Standing Committee E
Tuesday 16 February 1999
[Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody in the Chair]
10.30 am
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): On a point of order, Mrs.
Dunwoody. I do not know whether you can do anything about it, but
on Second Reading at column 180 on 9 February 1999, I playfully
suggested that the Whips were listening carefully to the speeches
of Labour Back Benchers to decide whether they were suitable to
be selected as members of the Standing Committee, given that some
of them were in dispute with the line taken by the Government.
The Minister suggested—also playfully, I thought—that
a blacklist might be in preparation.
I have checked the list of members of the Committee, and not
one of the Labour Members whom I commented on, who were less than
loyal to the Government's line, have been selected. Only four of
the people who spoke later in the debate were selected, none of
whom had referred to the number of people who would be allowed
a ballot under the Bill. I do not know whether you can do
anything, Mrs. Dunwoody, but at least I have been able to put it
on the record that the Government seem to be afraid of allowing
their colleagues a proper discussion of the Bill. I hope that in
the fullness of time we shall find out whether the Government
will fully debate the contentious clauses.
The Chairman: I am very grateful for that interesting point
of order. During my 30 years in the House of Commons, I have
frequently been astonished at the inability of the Whips on both
sides of the House to realise the innate brilliance of those of
us who from time to time raise our voices. It comes as no
surprise to me that the arcane processes of the two Front Bench
teams are confusing, and I am happy to say that the selection of
members of the Committee is nothing to do with the Chair.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): I beg to move,
That, during proceedings on the Employment Relations Bill,
the Committee do meet, with effect from Tuesday 23 February, on
Tuesdays at half-past Ten o'clock and half-past Four o'clock and
on Thursdays at half-past Two o'clock, except that the Committee
shall not meet on Thursday 11 March.
May I say, on behalf of the Committee, how pleased we are to
be once again under your control, Mrs. Dunwoody, to debate an
important Bill. In hindsight, it is true to say that I enjoyed
the sittings on the National Minimum Wage Bill under your
chairmanship, and I hope that members of the Committee will be
disciplined enough to ensure that we do not have all-night
sittings and that we can deal with the Bill in a more appropriate
fashion.
However, having listened to the point of order of the hon.
Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), I am now pleased that there
are more Conservative Members present than turned up to support
him on Second Reading. We have the army, but where is the
general, the man who said that he would take the Government apart
on employment relations? Obviously, the right hon. Member for
Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has decided to walk away from the fray
and leave it in the capable hands of the hon. Member for Daventry
(Mr. Boswell). The hon. Gentleman will feel lonely occasionally,
knowing that his general is miles behind the front line enjoying
the life of Riley, while he is trying to paper over the cracks
because his colleagues are unable even to raise a titter or do
anything in relation to the Bill.
The sittings motion sets out the times and dates for our
discussions. I propose that, with effect from 23 February, we
meet on Tuesdays at 10.30 am and 4.30 pm and on Thursdays at 2.30
pm—except Thursday 11 March, which I understand is not
convenient for some members of the Committee. I hope that hon.
Members will find those arrangements satisfactory, and that they
will contribute to an orderly, successful and detailed scrutiny
of the Bill. The latter comment is made for the benefit of the
hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who is, I know, looking
for a successful outcome of the Committee's scrutiny.
I am pleased to say that there will be some co-operation
between the Front-Bench teams. I take the view that the
Opposition should maximise their opportunity to scrutinise the
Bill. In my role as Minister, I want to be as helpful as I can
in giving the Committee information and clarification, just as
I did when we considered the National Minimum Wage Bill. I have
an important piece of legislation and an important set of
principles to get through the House, to which we are committed,
but I shall ensure that anything significant that might improve
the Bill will be given adequate and appropriate consideration.
It is important to take a positive view about the relationship
between Front Benches.
The Bill will have a positive effect upon the everyday
working lives of millions of people. It is important, especially
with complicated legislation, that the Committee should be given
clear explanations; I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will
find the explanatory notes helpful. The explanatory notes, which
replace the more familiar explanatory memorandum and notes on
clauses, are an innovation. They are intended to be more helpful
and user-friendly. I have to confess that my officials and I are
still wary of the new format, and we would welcome any positive
suggestions for their improvement. The document is intended to
inform and clarify, so that hon. Members—Government or
Opposition—are able to spend their time in Committee
positively and effectively.
I look forward to a lively and constructive debate this
morning. I am sure, however, that I shall at some stage have to
return to the battlefield, to answer comments from both sides of
the Committee.
Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry): May I welcome you, Mrs. Dunwoody,
and your co-Chairman, Mr. Peter Atkinson, to the Chair of this
Committee. As the Minister of State said, we very much enjoyed
your presiding over the Committee when we considered the National
Minimum Wage Bill. That was a long and difficult Bill, but you
chaired the Committee with great humour and panache.
It is nice to have what the Scots would call the old firm
back in place. The Government are again represented by the
Minister of State, though he has a new lieutenant, the Minister
for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, whom we welcome. We even
have the same Clerk. I also see one or two familiar faces on both
sides of the Committee. I shall not dilate on the matter now, but
it is nice at a time of rapid constitutional change to have a few
points of fixity—one reason why I am a Conservative.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): It is certainly a great
pleasure, Mrs. Dunwoody, to serve for a second time under the
leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr.
Boswell). It is also a pleasure to joust again with the Minister
of State, Department of Trade and Industry. Will my hon. Friend
confirm that if the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had
been prepared to serve on the Committee, my right hon. Friend the
Member for Wokingham would have been delighted to duff him up as
effectively in Committee as he did on Second Reading?
Mr. Boswell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention.
My hon. Friend is a welcome and worthy member of the Committee,
because he has a moderating influence on me. He brings me to a
point that I wanted to make.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham has many
commitments, but if the Secretary of State had been disposed to
attend the Committee, my right hon. Friend would have thought it
appropriate to attend. However, he is spending his time extremely
constructively; for instance, he is attempting to point the
Government in the right direction on genetic engineering—a
direction that they seem ill-disposed to take. I shall pass on
that, but should like to mention a couple of other points.
We are grateful for the Minister's explanatory notes. I have
felt, and, I think, have said, and readily say now, that his
Department produces extremely helpful and rather fuller
explanations than many Departments. That suggests that it is
addressing the issues that the Bill raises, which we are glad
about. Although it was the subject of some flippancy on Second
Reading, I am especially pleased that he has published, as I
suggested to him in private correspondence, some decision trees
to aid the process of working out what will happen in relation
to trade union recognition, for example. That is a good way of
legislating and providing explanatory material.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset seems to have some
doubt about the loyalty of Labour members of the Committee. I,
however, have absolutely no doubt that, once we have presented
our arguments with, I hope, our typical force and cogency, they
too will begin to have their doots about what is going on.
This is an important Bill, or, rather, Bills within a Bill,
and it is important to set it in context. It is, effectively,
three major bills wrapped up into one. One Bill deals with
statutory trade union recognition; one extends employee rights
and remedies; and one introduces new policies under the parental
leave directive.
Although we can piece our way through the Bill and may have
occasion to ask questions about it from time to time, it is,
perhaps, a pity that the Bills have a rather different status.
Some of them, like the national minimum wage legislation, are
entirely discretionary policies of Her Majesty's Government, and
are what I might refer to in shorthand as domestic legislation,
although the whole Bill is domestic legislation in that it is
being considered by Parliament. However, they are matters on
which the Government have simply taken a decision, such as trade
union recognition.
Obligations arise from the parental leave directive, which
cut in because this Government have decided, in a reversal of the
policy of their predecessor, to introduce the European social
chapter. That has implications, because we are legally obliged
to fulfil directives. In the case of some directives being
implemented into domestic legislation, the Government may
introduce on their own accout an element of gold-plating, going
beyond the strict requirements of the European obligation.
Although they are different, and at various stages in Committee
we shall want to draw out those points, each of the three
developments—the domestic-only legislation, the European
obligation and the possible gold-plating of a European
obligation—have their root in decisions that the present
Government made. Had a change of Government not taken place in
1997, none of those measures need have been implemented. None of
the costs need have been imposed on business. Perhaps that would
have been far better, but that is a matter for the substance of
the debate.
Although previous legislation is not under consideration in
this Committee, except by implication, some evidence suggests
that things are not going quite so well as the Government
intended. I and several of my hon. Friends said on Second Reading
that we were worried not only about what was said—the
slogans and pledges that the Government had introduced—but
about the perhaps genuinely unintended consequences for business
of what had already been put in place. For example, as the
Minister will perhaps confirm, the minimum wage regulations will
not come into being until later, when we shall consider them in
another context. However, it is already clear that au pairs, for
example, present a problem in relation to the national minimum
wage. Certainly, that needs to be clarified, and I await the
Minister of State's clarification. There is a problem under the
working time directive, which is not a social chapter—
|
