| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Boswell: I rise to comment on my amendment No. 4. The concern underlying it has been expressed by the Engineering Employers Federation and others. It is that persons may be brought along to a disciplinary or grievance hearing who may be inappropriate for the case in point.
I want to confine representation outwith the firm to full-time union officials, because concern has been expressed to us that unless representation is thus tied down, it might include, for example, a shop steward from a rival firm, who might be a trade union official but whose presence might prove difficult in the circumstances. I invite the Government to consider that matter further.
Mr. Wills:
In respect of amendment No. 4, it appears that despite the fact that a Conservative Government enshrined in law the right to belong to a union of one's choice, the Opposition seem unable to accept the logical consequence: that trade union representatives should be allowed to represent their members in crucial matters. We see no compelling reason why that right should be denied to union members.
Presumably, if Conservative Members had had more time, they might have argued that employers would not feel free to discuss a sensitive subject before an outsider--perhaps someone employed by a competitor. There is no force in that argument; it is highly improbable that genuine issues of commercial confidentiality would arise and such issues would have to be revealed if the event led to a tribunal. The amendment is unnecessary and unacceptable; it would limit an important right and I hope that hon. Members will withdraw it.
Amendment No. 44 would qualify and narrow the range of functions that the accompanying person may perform when fulfilling that role. We should not lose sight of the purpose of that right; it will enable vulnerable workers to have support and a helping hand in presenting their case cogently and effectively when that might otherwise be impossible. There is no reason to limit the scope of the clause in that way.
Amendment No. 50 covers situations in which the accompanying person is not employed by the same employer as the worker who is being accompanied.
Conservative Members want to limit the costs incurred by the accompanying person's employer. I shall put their minds at rest: the measure will not be a burden on employers. Several options are available to them and the arrangements that we have in hand adequately deal with the issue. The Bill will involve minimal disruption to third party employers; it does not require such employers to give paid leave. I see no reason for qualifying that right further. The amendment is as unnecessary as the others in the group and I hope that they will not be pressed.
Mr. Brady:
I am disappointed in that response, but given the lateness of the hour, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):
With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Jane Kennedy.]
Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North):
I had presumed that, as I rose to my feet, most hon. Members would choose to leave the Chamber, but I have not been quite as disappointed as I feared I would be. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak on the important subject of motor cycling as part of an integrated transport strategy. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me when I say that the words "motor cycle" are interchangeable with "powered two-wheelers", as I mean no prejudice against riders of scooters--or sewing machines, as we used to call them.
More than most groups in society, motor cyclists are victims of image. Many of us were brought up seeing, and have never quite escaped from, the image of Marlon Brando in "The Wild One" riding his Triumph Bonneville 750, but some us have striven to see beyond the stereotype of the biker, because we have suffered from that stereotypical view of bikers and biking. Motor cycling--the use of powered two-wheelers--is not about speed, image, or leather. It is not necessarily about laying the needle against the pin, red-lining it and getting your knee down--practices of which I know, or at least remember, little. Motor cycling is now an informed, responsible and mature choice.
Like many people in this country, I was delighted in February 1997 to read the then Labour Opposition's policy document entitled, somewhat infelicitously, "Bike to Basics". The author of that document was at that time shadow Transport Minister, and is now the Minister for Transport in London. I was delighted to read her pledge that motor cycling would be at the heart of the national transport agenda. Nothing that has happened since then has disappointed me. Like many bikers, I welcome chapter 3 of "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in July 1998, which spoke about the policies that the Government are introducing for powered two-wheelers. I and many of my colleagues welcome what has been done, but, sadly--perhaps not surprisingly--we look for more.
We look for some indication from the Government that local authorities will be persuaded, cajoled or possibly even nudged in the direction of including within the five-year transport plans a motor cycling strategy along the lines pioneered by the former Avon county council. We look for such things as secure parking at modal interchange points, in line with the transport White Paper, and for infrastructure improvements, because the riders of powered two-wheelers suffer disproportionately from problems of potholes, loose gravel, diesel spillage and poor road surfaces. Powered two-wheeler exemption from local road user charging and restrictions on bus lanes and higher occupancy vehicle lanes would also be greatly appreciated, as would permission for powered two-wheelers to use the advance stop lines that have proved so successful with pedal cyclists. Powered two-wheeler access to urban centre clear zones would also be appreciated--where that has been tested, it has not proved to be a problem.
I am not submitting a shopping list, but simply asking for recognition. There are 629,000 registered motor cycles in the United Kingdom, and motor cyclists--many of whom are in the Chamber tonight, including my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears)--contribute, not personally but collectively, £75 million per annum to the Exchequer through fuel and vehicle excise duty. Sadly, some people still believe that more bikes will lead to more accidents. In 1996, 440 riders of powered two-wheelers were killed and 22,604 riders were injured on British roads. However, before people gain the mistaken impression that this is a lethal mode of transport, I must inform the House that powered two-wheelers are the only group to have met the year 2000 safety target. In fact, a reduction of 62.5 per cent. against a target of minus 40 per cent. was achieved by 1997 using the 1981-85 baseline figures.
Amendment made: No. 166, in page 7, line 9, at end insert--
'( ) The limit in section 227(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (maximum amount of week's pay) shall apply for the purposes of subsection (3) above.'.--[Mr. Wills.]
Amendment made: No. 53, in page 7, line 30, at end insert--
'( ) Sections 128 to 132 of that Act (interim relief) shall apply in relation to dismissal for the reason specified in subsection (3)(a) or (b) above as they apply in relation to dismissal for a reason specified in section 128(1)(b) of that Act.'.--[Mr. Wills.]
Amendments made: No. 54, in page 9, line 12, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
No. 55, in page 9, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert--
'(4) In section 23 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, for subsection (4) there shall be substituted--
"(4) This section does not apply where the detriment in question amounts to dismissal within the meaning of--
(a) Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (unfair dismissal), or
(b) Part XI of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (corresponding provision for Northern Ireland),
except where in relation to Northern Ireland the person in question is dismissed in circumstances in which, by virtue of Article 240 of that Order (fixed term contracts), Part XI does not apply to the dismissal."
(5) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Tax Credits Act 1999, for sub-paragraph (3) there shall be substituted--
"(3) This paragraph does not apply where the detriment in question amounts to dismissal within the meaning of--
(a) Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (unfair dismissal), or
(b) Part XI of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (corresponding provision for Northern Ireland),
except where in relation to Northern Ireland the employee is dismissed in circumstances in which, by virtue of Article 240 of that Order (fixed term contracts), Part XI does not apply to the dismissal." '.--[Mr. Wills.]
Amendment made: No. 57, in page 11, leave out lines 13 to 18 and insert--
'( ) If the draft code is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the code in the form of the draft.'.--[Mr. Wills.]
Amendment made: No. 58, in page 13, line 12, leave out subsection (5) and insert--
'(5) If--
(a) a panel cannot reach a unanimous decision on a question arising before it, and
(b) a majority of the panel have the same opinion,
the question shall be decided according to that opinion.
(5A) If--
(a) a panel cannot reach a unanimous decision on a question arising before it, and
(b) a majority of the panel do not have the same opinion,
the chairman of the panel shall decide the question acting with the full powers of an umpire or, in Scotland, an oversman.'--[Mr. Wills.]
Further consideration adjourned.--[Mr. Pope.]
Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.
That the Special Grant Report (Scotland): Grant in aid of expenditure on rural public passenger transport for 1999-2000 (HC 283), which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.
That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 45) (Metropolitan Railway Passenger Services Grant 1999-2000) (HC 305), which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.
That the Special Grant Report (Scotland): Grant in aid of expenditure on rail services in the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Area, which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.
That the draft Limit in Relation to Licences to Provide Radio Multiplex Services Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.
That the Traffic Areas (Reorganisation) (Wales) Order 1999, dated 9th March 1999, which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.
That the draft Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organisations) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.
That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (Amendment) Order 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 525), dated 3rd March 1999, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (Code of Practice) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.--[Jane Kennedy.]
Question agreed to.
12.30 am
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |