Standing Committee E
Thursday 25 February 1999
[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]
2.30 pm
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): On a point of order, Mr. Atkinson. I wonder whether you, or the Committee, has yet been given a copy of draft regulations on the matters covered by the Bill.
Many members, on both sides of the Committee, were members of the Committee that considered the National Minimum Wage Bill, which also relied on much regulation. That Committee was given many assurances by Ministers that we would have the regulations in good time, that we would be consulted on them, and that people would be able to see them. I have today been called to sit on the Committee that will consider those minimum wage regulations. I have them here, Mr. Atkinson, and I am sure that you can see that they are about half an inch thick. They are to be debated on 3 March and will come into force on 1 April, less than a month afterwards. Is that how Parliament is to be dealt with?
Before we go any further with this Bill, should we not have a copy of the regulations?
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair. The documents produced for a Committee are the responsibility of the Government. No doubt the Minister has heard the hon. Gentleman's comments.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Further to that point of order, Mr. Atkinson. I seek your guidance. Although, in the light of what the Minister of State so helpfully said the other day, I am less worried about the likely timetable for consultation on the regulations, I am concerned to discover whether we shall see the regulations soon, or get a hint of them.
I wonder whether you have been given any indication by the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, whom we are delighted to see in his place, that he intends to say anything about those matters during our proceedings on the Bill?
The Chairman: Again, that is not a matter for the Chair.
Schedule 3
Leave for Family and Domestic Reasons
Amendment proposed [23 February]: No. 60, in page 51, line 5, leave out `may' and insert `shall'.—[Mr. Chidgey.]
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 61, in page 51, line 14, leave out `may' and insert `shall'.
No. 62, in page 1, line 21, leave out `may' and insert `shall'.
No. 63, in page 51 line 22, leave out first `may' and insert `shall'.
No. 65, in page 51, line 23, at end insert—
`, such consent not being unreasonably withheld.'.
No. 64, in page 51, line 24, leave out `may' and insert `shall'.
No. 41, in page 51, leave out lines 25 to 27.
No. 42,in page 51, line 30, after first `leave', insert `(excluding additional maternity leave)'.
I call the Minister of State.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): Thank you, Mr. Atkinson. May I tell the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) that the regulations make excellent reading; they are not half as thick as some of the questions that he asks me.
I fulfilled the commitments and promises that I gave to the Committee when it was considering the National Minimum Wage Bill, including, when I thought it appropriate, calling in the lead spokespersons from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties to consider amendments to the Bill. I made no promises to that Committee that I have not fulfilled. I look forwrd to debating the regulations in Committee with the hon. Member for South Dorset.
The amendments have, I believe, been tabled for two reasons—first, to ensure that I give as much explanation as I can; and , secondly, in respect of the decisions that may be taken during or after a pregnancy if maternity leave has been taken.
I hope to be able, not in a leisurely way, to give the Committee some helpful information, after which I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Amendment No. 60 was moved by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). I wish to reassure the hon. Gentleman that dismissal, including selection for redundancy, for reasons connected with parental leave will automatically be unfair under the Bill. However, we recognise that clarification may be required in relation to redundancies or dismissals that occur during a period of parental leave, but that are not connected to parental leave.
Provided that they act fairly, employers will be free to dismiss employees, for example for reasons of misconduct, or because they are redundant, while they are on parental leave, just as they would be free to do so in appropriate circumstances at any other time. We shall make that clear in the regulations.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McCartney: I shall go against my better judgment and sit down for a few moments.
Mr. Bruce: The Minister has, rightly, said that those matters will be made clear in the regulations, but will he assure us that we shall have proper sight of them? More important, will the poor employers and employees see them in good time, so that they will know what they are supposed to do?
Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is becoming tedious. How can I provide draft regulations when the Bill has not yet passed through the House? The House has a responsibility to pass the Bill; the regulations will then be drafted in the context of the Bill. From the beginning of our proceedings in Committee, I have gone out of my way to set out my intended time scale and processes. If he does not interrupt me too many times, later today I shall move amendments to ensure that those matters are dealt with through positive, rather than negative, resolution. I am meeting all hon. Members' anxieties to ensure that the process of developing the regulations will be open and transparent, involving social partners and hon. Members. All comments made in Committee will form part of that consultation process. The Government will produce the regulations so as to allow ample opportunity for consideration and a preparation period in which to implement them.
Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh): As the proposer of most of the amendments, I should like to ask a question, although I do not do so provocatively. One of our root anxieties relates to the idea that the regulations may contain a list—and, by definition, may not. We are worried that the Secretary of State may over time introduce additional regulations. Will the Minister assure us that the regulations will be complete and will not be expected to change over time, which would confuse employers? That is the crux of the issue. We need a watertight set of principles to which employers can safely work.
Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman has put up an Aunt Sally, only to knock it down. It is silly beyond belief to suggest that we would produce a confusing regulatory regime that does not comply with the Bill. He makes heavy weather of the matter. If all parties in the House agree about the benefits of parental and maternity leave, we have a common purpose in our job of proceeding with the Bill and establishing a regulatory regime that will empower the principles set out in it. When discussing the first group of amendments, I stressed that we shall make that clear in relation to redundancies and dismissals—not we may, we shall. That is five times that I have told him in the past five minutes. I hope that it has sunk in.
In front of me is a phrase that now seems silly to read, after what I have said. Nevertheless, as my brief says, I am aware of the anxiety of the hon. Member for Eastleigh that the regulations should provide the option for parental leave to be taken on a part-time basis over a period of time, and that such an arrangement should be workable and beneficial to both employers and employees. We have already agreed that the Government would like the parental leave scheme to be flexible enough to meet the needs of individuals and their employers. We shall encourage such an approach through the code of practice on part-time work, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will issue under the powers in clause 19. Should the hon. Member for Eastleigh want to return to that when we discuss clause 19, he will have an opportunity to do so.
We need to consult on whether the benefits of providing for parental leave to be taken on a part-time basis in a statutory scheme outweigh the complexity, given the opportunity to reach a different agreement in the workplace. We are clear that, whatever the statutory arrangements, employers and employees will be able to agree on more flexible arrangements such as part-time working through collective or work-force agreements.
We are agreed that business needs must be balanced against the needs of the employee. The consultation process on the draft regulations will ensure as much consensus as possible on how to achieve that.
I appreciate what is behind amendment No. 41, but I shall explain why the Bill contains the provision that would be removed if it were accepted. The parental leave directive states that, to promote equal opportunities, the parental leave entitlement should, in principle, be granted on a non-transferable basis. The Government fully endorse that approach. If we provided for leave to be transferred at will, it would be likely that women would take it, but that men would not.
We want to encourage equal opportunities and a culture in the workplace in which it is normal and acceptable for men to take leave to care for their children. We have included the provision because under the parental leave directive, it is clearly envisaged that that is right in exceptional circumstances; otherwise it would simply have been banned.
I am not sure what would happen if one parent were chronically sick and could not take advantage of parental leave, or whether the ability to transfer entitlement would be in the best interests of children with disabilities. However, under the provision, we can consult on whether certain cases merit its use. Therefore, social partners will have an opportunity during the consultation process to tell the Government whether they think it worthwhile to introduce such a measure.
If I were to agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh neither I nor the social partners would have such an opportunity. If, during our extensive consultation on the draft regulations, we were told of an especially hard case where, in limited circumstances, it was plainly right for the leave entitlement to be transferred, we could do nothing about it under the amendment. That door would have been shut.
I suggest, in a spirit of conciliation, that we must consult on such matters to ensure that we can improve the lot of someone who is in especially difficult circumstances. Therefore, amendment No. 41 should not be accepted.
I cannot accept amendment No. 42, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). It would affect women who wanted to add their parental leave entitlement to the end of the longer period of additional maternity leave, giving them a total of about nine months at home after the birth. It would mean that they had no right to return to their jobs.
I believe that the amendment is misconceived, but I understand the reason why it was tabled. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is probing. He should not take what I say as a personal criticism. The assumption in the amendment is that employers would prefer women to take their leave later rather than sooner. I am not sure that generalisation can be justified. Some employers would prefer all the leave to be taken in one go, so that they can hire a single replacement for the whole period. In practice, employers are likely to have made arrangements to cope with a six month absence, and they can often cover for an additional three months if necessary.
There is a misunderstanding about what women are likely to do. In practice, most women will not choose to take parental leave directly after additional maternity leave. The amendment would breach the requirements of the parental leave directive that safeguard employees' jobs. I hope that I have convinced the Committee of my and the Government's good intentions and that the amendment will be withdrawn.
| 
