Hugh Bayley (York, City of, Labour)

I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill. Copies are available in the Room. I should also like to remind Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, I and my fellow Chairman do not intend to call starred amendments, including any which may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee. I call on the Minister to move the programme motion.

Meg Munn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Sheffield, Heeley, Labour)

I beg to move,

That—

(1)during proceedings on the Work and Families Bill the Standing Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 13th December) meet—

(a)at 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 13th December;

(b)at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 15th December

(c)at 9.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Tuesday 20th December

(2)the proceedings shall be taken in the following order; Clauses 1 to 11; Schedule 1; Clauses 12 to 15; Schedule 2; Clauses 16 to 20; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(3)the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 p.m. on Tuesday 20th December.

Good morning, Mr. Bayley. I warmly welcome you to the Chair and am genuinely delighted that you will supervise this morning’s discussion. I also welcome all members of the Committee, and the Opposition spokespeople. It seems that only last week we were in another Committee elsewhere—which, indeed, we were.

Several of my hon. Friends warmly supported the Bill on Second Reading. I am grateful to them; several Opposition Members who are present also took part in that debate. There is wide support for the Bill from many organisations, including from business. I look forward to a constructive debate that allows the Committee to scrutinise the Bill thoroughly. Members of the Committee will have noticed that the programme motion contains no knives, and no doubt they will welcome that. That gives us flexibility to consider fully issues that deserve particular discussion, and to move more swiftly over issues of lesser significance. I commend the motion to the Committee

Mark Prisk (Whip, Whips; Hertford & Stortford, Conservative)

I am delighted that we are under your leadership, Mr. Bayley. I think this is the first time that I have been guided by you in the role of Chairman, and I look forward to that in the coming few days. I welcome both Ministers who are here today, and also my hon. Friend   the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who understands these issues far better than I ever shall. I am delighted to be here in her support.

We have before us up to six potential sittings; I know how much Labour Members are looking forward to the sittings on Tuesday next, as are Opposition Members. We will, I am sure, have the opportunity here for a full and thorough scrutiny of the issues. As the Minister rightly mentioned, we share much of the Government’s view on the importance of the role of work and families. Indeed, we wish to ensure that the quality of the legislation before us is the best that we can manage. That is why we shall be asking questions to probe the Government’s intentions and aims. Without such scrutiny, we would be failing in our duty. I am sure that Labour Members will wish to participate in that process.

Therefore, on this occasion—and I do not often get the chance to say this—I welcome the fact no timetable instruments, or knives as they are colloquially known, have been put into this motion. One simple reason that Opposition Members raise concerns about such timetables is that they interfere with the quality of the scrutiny process. It means that we sometimes have to guess which amendment we need to focus on to deal with the big issues, and often forces us to leave out smaller issues. Those may be particularly important to our constituents, but we nevertheless have no time for them because we are racing to catch up with those amendments which are perhaps at the back end of a timetable, or knife. Thus it is especially welcome that the motion before us today does not include such knives. I hope that means we shall be able to tease out the details here. We certainly look forward to a thorough and positive exchange.

Norman Lamb (Shadow Secretary of State for Trade & Industry, Trade & Industry; North Norfolk, Liberal Democrat)

May I also welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Bayley? It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I, too, welcome the two Ministers to this morning’s debate and, although he did not welcome me in his introductory remarks, I welcome the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk).

We support the Bill’s objectives. In many respects, it is an acknowledgment of the revolution that has occurred in the workplace from the days when it was dominated by men, who were the single breadwinners. The world has changed much since then when people worked full-time and were the sole breadwinners. There is an economic imperative for facilitating women remaining in employment, but in a way that also meets the needs of families and of children. There is equally a need to ensure that fathers are able to achieve a better work-life balance.

There are concerns about some of the Bill’s details. There is clearly a need, probably shared on all parts, to ensure that we avoid over-burdensome obligations, particularly on small employers. One of the amendments that I have tabled seeks a way of reducing the burden on them. We must be alert to that, because although is it right to ensure that mothers and fathers can achieve the better work-life balance that we are all striving for, we must recognise that when any employee takes time off work, it has an impact on the   employer. The impact is greatest on small employers, and everything must be done to ease the burden on them.

Hugh Bayley (York, City of, Labour)

Order. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that at this point in our proceedings we are discussing the programme motion? We will come to the wider questions of the Bill’s content as we discuss his amendments and those of other hon. Members.

Norman Lamb (Shadow Secretary of State for Trade & Industry, Trade & Industry; North Norfolk, Liberal Democrat)

I am very grateful for that guidance, Mr. Bayley.

May I also briefly raise the concern that the Bill leaves an awful lot to regulations? Inevitably, there is a concern about that. The TUC, among others, has highlighted the vagueness of the Bill in that respect. In addition, there is nothing about the time scale for the introduction of regulations. The TUC also refers to the fact—

Hugh Bayley (York, City of, Labour)

Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that we must leave questions about the content of the Bill and certainly the views of other organisations until we reach the debates on the content of the Bill. We are now discussing the programme motion and the timetable for considering the Bill.

Norman Lamb (Shadow Secretary of State for Trade & Industry, Trade & Industry; North Norfolk, Liberal Democrat)

I thought that the Conservative spokesman made some general comments, and I was merely seeking to make general comments about the presentation of the Bill and the extent to which it relies on regulation. I take your guidance, Mr. Bayley, and I will not push you any further in this respect.