House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 Nov 1992

Column 248

competitiveness. It failed to do that. The mood of the House is clear : these matters will be dealt with in detail in Committee. I take very seriously a financial point which has been made a number of times in a lighthearted manner. It is time that we had payment by results around here--including payment by results for Ministers. I am glad to see that they are not to take a pay rise this year--indeed, it is time for a pay cut. That would introduce TQM--total quality management--in style on the Government Front Bench. 10.22 pm

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : Having listened to much of our proceedings today, I regard the Bill as a thoroughly sound measure. I am therefore happy to support the money resolution. The opinion of the House as a whole was also manifestly in favour of the Bill, as the result of the Division reflected a majority far greater than the Government's actual majority.

My constituents are economical by nature, as am I. The fact remains, however, that they do not begrudge expenditure on worthy causes. Who can describe it as other than worthy to secure the provision of careers services, as the money resolution requests? Which Conservative Member--and which of the saner members of the public--would begrudge money spent on protection against unlawful industrial action? We should have had that years ago. I am happy to support the money resolution.

10.23 pm

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : I am pleased to discover that, rather than money resolutions going through on the nod, we are now to have genuine debates on them. I am grateful to my hon. Friends, a number of whom wish to speak, and to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett- Bowman). I hope that my information that this is the latest that the hon. Lady has been in the Chamber for more than 10 years is not true, and that she will be here regularly in future.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) to make a manifestly untrue statement? I am frequently in the House at 6 am ; I am frequently here until late.

Mr. Cryer : I said that I hoped that it was not true. I hope that the hon. Lady will be here to take part in debates on money resolutions again and again. I welcome the fact that she is here. I find it extraordinary that she should take exception to my defence of her attendance record.

Why do we need a money resolution when, according to the Bill, it is estimated that it will give rise to an overall net saving in public funds? Paragraph (a) of the money resolution provides for the authorisation of

"any expenditure of the Secretary of State in securing the provision of careers services".

Yet the explanatory and financial memorandum states :

"There will be no overall change in the forecast level of central government expenditure funding for careers services by reason of the new arrangement which may be established by virtue of clause 33." Why, therefore, is there a need for paragraph (a)?

Paragraph (b) refers to

Column 249

"any sum payable by the Secretary of State to or in respect of the Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action". According to the financial memorandum in the Bill, that amounts to £300,000. I shall come to that in a moment.

Paragraph (c) refers to

"any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act."

The financial memorandum makes clear that there will be expenditure of £600,000 by the Department of Employment and the Scottish and Welsh Offices.

According to the Minister, the cost of the extension of the work of industrial tribunals is estimated at £1.5 million in a full year. The additional costs for the certification officer and the new commissioner will be £300,000. Together with the £600,000 for the increase in the careers services, the total expenditure is estimated at £2.4 million, but the income claimed in the financial memorandum is £2.8 million through the wretched, nasty, vicious abolition of wages councils. The Minister is giggling about it all, but that gives a net income to the Department of £400,000. Why, therefore, do the Government need a money resolution? The reason is that the Government have allowed for large increases over and above the estimates in the paragraphs dealing with the financial effects of the Bill. The £300,000 allocated for the new investigatory functions of the certification officer and the activities of the new commissioner is a paltry sum. A function of the certification officer will be to investigate financial malpractices in trade unions, of which there is very little evidence. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the sum is small because the Government do not expect to find any financial malpractice. When the Government were considering that function, why did they not apply the same criteria to the City, and particularly to Lloyd's insurance market? There is no legislation before us which offers to trawl over the board rooms and the accounts of the big businesses which back the Tory party. Instead, the Government are spending taxpayers' money in an area where there is very little evidence of financial malpractice.

In addition, the new commissioner is to be covered by the self-same £300,000. He will decide whether High Court or Court of Session actions will be financed. On that basis, I should have thought that £300,000 was a very small sum. The one closed shop that the Government do not oppose is the lawyers' closed shop. The Minister knows full well that that closed shop can run away with hundreds of thousands of pounds in a matter of days. The complicated libel actions and breach of contract actions which take place in our courts can result in costs of £100,000 and £200,000. The Bill specifically requires the new commissioner to deal with cases where, because of their complexity, an individual cannot take them any further. Therefore, I wonder whether £300,000 is adequate since the Government will use taxpayers' money to bolster up complaints about trade unions and send them into the courts. At the same time, the Government are going to cut legal aid when people seek redress in the courts for ordinary purposes, including criminal actions. That reveals a scandalous set of double standards.

The paragraphs relating to the financial effects of the Bill refer to a figure of £1.5 million in respect of complaints to industrial tribunals. Those complaints are being enlarged to include challenges to terms of collective

Column 250

agreements, breaches of contracts of employment, sex discrimination cases, suspension disputes over maternity leave and remuneration, and employment protection in health and safety at work cases. Opposition Members support the view that we should protect people who raise health and safety issues at work, but that is a very minor part of a generally very bad Bill. Will the £1.5 million referred to in the Bill and the power in the money resolution be sufficient? My next point relates to the savings claimed from the abolition of the wages councils which protect the lowest paid people in the country. The Minister cannot justify their abolition by claiming that it will create more jobs. When the Minister was asked a parliamentary question about that, he was unable to quantify the number of jobs that would be saved as a result of the abolition of wages councils. The Government claim that they will save £2.8 million. Is that figure accurate? If it is accurate, the Government do not need the money resolution. The Minister has replied to questions about the costs of the wages councils and the Government claim that their abolition will save £2.8 million. However, there were only 55 wages inspectors in post on 2 November--down nearly 20 on the correct number. Is the Government's calculation of the savings based on the wages councils in full operation or on actual expenditure? The Minister has also said that one third of wages council employees are paid at, or just above, minimum rates, so they receive relatively low pay. As there were only 55 wages inspectors, and presumably only a small support staff, does that add up to £2.8 million? If it does, the Minister must explain how he reaches that figure. If the figures add up to £2.8 million, the Government do not need the money resolution.

There was a shabby parade of Tory Members through the Lobby to attack the lowest paid by abolishing the wages councils when most of those Tory Members are moonlighting and have six, eight or 10 other jobs which pay more than their parliamentary salaries. That is an absolute and utter disgrace.

10.33 pm

Mr. John Hutton (Barrow and Furness) : I wish to raise two points in relation to the money resolution. Both relate to legal aid. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has already referred to legal aid, but Ministers have not referred to the availability of legal aid to cover the new extended jurisdiction of the industrial tribunals. I am sure that I do not have to remind the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues that legal aid attaches to breach of contract actions brought in the county courts and in the High Court.

The Government propose today to extend the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals to include those breach of contract actions, and I fully support that. It makes much sense for the industrial tribunals to have that new jurisdiction, but will the £1.5 million referred to in the Bill cover the provision of legal aid in breach of contract actions which will now be brought before industrial tribunals? That is a very important point.

If the Government are saying that legal aid will not apply to new breach of contract actions brought before the industrial tribunals, we are witnessing yet another cut in

Column 251

the legal aid budget, which is under severe pressure. We know that the Lord Chancellor is trying to reduce the volume of legal aid. If legal aid will not apply, members of the public and of the House will be interested to hear what the Government's true intentions are. That is an important issue. Legal aid should be available for such actions. It is available in the county court and the High Court, and it should be available once such actions are brought before industrial tribunals.

Secondly, the Government propose to spend at least £300,000 of taxpayers' money to support the activities of the so-called commissioner for protection against unlawful industrial action. My view, and that of many of my hon. Friends, is that the commissioner is for the provision of

Column 252

vexatious litigation. Given the financial circumstances facing the Government--excessive borrowing, the public sector borrowing requirement, and so on--and the financial constraints on the legal aid budget, I wonder whether it is appropriate for them to propose to spend money which could be better spent on legal aid elsewhere, such as on civil legal aid, which is under severe pressure, on promoting silly claims which will cost taxpayers money that they can ill afford to lose.

I hope that the Minister will be able to respond, especially to my questions about legal aid and breach of contract actions, which is an important issue of practice and principle. I know that many people who are concerned with that field will be interested in his response.

Column 253

10.35 pm

Mr. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) : I join my hon. Friends to question some of the financial estimates that the Government have produced in relation to the Bill.

The part of the Bill which has been least discussed today is the provision on the careers service. In the section entitled, "Financial effects of the Bill", it states :

"There will be no overall change in the forecast level of central government expenditure funding for careers services by reason of the new arrangements which may be established by virtue of clause 33. In fully implementing the legislation, a small increase in resources (£0.6 million) will be required by the Department of Employment and the Scottish and Welsh Offices."

I do not think that we should be confused about the new arrangements for the careers service. When one reads the Bill, it is clear that we are talking about privatisation.

This seems to be the night for hon. Members to declare their interests, so I shall declare mine. Before I came to this place, I worked as a trade unionist in the public services and the public sector. Sadly, I endured a range of privatisation experiments and I have yet to come across one which has not cost the Exchequer far more than it has saved, whether in monitoring arrangements put out to contract, or in wholesale privatisation. Nothing said by Ministers tonight dissuades me from the belief that the privatisation of the careers service, as envisaged by the Government in the Bill, will cost the Exchequer more than the £0.6 million estimated.

The provisions relating to the rights of pregnant women at work seem to have been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but the Government's financial estimate of their cost seems to have gone astray. We know that when the issue was discussed in Brussels, the British Government moved heaven and earth to water down the directive. Having succeeded in doing so, they could not even bring themselves to vote for it in the Council of Ministers. They went all the way to Brussels just to abstain. As we are discussing money, I wonder whether it was worth the air fare to go to Brussels to abstain on a directive that they had watered down more than it needed to be. That directive was passed and, as a result, women in Britain and elsewhere will be entitled to paid maternity leave, irrespective of service. Or will they? This is where the financial implications come in. They will probably not be, because the proposed abolition of wages councils will inevitably take many women employees below the lower earnings limit of £54. More than 20 per cent. of working women--76,600 women--already receive pay of less than that figure. The abolition of wages councils will inevitably increase that figure, and the result of that will either be to reduce income to the Exchequer or mean more women turning to the social security system to make up their income. That, in turn, begins to undermine the estimated £2.8 million saving from abolishing wages councils.

Although working women will suffer in the main, many others will be affected. In my region of the midlands, it is estimated that about 270,000 employees will be affected by the abolition of wages councils. That represents about one in every 10 households. In other words, the crazy part of what the Government propose is that by attacking the pay of the already low paid, the recession will be prolonged and income to the Exchequer will be reduced. A pay cut of

Column 254

just 20p per hour in wages council industries means £10 million per week being removed from the purchasing power of the low paid, and--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : Order. The hon. Member is getting wide of the subject. Indeed, he is making a Second Reading speech. He must speak to the money resolution.

Mr. Burden : I apologise for digressing, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In their estimates of the cost of the Bill, the Government have been highly selective in what they have chosen to include and exclude. We were told last week, when discussing the Department of Social Security's budget, that benefits would be index linked. I question the willingness of the Government to do that if, as a result of the effects of this measure, with the abolition of wages councils, the income--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Member really must address his remarks to the money resolution.

Mr. Burden : My remarks are linked to the resolution, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the provision to which I referred at the outset deals specifically with the consequential effects of the Bill on the budgets of other Departments. That is the point that I was about to make.

I shall not delay the House any longer, however, save to say that when the balance sheet is finally worked out it will show that the Bill has cost the Government money and has cost the low paid both money and rights. When, in due course, my hon. Friends and I show that to have happened, I hope that Conservative Members will have the honesty and dignity to accept that we were right and that they were wrong.

10.42 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, for Employment (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin) : We have had an interesting debate on the moneyresolution, although it was perhaps somewhat unusual bearing in mind the way in which the hon. Member for Bradford, North chose to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), saying that somehow--

Mr. Cryer : The Minister might get my constituency right.

Mr. McLoughlin : The hon. Gentleman has represented nearly everywhere, so from the point of getting his constituency right--

Mr. Cryer : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you agree that it is important for hon. Members to get the names of constituencies right, thus enabling the Official Report to identify the Members in question? The fact that the Minister is here so rarely does not excuse him from giving the correct constituencies.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. While that is not a point of order for the Chair, it is helpful if hon. Members get the names of constituencies right.

Mr. McLoughlin : That is a very wise ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will appreciate that we have a problem in that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has represented many constituencies both here

Column 255

and in the European Parliament. To say that Members of Parliament should not moonlight when for two years the hon. Gentleman was doing two jobs--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I am at a loss to understand what that has to do with the money resolution.

Mr. McLoughlin : I am, of course, guided by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was making the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South in attacking my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster. The resolution provides authority for the provision, out of money provided by Parliament, of any public expenditure that may arise as a result of clause 33, which deals with the provisions for the careers service, clause 19, which makes provision for the new commissioner for protection against unlawful industrial action, and to grant assistance to individuals contemplating or taking proceedings against trade unions under the new right established by that clause, and for any additional public expenditure which may arise as a result of the other clauses in the Bill. That includes the expenditure arising from clause 8, which provides new investigatory powers for the certification officer and for the various clauses in parts I and II of the Bill which will extend and create new grounds for complaints to industrial tribunals.

It may be helpful if I explain that clause 33 of the Bill provides for the management of the careers service to be opened up so that it can be run in a variety of ways and be more responsive to the demands of local economic and education communities. It achieves that by placing a duty on the relevant Secretaries of State to ensure that careers advice is provided throughout Great Britain. That would be a tremendous advance for the careers service and not a diminution of it, as Opposition Members suggest. It is not our intention to diminish the careers service. Our intention is to secure more widespread availability of careers advice to the public in general.

The new provisions which may be established as a result of clause 33 will not lead to any overall change in the

Column 256

forecast level of central Government funding of the careers service. However, a small increase in resources--an estimated £600, 000--is needed to cover the administration costs of my Department and the Scottish and Welsh Offices in implementing the legislation. Clause 19 will enable an individual citizen deprived of goods and services because of unlawful organisation of industrial action to go to court to stop that happening. The citizen will also be able to apply for material assistance for the court proceedings. There will also be a new independent commissioner for protection against unlawful industrial action- -something which the Opposition will undoubtedly oppose, as we have seen today. We believe in increasing, not diminishing, the rights of individuals.

Several of the clauses in parts I and II of the Bill create new and enhanced individual rights, the enforcement of which will be effected by providing extended grounds for complaints to industrial tribunals. Following any such application to an industrial tribunal, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service will offer its conciliation services to both parties. The principal additional costs which will arise from those proposals will be those of the industrial tribunals in dealing with complaints under the new rights, and the corresponding increase in the workload of ACAS.

It is believed that, overall, the Bill will bring savings, as several hon. Members on both sides of the House have said. I commend the resolution to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of--

(a) any expenditure of the Secretary of State in securing the provision of careers services,

(b) any sum payable by the Secretary of State to or in respect of the Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action, and

Column 257

Ways and Means

CAR TAX

Motion made, and Question proposed,

Car tax (abolition) That the following provisions shall have effect--

Abolition : the basic rule 1. In section 1 of the Car Tax Act 1983 (charge to tax) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2)--

"(2A) Where (apart from this subsection) car tax on a vehicle would become due on or after 13th November 1992, it shall not become due and shall be deemed never to have been charged."

Consequential amendments 2.--(1) The Car Tax Act 1983 shall also be amended as follows.

(2) In section 4 (registration of makers and importers) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)-- "(1A) Subsection (1) above--

(a) shall not make a person liable to be registered by reference to anything done in a calendar year falling after 1992 ;

(b) shall not make a person liable to be registered by reference to vehicles made or imported in 1992, unless he makes or imports not less than ten chargeable vehicles before 13th November 1992." (3) In that section the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3)--

"(3A) Without prejudice to subsection (3) above, the Commissioners shall cancel the registration of any person when they are satisfied that all tax due from him has been accounted for."

(4) In section 6 (converted and adapted vehicles) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (6)

"(7) No direction may be given under subsection (4) above on or after 13th November 1992 except in relation to vehicles whose conversion or adaptation was completed before that date.

(8) Where a person is registered in pursuance of subsection (5) above, the Commissioners shall cancel his registration when they are satisfied that all tax due from him has been accounted for." (5) In Schedule 1 (administration and collection) in paragraph 5 (records, accounts and returns) the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (1)--

"(1A) The duties under sub-paragraph (1) above, except so far as arising by virtue of section 27(3) of the Finance Act 1989 (certificates), shall be limited as follows--

(a) the duty under paragraph (a) shall apply only to records and accounts relating to tax which has become due and vehicles on which tax has become due ;

(b) the duty under paragraph (b) shall apply only to records and accounts relating to vehicles on which tax has become due ; (

(c) the duty under paragraph (c), so far as relating to returns of vehicles, shall apply only to returns of vehicles on which tax has become due."

(6) In paragraph 5(2) of that Schedule after "tax" there shall be inserted "due".

(7) In paragraph 6 of that Schedule (information) the following sub- paragraphs shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (2)-- "(3) The duties under sub-paragraph (1) above shall apply only to information and documents relating to vehicles on which tax has become due.

(4) Sub-paragraph (2) above shall not apply where the conversion is completed on or after 13th November 1992."

(8) In paragraph 7 of that Schedule (entry and search) the following sub- paragraph shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (2)--

Column 258

"(2A) The powers under sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above shall be exercisable only for the purpose of ascertaining whether tax is due and, if so, the amount of the tax."

(9) In paragraph 8(3)(b) of that Schedule (offences) after "tax" there shall be inserted "payable".

(10) In paragraph 12 of that Scheudle (regulations) the following shall be inserted at the end--

"Any duty imposed by regulations under paragraph (c) or (d) above shall apply only where the vehicles are vehicles on which tax has become due."

(11) Paragraph 13 of that Schedule (protection of car tax through vehicles excise system) shall be omitted.

Special cases 3. The Car Tax Act 1983 shall also be amended by inserting the following section after section 7--

"Abolition : special cases 7A.--(1) This section applies where (apart from this section) car tax on a vehicle would have become due before 13th November 1992.

(2) In a case where--

(a) the tax would have become due at a time mentioned in section 5(2)(b) above, and

(b) the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) below are satisfied,

the tax shall be deemed not to have become due and never to have been charged.

(3) The conditions referred to in subsection (2) above are that-- (

(a) the tax would have become due because an offer to sell the vehicle was made by the person to whom it was delivered as mentioned in section 5(2)(b) above and was accepted, or because an offer to purchase the vehicle was made to that person and was accepted, (

(b) at the end of 12th November 1992 no sales invoice had been issued in respect of the vehicle by that person,

Next Section

Home Page