on the other hand, we do not have flexibility. May I prod him a little more and ask him why, when we have the highest employment rates and the highest number of people employed, he continues to complain about the markets not being sufficiently flexible? Will he please explain that to us?
Time
17:06
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. DjanoglyThe hon. Lady talks as though there are absolutes of flexibility. There are no absolutes. The Conservative Government l…
Speaker
Mr. DjanoglyConservative
Quote
The hon. Lady talks as though there are absolutes of flexibility. There are no absolutes. The Conservative Government left a relatively flexible economy in place, but it has steadily become less flexible under this Labour Government. The first aspect of the Bill that I wish to discuss is the clauses dealing with dispute resolution. Clause 1 repeals clauses and schedules of the Government’s Employment Act 2002 and removes the statutory procedures for resolving disputes in the workplace in their entirety. We support that conceptually, but it should be appreciated that that is a desperately embarrassing U-turn for the Government, who doggedly defended the procedures when the provisions in the 2002 Act were initially examined by the Standing Committee. It would serve as a useful reminder of the cost of that change of heart, both in terms of the House’s time and taxpayers’ money, if I ran through some of the warnings that my hon. Friends gave the Government about the existing statutory procedures, and highlighted some of the Government’s reasons, now proven to be flawed, for implementing that legislation. In debate in the Standing Committee, on 13 December 2001, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) quoted a number of parties’ misgivings about the statutory procedures. The Engineering Employers Federation argued that the “the proposals are unclear, complicated and might prove counter productive.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 13 December 2001; c. 139.] The Law Society said that they would “undermine the ACAS…Code.” ACAS has been in existence since 1975, and it is dedicated to preventing and resolving employment disputes. When the Employment Act 2002 was passed nearly 30 years later, it made reference to the ACAS code but did not implement it in full. That was clearly a mistake, and it has led to much confusion for both employers and employees.
Time
17:06
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. HealdIs not my hon. Friend being characteristically generous in his comments about the Government? Did not a 1994 Green Pape…
Speaker
Mr. HealdConservative
Quote
Is not my hon. Friend being characteristically generous in his comments about the Government? Did not a 1994 Green Paper include the proposal, although the Conservative Government did not go ahead with the idea of internal procedures having to be dealt with first? Ian Lang, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said at the time that the “the reservations expressed by many responding to the Green Paper that the proposal to require employees to attempt to resolve disputes with their employers before being able to make an application to an industrial tribunal might lead to increased delays and complexity in tribunal procedures, rather than alleviating them.”—[Official Report, 20 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 20W.] In other words, he got it right three or four years before Labour came to power.
Time
17:06
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. DjanoglyI thank my hon. Friend for his important contribution. The issue goes even further. If we look through the record, we s…
Speaker
Mr. DjanoglyConservative
Quote
I thank my hon. Friend for his important contribution. The issue goes even further. If we look through the record, we see that even the trade unions, the Labour party’s close friends, had misgivings at the time. The TUC expressed its concerns over the “potential confusion” between the proposed legislation and the widely supported ACAS code. However, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), then Minister with responsibility for employment relations, was undeterred by such criticism. His response was to say: “We have set out a minimum three-step procedure because that is the right direction in which to move”—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 13 December 2001; c.142 .] He even implied that employment disputes would be simplified, as the Employment Bill as it was at that time had fewer provisions than the ACAS code. However, at some point the Government decided that the three-step procedure was not the right direction to take. The measures came into force in October 2004, and the Government spent the following years trying to undo the legislation that they themselves created. In March 2006, less than two years after statutory procedures were introduced, the Government published a policy statement rather grandly called “Success at Work”, in which they announced that a review of the dispute resolution regulations was necessary. In the course of the next few months, they came clean about the fact that a full review of all dispute resolution procedures was needed. The then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry admitted that the time, cost and stress involved in settling disputes could be reduced by making changes. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) has noted, the consequent review, undertaken by Michael Gibbons, found that the procedures, as they stood at the time, involved a high administrative burden for both employers and employees; that they resulted in the need to use formal mechanisms such as the laying down of red tape, although previously disputes could be informally resolved; and that they were over-complex and the penalties for failing to observe them resulted in employers and employees seeking external legal advice earlier than in the past. That last consequence is of particular interest as the Government claim in their explanatory notes to the new Employment Bill that it was unforeseen. We beg to differ. In a Committee discussion on 18 December 2001, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) pointed out to the Minister with responsibility for employment relations that the Government’s dispute resolution procedures “would open the door for yet another lawyers’ bonanza.” My hon. Friend continued his warning to the Minister by arguing that there existed a need “to establish certainty so that employers and employees can enter contractual arrangements knowing that they are compliant with the law without having to get involved with lawyers.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 18 December 2001; c. 178.] He then questioned the suitability of the proposed and subsequently implemented legislation for achieving that certainty. The Minister’s response was that the procedures were designed to be simple and easy to understand and that uncertainty should not arise. At least now, by proposing to repeal said statutory procedures, the Government are admitting that that over-simplistic assessment was utterly wrong. The problem is that this is yet another occasion on which Labour has got it wrong. Last week’s Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill, which the Minister and I recently debated, was its third attempt at reform, and this is its second attempt on dispute resolution procedures. What the Secretary of State said about less employment legislation is the opposite of the case—not only are we seeing more and more employment legislation, but a good part of it is an attempt to patch up previous, failed labour laws. We support the existence of a national minimum wage and the continual monitoring of the legislative provisions dealing with it. We also support action to ensure that workers who receive the minimum wage do not lose out in real terms when they are owed arrears as a result of underpayment. The current law gives almost no deterrent to underpayment, and we would welcome its amendment. However, we have concerns about certain aspects of this area of the Bill and we would like to hear more from the Government. They claim that they expect the new penalty measures under clause 11 to increase the deterrent effect on businesses that do not currently pay the national minimum wage. The Minister has said that some 1,600 employers were found to be non-compliant, but last year only very few cases of underpayment were deemed bad enough to lead to the issue of one of the Government’s penalty notices. Other cases led to the employer paying arrears, but in no way being punished for the illegal underpayment. The Government have also said that only 5 to 10 per cent. of cases will result in the imposition of a penalty under the new legislation; it is therefore unclear to us how the new penalty, applied to only a small fraction of cases, will act as more of a deterrent than the currently rarely applied penalty notice. The Minister shook his head at my figure of 5 to 10 per cent., and I would be grateful if he put me right on that. While the proposal to allow enforcement officers to be able to withdraw and replace notices of underpayment is beneficial as errors may be corrected, the potential disadvantage, as with the current penalty notice regime, is that there are no real incentives for officers to get the notice right first time. Officers may issue an incorrect notice, put the employer to the trouble and expense of appealing it, and simply start again when they recognise their error. As with so many of the Government’s attempts to make things better, there is potential for red tape and bureaucracy to mar the process. We strongly oppose the suggestion made in the other place on 13 March that the national minimum wage be extended to foreigners working on British ships and foreigners working on any ship at any time when it is within British territorial waters. Broadly speaking, we are concerned that those changes could be made prematurely, and we shall look to the Minister to address those concerns. I note that he did not comment on the report by the TUC’s commission on vulnerable employment. Perhaps he could comment on the Government’s findings on that report in relation to the proposals in the Bill. I urge that any changes that are made be implemented with maximum publicity. All employers must be given the opportunity to assess their companies and to correct any failings in payment of the national minimum wage before the new penalties are imposed. Have the Government yet given any indication of the expected costs of the new powers in enforcing the minimum penalty? If not, it is difficult to assess whether the proposals are the best way forward in protecting low-paid, vulnerable workers. The Minister concluded with the provisions on trade union membership, and I shall do the same. I therefore turn to clause 18, which, as he said, represents a response to the judgment made on 27 February last year by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of ASLEF v. the UK. The clause enables trade unions to prohibit or expel from their organisation an individual who belongs, or has belonged to, a particular political party. It amends the relevant sections of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. To our mind, the clause represents yet another rewrite of inadequate provisions that the Government introduced just four years ago.
Time
17:06
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Jim SheridanThe hon. Gentleman clearly has a jaundiced view of trade unions. Perhaps I could point out that his party’s candidate i…
Speaker
Jim SheridanLabour
Quote
The hon. Gentleman clearly has a jaundiced view of trade unions. Perhaps I could point out that his party’s candidate in the Glasgow, East by-election goes out of her way to tell people that she is a member of a trade union and has said as a matter of public record that trade unions are a force for good. What does he say to her?
Time
17:06
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. DjanoglyI can only tell the hon. Gentleman that the shadow Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform an…
Speaker
Mr. DjanoglyConservative
Quote
I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that the shadow Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and I joined the TUC’s commission on vulnerable employment, contributed to its report and attended one of its evidence sessions. We have taken an interest in the trade unions’ viewpoint on this matter, which is why I ask the Government to do likewise. Perhaps they are embarrassed and do not want to bring them into the discussion. I am helping the hon. Gentleman by bringing the unions’ case on to the Floor of the House. The Employment Relations Act 2004 introduced measures to allow trade unions to expel members with extreme political views. The then Minister with responsibility for employment relations, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), hailed the new provisions as striking the right balance between workers, trade unions and employers. He argued that they would provide “protections for workers” and said that he believed that successful workplaces are founded on partnerships between employers, workers and their representatives. That is all well and good—how different, though, from the position of the Government today. The current Minister seems to have no qualms about throwing the interests of the aforementioned workers and employers out with the bath water in order to allow the trade unions to sit at the top table and call the shots. These, of course, are the same trade unions that now provide more than 90 per cent. of the Labour party’s donations, as opposed to the 55 per cent. they provided when the earlier provisions were on the table. I agree that it is appropriate to respond to the ASLEF decision, but we have concerns about clause 18. We are pleased that the Government have accepted the much-debated amendment to clause 18, first proposed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and introduced by the Liberal Democrat Lord Lester of Herne Hill in the other place on 13 March. The decision to expel a trade union member will be unlawful if “the decision to exclude or expel was taken otherwise than in accordance with the union’s rules” or established procedures, or if the exclusion or expulsion would prejudice the individual’s livelihood or conditions of employment. That is a fair starting point for dealing with the sometimes conflicting rights of trade unions and their own members. It should ensure that a heavy-handed union boss cannot usurp the internal rules to which members sign up. It prevents trade unions from throwing out members purely on the basis that the opinions of the member differ from the union’s own ideals. It should also prevent unions from exerting power beyond their remit, thereby protecting the employment status of union members expelled under the clause. However, in order to protect union members from over-bearing union officials who may wish to impose their will unfairly, it would be preferable for stronger boundaries to be drawn around the clause. Clause 18 is silent on determining the organisations that are classified as political parties. That could allow trade unions to flex their muscles and evict individuals who are members of organisations with which the union clashes. Is it truly the intention of the ASLEF decision that membership of politically active organisations such as Greenpeace or Amnesty International should be grounds for eviction from a trade union? I do not think that that is intended. More thought needs to be put into the drafting of clause 18 if we are to prevent unions from imposing their political biases on their members. I also find the application of the clause to former membership of a political party somewhat worrying. Why should a 40-year-old employee, for instance, face the possibility of being evicted from a trade union on the basis that he was a member of a certain political party for a short time when he was a student? That aspect of the clause represents a one-size-fits-all approach typical of much of the union legislation of the old days, and maintains a definite air of retrospective punishment. Lord Bach argued that tighter wording in clause 18 was not necessary, as disgruntled expelled trade union members can make a complaint to the certification officer. I met the certification officer recently to discuss his role and the powers that he has been given, and on the basis of what he reported in that meeting I do not think that the Government’s argument holds much sway. By his own admission, the certification officer has very weak powers of inspection, and is not able to issue penalties to unions. That regulator is a relic of the trade union settlement of the 1940s and 1950s, rather than an effective, modern-day regulator, and it requires reform. The situation shows how little the Government think about the protection of individual trade union members as opposed to the unions themselves. Finally, we may be looking at the response to ASLEF from the wrong perspective. All in the House today would agree that many, if not most, of the BNP’s policies are abhorrent, but it is still classified as a political party, membership of which is not, per se, illegal. Should not eviction from a trade union still essentially be for reasons of improper conduct, rather than based on a blanket, one-size-fits-all attitude towards membership of a particular political party? On the final day of Grand Committee in the other place, Baroness Perry of Southwark said that the Minister remained open-minded on clause 18, and Lord Bach said that the Government remain open to others’ views on the clause. I hope that that is truly the case, and that the Government take full account of the arguments made today. Looking at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform legislative programme, I find increasingly that we are on some kind of merry-go-round, with Ministers calling for fewer laws, but doing the exact opposite. Ministers try to give the impression that they know where their party is heading, while in reality their union-led Back Benchers are not only calling the shots but regularly rebelling when they do not get what they want. At a time when British business is entering difficult waters, the last thing it needs is a Government who say one thing and then cannot deliver.
Time
17:06
Source
View in Hansard ↗
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)This is the first time that I have been accused of calling the shots on Government legislation. [Interruption.] I know,…
Speaker
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)Labour
Quote
This is the first time that I have been accused of calling the shots on Government legislation. [Interruption.] I know, although I will try to get through this speech without any further references to by-elections in Glasgow. My entry into this debate comes from my promotion last year of the Trade Union Rights and Freedoms Bill, which not only was supported by the TUC unanimously at congress, but received the support of action required by the Labour party conference. My Bill resulted from our experience in my constituency with Gate Gourmet. A large number of my constituents, largely Asian women, who were working for Gate Gourmet, a company that received contracts outsourced from British Airways, went to work one morning and were herded into a shed. A manager then came forward and sacked them by megaphone for refusing to sign up to new terms of work that would undermine their conditions, cut their pay and even threaten their pension status. At that time, we were looking for new legislation that would provide protection to those workers. However, some hon. Members will also recall that other members of the Transport and General Workers Union at the airport spontaneously came out on strike in solidarity. The airport is like a mining village. People work in different sections of the airport and for different companies. Many worked for companies to which contracts had been outsourced by British Airways and had worked with each other in the past. Indeed, many were members of the same family working in different areas, so there was a natural feeling of spontaneous support for the workers, largely women, who had been sacked so brutally by Gate Gourmet. The workers therefore came out on strike. As a result, the TGWU was threatened with tens of millions of pounds—the figure quoted was about £42 million—in fines by the aviation industry, which threatened to break the union. Eventually, the workers had to go back to work. Although the union did its best, some individuals suffered severe detriment, in both wages and conditions. Indeed, some of them are still not even back at work, despite all the union’s hard work and best endeavours. It was in that climate that I expected the Employment Bill to reflect the concerns of trade union members, as well as members of the community throughout, and to reflect the Trade Union Rights and Freedoms Bill, which we sought to promote last year, because such incidents continue. Only last week we had a debate with the Minister present—I am grateful for his help in the discussions that we are having—because the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union had come forward about the Lyndale group. For three years, Lyndale had been planning to restructure, but without consultation with the trade unions. Lyndale went into administration, but within hours established itself as a new company trading in exactly the same way, laid off 700 workers, avoided its responsibilities for redundancy payments and, again, frogmarched some workers off its site. That is no way in which to treat workers in this day and age. The reason why companies can treat workers so is that we have fewer trade union rights now than we had in 1906, after the Taff Vale judgment. We still do not have the right to strike embedded in law and we no longer have the right to solidarity action. As a result, the reality of work for many people is that they are exploited and feel unprotected, so I was hoping for a more ambitious Bill than this one. I would like to set out those areas in which some of us will seek to amend the Bill in Committee and on Report to improve the situation, so that people can be represented properly by their trade unions, and so that industrial harmony can break out. Respect for trade union rights has been fundamental for co-operation between workers and employers for two centuries now, and has produced an industrial climate that has been beneficial to both sides of the industry, as well as to the community overall. I would like to go through those elements of the Bill that I would like to be amended and which I hope will form the agenda for later debate. Other Members on our Benches have issues that they would like to raise for amendment, too. The first issue that I want to discuss is industrial action. There is currently no right to strike in law in this country, although we have the right to be protected for a limited period from employers’ attempts to threaten actions on breach of contract. In their most recent legislation on the issue, the Government improved the situation by extending the period of protection from eight to 12 weeks, but the right to strike is still not embedded in law, as it is across Europe. Furthermore, no protection is provided after 12 weeks, and I would like the Bill to be amended so that employees are given protection for an indefinite period when they go on strike. They should also have the right to take action if an employer takes action against them, unless the employer can prove that the detriment to, or the sacking of, a member of staff is not related to the industrial action. Even though people are protected for 12 weeks and action can be taken if they are sacked or suffer detriment, the Bill also fails to amend current law under which there is no effective way for them to ensure that they are reinstated. Their trade union may introduce a reinstatement order on their behalf following action by their employer, but such orders are made in only 0.2 per cent. of the cases that are brought, and few are implemented. I would therefore like the Bill to be amended to make effective the protection that people have when they take industrial action. The Bill also relates to agencies. We successfully introduced legislation to prevent agencies from being used to bring in workers to break strikes, but a loophole continues to exist, and agencies are still used to bring in strike-breaking workers. Indeed, in the Gate Gourmet case, the employer prepared well in advance by recruiting agency workers. I would like us to use a provision from the Trade Union Rights and Freedoms Bill to amend this Bill by placing a duty on the employer to inform the agency when a dispute takes place. At the moment, agencies often argue that they are unaware of such disputes. Unfortunately, the Bill also fails to consider ballot arrangements. The balloting process that trade unions currently have to undertake is complex and in many ways invites litigation and injunctions from employers. The Government need to examine a simplified notice system, which would benefit all sides. The employer should be given notice of future industrial action, but the amount of information required should be significantly reduced. For example, we have seen a number of disputes in which injunctions have been taken out against individual trade unions for not giving full information regarding the number, names and addresses of employees or the places where they work. Such requirements no longer reflect the modern workplace, where employees are moved from time to time, making it difficult to keep track of them, particularly when there is an element of outsourcing and contracts have been delegated to individual companies. I would like the Government to reconsider the issue, because it is in everyone’s interests that we introduce a simplified procedure for giving notice to the employer, which requires less information about the number of employees who will participate in the dispute. In that way, we would overcome the unnecessary difficulties and, often, conflicts that embitter disputes as a result of the notice requirements in existing legislation. We recently had an extensive debate in Westminster Hall on the minimum wage at which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was present. We hoped that the Bill would address a range of the issues that were raised, and although I welcome the fact that it addresses some of them, there are many outstanding ones. I still have a number of concerns—other hon. Members mentioned them during that Westminster Hall debate—including the Government’s failure to reconsider the youth rate of the minimum wage. It is perplexing for many of us that the youth rate discriminates against younger workers. There are currently three national minimum wage rates based on age; workers between the ages of 16 and 17 receive £3.40 an hour, workers between the ages of 18 and 21 get £4.60 and workers aged over 22 get £5.52 an hour. What that means for the 16 to 17-year-olds is an annual wage of £6,630; and for the 18 to 21-year-olds, it is £8,970. I believe that those are poverty wages, and I find it almost impossible to understand how anyone, particularly an 18 to 20-year-old, could survive on a wage of £8,970 a year. Even for the over-22s, the annual minimum wage is only £10,764. These are poverty pay rates. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) laid early-day motion 329 before the House on the issue of the national minimum wage for young workers, and it was signed by more than 100 Labour Members. It called on the Government “to take steps to remove the age discrimination in the national minimum wage and establish one rate for all workers irrespective of age.” I regret that that principle has not been embodied in the Bill. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) referred to seafarers—again, in the recent Westminster Hall debate, we also asked that the Bill consider their position. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran will also dwell on that subject. Speaking as someone who has steered debates on seafarers through the House for the past five years or longer, I have to say that I am extremely disappointed that the Bill does not even look at the current problem. I have discussed the issue with the Clerks, however, and found out that it will be in order to amend the Bill to deal with the matter later. Some Members will know the background to that debate because they have participated in it with me over the years. For a number of years, the Race Relations Act 1976 exempted shipping, so shipowners were able to discriminate in the payment of their workers on the basis of race. The European Union asked the Government to look again at the matter and there was a long campaign, organised by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, in response to which the Government committed themselves to review the issue of discrimination on racial grounds, which meant that two seafarers doing exactly the same job on a British flagship were being paid differential rates based on their race. Most of us found that morally abhorrent, as it was dramatically perpetuating the exploitation of workers on low rates of pay. We campaigned and the Government responded, telling us that they would reform the law, but the reform that they introduced was unacceptable—the Government amended the legislation so that it could no longer discriminate on grounds of race, but discrimination on grounds of nationality continued. Most of us find that distinction almost impossible to fathom. We thought we had gained at least one concession when a former Minister gave a commitment to the Regulatory Reform Committee that all workers on UK flagships and ships working in British waters would be paid the minimum wage. I felt that that was a breakthrough, a concession and a victory that had resulted from our long-standing campaign. What we did not know then was that British waters would be defined not as territorial waters, as is generally accepted, but as Britain’s internal waters. As a result, large numbers of workers—even on ferries, which we would usually consider to be within British waters—are not being paid the minimum wage, as employers continue to discriminate on the basis of nationality. I hope that in later stages of our consideration, we will be able to amend the Bill in order to secure fairness and equity for all workers, who should get the rate for the job, based on the nature of the job itself, not on their country of origin. In his introduction, the Minister spoke about the enforcement of the minimum wage. Many of us welcomed the statements made some time ago by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Prime Minister, about the allocation of additional funding of £3 million for the purpose of enforcement, but as we said in the Westminster Hall debate, it does not look as though much of that money has actually filtered through to the appointment of staff. I would welcome the Minister’s pledge to reconsider that matter and the powers given to individual officers working for the enforcement team. Third-party actions also warrant further examination. At present, enforcement takes place when individuals demonstrate that they are being paid less than the minimum wage. In some circumstances that requires an act of courage, especially when exploitative employers seek to intimidate their work forces. Perhaps the Minister will consider tabling an amendment allowing third-party actions. That would enable trade unions and other organisations to represent individuals or groups of workers and bring cases relating to failure to pay the minimum wage, so that the system would no longer need to rely on individuals who can so easily be victimised and intimidated. The Minister mentioned voluntary workers and cadet force adult volunteers, but I believe that the Bill may allow us to look beyond those groups. We have received representations from the National Union of Journalists and the Performers Alliance, which includes Equity, the Musicians’ Union and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain. According to the NUJ, many people, mostly in newspapers but across the media, are required to work voluntarily not just for a few hours a week or a few weeks but, in some cases, for between six and 12 months in order to get on to the ladder even to be considered for a permanent position. As a result, they fall outside any legislation that would protect them from exploitation and ensure that they were paid the minimum wage at some stage in their careers. I hope that the Minister will examine the issue of volunteers in those sectors and propose amendments, because we may not have another opportunity to tackle it for some time. The Performers Alliance unions also raised the issue of agency fees and their effect on the minimum wage. We know that the Government have helped greatly through their moves to protect workers from an agency which, at one point, was charging high fees and deducting them from wages, with the result that many workers’ pay fell below the level of the minimum wage. However, there is still a loophole. Some agents have reconstructed themselves as publishers, so that workers can be charged a publication fee simply to be listed in a directory. They are being exploited by having to pay a fee upfront, which is deducted from their pay so that, again, it falls below the minimum wage. Perhaps that too could be amended in the Bill. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), who is no longer present, mentioned tips. We have been promised movement on that for a long time. A private Member’s Bill was drafted in the hope that the Government could incorporate its provisions in future legislation. I think the time has come to give full protection to workers who depend on gratuities, so that those amounts are not deducted from their minimum wage. At present there are a number of ways in which employers can avoid the current legislation, with the result that workers do not receive the full reward for their good service. That too was raised in the Adjournment debate a few weeks ago, and again we hope that the Minister will be able to incorporate provisions from the private Member’s Bill in this legislation. I hope that another issue raised by Members will be incorporated. The Bill provides powers of enforcement in regard to non-payment of the minimum wage, but we believe that the provision for the exchange of information between agencies should include the opportunity to deal with non-payment of holiday money, and with other payments not made by employers. The Bill should contain a right of protection, so that those officers who deal with the enforcement of the minimum wage can also deal with the non-payment of holiday pay and other payments that employees should have received but the employer has avoided paying. I also hope the Minister will consider the representations we have received from a number of unions—I am thinking in particular of the civil service union, the Public and Commercial Services Union—on workplace environmental representatives. We were hoping that the role that such representatives play in their companies and their work sectors would be recognised in this Bill. Environmental representatives are like health and safety representatives in that they want to participate in the development of the policy of their company—or agency, or Government Department—with regard to improving the environmental standards of their workplace. At present, they undertake that role while some employers, including Government Departments, recognise them and some do not. They play a vital role in identifying areas where the environmental standards and performance of their employers can be improved, but they gain no statutory recognition and as a result no facilities in assisting them other than those that have been acquired voluntarily by representations to their employers. I would like the Government to look at the formal recognition of workplace environmental representatives, particularly on the day when we have received an Environmental Audit Committee report on the lack of progress, to put it diplomatically, especially of Government Departments in achieving the Government’s own environmental targets. Finally, let me turn to the part of the Bill that deals with the ASLEF judgment. A range of problems have been identified in the concessions the Government have so far made in the other place. I believe they will impede the implementation of the spirit of the Government proposals, particularly with regard to the detail of what is required of a union in identifying what political party the member they are dealing with belongs to and how that can change over time. Other fairly onerous requirements will undermine the implementation of the European Court of Justice’s decision on the matter. We will look at amendments as this Bill proceeds through Committee and on Report, but I think there is agreement in every part of the House that it is most important that we ensure that trade unions have the freedom not to have to accept as members those who hold offensive views and act offensively. That leads me on to another issue to do with our public services, which I think may be addressed in this part of the proposed legislation. We already have rules and regulations that prevent British National party members from serving in the police and prison services, but we do not have those rules for BNP members who work in other sections and Government Departments, such as the Department for Work and Pensions, where they are meant to be serving a multicultural community. I would like the Government to look at from what other areas of service beyond the police and the Prison Service we should bar the employment of BNP members or bar their continued membership of the BNP, because I believe that holding those views and being a member of that party infects their role in serving a multicultural community. We should do everything we can and employ the full legislative force to prevent BNP members from operating in those sectors and thereby undermining the ethos of fair and equal service to the public. I hope to work through those issues during the Bill’s progress because, by doing so, I believe we have the opportunity to implement employment legislation that addresses some of the key issues that face many of our work force today. Mention has been made of the Warwick agreement and the discussions taking place at present about Warwick mark 2. On that, I wish to repeat my disappointment that we have not had the opportunity within this Employment Bill to assert in law, as is the case in the rest of Europe, the basic human right of someone to withdraw their labour, including by secondary action—sympathetic action—in solidarity with other workers. Until we can secure that right once again, people will continue to be exploited; there will be bad employers who seek to undermine their wages and conditions, and the balance between employer and employee will still be out of kilter. I urge the Government to look again at this Bill to see whether we can include once again in British law this protection and the basic human right to withdraw one’s labour.
Time
17:29
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Sarah Teather (Brent, East) (LD)We are discussing employment at extremely short notice. I do not wish to labour the point; others have said that the Go…
Speaker
Sarah Teather (Brent, East) (LD)Liberal Democrat
Quote
We are discussing employment at extremely short notice. I do not wish to labour the point; others have said that the Government are frightened of Catholics in by-elections. [Interruption.] Did I hear a sharp intake of breath from the Minister? A by-election’s timing over which the Government had total control is a poor reason for delaying for three months the passage of other legislation and for introducing this Bill at very short notice—and nor does that aid scrutiny. This is the 29th piece of employment legislation that this Government have brought before the House. Nevertheless, it is largely welcome in that it repeals some previous legislation that was highly burdensome and bureaucratic for business. We shall be supporting the Bill’s Second Reading, but there are a number of issues on which we would like significant progress to be made in Committee. Some areas will need careful scrutiny, but our principal areas of concern about the Bill are to do with sins of omission. Let me begin by acknowledging the changes that we support. The Gibbons review of the Employment Act 2002 and its 2004 consequential regulations clearly stated that the aims of that legislation had simply not been achieved. The original purpose of the legislation—to encourage conciliation as an alternative to a tribunal—had not been successful. As the Government’s response to the Gibbons review says, the procedures imposed a high administrative burden, and far from encouraging amicable settlements appeared to have encouraged involvement of lawyers at an early stage. However, that failure masks a more important negative philosophical shift. The 2002 Act divided opinion between those who believe that procedure matters in and of itself because it validates an individual’s worth, and those who believe that procedure is merely a means to an end. A liberal would say that procedure matters, because treating people fairly matters in and of itself independent of whether the outcome would have been the same. It is very much to be commended that the Government have reviewed the 2002 legislation and are now repealing it, even if their change of mind has been brought about only by unintended side effects rather than a true conversion of principle. I welcome the reversion to the Polkey principle, which recognised that fairness does matter—dismissal under such principles may be found to be unfair on procedural grounds. However, the principle also recognises the merits or otherwise of the case, and allows a tribunal to reduce the compensatory part of the award in proportion to the likelihood that dismissal would have gone ahead anyway if correct procedure had been followed. The acceptance by the CBI and others of a reversion to Polkey principles has, however, been dependent on a promise of simplification of the ACAS code of practice. Employers want a code of practice that they can actually follow. The new draft code, which was published during the consideration of the Bill in the other place, will need to be carefully scrutinised in Committee to ensure that it is a genuine simplification and that it is clear. I suspect that a considerable proportion of our time in Committee will be spent in examining that draft code. Several Members have spoken about the ASLEF judgment. We acknowledge the changes made following the debate in the other place to specify more clearly the grounds on which a union may prohibit someone from membership on the basis of their affiliation to a political party. While recognising that the abolition of closed shops should give unions greater freedom to decide their own membership, we nevertheless thought that the original wording in the Bill was drawn far too broadly. The new definition adopted in the other place meets many of our original concerns. However, we will also want to re-examine that and explore it further in Committee. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) raised one particular issue relating to previous as well as current membership of a political party. Thirdly, we welcome the effort to toughen action against those who fail to pay the minimum wage. The new powers proposed for inspecting officers seem sensible, and the possibility of trying serious cases in the Crown court is also welcome, as it increases the fine possible in serious cases. I, like the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), am disappointed that the Government have not taken the opportunity of this legislation to end the national minimum wage’s discrimination against young people through the lower rate. People under the age of 21 do not get a discount in shops for being young, and it is hard to justify why young people should be paid less for doing the same job. I am also disappointed that the Government have not used this legislation to deal with the issue of people using tips as an excuse for not paying the national minimum wage. As a consumer, I want to know that any tips I pay are extra money that will go to people who are probably working extremely long hours for the minimum wage. The Minister reassured us that the Government are examining the issue, but I hope that they will do so in time to table amendments in Committee. The Government have the whole summer in which to consider the matter, because according to the programme motion the Committee will not sit until October. I hope that they will work with people in all parties who clearly feel strongly about the issue to introduce a practical means of solving that problem. The new formulae for calculating the arrears of employers who fail to meet minimum wage legislation are a welcome step forward. Using the current rather than historical rate of the minimum wage is not only a fairer way of calculating arrears for employees, but gives employers an incentive to settle arrears today rather than to delay until next year. I heard what the Minister said in reply to my intervention about interest rates and tax, but I hope that we may still explore the matter in more detail in Committee to see whether there is a means of getting round the problem. It is unfair that employers are able to have an interest-free loan at the expense of an employee. New formulae are all well and good, but the chance of a business being inspected for a breach of national minimum wage legislation remains extremely low. Moreover, even if an employer is inspected and found to be in breach of the law, the chance of their being prosecuted is almost non-existent. Just three of a total of 14,500 or 15,000 cases of arrears have ever been prosecuted—the Minister gave the exact figure in his speech. Why is that figure so low? I would like to think that an amicable result was found in all cases, but that seems highly unlikely. The problem of a failure to pay the minimum wage appears to be increasing. The Minister mentioned that the average arrears for each individual is now more than £200, which compares with the previous financial year’s considerably lower figure of £130. Enforcement is vital not only for individuals who are inadequately rewarded for their work but, as the Minister mentioned, for employers.
Time
17:55
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lorely BurtDoes my hon. Friend agree that certainty of detection and of subsequent prosecution would be two of the most important…
Speaker
Lorely BurtLiberal Democrat
Quote
Does my hon. Friend agree that certainty of detection and of subsequent prosecution would be two of the most important factors in getting recalcitrant employers to commit to, and to implement, the national minimum wage?
Time
17:55
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Sarah TeatherI agree with my hon. Friend. Employers who pay the minimum wage, however reluctantly, feel very aggrieved when a compet…
Speaker
Sarah TeatherLiberal Democrat
Quote
I agree with my hon. Friend. Employers who pay the minimum wage, however reluctantly, feel very aggrieved when a competitor down the road undercuts them on price because they are cheating the law. Employers who flout minimum wage legislation often deny other statutory rights, such as the right to paid holiday, statutory sick pay and paid maternity leave—the citizens advice bureaux have found evidence of that in the cases that they have dealt with. Concern about those rights, particularly for temporary and agency workers, lead to pressure on the Government, particularly from some Labour Back Benchers, to equalise rights with those of permanent employees. The trade unions, the Government and the CBI appear to have found a compromise on this matter, and we await legislation in this area in the next parliamentary Session so that we can scrutinise just how the Government intend to deal with it. I remain concerned that merely creating new rights will not necessarily yield an improvement for workers unless there is a practical way of enforcing them. I recognise that the Bill strengthens powers to inspect employment agencies, but, in practice, most vulnerable workers who wish to take action against exploitation must battle through the tribunal system, which, for many of them, is not a practical solution in enforcing statutory rights. The system is lengthy, stressful and legalistic, and even when it finds in favour of the employee it may fail to yield a payment to the individual. There is an obvious need for an agency that is able to work across fields to tackle issues of non-compliance in a proactive way. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington touched on the issue of information that is permitted to be exchanged in the Bill and whether there is a more proactive means of tackling non-compliance. A number of suggestions have been made, including a broad-based fair employment commission, extending the work already done on the national minimum wage. I wonder whether the Minister’s winding-up speech will inform the House as to whether the Government are actively considering that possibility—I know that they have considered it in the past. The problem that many workers have with the employment tribunal system is that even if they manage to navigate it and get a ruling in their favour, which is no mean feat, many employers just fail to pay up. Citizens Advice, which works with employees exploited by rogue employers, estimates that it sees about 1,000 cases of unpaid employment awards every year. I have seen such cases in my constituency, and they are incredibly stressful for the individuals concerned. Citizens Advice estimates that across the country the level of non-payment of tribunal awards may actually be as high as one in 10 of the 13,000 monetary awards made by tribunals each year. The only route for claimants in that situation is to take action through the civil courts, but, yet again, that process is complex, time-consuming and often prohibitively expensive. For some rogue employers, the knowledge that the enforcement route is so difficult makes non-compliance a gamble worth taking, allowing them to flout the system with near impunity. The cost of the non-payment of awards to individuals is considerable. Citizens Advice estimates that of the 1,000 cases it dealt with in the past financial year, the total value of unpaid awards was in the region of £4.5 million—the sums involved for the individuals concerned are thus considerable. In recognition of that problem, the Government made some changes to the system in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Principally, the Act made the registration of non-payment of an award at county court automatic and free, and it also allowed enforcement action to be taken without registration. Those provisions will come into force in April 2009, when this Bill is also due to come into force. Although those changes were welcome, it is not the process of registration of non-payment at the county court that is so difficult for claimants; the problem is the process that follows, which is prohibitively expensive and complex. That brings me to my gravest concern about the omissions in the Bill. How clear people’s statutory rights are and how efficient the tribunal system is are of no matter if, when the tribunal rules in favour of the claimant, they are simply unable to go the next leg of the journey to wrench the money that they are owed from their employer. The Bill is a serious missed opportunity, and the Government must find a way of giving claimants access to the fruits of the justice that they have already attained.
Time
17:55
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Siôn Simon (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)I might have missed it, so could the hon. Lady say a bit about what her Front-Bench team recommend the Government shoul…
Speaker
Mr. Siôn Simon (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)Labour
Quote
I might have missed it, so could the hon. Lady say a bit about what her Front-Bench team recommend the Government should be doing? She has identified what she sees as an omission, but I would be grateful if she let us know how she would like to see the gap filled.
Time
17:55
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Sarah TeatherI just mentioned one thing—an employment commission—and I am about to move on to the next one, if the hon. Gentleman si…
Speaker
Sarah TeatherLiberal Democrat
Quote
I just mentioned one thing—an employment commission—and I am about to move on to the next one, if the hon. Gentleman sits tight and listens. I hope that he will serve on the Public Bill Committee, that we will be able to explore these matters in great detail together and that I might get his support from the Back Benches. We intend to examine non-payment in detail in Committee, and I hope the Government will look favourably on the ideas proposed by a number of people, principally Citizens Advice, which has done detailed work on the issue and tackled it on the front line. The issue is really about using the state to take the risk that at the moment is borne by individuals. At the moment, individuals have to pay to go through the county court process. They will get the money back, if they win, but I want the Government to consider whether the state could take on the risk for very low-paid individuals. The state would get the money back, but the burden of risk would be shifted from the individual to the state. NACAB has suggested using High Court enforcement officers. There are many approaches to the issue, and I hope that we will be able to have a detailed discussion in Committee about the various methods. I feel strongly that the good aspects of the Bill will not come to fruition without some means of taking the next step. It is an important issue for individuals, and I hope that the Government will consider closing the loophole. There are some good aspects to the Bill, but some issues are missing. The principal issue is how we can give individuals the opportunity to claim the money that they have already technically been awarded but cannot get their hands on, and I hope that the Government will consider our amendments in Committee.
Time
17:55
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con)I first wish to make a general point that is relatively important in the context of clause 4. When I first started appe…
Speaker
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con)Conservative
Quote
I first wish to make a general point that is relatively important in the context of clause 4. When I first started appearing before industrial tribunals in 1976 I did so for free, as a trainee lawyer with the Free Representation Unit. In those days, tribunals were very informal, the rules of procedure were limited and the chairman would often be able to decide what sort of evidence he wanted to hear and how. The person representing the employee was often a trade union representative or someone free—like me—and the employer would simply send along the personnel director. In that atmosphere, the people there—including the members of the tribunal—understood the workplace and the industrial scene. The three who made up the panel—the employer’s representative, the employee’s representative and the lawyer who acted as chairman—were an integral part of that atmosphere, which was that of an industrial jury that decided industrial concerns on behalf of people who all understood the workplace. The atmosphere has changed a lot over the years and industrial tribunals—now employment tribunals—have become much more formal places with more legalism. It was inevitable that that would happen. That area of law was very exciting in the 1970s, because it was constantly changing as new Governments came and went. The Industrial Relations Law Reports came out every week, so more law was reported in that area than in almost any other. Gradually, the effect of all the new cases and the need for precision ensured the change to a more legalistic environment. However, the tripartite decision making has remained throughout, with an employer’s representative, an employee’s representative and a chairman. That is very important for cases that address issues such as the terms and conditions of employment or questions of unfair dismissal. Once the employer has shown the reason for dismissal, it is up to the industrial jury to decide whether the decision to dismiss was reasonable. The issue of reasonableness in that forum is well decided by a tribunal made up of representatives who understand the workplace. Anything that erodes that approach would be a bad thing. So when clause 4 of the Bill talks of fast-track decision making without a hearing, alarm bells begin to ring. Will that mean that the chairman decides cases on his own? Last year, we had a consultation document, “Transforming tribunals”, from the Ministry of Justice, and chapter 9 included suggestions that employment tribunals had scope for more decision making by chairmen alone, as it would not always be necessary to involve the lay members. The issue was taken up in the other place by Lord Wedderburn, who pressed the Minister on it. I wish to do the same and press the Minister to confirm that the Government have no intention of cutting back on tripartite decision making by the tribunal on important issues such as reasonableness of dismissal and terms and conditions of employment. The lay members add something to the decision making on those issues and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on that point. Clauses 1 to 3 abolish the 2004 regulations, encourage more voluntary conciliation and support ACAS with extra funding. I shall give some of the history behind the boom in cases that led to the Employment Act 2002. In the early days of the industrial tribunal, it had a much more limited jurisdiction with far fewer cases. Even in 1988, there were only about 29,000 cases a year. By 2000, that had grown to 130,000 cases a year, and something needed to be done to encourage employers and employees to try to solve their problems without necessarily ending up at an employment tribunal. One of the great motors for an increase in the number of cases was the Polkey v. A. E. Dayton Services Ltd decision in 1987, because it said that if there was any significant procedural irregularity in the way in which a case was dealt with by the employer, there was an entitlement to a finding of unfair dismissal. If it was only a technical matter, however, the tribunal could decide that, despite the procedural irregularity and the consequent unfair dismissal, the compensation could be set at nothing or very low. The decision meant that cases that would previously have been rejected on their merits were pursued on procedural grounds. The Conservative Government looked at the issue in the mid-1990s and published a Green Paper in 1994 that considered the options for dealing with disputes. It had two main suggestions. First, it suggested that ACAS should have a conciliation scheme and a system of voluntary referrals to arbitration. Secondly, if employees had not followed the internal grievance procedure, or employers had not followed their internal procedures, they should not have the right to go to a tribunal. In other words, it was vital to both employees’ and employers’ defences to have pursued internal remedies first. In response it was argued that that approach would cause complexity and delay in many cases. After much thought, the then Minister, Ian Lang, decided not to require the internal procedures to be completed. When the Labour Government came in, they looked at the consultation document and the responses and made the same decision. I cannot remember who the Minister was, but in 1997 the incoming Government decided against that change. It was therefore a surprise—not to mention a mistake—when the Government, in introducing the 2002 Act, decided to go ahead and insist that internal procedures should be completed to provide grounds for a claim or a defence to a claim. Many warned at the time that that would lead to complexity and delay. Instead of all the evidence being heard in one go by a tribunal, a two-part procedure was necessary. The first part of the process was deciding whether a case was procedurally acceptable because the internal procedures had been completed by the employer or employee. Then another hearing was needed to decide whether the dismissal was unfair or not. The effect of that was predictable, and so it came to pass. From quite early on—within a year of the change’s implementation—organisations such as the CBI and some unions were saying that it was a good idea in policy terms, but that the way in which it had been implemented was heavy handed, bureaucratic, prescriptive, over-regulatory and did not work. The number of cases that were delayed went up and became a big problem. I remember that when I was the Front-Bench spokesman for legal issues, the chairmen of tribunals would come to me and say, “Look, you have to do something about these 2004 regulations because they are snarling up the whole system. Although they were a good idea in principle, in practice they are turning out to be a nightmare.” I asked a number of parliamentary questions on the issue—in fact, last summer, after the Gibbons report came out, I reached a crescendo with about 20 questions, all asking whether the Government would do something about the situation. Now that I have given that background, I want to tell the House that I welcome clauses 1 to 3, which get rid of the idea that there must be a first hearing about the procedural aspects before one can get down to the real thing—in other words, that it has to be proved that the procedures have been followed internally before a claim can be mounted. As far as the other side of the coin is concerned, though, the idea of having conciliation and some ability to talk and to try to reach a decision on the claim between employer and employee before the matter gets out of the workplace is a good idea. I welcome the fact that ACAS is getting extra funds, but does the Minister think that there is room for mediators and others to be involved rather than just ACAS. What is the Government’s position on alternative dispute resolution in that area? Is it that it should just be a matter for ACAS and that the £37 million will do it, or are the Government saying that they would be prepared to have independent mediators and others involved to try to tackle some of the cases at an earlier stage? My overall position is that I give a warm welcome to the first few clauses of the Bill, which are long overdue. I have no doubt that the mistake was made with the best of intentions but I am pleased that it is being remedied, and I know that everybody in the employment tribunals will heave a sigh of relief.
Time
18:11
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Ms Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)I agree with the points made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) about the role of lay members…
Speaker
Ms Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)Labour
Quote
I agree with the points made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) about the role of lay members in tribunal proceedings. One of the strengths of the employment tribunals has been that those who have active experience of industry—on the worker and trade union side and also on the employer side—have had a strong role in the proceedings and the move towards a very legalistic approach would not be welcomed. There is concern from all parties that the role of lay members may be watered down, which would be a huge mistake. I urge the Minister not to listen to the advice given by the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly). We remember that the Conservatives did not vote for the national minimum wage and argued that its introduction would lead to higher unemployment. That has not proved to be the case.
Time
18:22
Source
View in Hansard ↗
John McDonnellBefore my hon. Friend moves off the issue of lay members, can we all place on the record the work that Lord Bill Wedder…
Speaker
John McDonnellLabour
Quote
Before my hon. Friend moves off the issue of lay members, can we all place on the record the work that Lord Bill Wedderburn has done over the years to protect the role of lay members and the astute advice on tribunals, both legal and political, that he has given to the Government?
Time
18:22
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Ms ClarkI am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. As I was saying, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 was, of cour…
Speaker
Ms ClarkLabour
Quote
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. As I was saying, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 was, of course, a controversial and contested piece of legislation. It is one of the flagship policies introduced by Labour since 1997. I welcome the provisions that will strengthen the enforcement of the regulations. The truth, however, is that other than the drip, drip of employment legislation that we have heard about, Britain has the most restrictive labour and employment laws in Europe. Trade unions in Britain have the fewest rights of those in any country in Europe. As has been said, our right to be members of trade unions and to take part in trade union activity dates from less than 100 years ago, when the Labour party was created. One of the first steps that the initial 29 Labour MPs took was to drive through a private Member’s Bill to overturn the House of Lords decision on Taff Vale. We have already heard references to Lord Wedderburn and other leading employment experts, who have regularly articulated that our rights in labour law now are worse than they were 100 years ago. We should not be proud of that. Of course, new laws are not the only way of dealing with exploitation in the workplace. If we look at history and at the situation now, we see that one of the most effective ways of fighting a cause in the workplace is to join a trade union. We know that trade union members earn significantly more than non-trade union members. They have better pay, better pensions and better health and safety in the workplace. It is appropriate that those of us in this place should make it very clear that, as a public policy matter, we believe that trade unions are a force for good in society. One reason for that is that we have to recognise the huge imbalance of power in society. In particular, we must recognise the huge imbalance of power in the workplace between the employer and employee. I welcome the work that has led more than 100 MPs to sign early-day motion 1604, which calls for the Bill to be amended to include aspects of the Trade Union Rights and Freedoms Bill. We have heard already from my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about that Bill. I welcome the clause that lifts restrictions on trade unions and the amendment of the rules on the exclusion or expulsion of individuals on the grounds of membership of a political party. The clause is in the Bill because of active attempts by fascists in Britain to infiltrate trade unions, when, of course, fascist ideology runs counter to the beliefs of trade unions. If we consider the activities of fascists who have gained power throughout the world, we see that trade unionists are one of the first groups that they target, victimise, exploit, jail and kill. Trade unions are saying that they do not feel that it is reasonable that they should be forced to take people who are members of fascist parties into their membership, because they know that the only reason those organisations target them is to undermine their core values and beliefs. We need to look more broadly at trade unions and their rule books. Britain has the most restrictive labour laws in Europe, which means that we have the most rules that govern how trade unions behave. The Conservatives, who were in power for 18 years, introduced most the legislation that led to the regulation of trade unions. It is interesting to hear Conservative Members talk about burdens on business, because they put excessive burdens on trade unions. Trade unionists tell us that the rules under which they are required to operate are not just excessively bureaucratic and expensive, but make it practically impossible for them to carry out their activities lawfully—the activities their members ask them to carry out. The Trade Union Rights and Freedoms Bill proposed simplification of the law on trade unions, because it is not appropriate that the state should lay down in such detail the requirements to be followed every time a trade union takes a ballot on industrial action. Current provisions make it impossible, in effect, for legal industrial action to take place. However, most cases are not examined in detail; evidence is not examined in detail by a body such as a court or tribunal. Those who have had to take part in such processes would not dispute the fact that existing legislation is excessively prohibitive.
Time
18:22
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Rob MarrisI make this intervention as someone whose constituency Labour party receives moneys from the trade union solicitors, Th…
Speaker
Rob MarrisLabour
Quote
I make this intervention as someone whose constituency Labour party receives moneys from the trade union solicitors, Thompsons, for whom I used to work and with whom I am proud to be still associated. Instead of a panoply of laws on how trade unions are—if they jump through certain hoops—exempt from creating the tort of inducing breach of contract, for example, by industrial action, would it not be simpler to abolish the tort altogether? We could thus get rid of the panoply of regulation.
Time
18:22
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Ms ClarkI agree. My central point is that trade unions should be able to regulate their own rule books. Members should be allow…
Speaker
Ms ClarkLabour
Quote
I agree. My central point is that trade unions should be able to regulate their own rule books. Members should be allowed democratically to decide the rules under which they operate. I welcome the Bill’s provisions, but I ask the Government to look again at the issues I have raised and consider simplifying the operation of trade unions. The Minister for Energy will be aware of the negative impact of recent European Court of Justice decisions on trade union freedom and collective bargaining, which will no doubt be debated on other occasions. We need to look at those issues again; the principle should be that the nation state determines rules on the operation of trade unions and the right to strike, which is not a legal right in the UK. Much of the Bill relates to the national minimum wage, on which a number of proposals have been put to the Government. I suspect they will be the basis of amendments to the measure. The first relates to exemptions for young workers, which have already been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. The Government have asked the Low Pay Commission to look into the issue again, but we need to say strongly in this place that we view an annual wage of £6,630 for a 37 and a half hour week as a poverty pay rate. We want a rate for the job. Furthermore, people should not be discriminated against on the basis of age. A person doing the same job as an older person is entitled to the same wage. In my constituency, I have heard of a number of cases of young workers supervising older workers—for example, in the hospitality industry—yet the supervisor is on a lower wage, because at present that is justifiable legally.
Time
18:22
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. A person could start an apprenticeship at 16 and become a fully trained craftsper…
Speaker
Mr. David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)Labour
Quote
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. A person could start an apprenticeship at 16 and become a fully trained craftsperson by the age of 20, yet they would still be paid less than the minimum wage, which is nonsense.
Time
18:22
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Ms ClarkI agree with my hon. Friend. There is a strong case that there should be no discrimination on the basis of age alone. O…
Speaker
Ms ClarkLabour
Quote
I agree with my hon. Friend. There is a strong case that there should be no discrimination on the basis of age alone. On previous occasions, I have had a number of discussions with Ministers about exemptions for seafarers to national minimum wage legislation. The Minister for Energy will be aware that the current legal position is that foreign national seafarers are entitled to the national minimum wage on UK registered ships when they are in port or in internal waters. The result is that foreign workers on British ferries are being paid wages equivalent to £1, £1.50 and £2 an hour. Examples have been provided to the Government on a number of occasions. All workers on a UK registered vessel in UK internal waters—for example, a Caledonian MacBrayne ship sailing to the Western Isles—would be entitled to the minimum wage, but that would not be the case if they were on a non-UK registered vessel making the same trip.
Time
18:22
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Rob MarrisI have every sympathy with my hon. Friend’s proposition, but it is incredibly difficult to legislate for such things. F…
Speaker
Rob MarrisLabour
Quote
I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend’s proposition, but it is incredibly difficult to legislate for such things. For example, a similar situation might involve a trucking company based in Poland, but owned by a UK company, which could be sending HGVs to the UK driven by Polish nationals resident in Poland who were earning less than the UK minimum wage. These things are difficult.
Time
18:22
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Ms ClarkI do not accept what my hon. Friend says. Such situations are clearly difficult to regulate, but the role of Government…
Speaker
Ms ClarkLabour
Quote
I do not accept what my hon. Friend says. Such situations are clearly difficult to regulate, but the role of Government is to grapple with them and come up with solutions. We are talking about ferry routes that serve communities, whether the Scottish islands, Hull or Rotterdam. They are not operated by fly-by-night employers or industries; they provide services daily.
Time
18:22
Source
View in Hansard ↗
John McDonnellAnother irony is that even though such ships are not UK flagged, a number of them still receive the benefits of tonnage…
Speaker
John McDonnellLabour
Quote
Another irony is that even though such ships are not UK flagged, a number of them still receive the benefits of tonnage tax, which is provided specifically to promote the employment of UK seafarers and fair employment generally.
Time
18:22
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Ms ClarkIndeed. My hon. Friend highlights the fact that state subsidies are, in effect, underwriting exploitation. From the poi…
Speaker
Ms ClarkLabour
Quote
Indeed. My hon. Friend highlights the fact that state subsidies are, in effect, underwriting exploitation. From the point of view of British resident workers, it is not acceptable that such mechanisms are being used to undercut their wages and conditions.
Time
18:22
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. MacNeilAs a resident of the Western Isles, where the Caledonian MacBrayne ferries operate, I can tell the House that many othe…
Speaker
Mr. MacNeilIndependent
Quote
As a resident of the Western Isles, where the Caledonian MacBrayne ferries operate, I can tell the House that many other aspects of legislation, such as the licensing laws and health and safety provisions, are implemented on the ferries, so why should that not also be true of employment legislation? I fully support what the hon. Lady is saying.
Time
18:22
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Ms ClarkI appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman. As we have discussed on previous occasions, it is not just ferry wor…
Speaker
Ms ClarkLabour
Quote
I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman. As we have discussed on previous occasions, it is not just ferry workers who are affected by the exemptions, but those working in the fishing industry and those who supply the offshore oil industry. I ask the Government to look at the issue again. It was a commitment in our 1997 manifesto, so as a matter of principle we should look at the exemptions to the national minimum wage and do everything we can to close them. The reality is that the national minimum wage has been one of the most effective measures in fighting poverty and inequality in this country, and the Bill provides a real opportunity to close the loopholes that remain.
Time
18:22
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownThe hon. Lady will know from the constituency that she represents that the UK used to have one of the largest merchant…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
The hon. Lady will know from the constituency that she represents that the UK used to have one of the largest merchant fleets in the world. With the best of intentions, British Governments introduced employment and tax regulations that encouraged—indeed, forced, in many cases—British shipping firms to go offshore and to use flags of convenience. Does she not think that some of the proposals that she is outlining will have exactly the same effect on the very small British fleet that is left?
Time
18:22
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Ms ClarkThe hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is why the tonnage tax was introduced. I am sure that the Minister will comm…
Speaker
Ms ClarkLabour
Quote
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is why the tonnage tax was introduced. I am sure that the Minister will comment on the fact that British shipping has been a great success story for the Government. Such issues are often raised as red herrings, and that is why I focused on the examples that I used in raising the issue with the Government. I have specifically focused on ferries, because those that run between Scotland and some of the islands are good examples. If a ferry leaves Ardrossan and goes to Arran, all the workers will be covered by the national minimum wage, but if that ferry leaves Ardrossan and goes to Belfast, they will not be covered. We should address that anomaly, and I hope that the Government will look again at that issue. They are holding detailed discussions with the trade unions that represent some of the work force in those sectors, and I hope that the Government propose a practical solution during the consideration of the Bill.
Time
18:22
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Rob MarrisI sense that my hon. Friend might be moving on. Does she see anything in the Bill that relates to the minimum wage that…
Speaker
Rob MarrisLabour
Quote
I sense that my hon. Friend might be moving on. Does she see anything in the Bill that relates to the minimum wage that addresses the scandal of tips—I do not—and the fact that some employers can effectively steal tips from their staff? To me and many other trade unionists, that seems completely unacceptable and certainly against the moral spirit of the legislation on the national minimum wage, if not against the letter of the law. Does she, like me, want much stronger legislation to deal with that scandal?
Time
18:22
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Ms ClarkYes, indeed. My hon. Friend highlights yet another loophole, and I do not believe that that was the intention of those…
Speaker
Ms ClarkLabour
Quote
Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend highlights yet another loophole, and I do not believe that that was the intention of those who campaigned so hard for national minimum wage legislation over so many generations. Of course, hospitality industry staff are some of the most exploited and least organised, because traditionally trade unions have not been powerful in the sector. We should look again at that issue, because it highlights the need for one of the British trade union movement’s other calls in asking the Government to consider class actions in relation not just to equal pay cases, which we will discuss in the equality Bill, but to employment matters such as the national minimum wage. The reality is that the most vulnerable workers in our society find it very difficult to stand up for themselves, and they fear victimisation. There is therefore a strong case for looking at how organisations such as trade unions can take collective class actions when the law is breached. My hon. Friend gives a good example in relation to those who work in the hospitality industry.
Time
18:22
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. MacNeilI should like to emphasise that one of the reasons why many people give tips is that they are aware of exactly the poin…
Speaker
Mr. MacNeilIndependent
Quote
I should like to emphasise that one of the reasons why many people give tips is that they are aware of exactly the point the hon. Lady makes and they try to help, so it is all the more galling when they realise that their tips are used to make up the wages.
Time
18:22
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Ms ClarkIndeed. People have become increasingly aware of the fact that, unless they leave cash, the money might not get to the…
Speaker
Ms ClarkLabour
Quote
Indeed. People have become increasingly aware of the fact that, unless they leave cash, the money might not get to the right person. However, most of us would presume that any tip we leave would automatically go to the person whom we intended. As a matter of contract, our intention is that the person should get the money, so that is where it should end up, and it should not be used to subsidise employers who do not want to pay the full minimum wage. There is a very strong case for looking again at that matter, as such things were not originally intended. I broadly welcome the Bill, particularly the steps to enforce the national minimum wage legislation, which has been a huge achievement of the Government, but I ask them to look again at some of the matters that colleagues and I have raised.
Time
18:22
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Rob MarrisMy hon. Friend will have considerable experience of this matter as a former trade union solicitor. Would she care to sa…
Speaker
Rob MarrisLabour
Quote
My hon. Friend will have considerable experience of this matter as a former trade union solicitor. Would she care to say anything about the Bill’s initial clauses on the statutory dispute resolution procedure, which was contained in the Employment Act 2002? I served on the Standing Committee that considered that Bill, and several Members, including me, pointed out to the then Minister that that procedure would be unworkable. Sadly, that has proved to be so. I wonder whether my hon. Friend will share with the House her experiences in that regard.
Time
18:22
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Ms ClarkI hope that I made it clear in my initial comments that the more simple a law is, the more likely it is that it will be…
Speaker
Ms ClarkLabour
Quote
I hope that I made it clear in my initial comments that the more simple a law is, the more likely it is that it will be effective. One of the best examples, which is often cited, is the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, which is a very short piece of legislation that lays down a principle. One of the problems that has developed since the 1970s is that employment law has become increasingly complex, whereas we need basic principles. Unfortunately, the legal profession—I say this as someone who used to be involved in that capacity—has attempted to look for loopholes and complex arguments to opt out of basic principles. We should fight for the basic principle that the Government have laid down of a national minimum wage that should apply to all work forces and to all people, irrespective of gender, race, age or other matters, and I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Time
18:22
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) made mention of 1997 and the body of law that the Government in…
Speaker
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)Conservative
Quote
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) made mention of 1997 and the body of law that the Government introduced to affect employment relations and so on subsequently. Indeed, I am grateful, too, to the Government, because one of their manifesto commitments during the 1997 election was to afford protection to the whistleblower. The concept of the whistleblower owes much, of course, to Members of the previous Conservative-dominated Parliament, but I am mindful that my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), came up with an idea that he gave to those who are involved in Public Concern at Work, and he asked them to make proposals for legislation. Those proposals were taken up by the then Opposition, and the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) introduced a private Member’s Bill, which had the support of a remarkable man who was a shadow employment Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who helped to push very hard for the proposal. It also had all-party support, including a lot of support from Conservative Back Benchers. I learned then and subsequently that the power of the Administration, often unbeknown to Ministers, is quite something. I commend the Government’s support in their manifesto for the concept of whistleblowing. I came what seemed like 140th in the private Member’s Bill ballot, but the Government very generously provided all the access and support needed to try to progress the matter. Indeed, the Bill passed through this House, and I owe something to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the then shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, for not objecting to it. I also owe a lot of gratitude to a past leader of my party, who is now showing great instincts on social justice, for supporting the Bill from the beginning. The Bill was taken through the House of Lords by another distinguished man, Lord Borrie, who worked hard with Public Concern at Work and all the people there who had made effort, raised money and tried to advance the cause. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 was intended to promote responsible whistleblowing. Although it arose from a private Member’s Bill, it received strong support from the Government, especially from the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield. It was backed by business, unions and regulators. Although PIDA forms part of employment legislation, the policy behind it closely follows the jurisprudence developed by the courts over the past two centuries on public interest disclosure. Accordingly, the Act provides strong protection to workers who raise concerns about wrongdoing that threatens the public interest. It provides that protection most readily when the concern is raised with the employer in good faith. It also protects disclosures made to prescribed regulatory bodies, whether or not they have been raised internally, when the concern has a substantial basis. It also protects wider disclosures, including to the police, Members of Parliament and the media, when the disclosure is reasonable and justified. Accordingly, the legislation was designed to encourage employees to raise, and employers to address, serious concerns about crime, fraud, danger, abuse and other harm to the public interest. At the time when the Act was passed, we the promoters—and, I think, most people—understood that information about claims made under the Act would be on the public record. That was important because it would help to promote openness, to discourage specious claims and to encourage an employer to deal properly with any serious concern that was raised with it. Such openness was also necessary to monitor how PIDA was operating. After PIDA’s commencement, the employment tribunals service and the Department of Trade and Industry denied the charity Public Concern at Work all information about claims brought under the Act. With reluctance, the matter was put before the High Court, which found in favour of the charity in April 2000. Mr. Justice Jackson concluded: “It is sometimes embarrassing for a party to employment tribunal proceedings to have certain details of his claim made public. On the other hand, claimants in the court suffer similar embarrassment. That is part of the price which all citizens pay in order to have the benefit of an open system of justice…It has always been the policy of the law that, so far as possible, litigation should be conducted under the public gaze and under the critical scrutiny of all who wish to report legal proceedings…The principle of open justice applies to employment tribunals with just as much force as it applies to court proceedings”. While the then DTI claimed that it would appeal the decision, it introduced, without consultation or announcement, temporary regulations to reverse the High Court ruling. It did so on the day before a summer recess, so I advise all Members in the Chamber to be very interested about what is listed on the Order Paper in the two days before the recess. Statutory instruments that come into effect within 45 or 60 days that are put down at that time may receive no parliamentary scrutiny. Although, at the time, we appealed to try to block those regulations, and the Government promised that they would be debated, they came into effect before we could debate them. Although the DTI substantially agreed to consult on whether claims under PIDA should be treated differently from those under other employment laws, the promised consultation did not take place. As part of the dispute resolution regime that is being dismantled in the Bill, regulations were extended to remove all information from the public record about employment tribunals claims. The charity Public Concern at Work forwarded a complaint through me to the parliamentary ombudsman, which finally reported in 2005. The report is perhaps the most damning that I have ever read about the conduct of officials in a Department of State. It is truly shaming. It was not published in the usual way, whereby every Member gets a copy, but put on Public Concern at Work’s website. The ombudsman criticised the DTI’s handling of the matter because it was never honest with the High Court or the public about why it objected to information about tribunal claims being publicly available; because it launched a costly appeal that it had no intention of pursuing so that it could overturn the High Court decision in secret through regulations; because it repeatedly misled Public Concern at Work to try to head off all public criticism; because it failed to consider the public interest or to realise that whistleblowing claims “might involve matters of very great public interest”; because it issued a one-sided and unfair consultation in breach of Government rules, ignoring “powerful arguments” for openness; and because it blocked parliamentary scrutiny by giving assurances that it failed to keep. I cannot think of anything more damning that has been said in an ombudsman’s report about the conduct of a Department. As a result of it, the DTI agreed to apologise and to pay £130,000 compensation to Public Concern at Work for misleading it and wasting its time. One must ask what the damage to the public interest is. Employment tribunals statistics record that, in 2005-06, some 1,015 claims under PIDA were disposed of. Some 283 of those were disposed of after a hearing, and so, under the rules, information about those cases is on record. However, the rules mean that all information about the other 730 claims—72 per cent. of all whistleblowing claims—remains shrouded in secrecy. Other than the numerical statistics, which can be obtained only by making a specific request under freedom of information legislation, there is nothing on public record about more than 70 per cent. of whistleblowing claims. There is no information about the nature of the concern, be it a crime, danger, abuse or other wrongdoing. There is no information about who was at risk, be they consumers, passengers, patients, taxpayers, shareholders or fellow workers. There is no information about whom the concern was raised with, be that a manager, a compliance officer, the chief executive officer, the audit committee, a regulator or someone else. There is no information about the employer’s response to the concern, whether it was ignored, investigated or hushed up, and whether it was claimed that it was misconceived, well founded or put right. There is also no information about the alleged reprisal, whether it was carried out by managers or colleagues, and whether it was dismissal or victimisation. That is the case even though the claims are brought in a public forum, at public expense, and under the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Other than the two parties, no one, not even a Minister, is able lawfully to find out from the employment tribunals records whether, for example, a whistleblowing claim has been brought in relation to problems of clostridium difficile or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus at a hospital, even though that issue has fuelled public and ministerial anxiety about the NHS and anxiety within it. Additionally, one cannot find out whether a claim relates to a pre-existing problem with the fuel system of the Nimrod aircraft that crashed in Afghanistan with the tragic loss of 14 servicemen. Such secrecy undermines the public interest and PIDA in two essential ways. It enables and encourages unscrupulous employers to buy off genuine whistleblowers, rather than address the underlying malpractice. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 expressly encourages employees to raise whistleblowing concerns internally, so that responsible employers can deal with them properly and without delay, so it is not an imaginary problem. Contrary to Parliament’s intention when it passed the Act, the current rules have created a scheme under which crime, company fraud, public dangers and tax evasion can be readily hushed up, contrary to the public interest. That secrecy damages responsible business, as it enables and encourages unscrupulous employees to bring spurious claims. A report in the Financial Times on 18 September 2007 quoted the City firm, Nomura, which warned: “The whistleblowing legislation was designed to protect employees who, in good faith, raise legitimate concerns of wrongdoing in the workplace. Its growing use by white men as a litigation tactic when in dispute with the City employers, suggests the legislation is being abused.” The secrecy that now exists means that it is not possible to assess whether that claim is well founded. That is the substance of the anxiety that caused the right hon. Member for Makerfield—I see that he is present—to start on a course of action to try to bring about structural change in respect of whistleblowers. I know that the Department has again been in consultation with Public Concern at Work. All I ask is that the Department gives serious consideration to any amendments tabled to do with the publication of whistleblowing cases. Part of the difficulty is that there have been so many changes of junior Ministers in the Department that the collective memory of the Government or Executive, as opposed to the Administration, is somehow lost. Many undertakings have been given, and it has been said that there was no objection in principle. The Minister for Energy should read the ombudsman’s report, and people in the Department should re-read it, or read it, if they have not yet had the opportunity to do so. The problems can, and should, be corrected, and the Bill is the vehicle with which to do so.
Time
18:47
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)I am grateful to be called to speak on this interesting Bill. Before I came to the House, until 2001—actually, I did no…
Speaker
Mr. Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)Conservative
Quote
I am grateful to be called to speak on this interesting Bill. Before I came to the House, until 2001—actually, I did not come here until 2005. I would have liked to have come here in 2001, but unfortunately, when I stood against the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) in 2001, I added 2,500 to his majority, instead of reducing it. He is grateful for that, and we get on very well. Until 2001, I was a director of an employment agency called Blue Arrow. In the late 1990s, I remember having some fairly testing meetings with the right hon. Member for Macclesfield—
Time
19:02
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield) (Lab)Makerfield.
Speaker
Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield) (Lab)Labour
Quote
Makerfield.
Time
19:02
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. WalkerI apologise. I had some very testing meetings with the right hon. Gentleman, and to be fair some of the practices takin…
Speaker
Mr. WalkerConservative
Quote
I apologise. I had some very testing meetings with the right hon. Gentleman, and to be fair some of the practices taking place in the employment agency industry were unacceptable. Quite rightly, he outlawed them, and hopefully they no longer take place. However, I accept that there is a small rump of people operating in employment agencies who let everyone else down. I do not want the employment agency sector to be tarred with the same brush as those whose business behaviour is still outside the bounds of the acceptable. Employment agencies play an important part in our labour market. The Government recognise that, and very early on after introducing the new deal they included employment agencies among the bodies placing difficult people who had been out of the workplace for a long time. My party recognised that employment agencies play an important role, too, and when we form the next Government we will hopefully pledge to use employment agencies to help people get back into work. Employment agencies are extremely good at helping the economy to flex in response to changes in the market. There can be sudden increases in demand, and employment agencies are very good at identifying a labour pool and filling that demand. Employment agencies are very useful for allowing women who have been out of the workplace for a number of years to re-enter it. They are very useful for placing youngsters in the workplace—yes, in temporary jobs, but jobs that allow them to prove their worth to a future employer.
Time
19:02
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Ms Katy ClarkThe hon. Gentleman will be aware that a great deal of work has been done by Labour Members, and by the trade union move…
Speaker
Ms Katy ClarkLabour
Quote
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a great deal of work has been done by Labour Members, and by the trade union movement, to campaign for fair employment rights for agency workers. Does he support that?
Time
19:02
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. WalkerThe hon. Lady makes a very interesting point, and that was a useful intervention. I will come on to the issue in a mome…
Speaker
Mr. WalkerConservative
Quote
The hon. Lady makes a very interesting point, and that was a useful intervention. I will come on to the issue in a moment. As I have said, employment agencies provide a useful route back to work for people who are often hard to place in work, and who struggle to find a permanent job because they have been out of the labour market for too long, or do not have the experience to get into the labour market in a substantive, permanent position. I have an admission to make: if I had been a Member of Parliament when the minimum wage was introduced, I probably would have voted against it. I do not know for certain that I would have done so, because I was not here, but at the time—as the right hon. Member for Makerfield knows, because I sent him some papers on the subject—my instinct would have been to vote against it. However, I would have been wrong to have done so. The minimum wage has proved to be a step in the right direction. It has allowed people dignity at work, and why should the taxpayer subsidise bad employers? That brings me on to my next issue of concern—
Time
19:02
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. McCartneyBefore the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject completely and forgets to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the…
Speaker
Mr. McCartneyLabour
Quote
Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject completely and forgets to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark), let me put the point another way. If, in the future, a Conservative Government were in a position to sign the European directive on temporary agency workers, would he advocate signing it?
Time
19:02
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. WalkerThe right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about the agency workers directive. That directive has been mooted…
Speaker
Mr. WalkerConservative
Quote
The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about the agency workers directive. That directive has been mooted in Europe for about the past 10 years, and for nine of those years his Government have made a very good case on why we should not sign up to it. Their case has been very convincing; they said that we did not need it in this country, and that it would have a negative impact on the labour market and would reduce employability. That must be the case, or it would have been accepted five years ago. If one were cynical—I am not—one might think that the sudden embracing of the working time directive had more to do with the need to access trade union funding for future political campaigns than with the need to improve the lot of the down-trodden worker. Far be it from me to suggest that. I hope that answers the right hon. Gentleman’s question.
Time
19:02
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Ms Katy ClarkThe question that the hon. Gentleman is being asked is whether he supports the discrimination that takes place against…
Speaker
Ms Katy ClarkLabour
Quote
The question that the hon. Gentleman is being asked is whether he supports the discrimination that takes place against agency workers, who do not get the same sick pay, holiday pay or other entitlements as other workers doing the same job. Will he respond to that?
Time
19:02
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. WalkerI probably will not give the hon. Lady the answer that she is looking for, but I fully bought into her Government’s rea…
Speaker
Mr. WalkerConservative
Quote
I probably will not give the hon. Lady the answer that she is looking for, but I fully bought into her Government’s reasons for not signing up to the directive. I was convinced by their arguments on why it would be a bad idea for the UK to sign up to it. I have gone along with those arguments for nine years. The Government have changed their mind, and they need to put forward the arguments, to me and to others, on why the change of course is good. I leave it to the Minister, when he winds up, to make the argument in favour of the country signing the working time directive. If his arguments are good enough and convince me, I will certainly join the hon. Lady in the Lobby to vote in support of the working time directive. However, it is incumbent on the Minister to persuade me that I need to be there. I accept that the minimum wage was a good idea, but I am still concerned about the fact that we tax people who earn the minimum wage. I know that that is outside the ambit of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall not try your patience by speaking on the issue for more than 30 seconds. The minimum wage gives people a salary of about £11,000 a year, but as soon as they earn £5,000 or £5,500, they start paying tax on their earnings, and then have their money laundered back to them in the form of tax credits. That is not right, and it perhaps robs people of their dignity. I mentioned my concerns about the hospitality industry to the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs, who opened the debate. It is disgraceful that when I add £5 or £10 to a bill at a restaurant, and pay on a credit card because I do not have any cash on me, that money can be used to make up the wage of the person serving me. That is wrong, and most people in this country—apart from the few who own restaurants—agree. As the Government struggle to become more popular with the wider electorate, it would be good for them to seize on the issue. The practice is wrong, and they would have the support of the vast majority of the British public if they addressed it. I am not sure whether that would make up the 19 per cent. deficit in the polls, but it would be a good start.
Time
19:02
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. SimonDoes the hon. Gentleman agree that people should not make the mistake of thinking that by leaving a tip in cash they ar…
Speaker
Mr. SimonLabour
Quote
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people should not make the mistake of thinking that by leaving a tip in cash they are necessarily ensuring that it will go directly to the worker concerned? Even when tips are left in cash, unscrupulous employers still find ways to divert that income stream to themselves.
Time
19:02
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. WalkerThe hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I am sorry if I misled the House and anybody watching by suggesting that if peop…
Speaker
Mr. WalkerConservative
Quote
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I am sorry if I misled the House and anybody watching by suggesting that if people leave cash it is more likely to find its way into the pockets of the person who served their table. I would hope that the cash would be put in that person’s pocket before the avaricious restaurant owner got his or her hands on it. Any restaurant chain that carries out the practice deserves to be named and shamed. I really wish and hope that we get to grips with the issue extremely soon, whichever political party is involved. I turn briefly to the issue of tribunal claims. It concerns me greatly when someone who has been disadvantaged in the workplace and is successful in their claim at an employment tribunal then has to wait months—sometimes longer—to receive the money that they are owed. These people have mortgages, families, outgoings and other costs that need to be met. They will often not have a job, because they have been removed from their previous job unfairly. When a tribunal award is made, we need to make sure that the money is forthcoming quickly. I did not want to be partisan in this debate, but I am going to be. I am a proud member of Amicus-Unite, a trade union. Like the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark), I believe that the trade unions make a positive impact in our day-to-day lives, and we are a better country for having them. I do not want to go against the will of the House, but I have deep concern about British National party members being allowed to join trade unions. From my time in Broxbourne, I know how the BNP operates. I have run a three-year campaign against it that has by and large been successful; we removed the BNP councillor whom I inherited when I was selected for my seat. The BNP operates outside the normal boundaries of acceptable political and democratic behaviour. Its campaigns are nasty and personal. I know that for a fact, because I have been on the receiving end of a number of them. A number of Members here will have given some time to campaigning in the London assembly elections. The literature that the BNP was putting around in those elections was hateful and despicable. It was really unpleasant stuff. Anyone who dares to criticise the BNP, as I do and other brave Members do in their constituencies, is subject to a torrent of abuse and hate—to national campaigns of abuse and hate. Letters were sent to my office and my local newspaper, and e-mails were sent from wherever in the country I dared to stand up and speak out against the BNP. A low point came in the local elections. My local newspaper ran a poll about who people were going to vote for. The BNP, of course, organised a telephone campaign and a newspaper called me up and said, “Mr. Walker, 52 per cent. of your constituents are going to vote BNP in the local elections. How do you feel about that?” I said, of course, that it was total nonsense—and guess what? I was proved right. I fundamentally believe that the BNP has no place in any organisation of which I am a member, be it the Conservative party or a trade union. I received this from a BNP supporter: “I note with interest your recent and misguided comments regarding The British National Party…You call yourself a Tory, yet are absurdly a member of a Trade Union. You call yourself British, yet clearly despise our Islands…Did you know that your namesake was the first man to be executed after the State of Illinois reinstated the death penalty? A fitting fact, you’ll no doubt agree. Have a good day Mr Walker”. The writer had also implied that I was being watched. That is the BNP that I have come to know and that operates outside the normal boundaries of political discourse. I accept that, at the moment, many people, for whatever reason, are voting for the BNP—to catch the attention of politicians, to poke us in the eye, to get us to sit up and listen to their concerns. However, voting for the BNP is in a different league from being a member of the BNP, which is a malevolent organisation. Personally, I would not want a member or ex-member of the BNP in my political party, my association or my trade union. There is no place for that party in membership organisations.
Time
19:02
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)It is always good to follow a brother. I should declare that I am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union s…
Speaker
Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)Labour
Quote
It is always good to follow a brother. I should declare that I am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union section of Unite; perhaps the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) and I do have one or two things in common somewhere along the line. I applaud this Employment Bill. It reforms the law on workplace dispute resolution and unfair dismissal and, thankfully, introduces increased penalties and enforcement powers relating to the national minimum wage and agency standards. It also increases compensation awards for workers whose employers make unlawful and unauthorised wage deductions or fail to pay statutory redundancy pay. I am sure that those in the Chamber and beyond are all aware of examples of unscrupulous employers in our communities who are, frankly, exploiting the situation with agency workers and taking each and every advantage to make deductions from people’s earnings. There are EU workers, including Poles and Lithuanians, in my constituency. Some of those people have had a torrid time. They have worked exceedingly hard for more than 40 hours a week. They work every minute that God gives them—sometimes 50, 60 or 70 hours a week. All sorts of deductions are made, whether for travel support or accommodation support. When it comes to pay-day, they get a pitiful wage for the work that they do. The Bill also revises the rules on the exclusion and expulsion of union members, following the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the ASLEF case. The TUC welcomes the proposals to strengthen the law against unfair dismissal and the new penalties for rogue employers who flout the national minimum wage. It also welcomes the creation of the fairer method of dealing with national minimum wage arrears owed to workers, which ensures that they do not lose out as a result of underpayment by employers. I was one of the Committee members who helped introduce the national minimum wage, under the leadership of my right hon. and good Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). That was an exciting time. Despite what others say now, it is worth remembering exactly what happened on the occasions when we sat through the night. One Tuesday, our sitting started at 4.30 in the afternoon and finished at 1 o’clock on Wednesday lunchtime. I recollect some interesting times being chaired by our late and good friend, Gwyneth Dunwoody, who kindly helped to guide us through the night. On the following Thursday, we started at 4.30 in the afternoon and finished at 6.30 on Friday morning. Unbeknown to many of us, no Committee on any Bill in this House had ever sat for as long as 4.30 in the afternoon to 1 o’clock the next day. It came as news to us all at 1 o’clock on the Wednesday that we were still apparently working Tuesday hours. I will never know why that was the case. The Tories were opposed to the Bill. The Liberal Democrats wanted regional variations for the national minimum wage. However, the whole point of the Bill was to ensure fairness right across the country.
Time
19:16
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lorely BurtThe hon. Gentleman says that he wishes to see fairness right across the country; I am sure that everyone in this Chambe…
Speaker
Lorely BurtLiberal Democrat
Quote
The hon. Gentleman says that he wishes to see fairness right across the country; I am sure that everyone in this Chamber would aspire to that. However, if we compare a national minimum wage paid to somebody who lives in London with that paid to someone who lives in Liverpool, does he agree that its buying power varies tremendously?
Time
19:16
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. BrownAbsolutely; I would not disagree in the slightest. However, the hon. Lady’s party wanted to introduce regional variatio…
Speaker
Mr. BrownLabour
Quote
Absolutely; I would not disagree in the slightest. However, the hon. Lady’s party wanted to introduce regional variations on what we currently have. In other words, in my constituency, people in the neighbouring Scottish borders region would have been paid less, which would have reduced the value and purchasing capacity of that pay.
Time
19:16
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. McCartneyIt might be interesting to the citizens of Liverpool that the Liberal Democrats, who control the council there, are int…
Speaker
Mr. McCartneyLabour
Quote
It might be interesting to the citizens of Liverpool that the Liberal Democrats, who control the council there, are into wage cuts for low-paid workers in Liverpool, as they were into wage cuts in the Bill that introduced the minimum wage. It is very important that there is a national minimum wage, and the way to increase it is to join a trade union and have protected negotiating rights. It is not acceptable that someone in Liverpool or the north or south of Scotland who works for a company operating throughout Britain—say, a hamburger chain—is paid less than someone doing the same job in the south-east of England. That is a ridiculous claim by the Liberal Democrats.
Time
19:16
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. BrownI wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend.
Speaker
Mr. BrownLabour
Quote
I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend.
Time
19:16
Source
View in Hansard ↗
John McDonnellMay I place it on the record that if it was inappropriate to have regional variations on the minimum wage, it is equall…
Speaker
John McDonnellLabour
Quote
May I place it on the record that if it was inappropriate to have regional variations on the minimum wage, it is equally inappropriate for the Government to introduce regional pay bargaining in the courts service? We will need to consider that again because of the inequities that will be introduced.
Time
19:16
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. BrownI say to my hon. Friend, who, like me, comes from a trade union background, that I wholeheartedly support national wage…
Speaker
Mr. BrownLabour
Quote
I say to my hon. Friend, who, like me, comes from a trade union background, that I wholeheartedly support national wage agreements. We need to do our utmost, especially at the current time, to continue to operate on the basis of national pay bargaining.
Time
19:16
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lorely BurtIs the hon. Gentleman suggesting that £5.20 an hour is a living wage for somebody who lives in London? The point that I…
Speaker
Lorely BurtLiberal Democrat
Quote
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that £5.20 an hour is a living wage for somebody who lives in London? The point that I was trying to make is that people in London should have more, not that anyone from elsewhere in the country should have less.
Time
19:16
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. BrownWe have moved on from the £5.20 an hour that we had previously, and thankfully we have moved on from the £3.60. There i…
Speaker
Mr. BrownLabour
Quote
We have moved on from the £5.20 an hour that we had previously, and thankfully we have moved on from the £3.60. There is the London weighting, as has been indicated. The hon. Lady’s colleagues fought hard to try to introduce regional variations for the rest of the country when the Bill was going through Committee, and thankfully they were defeated.
Time
19:16
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab)I support what my hon. Friend says. Speaking as a former union organiser in London, we always strongly supported nation…
Speaker
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab)Independent
Quote
I support what my hon. Friend says. Speaking as a former union organiser in London, we always strongly supported national wage negotiations, and still do. Beyond that, we negotiated a London living supplement. This is not about regional negotiations or pay variations—it is a totally different animal, and that seems to be lost on some Members of this House.
Time
19:16
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. BrownIf anyone knows what lies behind all that, my hon. Friend does; he is exactly right in what he says. I would hate to le…
Speaker
Mr. BrownLabour
Quote
If anyone knows what lies behind all that, my hon. Friend does; he is exactly right in what he says. I would hate to leave out our Scottish National party colleagues. During the two extremely long Committee sittings that we had when pushing through the national minimum wage, allegations were made that SNP Members had gone to bed. I have to tell the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) that his friend, Alasdair Morgan from Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, disappeared throughout the night on both those occasions.
Time
19:16
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. MacNeilAs the hon. Gentleman’s memory is so great, were all the Labour Members present all night? I have no idea, as it happen…
Speaker
Mr. MacNeilIndependent
Quote
As the hon. Gentleman’s memory is so great, were all the Labour Members present all night? I have no idea, as it happened long before I was here. I note, however, that when it came to Third Reading, his name was not on the voting record. Would he like to explain that?
Time
19:16
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. BrownYes, Labour Members were there through the night, because that was the important time when progress was made. I may hav…
Speaker
Mr. BrownLabour
Quote
Yes, Labour Members were there through the night, because that was the important time when progress was made. I may have been absent on Third Reading, but I was there on each and every occasion through the night in Committee. It was a momentous piece of legislation, not only for this nation but for the Labour party.
Time
19:16
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal)Order. Could we now get on to the Bill that is currently before us? We have all appreciated the history lesson; let us…
Speaker
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal)Labour
Quote
Order. Could we now get on to the Bill that is currently before us? We have all appreciated the history lesson; let us now concentrate on the Bill.
Time
19:16
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. BrownI apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker—I should know better. There are still clear dividing lines in respect of the national…
Speaker
Mr. BrownLabour
Quote
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker—I should know better. There are still clear dividing lines in respect of the national minimum wage. The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has described the social chapter of European legislation, which includes rights for part-time workers and additional parental leave, as “a historic mistake”. In the Financial Times of 28 March this year, he said: “I think that was a historic mistake Tony Blair made to give up the hard-fought opt-out on the social chapter and I’d like it back…of course it will be difficult to win. But if you have enough resolve…then I believe it is possible.” While this Government are increasing fairness and prosperity at work, the Tories would scrap the help for working people that Labour has introduced. The shadow Chancellor has heaped praise on the report on economic competitiveness by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), which says that regulation to stop small children working is unnecessary and recommends that Britain tears up the entire framework of employment protection agreed with European partners over the past 10 years. In chapter 6 of “Freeing Britain to Compete”, produced by the economic competitiveness policy group chaired by the right hon. Member for Wokingham, he says: “You do not need a regulation to stop chimney sweeps sending small boys up chimneys.” He goes on: “If our partners could not be persuaded, we should seek opt outs from the areas of regulation that we think are most damaging…This would include all employment and social regulation.” This is the 21st century, and we need to ensure that we are being fair in the workplace and fair to individuals. I want to deal with a couple of aspects of the Bill. I apologise that I was not here for the start of the debate—I was on a Delegated Legislation Committee—so I do not know whether, in his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs referred to the concerns expressed by Age Concern. It welcomes the review of employment law, but it recommends that the Government should use the legislation to outlaw the process of forced retirement by removing the default retirement age of 65 introduced by the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006. It maintains that the Government got it wrong on employment rights for those over 65, leaving them the only group without protection from discrimination when it comes to being dismissed. The default retirement age means that older people cannot choose to work beyond the age of 65 unless their employer allows them to do so. They can be forced to retire, if their employer so chooses, without reference to their capability or conduct, without being given a reason and without being able to challenge the dismissal in an employment tribunal. Evidence from the United States of America, where mandatory retirement ages are already illegal, suggests that abandoning MRAs in this country could lead to more than 50,000 extra jobs for people over the age of 65. Scrapping mandatory retirement ages would be popular, and Age Concern polling has found that 80 per cent. of people think that there should be no mandatory retirement ages. Businesses are increasingly recognising MRAs as burdensome, fraught with practical difficulties and liable to create confusion for management. The employers of two out of five workers already manage without MRAs. The Employers Forum on Age now takes the view that the future of MRAs is unsustainable. I sincerely hope that Ministers will use the Bill to deal with that issue.
Time
19:16
Source
View in Hansard ↗
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op)My hon. Friend cites organisations in the private sector, but does he acknowledge, and regret the fact, that among the…
Speaker
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op)Labour
Quote
My hon. Friend cites organisations in the private sector, but does he acknowledge, and regret the fact, that among the most bellicose and hard-nosed employers that impose a maximum working age are organisations such as the Royal Mail? It routinely disposes of people who are fit, well, active and who know their areas well; they are lost because of the continuing pressure the organisation is under to downsize its work force.
Time
19:16
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. BrownI thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and there is more than one question within it. He outlines the manner in w…
Speaker
Mr. BrownLabour
Quote
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and there is more than one question within it. He outlines the manner in which the Royal Mail deals with some of its work force, especially as they reach retirement age. It is a tragedy that in the 21st century we are forcing people to retire at what is seen as retirement age when, if people are fit and healthy, they want to be out and contributing to business life.
Time
19:16
Source
View in Hansard ↗
David TaylorIt keeps them fit.
Speaker
David TaylorLabour
Quote
It keeps them fit.
Time
19:16
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. BrownYes, fit and healthy, and if they want to make that contribution, they should be allowed to do so. My final point was r…
Speaker
Mr. BrownLabour
Quote
Yes, fit and healthy, and if they want to make that contribution, they should be allowed to do so. My final point was raised by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), who referred to the British National party, and it concerns clause 18, “Exclusion or expulsion from trade union for membership of political party”. The clause addresses the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on unions’ ability to determine their own rules and membership free from unnecessary interference. It relates to the fundamental right of freedom of association, covered by article 11 of the European convention on human rights. The relevant case concerned ASLEF’s attempt to expel a member of the BNP. The BNP does not exist in my area. I am aware from conversations with other colleagues that it is a despicable organisation, which, in a civilised society, we should not tolerate. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustrations, as I understand those of many of my colleagues, about some of the myths and nasty literature that it peddles, not only at election times, but continually, thinking that it can make headway in what it regards as the political world.
Time
19:16
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. WalkerWhen my newspaper informed the BNP organiser in Broxbourne that I had received an implied death threat from a BNP membe…
Speaker
Mr. WalkerConservative
Quote
When my newspaper informed the BNP organiser in Broxbourne that I had received an implied death threat from a BNP member, his response was that I was being oversensitive to some loose language. Does that not accurately sum up the BNP at every level of its hierarchy?
Time
19:16
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. BrownI can only agree with the hon. Gentleman; it very much does. He probably could not give a finer example of its attitude…
Speaker
Mr. BrownLabour
Quote
I can only agree with the hon. Gentleman; it very much does. He probably could not give a finer example of its attitude. The original clause was too restrictive, but it was amended in the other place and it is now even worse. Unions are too vulnerable to claims made by those expelled on the grounds of their membership of a political party, including the BNP, and the clause does not address the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. I know that my union, Unite, finds that unacceptable. I again apologise for not being here for the opening speeches by the Minister and the Opposition spokesperson. I hope that the points that I and colleagues have raised will be listened to by the Minister, and perhaps some of the issues in question will be addressed in Committee.
Time
19:16
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mrs. Nadine Dorries (Mid-Bedfordshire) (Con)As we are all declaring our interests in trade unions, I suppose I should declare my own. As a trainee nurse, I was a m…
Speaker
Mrs. Nadine Dorries (Mid-Bedfordshire) (Con)Conservative
Quote
As we are all declaring our interests in trade unions, I suppose I should declare my own. As a trainee nurse, I was a member of the National Union of Public Employees—I do not think that it even exists any more—and after I qualified I was a member of the Royal College of Nursing. I remember well that in December 1975, as a trainee nurse, we received a pay rise, due to pressure from the unions, that enabled us to eat. The previous month—I started nursing in the November—the paltry amount that we were paid was just about enough to exist on. Although as trainee nurses we were incredibly grateful—I will not go into a history lesson, Madam Deputy Speaker—I do not think that the public purse lost the money as easily as nurses received it. Unfortunately, we all know what happened afterwards. In my time, I have appreciated the work of trade unions, but we have reached a point where the unions’ demands made in the name of diversity are causing problems with business regulations. It surprises me that in 2008 we are repealing and amending a substantive Act that was introduced and debated in this House in only 2002. Did the Government get it wrong in 2002? Exactly how much are we repealing, and how much is being amended? I wonder whether the Minister can tell us how many regulations fewer there will be as a result of the Bill. Today, Nicola Brewer spoke out on how employment law directly impacts on the career progress of women in the workplace. We are beginning to see how the pressure from trade unions on diversity and equality legislation is shooting women in the foot, when it is supposed to help them up the career ladder. I do not think that flexible working and the procedures that employers have had to put in place to assist female employees is wrong. Some of the comments we heard from employers were appalling—putting batches of CVs in the bin before they would even interview women who might cause a problem to their business—but I wonder whether the amount of equality legislation we are imposing on businesses is having an adverse effect. Perhaps we could use a lighter touch and persuade employers by using incentives or by using the tax system, with benefit-in-kind tax relief, instead of using heavy-handed, burdensome legislation. As Nicola Brewer said today, it seems to be having the opposite effect, and rather than imposing regulation on business I think that there is another way of achieving a desirable outcome. As someone who ran a business that was all about helping women in the workplace, I do not want us to take a step back. In fact, the issue is about changing the culture in the boardroom and the culture of the people at the top who put women’s CVs in the bin and do not employ them because of their gender. The answer is not to hit businesses over the head with a massive regulatory hammer. That is not going to give us the results that we need. All regulation is a cost to business. As we know, two thirds of businesses in this country employ fewer than 20 people. Half our GDP comes from small businesses, which feel the cost of regulation more than big corporations do. Having run a small business, I know that owners of small businesses need to maintain their market share, increase their growth, guarantee their employees’ security and look for new business. Achieving all those objectives is vital, but when someone has to juggle regulatory reform too, they need additional employees to manage that, which imposes extra cost. If we are going to tinker about with employment regulations again, I would like to see some way of relieving that cost on small businesses and using the Bill to assist them. The Minister will probably talk about that, which is to be welcomed—I know that, in principle, we support it—but there may be another way of doing a bit more for small businesses. Lord Jones of Birmingham—the famous Digby Jones—said that the Blair Government were one of the most regulatory-minded Governments. Can the Minister reassure us that the Brown Government are not, or are they the same? Will the Bill reduce the burden of regulation on businesses today, or are we going down the same path of imposing more regulation? The British Chambers of Commerce estimates that Government regulation has cost British business more than £65 billion since 1998. Will the Minister tell us what estimate has been made of the cost of employing people? How much of that £65 billion is directly related to employment costs? Many small businesses operate in niche markets—I certainly did: I always thought, “What’s the point of doing something that somebody else is already doing?” It is much more exciting and easier to create jobs if someone can excite by innovating, rather than copying what somebody else is doing. People need the freedom to innovate and the freedom of thought to have ideas and create business, and for that they need to be free from regulation and red tape. It is incredibly difficult for people when all that they can worry about is the administrative process of running their business, which means that they are not free to innovate. Again, the Bill could have done something to help with innovation by freeing up those who run small businesses, who provide half our GDP. Was the Bill a wasted opportunity? The Federation of Small Businesses says that many firms are concerned that they are not being taken seriously. They feel that the Government talk to big businesses, but that they no longer talk to small businesses. People who run small businesses have spoken out against the Government, blaming them for not doing enough and for spiralling costs. Again, that is what regulation does—it brings cost with it. The two go hand in hand. In a poll of more than 9,000 businesses, 96 per cent. of owners questioned by the FSB said that they were not satisfied that the Government were taking the right decisions in the interests of small business. Equally, more than 88 per cent. criticised the Government for not doing enough to bring down the rise in business cost. The FSB wants the Government to step in and ease the burden. FSB national chairman John Wright has said: “With the end of a period of relative stability, small business confidence in the government has plummeted in the last couple of years. Employment, tax and fuel policies have left many small firms feeling that their concerns are not being taken seriously enough.”
Time
19:36
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)I wonder whether the hon. Lady realises that there were 18 years of Tory rule between all the post-war regulation and n…
Speaker
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)Labour
Quote
I wonder whether the hon. Lady realises that there were 18 years of Tory rule between all the post-war regulation and now. As a trade union official, I can tell her that the worst period for unemployment, because of the lack of regulation, was under the previous Tory Government. Surely that is the period on which we should concentrate in this debate.
Time
19:36
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mrs. DorriesThe hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, as always. However, we know, as we now enter a recession, that these thi…
Speaker
Mrs. DorriesConservative
Quote
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, as always. However, we know, as we now enter a recession, that these things are cyclical. I started my business in the 1980s, and it was tremendously successful. Indeed, I know lots of people who did the same. We go through bad patches and good patches. We know that, economically, that is how the cycles work. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not take the point fully, because I am not sure that trade unions have created employment or prevented unemployment, which is more to do with the economic cycle of the time. John Wright continued: “All we see is government consulting big business, with small businesses being left out of the loop. But small businesses produce over half of UK GDP and it is important that their needs are addressed if we are to get through the current economic difficulties.” We know that those difficulties will get worse. The former Prime Minister, John Major, said yesterday that it feels as though inflation is more like 8 per cent. than the official figure. Nobody I speak to understands how the official figure is what it is, when it costs so much to go to Tesco and so much to fill up the car. We know that things will get more difficult. Small businesses need not more regulation but less, because they are the ones that we will look to, as we always do when the economy enters difficult times.
Time
19:36
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. David AndersonWhat in the Bill would the hon. Lady take away? What part of the regulations does she not agree with?
Speaker
Mr. David AndersonLabour
Quote
What in the Bill would the hon. Lady take away? What part of the regulations does she not agree with?
Time
19:36
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mrs. DorriesI shall probably answer the hon. Gentleman’s question when I conclude. My point now is that I would like to know from t…
Speaker
Mrs. DorriesConservative
Quote
I shall probably answer the hon. Gentleman’s question when I conclude. My point now is that I would like to know from the Minister whether the Bill provides less regulation or more. I hope that the Minister will answer that question when he winds up. There are new fears in the City. A new survey has found that business leaders in London fear for the competitiveness of the City. The study, conducted by KPMG in partnership with the CBI, found that six out of 10 senior executives believe London’s competitiveness is “under threat”. Richard Reid, the London chairman of KPMG, said that “after so many promises to reduce damaging red tape, policy-makers have to realise that the burden of unnecessary paperwork is seriously hindering London’s success and its ability to just get on and do business in an increasingly competitive world.” That is exactly why I ask my question. Is there more regulation as a result of the Bill or less?
Time
19:36
Source
View in Hansard ↗
David TaylorIn a former life I was a freelance accountant for many small businesses. I have a very high regard for the FSB, for the…
Speaker
David TaylorLabour
Quote
In a former life I was a freelance accountant for many small businesses. I have a very high regard for the FSB, for the support that it gives. However, the FSB, in urging the lowest possible level of regulation—it is quite appropriate for it to do so—is not doing what the hon. Lady seems to be doing, namely making a coded appeal for small businesses to be exempt from national minimum wage legislation.
Time
19:36
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mrs. DorriesI am not making a coded appeal at all. If I was making such an appeal, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I would make it…
Speaker
Mrs. DorriesConservative
Quote
I am not making a coded appeal at all. If I was making such an appeal, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I would make it directly. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), if I had been here when the House voted on the minimum wage, I would, as someone with an employer’s experience, probably have voted against it, because I have always paid more than the national minimum wage anyway. However, I am aware that there were—and still are—unscrupulous employers, and I think that the national minimum wage is a good thing. Sometimes there is a cartel of employers who pay only the minimum wage. Sometimes it is difficult for skilled employees who deserve more than the minimum wage to find employment where they live, because a wage ceiling in their area makes it difficult for them to get a salary increase. They cannot move anywhere, because all the employers fix their pay at the minimum wage. The minimum wage has had a detrimental effect on some skilled workers. Indeed, I have some experience of that among my constituents working in the borough of Bedford. They cannot move, because the employers all pay the national minimum wage.
Time
19:36
Source
View in Hansard ↗
David TaylorThe hon. Lady has decoded her earlier remarks and we are very pleased about that. Is she suggesting a two-tier minimum…
Speaker
David TaylorLabour
Quote
The hon. Lady has decoded her earlier remarks and we are very pleased about that. Is she suggesting a two-tier minimum wage, with the lower tier for unskilled or semi-skilled workers and the higher tier for skilled workers?
Time
19:36
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mrs. DorriesNot at all. As I said, I accept that we need a national minimum wage. My daughter works in the hospitality industry, an…
Speaker
Mrs. DorriesConservative
Quote
Not at all. As I said, I accept that we need a national minimum wage. My daughter works in the hospitality industry, and goodness knows what she would be paid if there was not a national minimum wage. I accept that we need a national minimum wage, but it is not all good. There are those on whom it has a detrimental effect, and they tend to be the more skilled people. They are paid at a rate that does not reflect their ability because there is almost a cartel of employers holding wages down in different areas. Although the minimum wage may have benefited the majority, there are those who are not benefiting and who would be earning more.
Time
19:36
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. DonohoeWill the hon. Lady give way?
Speaker
Mr. DonohoeLabour
Quote
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Time
19:36
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mrs. DorriesActually, I think that I will finish now because I am reaching the end of my comments. As I explained, there was no cod…
Speaker
Mrs. DorriesConservative
Quote
Actually, I think that I will finish now because I am reaching the end of my comments. As I explained, there was no coded message in what I said. Opposition Members support the Bill and we agree with its principle. However, the Government have persistently placed more legislative and regulatory burdens on employers, which has the most detrimental effect on small businesses. It will come as no surprise to the Minister to hear that the Conservative party is committed to reducing regulatory burdens on employers, giving them more power and opportunities in how they run their businesses and encouraging enterprise in all its forms, particularly, I hope, small business. In contrast, the Government have piled extra complexity and burdens on businesses, and I hope that any changes that they make will reduce that burden. If Lord Jones of Birmingham was right that the Blair Government were the most regulatory Government, perhaps this Government can reverse that in the time that they have left and do some good, particularly for small businesses.
Time
19:36
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)I want to focus on three issues in the Bill: the minimum wage, the tribunal system and the ASLEF ruling, and the impact…
Speaker
Mr. David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)Labour
Quote
I want to focus on three issues in the Bill: the minimum wage, the tribunal system and the ASLEF ruling, and the impact of the BNP. A lot has been said about the history of the minimum wage. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown) is leaving, which is sad, because I want to give him another history lesson. More or less everybody now seems proud of the minimum wage and nobody wants to see it done away with. Most people would say that it was one of the finest achievements of the Labour Government in the late 1990s. One of the biggest problems is that we first introduced it in the early 1900s, but it took us 90 years to put it in place. One of the saddest things is that the trade unions themselves opposed the national minimum wage when the union of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) proposed at the TUC in 1983 that we should have one. Many trade unions, including, sadly, the National Union of Mineworkers, which I was a member of, voted against that. Thankfully, the Labour party and, eventually, the trade unions saw the error of their ways, and we did something that we should rightly be proud of. I am glad that the majority of hon. Members see that that was the right thing to do, and we should build on that. We should protect those on the minimum wage from rogue employers, and that is rightly built into the Bill. As everyone in the House seems to agree, we should ensure that tips are excluded and that people are paid properly. If a tip is a tip, that is what it is—it is not part of people’s wages. We should also protect the minimum wage from people such as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who said—I will put my glasses on to read this quote, because that is how seriously I take this—that the “minimum wage and other labour market regulation has been the last straw for hard pressed low end industries”. That seems to accord with what the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire has just said. I would argue with her—but I think that she has a point—when she says that some employers have made the minimum wage a ceiling, rather than a floor. That is a problem not with the minimum wage, but with rogue employers taking advantage of it, and that is what should be challenged, not the minimum wage itself. I want to focus particularly on the issue of paying people under 21 the rate for the job, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark), and I want to use my personal experience. I started work at 15 as a fitter at the National Coal Board. I served a four-year apprenticeship. At 19, I was trained, capable and safe. I was able to look after a coal face, and the men there could have been killed if I did not do my job properly. It would have been absurd for somebody to say, “You can do the job, but we’re not going to pay you the rate for the job for another two years because you’re too young.” We would not do that at the end of somebody’s working life, so why should we do it at the beginning if they are capable, safe and properly trained? We should really look at that in some detail, and I ask the Minister to consider it as we make progress with the Bill. Another point that was raised earlier—I am going to put my glasses on again—related to dispute resolution. It is clear that the intent in the Bill is to reduce the amount of regulation and litigation, and I would normally welcome that, but the truth is that where dispute resolution works well and where we have good grievance procedures and good disciplinary procedures, which people know and understand, lay members who probably do not understand such things will have internal protection if they are supported by trade unions or bodies such as the citizens advice bureau. My worry, which has been raised with me by constituents who sit as lay members of tribunals—this has been raised clearly already—is that the proposals are about taking them out of the loop and letting people with a legal background have sole responsibility for deciding cases that they might not be qualified to decide, in the sense that they do not have experience of the workplace from the side of the employer or the employee, even though they will have a legal background. That is a real worry, and we should address it. We should ensure that the proposals that we take forward are not about reducing the number of people with real knowledge and experience who have sat on tribunals for many years, but about doing the job properly. Finally, I want to come on to the problems with clause 18, which have been raised by the TUC. I understand why the Government feel that they have to come into line with the European Court regulations. It appears that everybody thought that that was fair when the Bill went into the Lords, but the Lords clearly did not think that it was, and they have changed the provisions. It is clear from the TUC brief that many of us have received that the TUC has some major problems with the proposals. One of the main things that I worry about is that we will involve the courts. We should be in no doubt that if the BNP thinks that it can have its day in court, it will not care what it costs or about the legitimacy of its case—it will get up and use the courts of this country as a political platform to argue against the things that we believe in, but which it abhors. There is a basic democratic tenet here. Through their own democratic processes, trade unions decide what they believe in. I was proud to be the president of Unison. Through many years of negotiation and democratic debate, the union came forward with a constitution saying that the union supported the rights of gay people, lesbians, black people, disabled people and women. The BNP does not support those rights; it supports the same things that fascists have supported throughout the years—discrediting people, pulling people down, making people feel different and exploiting differences. We should be clear that the BNP is not wanted in the trade union movement and we should work with the TUC and others to ensure that the legislation that we introduce tightens up the expulsion of the BNP. The truth is that we should not even be talking about the legal position on this; the trade unions should be able to set their own rules and say, “If you’re a fascist, we don’t want you.”
Time
19:49
Source
View in Hansard ↗
John McDonnellIn the briefing that my hon. Friend has quoted from, the TUC suggests that Mr. Lee, the BNP member who took action agai…
Speaker
John McDonnellLabour
Quote
In the briefing that my hon. Friend has quoted from, the TUC suggests that Mr. Lee, the BNP member who took action against ASLEF, would have won his case under the Bill, if it goes through. We are therefore in severe danger of legislating in a retrograde way. It is critical that Ministers meet the TUC and others to resolve the matter before we make a fundamental mistake, which would run counter to all that has been said on both sides of the Chamber.
Time
19:49
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. AndersonI could not agree more. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) is not in his place, but he put it better than anyb…
Speaker
Mr. AndersonLabour
Quote
I could not agree more. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) is not in his place, but he put it better than anybody else. It is clear that he faces a challenge and that his life is under threat, but he is still prepared to stand up in the House to say that what these people are doing is wrong and that we should stand against it. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is right that we may be over-legislating. We are giving the fascists a second chance that they do not need and should not have. I urge the Minister to do what my hon. Friend has just said: we should get the TUC involved and work with it so that we can have a framework that delivers what we want through the Committee stage of this Bill—the right to expel these people from trade unions and to deny them the right of union membership.
Time
19:49
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con)I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson). His final remark was that we might be over-legisla…
Speaker
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con)Conservative
Quote
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson). His final remark was that we might be over-legislating, and that was about the only remark in his speech that I can agree with. The presentation of the Bill in the House has more to do with the Government’s not wanting to discuss the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. As the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) said, “It’s all to do with Catholics in by-elections.” The Bill has been rushed to the House today because the Government did not want to discuss the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye) (Lab)Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Speaker
Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye) (Lab)Labour
Quote
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Madam Deputy SpeakerI really think that there is no need to extend the debate to the subject just raised by the hon. Member. We have a Bill…
Speaker
Madam Deputy SpeakerLabour
Quote
I really think that there is no need to extend the debate to the subject just raised by the hon. Member. We have a Bill before us, so I look forward to hearing him conclude our debate on that Bill.
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownThank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is just as well that I did not give way to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mi…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is just as well that I did not give way to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster), as I would have been even further out of order. We have had a good-tempered debate today up to now and we have heard 10 good speeches from both sides of the House. I have quite a lot to say about them and I do not want to detain the House for too long, so I am going to limit the interventions I take. When I have had an opportunity to get properly into my speech, I will give way to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye. The Bill started its life in the House of Lords as long ago as 7 January 2008. It is curious, then, to consider why it has taken so long to get here. It comprises 22 clauses and is divided into four sections. Clauses 1 to 7 deal with dispute resolution: clause 4 deals particularly with the determination of proceedings without a hearing; clause 5 with the circumstances in which ACAS is obliged to offer conciliation services; and clause 6 repeals section 18 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. Clauses 8 to 14 deal with the national minimum wage: clause 13 excludes cadet force adult volunteers from qualifying for the national minimum wage. Clauses 15 to 17 deal with employment agencies and clause 18 relates to trade unions. I intend to say something about all of those provisions. We have heard excellent speeches, not least on the Opposition side from my hon. Friends the Members for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries). I was particularly impressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire, as what he said, speaking without notes on the basis of his huge experience in employment tribunals, was enormously beneficial to the House. He proved that the Government’s rushed legislation of 2002, introduced by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on the basis of his three-step and increasingly legalistic approach, was subsequently shown by the trade unions and others to be not the best way of proceeding with industrial tribunals. The Bill is welcome in that it starts to put right some of what the Government got wrong in 2002. My hon. Friend, along with the hon. Member for Blaydon and others on the left of the Labour party, demonstrated that the experience of members of employment tribunals counted for a great deal. It is a pity that the Government got this wrong in 2002; perhaps the Bill will begin to restore some of what was lost then. I worry about the timetable. As the Minister made clear, consultation on the code will not finish until 24 July, yet under the timetable we are asked to accept later this evening, all stages of the Bill must be concluded by 23 October. For most of that time, the House will be in recess, so it will be difficult for us to get together to discuss what is in the Bill. The timetable makes it very difficult for the House to consider the code, which is one of the key aspects of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire alluded to the British Chambers of Commerce, which has conducted many surveys of its members who own small businesses. It calculates that the regulations introduced by the Government since they came to power 1997-98 amount to some £65 billion-worth of costs. She also quoted from the Federation of Small Businesses, which estimated that about 68 per cent. of its members do not employ anybody because they are fearful of employment legislation—in other words, they are one-man businesses. The Government should note that most of the employers in the small business sector have to deal with the welter of employment legislation on their own because they cannot afford to employ people to do it for them. I will move on to deal with disputes resolution and hearings, along with the three-step approach and Government studies. If the Bill can simplify the way we deal with disputes, and particularly how if clause 7 deals with the enforcement of the award of compensation can be simplified that will be welcome. We have had a good amount of discussion this evening about how best to amend clause 7 to ensure that awards by tribunals can be enforced a little more quickly. Clauses 8 to 13 on the national minimum wage have been extensively debated. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne bravely said that if he had been a Member when the national minimum wage legislation had been debated and voted on, he would not—with the experience that he has now gained—have voted for it. That is probably true for a large number of Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown) asked how he could have debated the national minimum wage in Committee from 4.30 in the afternoon to 1 am the next day and still have been in the same parliamentary day. The answer is, of course, that we remain in the same day until the House adjourns. He may be right that that was one of the longest-ever such Committee sittings.
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
John McDonnellI am not making a party political point as I want to reach consensus, but what is the official Opposition’s position on…
Speaker
John McDonnellLabour
Quote
I am not making a party political point as I want to reach consensus, but what is the official Opposition’s position on the minimum wage for people under 21? Do they support it or are they open to discussion to reach consensus on abolition?
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownWe are still discussing the issue. I understand that there are three different rates according to different ages, but i…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
We are still discussing the issue. I understand that there are three different rates according to different ages, but it is a matter that we wish to continue to discuss. Suffice it to say that we support the national minimum wage and its regular updating at least in line with inflation, which is quite a shift for the Conservative party in comparison with our position a few years ago. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not go beyond saying that at this stage.
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Michael Jabez FosterThe hon. Gentleman is now recanting the decision originally to vote against the minimum wage and he suggested that litt…
Speaker
Michael Jabez FosterLabour
Quote
The hon. Gentleman is now recanting the decision originally to vote against the minimum wage and he suggested that little of what my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) said was correct—except for the point about the British National party. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the BNP has absolutely no place in the trade union movement or, for that matter, in any part of public life in Britain?
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, which relates to clause 18 on the trade unions. I will be w…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, which relates to clause 18 on the trade unions. I will be working my way slowly through the Bill and I certainly intend to deal with that issue.
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. HealdDoes my hon. Friend agree that in reflecting on rates of pay for the under-18s, it is important to take into account th…
Speaker
Mr. HealdConservative
Quote
Does my hon. Friend agree that in reflecting on rates of pay for the under-18s, it is important to take into account the new obligations proposed in the Education and Skills Bill? Employers will be required to pay for training to a much greater extent than previously. Should not that also be weighed in the balance?
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownI agree with my hon. Friend that all these costs on employers must be taken into account. If we continue to pile regula…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
I agree with my hon. Friend that all these costs on employers must be taken into account. If we continue to pile regulations on employers, our country will become less competitive. The same applies to the EU, which has lost 10 per cent. of its world trade in the past 10 years. Some experts estimate that if we continue to impose extra regulations and burdens on industry, we will lose 40 per cent. of world trade in the next 20 years. We need to consider that possibility very seriously. It is not a matter of individual pieces of legislation, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, but rather the aggregate effect of all legislation that impacts on businesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said, it is not so much the cost, but the burden of administering the regulations and their continually changing nature that causes the problems, as employers have to keep retraining people on the basis of what the newest legislation means. That is particularly burdensome on small businesses.
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
David TaylorThe hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the aggregate burden of regulation. He referred earlier, as did the hon. Memb…
Speaker
David TaylorLabour
Quote
The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the aggregate burden of regulation. He referred earlier, as did the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries), to total costs of £65 billion—a figure suggested by the British Chambers of Commerce. However, if we look at the aggregate gross domestic product since the present Government have been in power, that £65 billion represents a little more than 0.5 per cent. of GDP. Is that the sort of burden that would push firms to the wall?
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownWith great respect—and I do have great respect for the hon. Gentleman—I do not regard £65 billion as a small sum. I con…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
With great respect—and I do have great respect for the hon. Gentleman—I do not regard £65 billion as a small sum. I consider it incumbent on any Government to legislate for the minimum amount necessary to ensure that businesses operate properly and employers and employees are treated fairly, and in particular to ensure that employees do not suffer discrimination in the workplace.
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. McFaddenDoes the hon. Gentleman accept that the BCC figure to which he referred includes measures such as increasing disabled a…
Speaker
Mr. McFaddenLabour
Quote
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the BCC figure to which he referred includes measures such as increasing disabled access to public transport? Does he consider that to be a burden, or the mark of a civilised society?
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownI certainly consider it to be the mark to a civilised society. What I do not know, and what the Minister did not say in…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
I certainly consider it to be the mark to a civilised society. What I do not know, and what the Minister did not say in his intervention on my speech, is how much of that £65 billion relates to the regulations. I suspect that it is not a huge amount, but I stand to be corrected.
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownI want to make progress, because I have been speaking for a while and I want the Minister to have a chance to catch up.…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
I want to make progress, because I have been speaking for a while and I want the Minister to have a chance to catch up. I welcome clause 13, which excludes cadet force volunteers from certain obligations that they are currently required to observe. I particularly welcome the clarification about adult volunteers, because there were fears in my constituency about the possibility that adult volunteer drivers would have to pay all sorts of tax and other charges. I also welcome what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne about employment agencies, which perform a valuable function in returning people to work. We want them to operate properly, but I remain to be convinced that the number of rogue employment agencies out there warrants such draconian legislation. Clause 18 relates to trade unions and trade union membership, which has been discussed extensively this evening. It is heartening to learn that the left wing of the Labour party—the old socialist party—is still alive and well. We heard it from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), we heard it from the hon. Member for Blaydon, and we heard it from the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway. Of course we all want to see trade unions functioning well, but there must be a balance in society between what they do for their members and what they do for the rest of the country. I think most unbiased people would conclude that in the 1970s, when we experienced the winter of discontent, we got the balance wrong. Some would argue about whether the balance was maintained in the other direction during the 1980s and 1990s. I would say that we should be careful not to place too great a burden on businesses, and not to place trade unions above the law in any respect. I do not want to see the country return to the immunity from prosecution that the trade unions enjoyed, in some respects, in the 1970s and before. Let me deal with the specific point made by the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye about the BNP, which clearly causes a big problem to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne in his own constituency. I am sure that none of us in the House espouses the policies of the BNP, which are abhorrent to many of us.
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. WalkerWill my hon. Friend give way?
Speaker
Mr. WalkerConservative
Quote
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownWill my hon. Friend allow me just one second? I think what I say will help him. Those policies are abhorrent, but what…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
Will my hon. Friend allow me just one second? I think what I say will help him. Those policies are abhorrent, but what was most abhorrent about what my hon. Friend described was the threatening behaviour towards him in particular. If any organisation says “We are watching you”, that implies a threat, which is unacceptable in a civilised society. Now I will happily give way to my hon. Friend.
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. WalkerI thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. The BNP is no longer a problem in Broxbourne, in the sense that it is no lon…
Speaker
Mr. WalkerConservative
Quote
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. The BNP is no longer a problem in Broxbourne, in the sense that it is no longer a political force. It has been wiped out over the past three years. The real problem is the way in which its members behave and communicate. They do not understand civilised political discourse: their raison d’être is intimidation and veiled threats of violence. That is the real problem with the BNP, not just in Broxbourne but throughout this country of England that we love so much.
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownI entirely agree. I think that the problem with the BNP, or at least some of its members, is the fact that they hold su…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
I entirely agree. I think that the problem with the BNP, or at least some of its members, is the fact that they hold such extreme views that they cannot understand why those views, and their behaviour, are not at least accredited by others.
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
John McDonnellWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
Speaker
John McDonnellLabour
Quote
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownI will in a second, for the last time. Let me say gently to the Minister—I think he will face quite a long Committee st…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
I will in a second, for the last time. Let me say gently to the Minister—I think he will face quite a long Committee stage given all the demands made by his hon. Friends, which will need to be debated at great length: I do not know how the Government will meet their timetable—that we have a tradition in this country of not legislating for individual prejudices. That means that he will somehow have to construct a Bill that deals with circumstances rather than the prejudices of individuals and, I suspect, individual parties. I think he will find it quite difficult to achieve that while ensuring that the Bill complies with the European convention on human rights, but I wish him well. He has the sympathy of the whole House, and I am sure that my party will support him on those and, indeed, other aspects of the Bill.
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Michael Jabez FosterWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
Speaker
Michael Jabez FosterLabour
Quote
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownNo. I will give way to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, but I will not give way after that.
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
No. I will give way to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, but I will not give way after that.
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
John McDonnellThe hon. Gentleman depicted a number of us as left-wing or old Labour, when we were simply referring to the installatio…
Speaker
John McDonnellLabour
Quote
The hon. Gentleman depicted a number of us as left-wing or old Labour, when we were simply referring to the installation in British law of International Labour Organisation conventions concerning the right to withdraw one’s labour. Will he comment on the statements of his colleague the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), about the need to restrict the right to strike in certain public services? How are the Opposition developing that policy?
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownIf the hon. Gentleman is trying to deny that he is one of the old socialist brothers, I think that his record will beli…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
If the hon. Gentleman is trying to deny that he is one of the old socialist brothers, I think that his record will belie that argument and that he is embarking on an uphill struggle. As for the right to restrict strikes in the public sector, I will not go down that route. I have already been upbraided once by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not speaking within the terms of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman may wish to argue the point in Committee. I hope that his party will have the courage to put him on the Committee, because I think he would be a very valuable member of it. That remains to be seen, but I have my doubts.
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Michael Jabez FosterWill the hon. Gentleman give way once more?
Speaker
Michael Jabez FosterLabour
Quote
Will the hon. Gentleman give way once more?
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownNo, because I am up against my deadline. I have taken more than my allotted time—although there is time.
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
No, because I am up against my deadline. I have taken more than my allotted time—although there is time.
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Michael Jabez Fosterrose—
Speaker
Michael Jabez FosterLabour
Quote
rose—
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownAll right. I will give way for the last time.
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
All right. I will give way for the last time.
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Michael Jabez FosterThat is very generous. The hon. Gentleman shares the justified prejudice of us all against the BNP. Does he agree that…
Speaker
Michael Jabez FosterLabour
Quote
That is very generous. The hon. Gentleman shares the justified prejudice of us all against the BNP. Does he agree that the trade union movement has a reasonable case, and that the Bill should reflect that by enabling it to expel BNP members?
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownAs I said, if the Government legislate not to deal with individuals’ or even individual parties’ prejudices, but to spe…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
As I said, if the Government legislate not to deal with individuals’ or even individual parties’ prejudices, but to specify circumstances, which is what the Bill will have to do in order to comply with the ECHR, I would support clause 18, which would allow unions to expel members who behaved in an unacceptable way. The ASLEF case invoking the ECHR proved the difficulty, and I think the issue needs to be clarified in the light of that case. We feel that the Bill contains good measures, but some of its provisions need clarification while others will impose burdens on businesses. I am sure that my hon. Friends on the Committee will wish to examine them in depth and to try to ensure that the Bill emerges from the Committee in a more workable form, certainly in the context of employment tribunals. That is incredibly important, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire pointed out, the increase in the number of tribunal cases since 1998—from 29,000 to 130,000—proves that there is a huge need for it. The Government—or, rather, the Opposition—will not vote against the Bill tonight, but we will wish to discuss it further in Committee, and we will reserve our stance on Third Reading. However, we do not think sufficient time has been timetabled in respect of the conclusion of the consultation on the code on 24 July and the Bill’s ending—unnecessarily we believe—by 23 October. That will not give sufficient time for Members to make representations after hearing from their constituents over the summer recess. The Prime Minister has said that simplification, clarification and cost saving are all at the heart of the Bill. The Opposition support those principles and we will support those parts of the Bill that aim to achieve them and that seem likely to do so. However, the record of this Government has been to pile complexity and burdens on employers and any changes they make are likely only partially to reduce the burdens they themselves have introduced. We will be watching the Government carefully to see if they reduce the burdens on business.
Time
19:59
Source
View in Hansard ↗
The Minister for Energy (Malcolm Wicks)I agree with the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) in one respect: the Government will not be voting against…
Speaker
The Minister for Energy (Malcolm Wicks)Labour
Quote
I agree with the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) in one respect: the Government will not be voting against this Bill tonight. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs said, the Employment Bill will make important improvements to key areas of employment law. It will put in place an enforcement framework that provides increased protection for vulnerable workers and reputable businesses, and it will reduce the regulatory burden of resolving disputes at work, to the benefit of both businesses and individuals. This twin approach—increasing protection for the vulnerable while reducing regulatory burdens—is crucial to meeting current and future economic challenges in the UK. Since 1997, developments in UK employment policy have been based on achieving a labour market that combines fairness with flexibility.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
John McDonnellTo re-establish my credentials as a socialist, may I ask why, after 11 years of this Government, trade unionists still…
Speaker
John McDonnellLabour
Quote
To re-establish my credentials as a socialist, may I ask why, after 11 years of this Government, trade unionists still do not have the same rights that they had after Taff Vale in 1906? Why under this Government can we have events such as Gate Gourmet where people can be sacked on a whim’s notice, having been undermined by agency workers? The proposed legislation does not even address those issues. How is it that we can wait so long under a Labour Government and yet trade unionists here are still denied the rights that other trade unionists have across Europe?
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Malcolm WicksMy hon. Friend is wrong on this, as he is on so many matters now, sadly. There has been a significant extension of trad…
Speaker
Malcolm WicksLabour
Quote
My hon. Friend is wrong on this, as he is on so many matters now, sadly. There has been a significant extension of trade union rights. The Bill is about improving another important aspect of trade union and civil liberties: the national minimum wage, which is the subject to which I shall now turn. As an amateur political historian, I found it interesting to hear Conservative Members try to justify why once upon a time they voted against the minimum wage. One Member agonised about what he would have done. Apparently, they now support a national minimum wage. I am reminded—
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. HealdWill the Minister give way?
Speaker
Mr. HealdConservative
Quote
Will the Minister give way?
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Malcolm WicksNot just yet, no, although obviously the hon. Gentleman’s party has given way on the national minimum wage, and we shou…
Speaker
Malcolm WicksLabour
Quote
Not just yet, no, although obviously the hon. Gentleman’s party has given way on the national minimum wage, and we should be grateful for that.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. WalkerWill the Minister give way?
Speaker
Mr. WalkerConservative
Quote
Will the Minister give way?
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Malcolm WicksI will do so later, as there is plenty of time. The Conservative party’s position on the national minimum wage, and als…
Speaker
Malcolm WicksLabour
Quote
I will do so later, as there is plenty of time. The Conservative party’s position on the national minimum wage, and also more recently Opposition Members joining in the celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the national health service, reminded me of Tony Crosland saying in his book, “The Future of Socialism”—if I can be forgiven for using that word—that as the Conservative party has accommodated to a modern democracy, it now proudly wears the medals of battles it has lost. That is true for the national minimum wage and the national health service.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownWill the Minister give way?
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
Will the Minister give way?
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Malcolm WicksLet me make a little progress. We are determined now to go after the minority of employers who do the wrong thing.
Speaker
Malcolm WicksLabour
Quote
Let me make a little progress. We are determined now to go after the minority of employers who do the wrong thing.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownWill the Minister give way on the comments he has just made?
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
Will the Minister give way on the comments he has just made?
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Malcolm WicksYes; on the battles the hon. Gentleman’s party has lost, of course I will give way.
Speaker
Malcolm WicksLabour
Quote
Yes; on the battles the hon. Gentleman’s party has lost, of course I will give way.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownI am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because he is teasing us all the way along the line. Has his party never…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because he is teasing us all the way along the line. Has his party never changed its mind? May I mention clause 4?
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Malcolm WicksOnly in the sense that we now have a far better clause 4, because we believe in improvement and modernisation.
Speaker
Malcolm WicksLabour
Quote
Only in the sense that we now have a far better clause 4, because we believe in improvement and modernisation.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. WalkerWill the Minister not accept that the ability to change one’s mind is the sign of a mature politician? I understand tha…
Speaker
Mr. WalkerConservative
Quote
Will the Minister not accept that the ability to change one’s mind is the sign of a mature politician? I understand that he has changed his mind on nuclear energy, for example. Is he not a mature politician?
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Malcolm WicksSadly, I am even more mature at least in a chronological sense—I do not suggest in any other sense—than the hon. Gentle…
Speaker
Malcolm WicksLabour
Quote
Sadly, I am even more mature at least in a chronological sense—I do not suggest in any other sense—than the hon. Gentleman. Of course, when the facts, circumstances or evidence changes, one should change one’s mind. Just to be accurate in terms of my own position, on civil nuclear I have moved from being nuclear-neutral to being in favour. However, I must not get back into my comfort territory, as I am in temporary employment tonight in talking about employment. [Interruption.] I do not want this to be an interview. I was saying that we are determined now to go after the minority of employers who do the wrong thing by the minimum wage. Of course, the best protection we can offer is to strive to ensure that arrears do not arise in the first place. That is why the Bill strengthens the enforcement framework and increases the deterrent to non-compliance. It will provide greater support to vulnerable workers and fair arrears for the underpaid, and will help to ensure a level playing field for compliant businesses by making it clear both that underpayment is unacceptable and what the consequences will be. Many, including the TUC and the CBI, have welcomed the reform. The CBI has said: “It will make the obligations and penalties clearer and more straightforward for employers and help ensure that all workers get the pay packet they are entitled to.”
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)Will the Minister give way in the interests of balance?
Speaker
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)Labour
Quote
Will the Minister give way in the interests of balance?
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Malcolm WicksI will give way to my hon. Friend in the interests of anything.
Speaker
Malcolm WicksLabour
Quote
I will give way to my hon. Friend in the interests of anything.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Paul FarrellyPerhaps I can strike a different tone from that of my colleague, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonne…
Speaker
Paul FarrellyLabour
Quote
Perhaps I can strike a different tone from that of my colleague, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). The Bill touches on agency workers and exploitation in respect of enforcement. Clearly, the CBI and TUC have recently agreed a compromise on the substance of the protection for agency workers—I addressed that matter as part of my private Member’s Bill last year—and I welcome that. Did the Minister note that neither the Conservative nor the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench team welcomed and supported that compromise tonight?
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Malcolm WicksI did notice that, but clearly the parties are in a mood to address the evidence and to change, if the argument warrant…
Speaker
Malcolm WicksLabour
Quote
I did notice that, but clearly the parties are in a mood to address the evidence and to change, if the argument warrants that.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. HealdOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) to…
Speaker
Mr. HealdConservative
Quote
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) to make an intervention about the debate when he has not been involved in it? [Interruption.]
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)Order. That sedentary comment was not very helpful. The proceedings that take place do so in this Chamber, and those ar…
Speaker
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)Conservative
Quote
Order. That sedentary comment was not very helpful. The proceedings that take place do so in this Chamber, and those are the matters to which we shall refer. That was not a point of order, and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) is entitled to intervene.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Malcolm WicksI am happy to take interventions. One comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnel…
Speaker
Malcolm WicksLabour
Quote
I am happy to take interventions. One comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) dealt with the enforcement of the minimum wage. May I remind colleagues, as the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs did at the beginning of the debate, that in November 2006 the then Chancellor announced an increase in the budget for the enforcement and the monitoring of the minimum wage for the next four years, amounting to some £11.6 million of extra enforcement and monitoring money? I hope that hon. Members would agree that that is helpful. The enhanced budget enables us to respond in a highly effective way to the changing scene, through the recruitment of additional staff, more research and better communication. With the increased budget, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is recruiting an additional 20 people in 2007-08, the majority of whom are front-line enforcement staff, the remainder being part of the minimum wage technical team, which works on supporting the helpline, for example, and inspectors on more complicated cases. We have also significantly increased our publicity budget, maintaining our focus on hard-to-reach groups. That work includes a radio campaign and, indeed, an outreach campaign.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
John McDonnellThat matter was covered in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall some weeks ago, when we welcomed the £3 million of…
Speaker
John McDonnellLabour
Quote
That matter was covered in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall some weeks ago, when we welcomed the £3 million of additional money, but reflected that at that point in time it had not resulted in an additional number of posts being filled. Vacancies in the department were already being held open, so there has not been the additionality in staffing expected by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer—now the Prime Minister—when he announced that money. I would welcome a letter from the Minister to the Public and Commercial Services Union, which is the union that has raised these points in the debate and still has not received an adequate response.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Malcolm WicksI hope that my hon. Friend will accept that there has been a great deal of extra publicity and that the minimum wage bu…
Speaker
Malcolm WicksLabour
Quote
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that there has been a great deal of extra publicity and that the minimum wage bus has been touring in the regions too.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownThe Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs told the House that 1,649 employers were non-compliant on the…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
The Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs told the House that 1,649 employers were non-compliant on the minimum wage, yet only 59 enforcement notices and 25 penalty notices had been issued. If the regulations are in place, surely it ought to be possible to get to grips with that huge number of non-compliant employers.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Malcolm WicksThe emphasis has been on compliance. Now there will be an automatic penalty, and I have mentioned the extra money—£11.6…
Speaker
Malcolm WicksLabour
Quote
The emphasis has been on compliance. Now there will be an automatic penalty, and I have mentioned the extra money—£11.6 million—that the Chancellor has given the Department for extra enforcement. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) implied—I do not blame him; we all get confused by statistics—that only 5 to 10 per cent. of employers will get a penalty. For the record, that is not the case. A civil penalty will be imposed in cases in which an enforcement officer identifies that the minimum wage has not been paid correctly to any worker. That contrasts with the current regime, under which a penalty is payable only if an employer fails to comply with an enforcement notice. That supports what I was saying about the emphasis on enforcement. The misunderstanding arises because the 5 to 10 per cent. are those cases in which arrears exceed £5,000, so there is the potential for a Crown court prosecution with unlimited fine. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the certification officer in relation to trade union powers. The certification officer has important powers to remedy failures by trade unions to follow their own rules. He can order a union to put right a breach of its rules, and that order is enforceable in the same way as a court order. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the report by the TUC commission on vulnerable employment, which was issued some weeks ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown) also asked about that. The House may be aware that the vulnerable workers enforcement forum has met over the past year, chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs. It includes representatives from the TUC, the CBI and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, and from enforcement agencies. It has considered several important issues, such as the fear of reporting abuses, the lack of knowledge of to whom complaints should be reported, the co-ordination of enforcement between different Government agencies, and other issues of enforcement. The forum considered the issues and heard evidence from many of the bodies that I have mentioned, including citizens advice bureaux, trade unions and representatives of migrant workers and the construction and hospitality industries. It will report in the near future, perhaps before the summer recess. That is not definite, but is one possibility. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, raised the issue of the enforcement of employment tribunal awards. In most cases, such awards should be paid within 42 days of the judgment, unless the respondent decides to appeal the judgment. The exceptions are discrimination and equal pay cases, in which payment is due the day following the judgment. Unpaid awards may be enforced by application to the courts, in the same way as county court judgments, a system that will be streamlined by the provisions of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The Ministry of Justice expects to introduce secondary legislation under the Act by April 2009 which will mean that if an award remains unpaid after 42 days claimants can go straight to enforcement in the county court or the High Court by a simplified route. The current Act separately provides for the tribunal to award compensation for the full financial loss in simple monetary terms—for instance, if credit card or mortgage payments fail because of the action of the employers. Research will be undertaken by the Ministry of Justice to clarify how many claimants do not receive their awards, and the contributing factors to the failure. I should also say that my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs will be meeting representatives of the citizens advice bureaux on Wednesday to discuss further the evidence from citizens advice bureaux.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Sarah TeatherI raised all those points in my speech and acknowledged that the Government had made some changes in the 2007 Act. Neve…
Speaker
Sarah TeatherLiberal Democrat
Quote
I raised all those points in my speech and acknowledged that the Government had made some changes in the 2007 Act. Nevertheless, what the Minister is outlining does not deal with the financial outlay that a claimant must make in order to take a case through the county court or the High Court. The registration issue is not the problem for individuals. I am pleased to hear that the Minister’s colleague will meet the citizens advice bureaux this week. I am sure that they will present all the evidence that he needs without further research.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Malcolm WicksMy colleague looks forward to meeting the citizens advice bureaux, as well as our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice…
Speaker
Malcolm WicksLabour
Quote
My colleague looks forward to meeting the citizens advice bureaux, as well as our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice. We are aware of the problem and we need to find out more facts and to tackle it, but I was outlining some of the improvements that there have been.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems with the process is not only the non-payment but the wilful disrega…
Speaker
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)Labour
Quote
Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems with the process is not only the non-payment but the wilful disregard with which some companies treat a former employee? They drag the process out as long as they possibly can, knowing that they will lose, but little can be done because the process has a momentum of its own. That surely is not fair in this day and age.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Malcolm WicksI understand that. Indeed, in my own constituency I have had experience of one or two such situations. I understand wha…
Speaker
Malcolm WicksLabour
Quote
I understand that. Indeed, in my own constituency I have had experience of one or two such situations. I understand what my hon. Friend and other colleagues are saying. That is why we are not complacent. We are maintaining the dialogue and, if necessary, we will take further action. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) raised a point, which was touched on by one or two other colleagues, about mariners. That is a complex matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) said. Under current legislation, all resident and non-resident seafarers are entitled to the minimum wage while they are in the UK’s internal waters. A seafarer on a UK-registered ship anywhere in the world is entitled to the national minimum wage unless his employment is wholly outside the UK or he is not ordinarily resident in the UK. International maritime law, and specifically the right of innocent passage, means that the UK is unable to apply legislation to ships sailing under the flag of another country. That is reciprocal. For example, British ships enjoy that right in the Gulf and when passing close to Saudi Arabia. If the Government were to apply further legislation just to UK flagships they would run the risk of those ships flagging out and diminishing the number of UK ships sailing under the UK flag, something that the Government are committed to preventing. If vessels choose to flag out, not only will the number of UK flagships diminish but the seafarers aboard will miss out on the other entitlements that sailing under the UK flag ensures. Understandably, the issue of tips and how they relate to the minimum wage was raised by a number of colleagues. I strongly agree with the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform that tipping is an important issue. I want to assure hon. Members that we are looking carefully at finding a solution. I, like so many others who have spoken, feel that when a tip is given to a waiter in a restaurant or catering establishment, that tip should go to the waiter or waitress and not to the boss or the national company involved.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Russell BrownIn view of the fact that the Minister is saying that the Department is considering the subject, even at this early stag…
Speaker
Mr. Russell BrownLabour
Quote
In view of the fact that the Minister is saying that the Department is considering the subject, even at this early stage—although some of us believe that it is somewhat late in coming—can the Department make it known to those out there who are abusing the system that their days are numbered?
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Malcolm WicksMy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made his views clear and we have had direct contact with the hospitalit…
Speaker
Malcolm WicksLabour
Quote
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made his views clear and we have had direct contact with the hospitality industry about that important issue. In addition to cracking down on the underpayment of agency workers, we determined that they should be properly protected from abuse. The Bill will allow an appropriate sanction to deal with the small minority of agencies that deliberately flout the law. No business should be allowed to get away with unfairly undercutting legitimate operators by underpaying workers or exploiting vulnerable agency staff. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation, a key industry body, said: “We welcome this Bill as it aims to crack down on those employers and agencies that are cutting corners and mistreating workers.” I turn to dispute regulation. I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) on the subject. Alongside tougher enforcement the Bill promotes greater flexibility and reduces burdens on business. The hon. Lady asked me directly whether the Bill reduces regulation. Equally directly, I say yes it does. The reforms to workplace dispute resolution contained in clauses 1 to 7 will encourage employers and employees to find ways that make sense to them to sort out their disputes. In place of rigid statutory requirements that cost employers more than £100 million a year, the ACAS code on discipline and grievance will provide guidance both to employers and employees on the principles of natural justice that enable disputes to be resolved effectively. Our reforms enable ACAS conciliation to be even more effective by removing time limitations on when the service can offer help to parties in dispute. To support ACAS, we are investing up to £37 million over the next three years to promote more early conciliation and to improve the ACAS advice line. That will help many people to resolve disputes without the stress and expense of a tribunal hearing. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran spoke about trade union law, and the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker)—a fellow member of the trade union Unite—spoke movingly of his experience of harassment by the foul BNP. All of us who heard his speech were impressed by it. Clause 18 is the only clause in the Bill which deals with trade union law. It appears in the Bill because we are obliged as a matter of policy to amend our law as soon as possible to comply with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. In other words, it is not an option for us to do nothing and leave the law as it is. It was predictable that the clause would attract a lot of attention in our debate. The same happened when the Bill was debated in the other place. As Members know, the clause, as originally drafted, provoked great concern from both sides of that House, including from Lord Morris of Handsworth, former general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union. We amended the clause to deal with those concerns. The amendments were heavily influenced by the views expressed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Clause 18 deals with the way that the law balances conflicting human rights—philosophically and legally a difficult and complex matter—principally the rights of freedom of association and the right to freedom of political belief. This is difficult territory, and involves some delicate judgments.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Paul FarrellyI recognise that the territory is difficult, but does my hon. Friend recognise that the TUC still has some concerns abo…
Speaker
Paul FarrellyLabour
Quote
I recognise that the territory is difficult, but does my hon. Friend recognise that the TUC still has some concerns about the drafting that has come from the House of Lords? It is concerned that unions are still over-regulated in that respect, so will my hon. Friend be amenable to sensible amendments in Committee?
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Malcolm WicksWe know of the TUC’s concerns and no doubt those matters will be discussed in Committee. Clause 18 aims to strike a new…
Speaker
Malcolm WicksLabour
Quote
We know of the TUC’s concerns and no doubt those matters will be discussed in Committee. Clause 18 aims to strike a new balance in the law relating to exclusion and expulsion from trade unions on grounds of political party membership. The net effect is to create greater freedom for trade unions to set and apply their own membership rules. However, that greater freedom is qualified by the creation of safeguards to prevent potential abuse. We believe that those safeguards are workable, clear and fully compatible with the way that trade unions run their internal affairs. The safeguards should not, therefore, give rise to mischievous litigation, as the TUC fears. We are also clear that the clause will ensure compliance with the European Court’s judgment.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. WalkerI agree that people have the right to be members of the BNP; but likewise, unions must have the right to tell members o…
Speaker
Mr. WalkerConservative
Quote
I agree that people have the right to be members of the BNP; but likewise, unions must have the right to tell members of the BNP, “You are not going to be part of our organisation.”
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Malcolm WicksAbsolutely right; I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are concerned that removing reference to former membership of a p…
Speaker
Malcolm WicksLabour
Quote
Absolutely right; I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are concerned that removing reference to former membership of a political party would provide an avenue by which individuals with extreme political views could infiltrate a trade union. For example, a BNP member could resign his or her party membership on learning of the union’s intention to expel him or her, only to rejoin once the threat of expulsion had passed. The process could continue indefinitely, thus imposing considerable administrative costs on the union and undermining its rights, as determined by the European courts.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lorely BurtI understand the point that the Minister is making about trade unions and people who have been past members of an organ…
Speaker
Lorely BurtLiberal Democrat
Quote
I understand the point that the Minister is making about trade unions and people who have been past members of an organisation that is incompatible with the aims and objectives of a trade union. However, as I understand the Bill, if someone had been a member of such an organisation in years past, that would prevent them from ever joining a trade union. I find that a little worrying. I do not know what the answer is, and I wonder whether the Minister has an idea.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Malcolm WicksI understand the point, but there will be safeguards to ensure that that eventuality does not arise, and common sense w…
Speaker
Malcolm WicksLabour
Quote
I understand the point, but there will be safeguards to ensure that that eventuality does not arise, and common sense will apply. I would also trust in the good sense of a trade union if someone wanted to join who had been a member of one those parties 20 years ago when he or she was a 17-year-old. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) made a thoughtful speech, drawing on his own experience, and asked about the tripartite nature of tribunals. I simply but sincerely want to assure him about the Government’s commitment to the three-member panel in all cases where the reasonableness of behaviour is an important element of the tribunal’s consideration. Parliament has accepted for many years the case for tribunal chairs to sit alone in certain jurisdictions where that is not a key concern. I hope that we can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point. I turn, towards the end of this address—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am encouraged to go further, but I will try to draw my remarks to a conclusion. Again, I return to the speech made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. She talked about her early experience of being supported by her trade union—the Royal College of Nursing—so that, in those dark days, she was able to eat. Nevertheless, she now seems rather sceptical about the legislation that supports the rights of female employees. She did so on the basis of over-burdens, but I noted her concerns. Many hon. Members would say that of course we need to get the balance right, but such things constitute one of the great developments in this country, alongside the move back towards full employment that we have seen. Let us not forget that employment is still at a record level in Great Britain. That includes a great advance in female employment, with proper balances, so that people can have the right work-life and work-family balances. An interesting statistic shows that that is now being accepted by women and many employers: the proportion of mothers who change their employer when returning to work has fallen dramatically from 41 per cent. in 2002 to only 14 per cent. in 2007. That shows an acceptance by both the employer and the employee that we are getting the balance right, and it shows that more and more employers are doing the sensible thing of welcoming back, not just for legal reasons, valued female members of staff after they have had their babies. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said that the Bill should give time-off rights to union environmental representatives. As the Minister for Energy, I am aware of that, but this is a fairly new development. The TUC has received support from the union modernisation fund for that purpose.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
John McDonnellWill the Minister give way?
Speaker
John McDonnellLabour
Quote
Will the Minister give way?
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Malcolm WicksNo, I do not think so. I might not have been able to cover all the detailed points that hon. Members have raised becaus…
Speaker
Malcolm WicksLabour
Quote
No, I do not think so. I might not have been able to cover all the detailed points that hon. Members have raised because, sadly, time has not allowed me to do so. However, I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. employment bill [lords] (Programme) Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(7) (Programme motions), That the following provisions shall apply to the Employment Bill [Lords]: Committal 1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee. Proceedings in Public Bill Committee 2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 23rd October 2008. 3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets. Consideration and Third Reading 4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced. 5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day. 6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading. Other proceedings 7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mark Tami.]
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)With the leave of the House, I will put motions 4, 5 and 6 together. Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant…
Speaker
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)Conservative
Quote
With the leave of the House, I will put motions 4, 5 and 6 together. Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees), International Development That the draft International Development Association (Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative) (Amendment) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved. That the draft International Development Association (Fifteenth Replenishment) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved. That the draft African Development Fund (Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative) (Amendment) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.—[Mark Tami.] Question agreed to. Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees), Representation of the People That the draft European Parliament (Number of MEPs and Distribution between Electoral Regions) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.—[Mark Tami.] Question agreed to.
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith the leave of the House, I will put motions and 8 and 9 together. Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant…
Speaker
Mr. Deputy SpeakerConservative
Quote
With the leave of the House, I will put motions and 8 and 9 together. Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees), Terms and Conditions of Employment That the draft European Parliament (Number of MEPs and Distribution between Electoral Regions) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved. Environmental Protection That the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2008, which were laid before this House on 2nd June, be approved.—[Mark Tami.] Question agreed to. Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders), Regulatory Reform That the draft Legislative Reform (Consumer Credit) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved. That the draft Legislative Reform (Local Authority Consent Requirements) (England and Wales) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.—[Mark Tami.] Question agreed to. Transport Motion made, and Question proposed, That Mr Lee Scott be discharged from the Transport Committee and Mark Pritchard be added. ––[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
Time
20:19
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)As a member of the Transport Committee, I did not want to let this moment pass without paying tribute to my hon. Friend…
Speaker
Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)Conservative
Quote
As a member of the Transport Committee, I did not want to let this moment pass without paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott) for his three years of service on the Committee. He has turned up on a regular basis and contributed throughout, and he will be much missed. However, his replacement, my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), will be a valuable addition to the membership of the Committee, and I am sure that all its members would like to welcome him in due course.
Time
21:04
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Deputy SpeakerI am sure that the hon. Member for Ilford, North will blush suitably. Question put and agreed to. Work and Pensions Ord…
Speaker
Mr. Deputy SpeakerConservative
Quote
I am sure that the hon. Member for Ilford, North will blush suitably. Question put and agreed to. Work and Pensions Ordered, That Mark Pritchard be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and John Howell be added. ––[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
Time
21:04
Source
View in Hansard ↗

Show 182 more speechesShow less

EnactedEmployment Act 2008