Standing Committee E
Tuesday 2 March 1999
(Morning)
[Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody in the Chair]
10.30 am
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and
Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): I beg to move,
That the remainder of the Bill be considered in the following order:
Clauses 17 to 26, Schedule 4, Clause 15, Clause 1, Schedule 1,
Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clauses 3 to 7, Clauses 27 to 35, Schedule 5,
Clauses 36 to 38, new Clauses, new Schedules.
The purpose of the amendment is to postpone our
consideration of clause 15, which deals with the dismissal
of striking workers, to allow time for members of the
Committee to study properly the Government's
amendments that were tabled late on Friday, which would
replace clause 15 with a new clause and schedule. The
amended order of consideration would place the
amendments to clause 15 after clause 26 and schedule 4 that
deal with the certification officer and before the recognition
procedure in clause 1 and schedule 1. I hope that the change
is acceptable to the Committee.
Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry): Mrs. Dunwoody, you of
all people will remember the quotation from Hamlet
indeed, the entire play is described sometimes as a
quotation when he wished
"Oh! that this too too solid flesh would melt".
As I gazed upon the expanse of clause 15, my wishes
were fulfilled dramatically because the Minister of State
took it away and we now have an order of reconsideration
that will enable it to be considered later.
To put the Minister's mind at rest, I wish to say that
we shall not object to the motion. However, he gave no
material explanation of why it was tabled. If he is genuine
in his wish to assist the Committee, as I think he is, it
would be useful given that clause 15 in its pristine state
and the new clause and schedule that will replace it are
somewhat opaque if he could spare a little time to
explain exactly to the Committee, if not by word then by
letter, the material effects of the change. We shall
examine the matter with our advisers to see if we can
make head or tail of the changes but, given that we are
doing our best to approach the Bill in a business-like
manner and make it as effective as it can be within the
context of the Government's policy, we should appreciate
some elucidation.
This is the second reordering motion that has been
tabled since the Committee began. Such motions are
becoming a way of life. I do not know whether that is
how the Minister of state regards himself as fulfilling the
requirements of greater productivity. If he is concerned
about the number of reordering motions, he is an absolute
stakhanovite and he had better be made a hero of the
Soviet Union. I am sure that he is seeking advice on the
precedents set by Conservative Ministers who have
occasionally redrafted Bills. However, it is a little difficult
for members of the Committee and for those who advise
and support us in such matters the unseen heroes of the
proceedings to know exactly what is going on if,
whenever we reach the last days of discussing the Bill,
the whole thing disappears "just like that" , as Max Miller
would have said, and we end up doing something else.
We do not want to approach our proceedings in the
spirit of faction and, with those mild jokes at the
Minister's expense and with those warning shots, I
commend the motion to the Committee.
Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman tries to trick me;
he and his hon. Friends wanted me to give them additional
time and opportunity, and I have done that. I am quite
happy to make such an amendment; indeed, I am entitled
to do so. However, at our first sitting I gave the hon.
Gentleman an assurance that I would be absolutely
flexible, because I wanted to ensure that no one left the
Committee feeling that they had not had the chance to
debate the legislation or to prod me on it as the Minister
responsible for the Bill. I do not want hon. Members to
be able to say that they have not had an opportunity to
discuss the Bill in detail. I propose the change to assist
the hon. Gentleman, not to assist the Government.
There is no change of substance. The new clause and
new schedule set out how we intend to deal with unfair
dismissal its prevention, remedies for it and a way of
persuading employers and employees who are in
industrial dispute to try to resolve their disputes fairly and
effectively. There is no difference in substance between
the new clause and clause 15. The only change is in how
to achieve what we want a change that is helpful to the
Committee. I can add nothing to what is on the order
paper. However, I shall be happy to engage in debate with
the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members when we
come to the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the remainder of the Bill be considered in the following
order: Clauses 17 to 26, Schedule 4, Clause 15, Clause 1, Schedule
1, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clauses 3 to 7, Clause 16, 16, Clauses 27
to 35, Schedule 5, Clauses 36 to 38, new Clauses, new Schedules
[Mr. Ian McCartney.]
Clause 17
Agreement to exclude dismissal rights
Mr. Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 109, in
page 10, line 24, at end insert
`Provided that in the event that such a fixed-term contract is not
renewed, there shall be no unfair dismissal solely on the basis that
the fixed-term worker was selected for dismissal or redundancy
without there having been included in the process of selection
employees not on fixed-term contracts.'.
We now come back to the business of the Committee.
The amendment deals with a complex and important
matter. I acknowledge that both sides wish to be fair to
part-time workers, particularly to workers on fixed-term
contracts, of whatever status. The numbers are substantial.
There are about 6.5 million part-time workers and the
number of those on fixed-term contracts is 850,000. They
are an important part of the industrial scene, and we want
to preserve a degree of fairness in the way in which they
are treated.
The Minister will no doubt want to refer the Committee
to the work that has been done, in terms of the social
contract and the agreement between those that we must
now learn to call social partners both sides of industry.
Doubtless, he will wish also to say that he has the broad
understanding of the Confederation of British Industry,
although perhaps only qualified rapture from some of the
small business organisations for what he proposes.
I have already declared an interest, as I have one full-time
employee. However, my family still has a farming
operation, which inevitably has seasonal peaks and troughs
so, from time to time, we make use of part-time
employment. Oddly enough, circumstances this week have
come together to allow me to make a number of points that
are entirely germane to our consideration of the Bill as a
whole, though not, I confess, Mrs. Dunwoody apart from
my declaration of interest to the amendment.
My full-time employee has, with my full knowledge
and consent, had to take off such time as he needs for a
domestic incident the sad death of his mother-in-law. I
said, "Of course you must go" . However, we have
livestock to feed, so we have arranged for a retired
employee, who already does part-time relief work, to slot
in to relieve the full-time worker. I have no complaints
about that. Indeed, it takes place under the existing
employment regime. However, I thought that I should
mention it because it is an example of the entirely normal
and proper arrangements that already exist.
Clause 17 deals with fixed-term contracts. It is clear
from the White Paper, the explanatory notes and the rather
bare text of the clause that the Government do not want
fixed-term contracts to be subject to artificial
arrangements that strike out their commonsense,
comparable rights. Although we do not want to challenge
that intention, the amendment is designed to probe what
will be included. The Minister will remind the Committee
that the provision will exclude the arrangements that
applied in the past for workers on fixed-term contracts to
waive their rights to unfair dismissal compensation. I am
not sure whether that is necessary solely because the
Government are reducing the qualifying period for
employment rights to one year or whether they have
another agenda. The explanatory notes contain a reference
to several other elements such as health and safety.
Perhaps the Minister will clarify my rather confused
thinking on that matter.
With this amendment in particular, we have a good
point to make in relation to what constitutes unfair
dismissal. We are trying to flag up the case of a group of
people working on fixed-term contracts with another
group of full-time employees who are not on such
contracts, and who are, presumably, fully able to avail
themselves of their employment rights in relation to unfair
dismissal. The narrow amendment would prescribe that it
was not unfair to consider the dismissal, if that be the
appropriate term, of people whose fixed-term contracts
are about to expire. It would not be necessary or
necessarily appropriate to treat them exactly as on all
fours with the entire population of workers, including the
majority who are not on a fixed-term contract the
proportions could be the other way around, although that
is unlikely to be the case.
It is not inherently wrong or stupid for an employer of
a full-time work force and of some people on fixed-term,
contracts, perhaps because he is gearing up to complete a
particular job, such as the completion of a major
construction contract, to argue, possibly indeed quite
probably with the agreement of local unions, that as
those jobs run out, it is sensible to consider not renewing
the fixed-term contracts before becoming involved in the
dismissal of staff across the piece. We are trying to flag up
that concern and to ascertain whether that process might
unwittingly fall foul of the clause as drafted.
For the avoidance of doubt, I should say that I am
aware that the Government, having consulted on the
matter, do not propose to extend redundancy rights to
workers on fixed-term contracts. They are right not to do
so, because it would compound some of the difficulties.
By definition, if you were to accept a fixed-term contract,
Mrs. Dunwoody, you would not expect to benefit from
the full battery of redundancy rights at the end of that
contract. Redundancy rights relate to frustrated
opportunities and to a reasonable presumption of
continuing employment. I understand the argument that
unfair dismissal may constitute a different category, and
therefore ask the Minister to speak a little more in general
about why the provision is required and how it kicks in
with the other provisions.
|
