Employment Bill

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

Before I call the Minister to move the programme resolution, I remind the Committee that there is a financial resolution in connection with the Bill and it is available in the Room. I would like to notify the Committee that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, I and my co-Chairmen do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an afternoon sitting.

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, Labour)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Employment Bill the Standing Committee do meet on Tuesdays at half-past Ten o'clock and at half-past Four o'clock and on Thursdays at half-past Nine o'clock and at half-past Two o'clock, except that on Thursday 6th December 2001 the Committee shall not meet at half-past Two o'clock and on Tuesday 8th January 2002 the Committee shall not meet at half-past Ten o'clock;

(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely Clauses 22 to 29, Schedule 2, Clauses 30 and 31, Schedule 3, Clauses 32 to 38, Schedule 4, Clauses 39 to 41, Clauses 1 to 12, Schedule 1, Clauses 13 to 21, Clauses 42 to 48, Schedule 5, Clauses 49 to 51, Schedule 6, Clause 52, Schedule 7, Clause 53, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to requests for flexible working, remaining new Clauses, remaining new Schedules;

(3) the proceedings on Clauses 22 to 29, Schedule 2, Clauses 30 and 31, Schedule 3, Clauses 32 to 38, Schedule 4, Clauses 39 to 41 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 7 pm on Tuesday 18th December 2001;

(4) the proceedings on Clauses 1 to 12, Schedule 1, Clauses 13 to 21 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 7 pm on Tuesday 15th January 2002;

(5) the remaining proceedings on the Bill (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 7 pm on Tuesday 22nd January 2002.

On behalf of the Committee, I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton. This is the first time that I have served on a Committee under your chairmanship, and I am looking forward to it. As you have four daughters, you will be interested in the family-friendly aspects of the Bill, and you will also be an expert on dispute resolution. We are pleased that you will be chairing our deliberations. I look forward to the debates over the next couple of months; I am sure that they will be constructive and sensible. You see before you the crème de la crème of the Government Benches, loins girded and ready to go.

It is important that we consider the Bill in as timely a manner as possible. The programme resolution was agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee on 4 December. The end date of 22 January is sensible and allows 16 sittings to consider a Bill of 53 clauses and seven schedules, as well as any new clauses that may be proposed. The Government made it clear on Second Reading of the Bill that they would table one amendment.

Sixteen sittings should provide sufficient time for full scrutiny of the Bill, which has been widely welcomed as a balanced package. Its four parts, which cover several different aspects of the world of work, all have as a common feature the modernisation of the workplace and of workplace relations. The resolution proposes that parts 2 and 3 be considered before Christmas and parts 1 and 4 in the new year, a roughly equal split that allows equal time for consideration of each part.

I hope that members of the Committee will agree that our proposals are sensible, fair and reasonable. I ask the Committee to support the motion.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

I add my welcome to you as Chairman, Mr. Benton, and to your co-Chairmen, Mr. Amess and Mr. Conway. I have had the pleasure of serving under you before, but I have not yet served in a Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). I am more used to hearing him behind me than listening to his admonitions from the Chair, but I look forward to those when the time comes.

The Minister described the Front-Bench members of the Committee as the crème de la crème. I am interested to hear that description. I wonder whether he will feel the same way about all his hon. Friends when they have given him their thoughts and comments on the Bill that he is charged with pushing through the Committee.

It might be convenient if I declare an interest; I noticed that the Minister did not. I am a director of two companies that employ people and, to that extent, have an interest in the Bill. I know that the Minister and many Government Members have affiliations with trade unions and, therefore, may be considered to have interests. It might be helpful to the Committee if you would give us some guidance, Mr. Benton, as to whether a general declaration of a broad interest will be sufficient or whether we should each declare specific interests. Members could have a specific interest because they have a financial involvement in a law practice engaged in employment matters. How do the advocacy rules apply in that case? I would be grateful, Mr. Benton, for any guidance.

The Minister explained the programme resolution and the timetabling of the Bill. The Opposition object in principle to the timetabling of Committee proceedings. We want to scrutinise the Bill properly and make good progress, but we object to fixed time scales and intermediate mileposts. The Bill illustrates the problems of timetabling. It is difficult to know how much time is needed to scrutinise all aspects of the Bill.

As so often happens, the wording of the Bill explains little. Many of its effects will become apparent only when regulations are published. We have not seen any draft regulations. The Minister may tell us whether he hopes to produce draft regulations pertaining to specific provisions. Although the explanatory notes partly demonstrate the Government's intentions, several working parties will affect the final regulations, especially those which relate to parts 2 and 3 of the Bill, so it may be difficult for the Minister to explain what he expects to be in the regulations.

To scrutinise the Bill properly, the Opposition—and I hope, Government Back Benchers—should probe the Minister. We will table a series of amendments, more than we would like—certainly more than you would like, Mr. Benton—in order to add the regulations to the Bill. We do not expect the Minister to accept the amendments because specifics are better handled by regulations, but he will be able to reassure us about them. Without such reassurances, Committee members will find it difficult to understand what the Bill will implement.

The detail of the regulations is important because the Bill is a package. We have thankfully moved on from the days when industrial relations were adversarial and it was fashionable to talk about the two sides of industry, but two interests are clear: the interests of employers and the interests of employees represented by the trade union movement. Often those interests can coincide and much of the Bill will allow that process to develop. Sometimes they will not coincide, and a balancing process is necessary. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)—disappointingly, he is not a member of this Committee—described the Bill as a balance between the interests and agenda of employers and those of employees and the trade unions.

The Bill is a delicately balanced package. It is important that we are assured in Committee that the proposed regulations will be made available, and that the package will not be rebalanced behind closed doors between completion of parliamentary scrutiny of the primary legislation and publication of the draft regulations. I make that point to explain why we may at times appear to be pursuing more persistently than would otherwise be necessary the detail of the final regulations. I hope that the Committee will appreciate that.

The intention behind most of our amendments is to tease out of the Minister a commitment on the exact contents of the regulations. We will explore how the work being undertaken outside Parliament—the Leggatt review of tribunal procedures, and the taskforce that was set up yesterday by the Secretary of State to assess employment tribunal practice—will interact with the Bill. We will also explore the influence of that work on the proposed regulations, and to what effect it introduces an element of uncertainty to the Minister's assurances in Committee.

All of those factors make it difficult for us to know exactly how much time will be needed for each stage of the Bill. I suspect that that will depend on how clearly the regulations are formulated in the Government's collective mind—that mythical entity that may or may not exist. Where the Minister has a clear set of regulations in mind, he will be able clearly to answer Committee members' questions, even though he may not be able to circulate draft regulations to them, and business will rapidly be dispatched.

However, where the Minister is unclear about the exact form of the regulations, and work is continuing that will influence their shape, we will need to explore the Bill in more depth. Unlike many Standing Committees on which I have served, I expect that Government Members will actively participate in the debate, which will allow us to explore the issues in greater depth.

Mr Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central, Labour)

I am sure that the response from Government Back-Benchers will be entirely proportionate to the quality of the Opposition's representations, to which we look forward with interest.

I understand that the Bill was substantially re-timetabled at the urging of the Opposition, and that we will consider first the clauses relating to employment tribunals. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made a valid point about the reliance on regulations and the need for the Minister to clarify their form. As he also said, we await some external developments that may influence the Bill, one of which is the Leggatt review, to which he referred. Why did the Opposition want the Committee to consider the clauses relating to employment tribunals before we had seen the Leggatt review?

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman's propensity to intervene will not be entirely proportionate to the quality of the Opposition's representations. I expected that the hon. Gentleman might want to discuss matters that I particularly wanted to raise, and I hope that he represents a legitimate body of interest in the Bill and will make his points independently. I think that he was referring to the order of consideration rather than the timetable; my remarks are directed at fixing a timetable, and intermediate mileposts, for the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman asked why the Opposition were content with the Minister's proposal to consider parts 2 and 3 of the Bill first, followed by part 1 and then part 4. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who raised the Leggatt review, that it would make sense to consider any substantial outside work after we had seen the Government's response to it, but it appears that there will not be time for the work to be completed and for the Government to respond within the timetable proposed for the Committee's proceedings.

Why have the Government introduced an Employment Bill that is largely an empty box, a framework on which regulations will be hung later, when substantive work that could inform those regulations is still under way? How effectively will the Minister be able to deal with questions from both sides of the Committee about the precise nature of the regulations to be introduced, and to respond to Opposition Members' concerns about preserving the balance that the Secretary of State said was an important feature of the Bill?

There is some logic in considering tribunal reform and dispute resolution procedure at the beginning of the Bill; there are no issues of principle between the two sides of industry—if I dare to use the phrase. It is generally recognised that tribunal procedures need to be streamlined and reformed, although differences about precisely how that should be done may be aired in the Committee. There are no concerns in principle about the need to improve and streamline tribunal procedures. In the run-up to Christmas, it is a good idea to try to deal with the least controversial parts of the Bill when we can set a constructive tone for the Committee. I suspect that hon. Members on both sides will want to probe in detail how the measure will work, without having to discuss issues of principle. I hope that the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) will agree with my analysis; he might like to address his question to the Minister, who is happy to consider the Bill in the order suggested.

Another factor that persuaded me against the idea of fixed timetables was the tendency in every Standing Committee on which I served in the last Parliament for many substantive amendments and new clauses to be introduced in Committee, which makes it difficult to assess the time required for different parts of the Bill. The Government have already said that they intend to use the Bill as a vehicle to introduce a separate item: the right to ask for serious consideration of part-time working arrangements following a period of maternity leave. That is a new matter, which we shall want to discuss, but until we know what proposals the Government will table, it is not clear how much time that will require. That is another worry about fixed timetables.

As the Government are committed to the principle of fixed timetables and intermediate staging posts, the proposed timetable is a reasonable starting point. I hope that the Government will take a flexible approach to the timetable and that, if we are having a serious debate that needs more time than was first envisaged or if we make speedy progress on one part of the Bill and need more time on another, they will be prepared to reconvene the Programming Sub-Committee. If it turns out that the proposals that the Government intend to table in new clauses are particularly controversial or raise many issues, I hope that they will be willing to make available an additional sitting or two if proper scrutiny requires it.

I hope that the Minister will reassure the Committee on those points, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

Before I call the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter), I will draw attention to a couple of points. First, I remind Members that we can debate the programme motion for only 30 minutes. Secondly, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) mentioned the declaration of interests. I cannot rule on that, but I remind Committee members that it is up to them to declare their interests. Guidance is available from the registrar.

Mr Brian Cotter (Weston-Super-Mare, Liberal Democrat)

I shall be brief in order to give the Minister a chance to respond.

I would hesitate to talk about the crème de la crème because, since my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) has been delayed, I would be talking about only myself. That is for others to judge, and I shall not be drawn. I do not wish to up the ante, but the Minister referred to your four daughters, Mr. Benton, and trying to reconcile views. I have three children and seven grandchildren, and it might surprise people that a young chap such as me would have seven grandchildren.

More seriously, like my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, I should declare an interest, which is that I am managing director of a small manufacturing company. It has been declared in the Register of Members' Interests and on many other relevant occasions.

As the research paper introduction says, the Bill has received a mixed reaction, but employer and employee representatives have generally welcomed it. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham has talked about balance, and all Committee members have that concern. I agree with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that we must ensure that the regulations are reasonable and fair. That involves introducing a package of measures to address working practices and conditions, but ensuring that the package is balanced and that we do not introduce excessive red tape, which frequently happens.

I visited the European Community on Monday to discuss that balance with Commission officials, and it was obvious that, like hon. Members and the Government, they are aware that regulations must be clear. Having a small business, I know how difficult it can be to find enough time to take on board what regulations mean. I am sure that the Government would agree, although they may not wish to say so, that on some occasions in this Parliament, and perhaps more often in the previous Parliament, regulations were introduced with little notice or time to debate them. As a consequence, firms of all sizes had difficulties in addressing them.

Overall, Opposition Members accept the timetable, which I am sure should prove reasonable. Sometimes in the House we need to have the discipline to say that we must get on with the job and not endlessly and needlessly talk for hours, as happened with the National Minimum Wage Bill.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem in debating that Bill in Committee was that we had no indication of what the minimum wage would be? For that reason, members of the Committee had to explore endlessly the possibilities of various levels. Is not that precisely the problem that we shall have with this Bill, because no draft regulations are available?

Mr Brian Cotter (Weston-Super-Mare, Liberal Democrat)

No. Having heard Conservative Members waste time on the National Minimum Wage Bill by making endless and totally unnecessary speeches about Greek fables and people having their heads and legs cut off, I do not accept that at all. We had no difficulty in addressing the measure, because there was a clear line that the Low Pay Commission—[Interruption.] I must not verge on that, Mr. Benton, because you will rule me out of order. I am sure that you will give us wise counsel on the flexibility that we need to address certain parts of the Bill.

My main point is the need to ensure that regulation introduced under the Bill is clear and to the point.

Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, Labour)

On the question of our declaring interests as employers, I go along with Mr. Speaker's statement on Second Reading. I guess that most hon. Members are employers of research assistants and so on. I am happy to say that I am a member of the Communication Workers Union. Indeed, I am happy to say that on every occasion. As I said on Second Reading, it is a one-way process: I give the union money and it gives me nothing but the joy and pleasure of being a member of it.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made an important point about regulation, but he will not be surprised if I say that there is nothing new about Bills to which, to a great degree, regulation is attached. A mix of primary and secondary legislation is needed. It would not be right to deal with certain matters in the Bill; it is proper to deal with them in regulations. Certain Bills that went through the House in the 1980s and 1990s under the previous Government were littered with regulation-making powers, so there is nothing unusual in that.

That said, I take the hon. Gentleman's point that, as we are reliant on regulation in this respect, amendments will be tabled to tease out the Government's position. I accept that fully, as I hope he will accept that most of the elements in the Bill have been the subject of exhaustive consultation. The provisions relating to working parents had probably the most exhaustive consultation that I can recall for any Bill. The Government have made our position clear on almost every aspect.

I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about a balance of interests, but he said that it was between employers and trade unions. I think that the balance is between rights and responsibilities, and the balance of interests is between employers and employees. Apart from the important element about union learning representatives, the measures apply to people at work, whether or not they are members of trade unions. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that we have struck a fair balance.

The Leggatt review is of the whole tribunal system. It would not have been right to put a blight on these proposals while we awaited its outcome, but the Department of Trade and Industry and the Lord Chancellor's Department agreed to set up the employment tribunal system taskforce. It will not consider legislation but will consider how the employment tribunal system can run far more effectively.

We were happy to discuss the Bill in the order in which it was published, moving from part 1 to part 4. Following discussions through the usual channels, we are equally happy to change the order of discussion so that we can take employment tribunals first. I am happy with the motion that has been proposed.

Finally, I do not believe that the right to request is a separate policy. That is part of the modernisation of the workplace and workplace relations, and I think that it sits happily in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.