I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 17, page 12, line 21, at end insert—

‘(1A) Section [Confidentiality of negotiations before termination of employment] does not apply to any offer made or discussions held before the commencement of that section.’.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 2—Confidentiality of negotiations before termination of employment—

‘After section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 insert—

“111A Confidentiality of negotiations before termination of employment

(1) In determining any matter arising on a complaint under section 111, an employment tribunal may not take account of any offer made or discussions held, before the termination of the employment in question, with a view to it being terminated on terms agreed between the employer and the employee.

This is subject to the following provisions of this section.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply where, according to the complainant’s case, the circumstances are such that a provision (whenever made) contained in, or made under, this or any other Act requires the complainant to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed.

(3) In relation to anything said or done which in the tribunal’s opinion was imp roper, or was connected with improper behaviour, subsection (1) applies only to the extent that the tribunal considers just.

(4) The reference in subsection (1) to a matter arising on a complaint under section 111 includes any question as to costs, except in relation to an offer made on the basis that the right to refer to it on any such question is reserved.

(5) Subsection (1) does not prevent the tribunal from taking account of a determination made in any other proceedings between the employer and the employee in which account was taken of an offer or discussions of the kind mentioned in that subsection.”’.

Amendment (a) to new clause 2, in subsection (1), leave out ‘the employee’ and insert

‘, the employee or either one of the following chosen employee representatives—

(a) a trade union official;

(b) a workplace representative; or

(c) a legal representative.’.

Amendment (b) to new clause 2, at end add—

‘(6) The Secretary of State shall review the operation of Clause 111A [Confidentiality of negotiations before termination of employment] after 12 months and shall confirm its continuation through an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.’.

Clause stand part.

This new clause was announced on Second Reading and will facilitate the use of settlement agreements.

Problems at work are unavoidable, and we recognise that not all employment relationships prove satisfactory. Either the worker does not live up to expectations, the employee is not happy in their job or the relationship does not quite work out between employer and employee. Sometimes it is in the best interests of both parties to be  able to end the relationship with dignity by coming to an agreed separation. Opposition Members who have declared that they run businesses themselves will recognise that fact. Sometimes things just do not work out, and sometimes employees commit acts of misconduct or underperform their functions and the employer legitimately has to take action.

As the junior partner in the coalition, does the Minister think that he or his party will be facing this decision within the next 18 months? It may even be sooner.

That was a provocative intervention, to which I will not be tempted to rise.

I will continue to develop my theme. I strongly believe that settlement agreements are good for both parties. For employers, there is the security that they will not face a tribunal claim, distracting them and other workers from their business activities, often at enormous cost, both in legal fees and in distraction from the work that they should be doing in running their business. For employees, there is the certainty of a cash payment and they avoid the time and stress of a tribunal. Just imagine what it must be like for someone who believes that they have been unfairly dismissed to have to wait 24 weeks on average before their case is heard by the employment tribunal. The system has become somewhat dysfunctional. It has been heavily overused and has become, as others have said, highly legalistic. Instead of that, a settlement agreement means that the employee can leave with their head held high and possibly a reference to go with it.

We know that many larger businesses already use settlement agreements. We want to encourage greater use of them by making it easier and quicker for employers and employees to come to a satisfactory solution.

I pay tribute to the Minister for his work on an important clause for those business owners who get to a point at which things are not working out and they want to allow an employee to exit while being fair to them. I am grateful that the clause will help many businesses throughout the country. I have campaigned on the issue and have written a report for the all-party group on micro-businesses, which supports this voluntary approach. It is excellent news.

That is the sort of intervention that I like. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and for his work on the all-party group, whose report has been extremely helpful in understanding the issues and the concerns of small employers. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot has also been involved in the all-party group, and I was encouraged that its report recommended the measure’s approach.

Although it is often dangerous to talk about personal experience, it can sometimes be helpful. I know, from the point of view of both the employer and the employee, that—as with relationships beyond the world of employment—if a difficult and unhappy relationship is brought to an end by way of agreement, and the employee’s dignity is kept intact and their chances of securing fresh employment in a difficult labour market are helped by not being sacked and having to put that  on application forms, everyone can benefit. It is critical for businesses, particularly small businesses, to know that they can move on with peace of mind and that they will not face a claim in an employment tribunal. That is incredibly important. It allows them to focus on what they should be doing—running their business. The measure could be incredibly effective. It seeks to mainstream what is used by those who can afford expensive lawyers, so that it is available to those who cannot afford access to expensive legal processes.

The Minister said that a different wording would be used if someone infringed their contract. How will that wording relate to the reasons why they had to leave employment, and how would it affect them if they wanted to claim JSA?

I am not sure that I entirely understand the intervention. I genuinely want to take it seriously, but will the hon. Gentleman expand on it?

The Minister said that, if an employee left, his notice would not say that he had been sacked or dismissed, but what would it say? Has any work been done on how it could affect somebody who wanted to claim jobseeker’s allowance?

If the initiative is taken by the employer, they will invite the employee to consider whether they want to accept a settlement agreement as a means of leaving. When an employer’s action starts the process, there should be no implications at all for JSA. When an employee chooses to resign and takes the initiative themselves, that is different.

On seeking employment, if the employee has not been sacked for misconduct, but has accepted departure on agreed terms, that is less of a stain on their character and makes it less difficult for them to seek fresh employment. That is the point that I was trying to make. Again, I know from my own experience that that is the case. It is also often the case that employees who underperform do so for a reason, not simply because they are lazy; they may just be unhappy in their job, so bringing an unhappy relationship to an end may work in their interest as well as that of the employer.

The other beauty of the proposal—its unique feature—is that it will be possible to use it before a dispute emerges. Before things go too far, it will be possible to end a relationship maturely and with fairness on both sides.

That is right. If an employer has to deal with the fallout from a dismissal, with a very unhappy ex-employee pursuing a claim at the tribunal, opposing camps are created, with the potential for a big dispute. Costs ratchet up and there is uncertainty and anxiety on both sides. This measure avoids all of that. It means that if the employer concludes that it would be better to end the relationship, it can be ended smoothly and cleanly, without the parties having to fall out in a spectacular way at enormous cost to both sides.

On a point of clarification, is the Minister saying that someone whose employment was finished in this way would, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon says, be entitled to full jobseeker’s allowance? There is no issue there, is there?

I have had confirmation from officials that they have had discussions specifically with the DWP. If the process was instigated by the employer—the circumstances that one would envisage in most cases, although the measure does allow the employee to propose a settlement agreement themselves—Jobcentre Plus staff should recognise that in assessing the JSA claim and the normal rules would apply. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

However, we need to ensure that employers are not afraid of using these things for fear that the offer will come back as evidence against them in a tribunal case, thus undermining the whole process. Incidentally, we will ensure that the guidance covers this issue as well. That will be a further reassurance to individuals who are using the provision.

Before the Minister moves on, will he say a few words about the stigma that may be attached to these agreements? Although the employee may leave the employment with a neutral or even a positive reference, it will be quite clear that they left their previous job under a settlement agreement. That may give rise to some stigma in terms of whether there were any “aggravated” circumstances that resulted in the employee leaving.

That stigma is an awful lot less than the stigma attached to being sacked and walking out with nothing—with no agreement. I know that, if someone can say to their friends, family and so on, “I chose to leave, on agreed terms,” that is an awful lot easier for them to handle. It is seductive to think that it is great to be able to take one’s claim to a tribunal, but waiting 24 weeks for a case to be heard and incurring potentially significant legal fees, often using no win, no fee lawyers, is no great experience. It is often very stressful and deeply unsatisfactory. Quite often, there is then a report in the local paper that includes accusation and counter-accusation. It is a destructive process. This provision avoids all that. For that reason, it is deeply attractive.

Am I right in thinking that in most cases these settlement agreements are subject to a confidentiality clause? In that case, when someone moves from job to job, the next employer does not know that there has been a settlement agreement, and there is normally an arrangement whereby an agreed reference is given. Therefore, the concern that the Opposition raise simply does not arise.

There often a confidentiality clause within a compromise agreement at present. Both parties often see that as a sensible thing to have. It protects both of them from improper behaviour by the other side following the departure. At the end of the day, this is a private matter. The contract of employment is a private matter between employer and employee, and it is right that it should remain confidential to the parties  to that agreement. As my hon. Friend also says, there will often be a reference. It is an interesting point. When an employee is sacked or leaves under a settlement agreement, it may well be the case that that employee was poor at the job that they were doing and unproductive and that terminating their employment was the right decision, but that is not to say that they are a hopeless or useless individual. They may have very good character traits, which a reference can identify. A reference may well help them to get into a more appropriate job. So she makes very good points in that respect.

Our new clause will facilitate the use of settlement agreements. Under this measure, the offer of a settlement will not be admissible in an unfair dismissal tribunal case. This is a fair and balanced proposal, which supports our overall aim of helping employers and employees to resolve disputes without the need to resort to tribunal proceedings. Settlement agreements are, by definition, voluntary and consensual. It will be for employees to choose whether or not to accept the offer of settlement; they are quite at liberty to reject the offer.

Before the new clause was tabled, there was a fair amount of speculation about what it would mean for employers and employees. Now that the Committee has had the opportunity to review the new clause, I hope that some of those concerns and speculations can be laid to rest.

First, I want to give reassurance about the things that the new clause will not do. As recognised by Citizens Advice in the Committee’s evidence sessions, the new clause does not give businesses a licence to discriminate and nor does it strip employees of their right to take a case of unfair dismissal. It will not protect employers who act improperly when making such an offer and it does not protect any employer whose grounds for dismissal are discriminatory. It will not prevent individuals who choose not to take the offer from bringing a claim of discrimination and it will not prevent them from bringing other evidence to support a case of unfair dismissal.

What the new clause will do is give employers confidence that their offer will not be used against them in an unfair dismissal claim. That has been raised as an issue by a number of business stakeholders, including those who gave oral evidence to the Committee in their response to the “Resolving Workplace Disputes” consultation and in their ongoing discussions with the Department on policy development.

In evidence to the Committee, legal representatives expressed concern that employers would use the new clause as a means of getting rid of staff with no advance warning of any problem, by simply dropping a letter on the desk of the employee out of the blue telling them to jump before they are pushed. That view risks underestimating the business sense and common sense of British employers. Employers will offer a settlement agreement only where there is a problem; it does not make business sense to offer a settlement without careful consideration. We expect responsible employers to be smart about who they make offers to, based on their personal knowledge of the individual, their circumstances and their performance. Realistically, employers have discussions about, and give feedback on, performance all the time.

Our new clause will not—as some fear it will—give protection to employers who put undue pressure on individuals to accept a settlement offer or to employers  who repeatedly offer a settlement offer until the employee eventually cracks. We have built in the safeguard of a propriety requirement, which is akin to the existing requirements of the without prejudice regime. Improper behaviour, such as the types of behaviour I have just described, would be unlikely to meet that propriety requirement and would lead to loss of the protection that the offer could not be adduced as evidence in an employment tribunal. Employment tribunals are already very well able to identify unacceptable behaviour and we will provide guidance, through a statutory code, to help employers and employees to enter into agreements with confidence.

May I urge the Minister to make that guidance as simple as possible for start-up businesses and very small businesses? I say that because, even though I know that BIS has done some really good work on its website, that website is still a bit confusing and when one looks at Fair Work Australia, for example, and the simple presentation of information about employment, I think that there is more we could do.

I totally agree. We have to keep it as simple as possible so that any small business can understand how to use it. The guidance will include template letters. It is not just about the legislation; it is about providing the means for people to use the legislation to solve problems. Employers will have template letters that they can use to propose settlement, so there will be no need to go to an expensive lawyer to draft the letter. I made a good living out of that, but I want to ensure that small businesses do not have to incur that cost.

We will also provide model agreements to help reduce employer uncertainty about making an offer in the right way. There will be a letter, to start with, to put the proposal to the employee. There will also be guidance on the circumstances and how to use the letter, and a model agreement to bring it to a conclusion.

I am getting more and more confused. What is the Minister suggesting? What if the employer, genuinely and in all fairness, says to the employee, “I don’t think this is working”, and then uses the template letter, the guidance and the agreement, and the employee still says, “I’m sorry, I don’t agree with you,” and it ends up in a dispute? If it goes to a tribunal, that is in the employer’s interest. They will be able to say, “I tried to deal with this through conciliation and the mechanism agreed by the House of Commons. I used all the mechanisms available. I am a good employer trying to do the right thing.” Surely, by putting in a clause that says that the settlement cannot be discussed at the tribunal, the Government are making it less likely that the employer will say, “I was a fair employer.”

The concern expressed by many employers is that the proposal to offer a settlement to an employee could be used by the employee as an argument for persuading the tribunal that the employer had made up their mind that the employee would go, and that the dismissal was therefore unfair. The measures are designed to protect the employer, so that they can put to the employee a proposal to end the relationship  by agreement. If the employee does not want to accept that, the employer will have to follow the proper processes before terminating the individual’s employment.

The importance of that, and the beauty of it, is that the employee’s rights are protected, but the employer has an opportunity to propose a way to end the relationship by agreement without it being held against him later. In my experience, it works. People end up reaching an agreement on reasonable terms, and the employee can walk away with their dignity intact and their position in the labour market unprejudiced. They can leave, perhaps with a reference, to seek fresh employment, and the employer will have peace of mind in being confident that they will not be pursued at a tribunal.

That psychological sense of certainty is incredibly important. I know many small employers in particular who, after terminating employment, have an awful fear that they will face an expensive claim. They may be totally reasonable people who have behaved absolutely properly, but they fear a claim. I also know many employers who choose not to take action against someone who is massively underperforming or even guilty of misconduct, because they have that awful fear of the tribunal. The measures are a way of resolving that problem.

The Minister has spoken about the genuine anxiety that an employee might feel when waiting 24 weeks for their hearing at the tribunal, but is not the opposite true as well? The employer would have 24 weeks of anxiety, and the mechanism could relieve that anxiety for both parties.

That is absolutely right. I made the point earlier that some lawyers assert that it is a great thing to be able to take a claim to the tribunal, but it is a miserable thing to do. I know many people who suffer enormous stress and anxiety waiting interminably for five months for their day in court, in complete uncertainty about whether they will win their case and what the consequences will be of taking the case to the tribunal. Sometimes, completely wrongly, a stigma attaches to someone who has taken a case to a tribunal. The measure avoids any risk of that. It gives certainty and reassurance to both sides in the employment relationship.

The issue becomes how to determine that propriety. Surely that has to be determined as part of an argument at a tribunal. Is there potential for these settlement agreements to be used as a way for an employer to avoid a tribunal, when in fact the case would point to redress having to be determined by a judge at an employment tribunal?

I am not sure I understand the point. The purpose is to allow an employer, behaving perfectly properly, using the template letter, to put forward a proposal to the employee. If the employee chooses to accept, the matter is brought to a conclusion on agreed terms. That gives enormous reassurance to employer and employee, and avoids the miserable outcome of a long and protracted dispute, in which the employee has to go to a court of law effectively to assert their rights  and to get some compensation, with complete uncertainty as to whether they will succeed. This proposal avoids all of that, which is of enormous value.

Is there not a danger that this could be part of the armoury of a bad employer for constructive dismissal? The employer could say, “If you go, I will give you this money”, in the knowledge that that move will not be revealed in a tribunal where it may be a relevant factor, either in a positive way, as has been suggested or, conceivably, in a slightly threatening way.

I make the point again that the protection for the employee is the right to say no. Not only that, but before the agreement can be concluded, the employee has to have access and has to have received independent advice, just as they do at the moment with a compromise agreement. That advice can be from a lawyer, an advice centre or a trade union official. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that, under existing legislation for compromise agreements, a designated trade union official, recognised as having the training to be able to advise on such agreements, can do so. In a unionised context, the employee has the absolute protection of getting that advice from a trade union official or an outside lawyer. In a non-unionised context, the agreement only protects the employer if the employee has had that independent advice.

There is real protection for employees against oppressive employers who act with malice. This would allow genuine employers, who are trying to resolve a real problem, to reach a settlement that meets the interests of both sides. It may be attractive to think of a world where no employment disputes or problems occur, and where every employee performs to the optimum, but we all know that is not the case. Employers have to deal with problems. I genuinely think that it is usually in the interests of the employee to leave on agreed terms, rather than be sacked, in the traditional sense of the word, with all of the hurdles they would then have to clear to get anything from a tribunal. The measure, therefore, has enormous merit.

The guidance we offer will be designed for SMEs and micros, which I hope will reassure the Law Society and others that we are addressing pitfalls for the unwary, as the Law Society suggested. It has also been suggested that disaffected employees might use the measure to bombard their employers with requests for settlement. As I have indicated, both the employer and employee can put forward a proposal for a settlement, and there is no reason to think that there would be any bombardment of employers by employees after a settlement. In dispute situations, employees can already make requests for a settlement. An employee can go to their employer to say, “I am prepared to leave, but I will only leave if you pay me a sum of compensation.” Sometimes that is an appropriate thing to put forward, and that discussion can take place. Nothing in the legislation will encourage an increase in that.

On that point, will there be a set number of times that an employer can offer this deal in any given year, or will it be as many times as they want?

If an employer were to behave in an oppressive way and repeatedly put pressure on an employee to settle, they would not, under the language that we  have used in the clause, retain the protection of the clause. This is about sensible and reasonable behaviour. Employers should be able to understand that, and guidance will be there to help them understand that. There is no reason to believe that there will be any suggestion of a bombardment from employees. In dispute situations, employees can already make requests for settlement. We have seen no evidence that that is a problem, and I see no reason why it should be different with this measure in force.

I also want to reassure the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, ACAS and others, which gave evidence to the Committee, that this measure will not allow employers to abdicate their management responsibilities. I am strong on the fact that the most important message to employers of all sizes is to recruit well, invest in staff and treat them properly to get the very best out of them. That is the way to get good productivity. The decent employers, of whom there are many in the country, know that that is how to get the most out of their employees. We also know, though, that sometimes things go wrong, and employers need to act.

The Minister just said that there was no difference between what happens now and what will happen after this Bill is passed. Surely, though, there will be a difference. At the moment, a compromise agreement—I have been involved in compromise agreements before—is confidential only if people agree to it being confidential. What is being proposed now is that it will be confidential as a matter of law. This House will be enforcing that confidentiality on some agreements.

The hon. Gentleman might be confusing two different things. The compromise agreement now can include a confidentiality clause, which requires both parties to maintain confidentiality, and I made that clear in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot. In the future, they will be settlement agreements. As before, they will still be able to have that confidentiality clause contained within them, so no change there at all. This clause gives confidence to both parties because any discussion or proposal can be initiated by either the employer or the employee without it being used in evidence against them later on in a tribunal. It is incredibly important to encourage the parties to reach an agreement rather than to have a fight over it. As I have said, that is in the interests of both parties.

Given what my hon. Friend has just said, will there be a template for the optional confidentiality clause within the letter that will be available to employers? If not, may I suggest that there should be?

There will be. Again, it will be part of the consultation. As I have discussed with various trade unionists, there is a role for trade unions in negotiating settlements. They do it now, as hon. Members have said, with compromise agreements, and they can do it in the future, and that is perfectly reasonable. Of course they can then end up signing the compromise agreement, or settlement agreement, to give it force.

I still do not quite understand this. If an offer is made by either side, that transaction is part of the relationship that will ultimately be assessed in the  tribunal, if the matter goes to tribunal. It is a relevant transaction. In the case where there is malicious intent—hopefully there will not be many of those—or some attempt to go for constructive dismissal or there is an inappropriate offer or threat from the employee to the employer, such as, “If you don’t give me this, I will do that,” then that exchange is surely relevant for a tribunal. The idea of us legally saying that it is not possible to consider that is bizarre.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the clause provides for the circumstance when that sort of behaviour occurs and the employer says, “Here’s the letter, now if you don’t accept it you can…off”, if the hon. Gentleman understands my attempt to avoid using unparliamentary language. They would not then have the protection of it being excluded from reference in the tribunal. An employee who had suffered oppressive behaviour from the employer in the discussion could refer to that because they would not have the protection of the clause. The clause absolutely addresses the concern that the hon. Gentleman raises there.

Could the Minister give some indication of how the clause sits with the Department’s consultation on protected conversations?

The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the Department, long before I turned up, did a consultation which included the issue of whether anyone would welcome the idea of a protected conversation. The idea is that there could be discussions between parties in an employment context and that those discussions, which might propose a termination of employment, could not be used if it was within what was defined as a protected conversation. The feedback was that there were a lot of concerns. The hon. Gentleman has talked a lot about satellite litigation and creating laws that generate work for lawyers, and there is a real risk that that would have done that. In my view, talking to small employers about the idea of protected conversation would be beyond what most people busily trying to run their own business would understand.

There are all sorts of exceptions. If you say something that is discriminatory, that would not be protected and rightly so. We do not want to give carte blanche to employers to discriminate. Indeed, it would not be lawful under European law. We concluded that a protected conversation itself was perhaps an unattractive outcome, but something worth consulting on. I sat round a table with a group of employment lawyers who all said that it would generate an enormous amount of litigation and, given the concerns that have been expressed in respect of other clauses, that is not something that we would want to do.

While the Bill will give employers and employees an opportunity to consider an alternative to a formal management process when an employee chooses not to accept an offer of settlement, the employer will still need to undertake proper performance management and fair process before dismissing an employee fairly. I would also like to reassure Members that there will be no change to the current requirement for an individual to seek legal advice on the implications of signing the agreement before it becomes legally binding.

We will consult in the summer on the principles of guidance to be included in the statutory code underpinning the fair and effective use of settlement agreements. This will include the draft letters and model templates for employers and employees to use to make the process as easy and simple as possible to understand and to follow. Like the guidance, they will be produced with the needs of SMEs and micros without extensive or any legal or HR departments on hand in mind. While we need to agree the timetable for developing the statutory code and other guidance, we are clear that it needs to be ready in good time for employers and employees to familiarise themselves with these measures.

In conclusion, we believe that the amendment on confidentiality of negotiations before termination of employment will facilitate and promote the use of settlement agreements as an effective and consensual way to resolve workplace problems without resorting to a tribunal. I am conscious that Opposition Members have tabled amendments to new clause 2. I will respond to the amendments after hon. Members have had the opportunity to speak to them.

Just to make it absolutely clear to the Committee, as the Minister has done, we have changed the amendment group. The debate will now ensue on Government amendment 2, new clause 2, plus the two Opposition amendments and clause 17 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Bayley, for being flexible about the clause. There was an error somewhere along the line in the administration of the clauses. I am grateful that we have been able to group the amendments and clauses.

I am also grateful to the Minister for taking time to explain settlement agreements. There has been a great deal of confusion out there, and I am not sure that Opposition Members are any clearer about where we are. He is right to highlight again the day-to-day relationship between the employee and employer. Good employers have that relationship, and the small business owners on both sides of the Committee know that that it is key and that a business cannot operate without its being strong and healthy.

All decent business owners would say that their first call is looking after their employees. There is nothing more heartbreaking than having to get rid of an employee or being unable to pay them what they are due. In the economic circumstances of the past few years, many business owners have had to deal with those situations. That highlights that the circumstances we have been discussing on all the clauses, and on the employment part in particular, are extreme and at the margins of what most small businesses do in this country. We must bear that in mind.

There are already ways to get rid of employees, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian mentioned. Performance management techniques can be used and a proper conversation can happen between employers and employees. If there is a lack of performance or an issue to be dealt with, the ACAS guidance is very good. In fact, I have used it when talking to employees.

I agree with the points the hon. Gentleman makes, but does he agree that in circumstances where the employment is not working out, it may be in the interests of the employee not to leave at the end of a process without anything beyond notice, but to leave with a settlement, an additional payment and the possibility of a reference? Does he accept that that is often in the interests of the employee?

I agree with that. It is always in the interests of the employee to ensure that their re-entry into the labour market is maximised, but it is also in the interests of the employer to ensure that any relationship, whether it has broken down or not, is dealt with appropriately. A settlement agreement, a protected conversation or being called into the manager’s or business owner’s office for a discussion about your employment could almost instantly give rise to grievance. That might be one of the unintended consequences of the legislation. It is well meaning but, in its operation, will it be something new or simply an extension of what we have already?

The Secretary of State trailed the proposal in the newspapers before Second Reading. It was quite clear that the entire Bill, which we have already discussed at great length, was a ragbag of different proposals coming together into something that is supposed to promote economic growth. The Secretary of State required something concrete that he could take into the Chamber on Second Reading that made this something more than just a regulatory reform Bill. I fear that that is perhaps where it has come from. It has been a rushed attempt to appease the Beecroft elements of the coalition and an attempt to insert potential Beecroft-lite options into compensated fault or compensated no-fault dismissal.

I pressed the Minister on how the measure works in relationship with protected compensation. To many Opposition Members who have been involved in compromise agreements, it sounds to all intents and purposes very much like a protected compensation-type element to what would be the employment legal framework.

May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the measure has nothing to do with the Beecroft call for evidence? That is a separate proposition put forward quite properly to get international and domestic evidence on whether there is a case for compensated no-fault dismissal. The proposal is not a rushed attempt to find an answer to Beecroft; it is based on my experience in practice and on what many people, including the all-party group, know works. It is a decent, proper way of providing an alternative option for both employers and employees. It is nothing at all to do with Beecroft.

I appreciate what the Minister has just said, but it is in practice difficult to see how the measures will operate outwith the framework that is already in place. We have no complaints about renaming the settlement agreement, but it seems strange that anybody would believe that that would suddenly result in a greater use of the compromise agreements that are already in place. They are already widely used. Indeed, one of the largest public and private sector solicitors, Thompsons, dealt with nearly 6,000 alone last year, so that shows there is no problem with employers realising that they can be  used. They are aware that such agreements can be used and they can readily use them in a whole host of circumstances.

I do not know Thompsons’ detailed figures, but the 5,700 agreements that were used last year would probably dwarf the number of individual claims that it has taken to an employment tribunal. It may or may not be the case, but it seems around a few thousand cases. So the change to the Bill to add the provision regarding confidentiality in negotiations before termination of employment is fraught with difficulties and perhaps a recipe for confusion and further dispute.

It is worth considering the law that governs the current compromise agreements, because that gives the background to what is currently available. Section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 gives valuable protection to an employee, who is nearly always in a subordinate and powerless position compared with their employer. The section prevents an employee contracting out of their statutory rights to bring a complaint of unfair dismissal unless, in summary, there is an agreement in writing, the agreement relates to particular proceedings and the employee is given independent legal advice. That sounds very much like what the Minister has just described in terms of settlement agreements.

We fully accept that compromise agreements are used at the moment. The problem with such agreements is that almost inevitably employers who want to use them go to expensive lawyers to get guidance about how to complete a compromise agreement. The whole purpose of the proposal is to mainstream the agreement and make it available with guidance and support to employers who cannot afford expensive lawyers. That is its potential great value: to strip away the need for expensive legal advice by making it simple and giving the protection and reassurance that it cannot be used in evidence against them in the tribunal.

That is all well and good, but why can that process of standard letters and standard applications not simply be put into the normal system? That guidance would be best to go forward. The initial clause really just renames compromise agreements and calls them settlement agreements. It is important to give certainty to employers. Again, we are seeing a system of tinkering around the edges. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon, who has been involved in a number of these, is absolutely right that they are well used and well regarded across employees’ representatives and employers.

Is not the risk with compromise agreements that the employer may be accused of constructive dismissal should the case move on? Settlement agreements enable the employer to initiate the settlement, rather than waiting for the employee to come forward.

I accept that, but there is a danger that the opposite could also be the case, whereby the protection given to the employer through a settlement agreement is actually counter-productive. There is case law that has tried to determine what is a without prejudice conversation in a compromise agreement process, and that has worked against the employer.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is generous in giving way.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire makes the absolutely correct point that this reassures employers to initiate a discussion to bring things to an agreed conclusion. Additionally, compromise agreements are used widely by large employers who have large human resources departments and access to expensive lawyers; they are not used systematically by small companies. We are particularly trying to help small and medium-sized businesses by giving them a route to resolving genuine problems in the workplace, and this measure can be transformational in achieving that.

I do not disagree with what the Minister or the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire are trying to achieve, but our point is that legislation perhaps already exists to do exactly that, so the Government could just alter that legislation. I appreciate what has been said about not being able to disclose at employment tribunal, but there is a grey area on what information may be disclosed at an employment tribunal.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Let me unpack my point, which may answer some of the interventions.

In BNP Paribas v. Mezzotero, which is one of the famous sex discrimination cases, in response to a grievance raised by the claimant on the way she had been treated on her return from maternity leave, the employer made a without prejudice offer of a termination payment. There was a dispute about whether what was said at the meeting at which the termination payment was offered was covered by the without prejudice privilege, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal determined that the without prejudice privilege did not apply because at the time the offer was made there was no extant dispute between the parties on termination.

That seems very much like what we have been talking about on settlement agreements. A pre-grievance predetermination issue was being addressed, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld that there was no extant dispute between the parties and therefore what was said could be used as part of the determination. The judge said,

“it is very much in the public interest that allegations of unlawful discrimination in the workplace are heard and properly determined by the Employment Tribunal to whom complaint is made…cases involving allegations of sex and race discrimination are peculiarly fact-sensitive and can only properly be determined after full consideration of all the facts”.

“All the facts” includes discussions on any settlement agreement. The judge went on to say that

“the logical result” of allowing the without prejudice rule to operate in such cases would be that

“an employer in dispute with a black employee could say during discussions aimed at settlement in a meeting expressed to be being held without prejudice, ‘we do not want you here because you are black’ and could then seek to argue that the discussions should be excluded from consideration by a Tribunal hearing a complaint of race discrimination.”

So what can and cannot be disclosed can have consequences. There is a potential for—I use the term again—satellite litigation, which the Minister clearly said was a concern when considering whether protected conversations could fall into this measure. The terminology used in that case is unambiguous impropriety, and the only way to determine whether disclosing that is proper or improper in settling the case is through an employment tribunal hearing. It is hard to see how the Government can legislate to overturn that ruling without giving the green light to employers to treat employees badly and discriminate against them.

The Minister’s example seems to be aimed at people who are not performing well, which is the right place to focus the proposals. The Government appear to be obsessed with its being difficult to dismiss people because of capability, and we have discussed various processes for doing that. To dismiss someone fairly, all an employer needs to do is show that they have pointed out failings, and have given a reasonable opportunity and time frame for employees to improve. It is not lengthy, because employers will have policies to ensure that the proper process is followed. In such a context, there will be many instances in which an employer will say to an employee, “I would like to chat about terminating your employment.” As soon as a conversation is initiated in that way, it would seem to me that the vast majority of employees would pick up the phone to ACAS or an employment lawyer.

The hon. Gentleman is going round the houses, because the proposals are a great move. They will mean that all the tiny employers in my constituency know that if there is a problem with their employees, they can send them a letter and give them a choice. That will give those employers confidence to take on more people in future. The hon. Gentleman’s speech can go on for ever, but it will not take away from the fact that the change is a good move for jobs and growth.

The hon. Gentleman has said that the proposals are good for jobs. This is the first clause that we have reached about employment, and he persists in saying that the approach has been consistent. I have lost count, but it may be 16 or 17 times now that the Opposition have agreed with much of what is in the Bill. We have merely tried to ensure that the provisions work properly and have proposed amendments to that effect.

I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman, because he spoke of a possible situation in which somebody suffered from race discrimination as part of the discussion. Proposed new section 111A(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 makes it clear that the employer is not protected. There is no carte blanche at all for that sort of improper conduct. The proposals enable decent employers who have a genuine problem to resolve it; they are not a licence to discriminate against employees.

Subsection (3) is clear that discrimination is not included and that could then be taken forward to an employment tribunal, particularly if the employee decided that there would not be a settlement as the exit was voluntary. I fully understand that point. I am  trying, however, to highlight the issue of whether a settlement agreement’s intent had a discriminatory element, and therefore whether that should be admissible in terms of why the settlement agreement occurred in the first place.

I am not sure there is much disagreement between me and the Minister on that point, which is why we have produced amendment (a) to Government new clause 2. That would insert in the Bill that either the employee or one of the chosen employee representatives that the employee wishes to use to sign off the agreement is given the proper advice, whether that is by a trade union official, a workplace representative or a legal representative. Although we have been keen to draw some legal representation out of the process throughout all the clauses, the proper advice must be given to an employee about whether what is happening is in their best interests, and is not a cover-up for something that may be more appropriately dealt with through employment tribunal law. ACAS early conciliation would be the next new stage to that particular process.

Will the Minister confirm that ACAS will produce guidance on what is improper, which is one of the words that is used? The proposed protection is limited. It does not apply to claims for automatic unfair dismissal, such as whistleblowing or a dismissal connected with the transfer of an undertaking, such as TUPE. More importantly, it does not apply to discrimination, as the Minister has explained. If an employer decides to chat with an employee and suggests that the employee leaves because their performance is not as expected, the employee may not be able to rely on that conversation in an unfair dismissal claim, but can accuse the employer of discrimination on the grounds of sex, age, race and some other protected characteristics. What prevents that from happening in any case? If an employee chooses voluntarily not to settle, they could easily say, “This is not happening because of my performance; it is about sexual discrimination.”

Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that an employee can make such an allegation if they experience such treatment at any time, regardless of whether a settlement agreement is being offered.

That may well be the case, but as soon as an employer says, “Can we have a chat about coming to an agreement to relieve you of your duties in return for some kind of compensation?” someone might wonder whether that is about performance or other aggravated factors. That is the danger that employers may fall into with this legislation.

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that third parties should be present when the settlement is offered?

I am not sure that that would be advisable in view of what is trying to be achieved in a settlement agreement. We suggest that it should be possible for a settlement agreement to be signed off by someone other than just an employee, and that proper legal representation—particularly for low-paid and migrant workers—should be put in place so that proper advice can be provided on the content of settlement agreements. I do not see why that is a difficulty.

My hon. Friend the Minister has already said that there will be legal representation or union representation at the point of the compromise agreements. All we are saying is that the employer can write a letter making an offer of compensation. Surely there does not need to be representation for that.

Our amendment suggests that instead of stopping at the word “employee”, new clause 2 should specify that settlement agreements can be signed off by

“the employee or either one of the following employee representatives”.

I do not believe that that differs particularly from what the Minister has said, or indeed from what the hon. Gentleman has just proposed. We are not proposing that legal representation be given at any part of the discussion, as the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire perhaps suggested, but merely that the employer or the employee be able to get the document signed off by a legal representative. That is important, particularly for low-paid workers.

Let us consider a scenario in which an employer reaches a decision about a settlement that they will offer. If the employee claimed unfair dismissal, the employer could quite easily say that the offer of the settlement agreement would remain on the table at, say, £10,000, but that they would reduce it by £1,000 for every day that the employee did not decide to settle the claim. Such a course of action would remove the voluntary element of the agreement, and the employee would essentially be coerced into accepting. That employee would have to be able to decide whether they wanted to add another step into the process by taking the matter to ACAS or taking it further if they wanted to.

Obviously, this is a matter for judicial discretion, but I suggest that if a case did not end in settlement but went to an employment tribunal, the tribunal would regard an offer that went down by £1,000 a day as improper. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that such a course of action will not be encouraged, and that it will not provide any protection for an employer.

The Minister has just argued my point for me. An employee might end up being coerced into taking a settlement that may or may not be appropriate. They might think, “I will take the £10,000 settlement because I do not want to go through the process of conciliation, I do not want to have to pay a fee to get to the employment tribunal and I do not want to have to wait 24 weeks.” Surely, that is some kind of compensated no-fault dismissal. I can see the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon shaking his head to indicate that it is, which is exactly my point.

All these proposals are attempts to slow down the process to make the balance between the employee and the employer more equal. Under the previous Government, it was not equal.

I did not expect anything else from that intervention, but for the record, when I suggested that the scenario I outlined could be construed as compensated no-fault dismissal, the hon. Member for  Skipton and Ripon was shaking his head in full agreement. I am delighted that we agree that this is a Beecroft-lite proposal.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that—as with compromise agreements, which the previous Labour Government endorsed—there is the protection that the employee needs to get independent advice before signing up to the agreement. That is an incredibly important reassurance that oppressive behaviour by the employer will not succeed.

The oppressive behaviour by an employer may not succeed, but this legislation takes away the ability for an employee to go to an employment tribunal because they have been wronged and win their case. This is yet another hurdle to that redress. In this situation, a settlement agreement may be offered under that coerced example that I gave earlier, the employee may decide that, as a moral duty, he will take that further and end up at ACAS. We have not determined whether or not the ability of ACAS to come to an early conciliation agreement will be affected by the fact that the employee may or may not be able to pay a fee, which may be inserted after ACAS, or somewhere else in the system. They would then have to pay that fee and go through the employment tribunal system. We have to be careful that we are not just generating another selection of hurdles for the employee or, indeed, the employer to get over in order to get to a stage where appropriate redress is given for an unfair dismissal in these circumstances.

Our first amendment is very simple and asks that the legislation be changed to allow it to be signed off by a representative of an employee if they so wish. It gives the ability for all the issues to be properly explained and addressed with a sign-off for the purposes of clarity. It leaves open the ability for the employee to sign the agreement off themselves if they so wish and the guidance should also include a requirement for a mutual reference, at the very least—that should be part of the process of the negotiation.

As already mentioned, the Secretary of State has said that a higher employment tribunal fee may be levied where an employee has refused a settlement agreement. I talked about the hurdles that have been put in place, but if an employee says, “No, I do not want to accept that settlement agreement; I feel that I am being forced out of the door, unfairly dismissed, so I would like to seek other advice on this,” is the Secretary of State really saying that a higher employment tribunal fee may be levied because the employee has refused a settlement agreement? I hope the Minister will clarify the position, as it cannot be called a without prejudice, compromise or settlement agreement if this is the case, because there is an additional coercion on top of the example I gave earlier.

I am not sure what statement by the Secretary of State the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but I can reassure him that there is no intention to charge a higher fee for a tribunal application where an agreement had been rejected by the employee. I keep trying to make it clear that the employee has the right to  say no and to pursue a claim if they are dismissed subsequently. They may not be dismissed. This is just an opportunity for the two parties to reach agreement.

I am glad that the Minister has clarified the Secretary of State’s position on a higher employment tribunal fee: it gives me some comfort that this additional hurdle of fees will not be inserted if a settlement agreement is refused in that process.

Employers will have to be well educated on these issues and given support and encouragement to make sure that they are used correctly. The last thing we would want would be to put this mechanism in place and for employees then to fall foul of not filling in the form correctly, not dealing with the circumstances in hand correctly and ending up inadvertently in an employment tribunal or pre-conciliation situation unnecessarily. So support must be given, and that goes back to the funding of ACAS and some of the issues we discussed what seems like 20 years ago.

We are clear that if these are to work properly, employers have to be given support. Indeed, employees need that support as well. That is why we have tabled amendment (b), which asks the Secretary of State to look at this in 12 months, just to make sure that these are working properly and are continued through an affirmative resolution of both Houses. You could say that amendment (b) is a sunset clause, which I know the Minister is incredibly fond of. We shall come on to talk about it at some point towards the end of our deliberations on the Bill. That is all our amendment is asking for.

I shall conclude where I started. This clause could have some significant unintended consequences. The law as it currently stands is there to make sure that you can have without prejudice conversations, compromise agreements that are readily used in a number of cases— I have highlighted one large legal firm that uses 5,000 or 6,000 of these agreements every year. I am concerned that the protected conversations element is part of the process. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has agreed that this is compensated no-fault dismissal by the back door, and Beecroft-lite. It would be sensible of Government Members to recognise that that is what the proposals achieve, and to join us in voting them out of the Bill.

Can I make sure that we put it on the record that the hon. Gentleman intends to move amendments (a) and (b) to Government new clause 2?

I do intend to move them.

We now come to a debate. Do any other Members wish to speak? As there are no other contributions, I call the Minister.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his amendments. I understand what they seek to achieve. He made a bit of a glass-half-empty speech, though, in that he found all the possible pitfalls—

On that point—

In a moment. But the hon. Member for Edinburgh South did not in any sense acknowledge something that he conceded following my intervention: it is sometimes a good thing to reach an agreement and avoid the need for an employee to wait a stressful five months for a claim to be heard in a tribunal, the outcome of which is uncertain and has the potential adverse consequences of bad publicity and so on. Facilitating that would reassure employers, small ones in particular, that they could make such a proposition without its being used in evidence against them, but without there being protection for people making discriminatory comments—the Government have no intention of sanctioning that sort of behaviour by employers. This is a mechanism whereby decent small and medium-sized employers—indeed any employers—can make a proposition, which might well be in the interests of the employee.

I am delighted that the Minister has allowed me to clarify the situation so early in his reply. He conflates the two parts of my argument. I was saying that there could be coercion to take a settlement because an employee sees many hurdles being put in place as a result of the legislation, including fees, which are not in the Bill but are in the Ministry of Justice consultation. Such coercion might involve an employer—a rogue one, I agree—saying to an employee, “Here is a settlement for you to go,” and the employee might think, “Okay, I might just take that, because the Government have put in place so many hurdles to my getting access to justice.”

Of course, what often happens at the moment in such circumstances as the hon. Gentleman describes, is that the employee is just sacked, without any recompense or agreed termination payment, and without a reference. Sometimes the Opposition seem to prefer such a confrontational position to a situation in which the parties can be encouraged—

Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the level of extreme coercion that the shadow Minister believes could happen would probably be a trigger for a penalty, should a case come to a tribunal?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If there was the extreme coercion that the hon. Gentleman referred to, the employer would not be protected by the clause. The employee could make reference to such coercion and pressure, and that would be relevant to a determination as to whether there had been an unfair dismissal and, as my hon. Friend rightly says, it would also be relevant to consideration as to whether there should be a penalty. The measure is designed to allow decent employers, who are trying to run their businesses, to settle genuine problems, and that is why it is so attractive.

As usual, the Minister is being very generous in giving way. He said that under the circumstances described, the employee is, at the moment, just sacked. In many circumstances the employee is, of course, not sacked, because that would be tantamount to unfair dismissal. If under those circumstances people feel as though they are pressured into accepting an offer because  of all the hurdles, and feel as though they are being pushed in a certain direction by an employer who is less than sympathetic, there is a danger that we are moving towards a position of legalising no-fault dismissal—I think that is the fear.

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. The point that I am making is that at the moment unfair dismissals do occur. People are dismissed with no recompense, no compensation, no reference—nothing. Their dignity is destroyed and all they are left with is the possibility of being able to bring an uncertain claim to an employment tribunal, with all of the stress and anxiety that a five-month wait engenders. The provision encourages parties to think differently, to be more consensual and consider whether it is possible to reach an agreement that, as I say, might be in the interests of both employer and employee. For that reason, I think that is immensely attractive.

I understand the concerns at the heart of amendment (a). Safeguards are needed to ensure that individuals receive sufficient advice on the implications of signing a settlement agreement before they accept an offer. It is, of course, a major decision for any individual to make. As I have said, the proposed new clause does not change the requirement for an individual seeking legal advice on the implications of signing the settlement agreement before it becomes legally binding. The legal advice can be provided by any suitably qualified individual, including appropriately qualified trade union officials. We will ensure that the guidance on settlement agreements makes that point very clear.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh South made the point that employers need training, guidance and support. There will be absolute, clear guidance through the statutory code. Having spoken to the FSB, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors and so on, I envisage such organisations will provide guidance, support and training to their members to help them use the right that the clause provides. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that up-skilling would be entirely sensible.

I do not believe for one minute that the Minister is a bad man, and I know that he is keen to make decisions and make good laws based on evidence. However, will he not concede that in the current economic climate, when so many people feel that the glass is half empty, it would at least be wise for the Government to revisit this and consider its impact?

I absolutely agree that we must monitor this measure. The very last thing that I want to do is pass a provision into legislation and then forget about it. I want to monitor it very closely. I want to hear from employer organisations, and from trade unions, to see how it is working. There will be a thorough review in 2016 of all the employment measures that the Government are pursuing. It makes sense to wait for a period of time before analysing their impact. To do so too quickly, when a measure is bedding in, does not make sense, because both sides, employers and employees, need to understand fully how the measures will work. However, after a good period of time, there absolutely should be a formal review, which, as we have indicated, will happen.

During that period of time, I want to be assessing, on a continuing basis, how this works. I therefore accept entirely the hon. Lady’s proposition. I just think that to bed in, as amendments often do in Committee, a formal review at the point of a year, as well as the fact that another vote in Parliament would be required for it to continue, goes too far. We want to allow this system to develop, for people to understand how it can be used and, in a way, to change the culture away from conflict towards a much more consensual way of dealing with problems.

Employers’ organisations often do not reach or represent the smallest companies in our country, so I urge the Minister to work with his Department, and to work on his civil servants, to find mechanisms to reach out to those tiny companies, such as Piccalilly in Settle or the hundreds of companies I meet in my constituency. Such companies will need educating on the proposals.

I am glad that my hon. Friend has got Piccalilly on the record. No doubt he will send the extract to the said company, to show his concern for its welfare. Yes, absolutely, and beyond what ACAS could do through the statutory code, the Department is working on how we can offer guidance online in simple and easily accessible terms to employers of any size, whether they employ one person or 5,000. We want the guidance to be clear and accessible.

The principles underpinning a proper way to offer settlement will be covered in the supporting statutory code, which will be subject to consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. I understand that the driver behind amendment (b) is that the provision, as with all legislative measures, should be reviewed to assess its effectiveness. As I have said, I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment, which is why the impact of the employment changes to be introduced in the Bill, including this measure, will be reviewed in 2016. That formal review will look at the impact on employment tribunal claims of the reforms, as well as looking to understand the broader use of settlement agreements. Given our commitment to review the effectiveness of this part of the Bill, I consider the amendment unnecessary.

May I check—I apologise if this is in the detail of the Bill and I have missed it—whether there is a cooling-off period after the point at which the employee signs the agreement? Admittedly, an employee would have had all that advice, but we know that people often regret once they have signed on the dotted line. Has the Minister considered that?

As now, under legislation we inherited from the previous Labour Government—[ Interruption. ] I was not expecting such a groan. I am only saying that under the legislation on compromise agreements inherited from the previous Labour Government—a statement of fact—once the employee signs, having had independent advice, that is a binding agreement. Most people understand that once someone has entered an agreement, that should be the end of the matter, to provide reassurance that it  cannot be reopened by either employer or employee—that is an important principle. It will work in exactly the same way as the existing compromise agreements do.

On a point of clarification, which might give some comfort to Opposition Members, will the Minister confirm that where a settlement agreement is offered via an employer and refused by the employee, the employee’s rights and protections are in no way diminished or eroded by that refusal? The only difference is that now, perhaps, the employees will know that their employment is potentially at risk. That was always the case, but previously employees were ignorant of that.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he puts it clearly and well. That is exactly the position: the rights of the employee are not prejudiced or compromised in any way. The attraction, also, to the employers is that it puts them on notice, which does not happen at the moment. Employers all too often—frequently through a misunderstanding of the law—act, but then it is too late and they are confronted by a potentially expensive claim. Under the new legislation, if the offer is rejected, the employers are put on notice that they have to be careful in what they do. It might well be sensible for them to seek advice at that point, but at least it is not too late to avoid a problem occurring. That is another reason why this is attractive.

Before I shut up, let me make one other point about amendment (a) and its reference to the “trade union official”, the “workplace representative” and the “legal representative”. The agreement of course must be between the employee and the employer—they are the parties to the contract—but nothing we are seeking to do excludes support representatives within the workplace from helping to secure that agreement. It would be wrong, however, as the amendment implies, for there to be the possibility of an agreement between an employer and a trade union official which does not involve the employee. The agreement must directly involve the employee, perhaps with support in negotiating it from their trade union official. The risk is that the amendment would exclude the employee from the agreement that has been reached. I am sure that that is not the intention of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South, but that would be the effect of the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 8.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

The questions relating to new clause 2 and amendments (a) and (b) will be dealt with much later in proceedings.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 8.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended,ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.— (Jeremy Wright.)

Adjourned till Thursday 5 July at Nine o’clock.