Clause 37 - Use of alternative documents to give particulars
Employment Bill
6:30 pm
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 39, line 41, leave out 'meet' and insert 'discharge'.
Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 85, in page 40, line 8, leave out 'met' and insert 'discharged'.
No. 86, in page 40, line 12, leave out 'met' and insert 'discharged'.
No. 88, in page 40, line 31, leave out 'met' and insert 'discharged'.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
It is generous of the Minister to place it on the record that he is willing to debate the remaining areas of the Bill. I look forward to discussing maternity and paternity leave in due course.
After the heated discussion of the previous amendment , I am pleased to return to matters purely semantic. I had doubts about tabling the amendments, but the more I looked at the Bill, the more I concluded that I have never come across the concept of meeting an obligation. One discharges an obligation, and as far as I am aware, that terminology has been used in other legislation. The clause would be much more elegant and much more readily understood if it said at line 40 on page 39, ''the document contains information which, were the document in the form of a statement under section 1, would discharge the employer's obligation under that section,'' and so on. The remaining amendments repeat the change of the word ''meet'' to the word ''discharge''. I should be fascinated to hear which professor of etymology or whichever science is relevant here—I have probably got that completely wrong and am inadvertently talking about the study of insects—has determined this radical departure in drafting language so that we now have the bizarre concept of meeting an obligation. Where does one meet this obligation? In the street? In the pub?
Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, Labour)
I do not know whether I shall satisfy the hon. Gentleman, but I shall have a go.
First, clause 37 helps employers to comply with the requirement to give an employee a written statement of employment particulars. At the moment they have to supply a document that is such a statement, even if they have also issued a contract of employment or a letter of engagement; they have to do it twice. To meet the requirements of the legislation, they probably have to do so after the employee starts work. We propose that a contract of employment or a letter of engagement containing the necessary particulars, given before or after the employee starts work, will meet the employer's obligations under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The hon. Gentleman asked who is behind the choice of words. Parliamentary Counsel is my plea, and I am assured that the words ''meet'' or ''met'' mean that the employer has done what he is obliged to do and that nothing further is necessary. If hon. Members are concerned that those words mean anything less, I am happy to reassure them. Changing ''meet'' to ''discharge'' and ''met'' to ''discharged'', as the amendments propose, would add nothing. The amendments are unnecessary, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw them.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
The amendment would add nothing but elegance. This stuff is dreary enough.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
The amendment would add nothing but elegance. This stuff is dreary enough.
Mr Alan Johnson (Minister of State (Employment and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, Labour)
We don't do elegance.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
Well, he should try. Elegance in the language of parliamentary drafting is to be sought after. It occurs to me that ''satisfied'' would have done
just as well as ''discharged''. I am disappointed that there is not a more substantive reason for departing from what I understand to be a conventional use of language, but clearly I do not want to dig in over the matter if the Minister feels so strongly. Reluctantly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.