House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Dec 1993

Mr. Rowe : Is my hon. Friend aware of recent research which shows that a surprising number of employees of a whole variety of ages--not just the older employees--would, if given the opportunity, trade hours for pay? In other words, some of them would be prepared to work fewer hours a week if their employers gave them that opportunity. Does my hon. Friend accept that that may be a contributory cause to absenteeism and sickness? Does not that provide a window of opportunity to get people into work and off the unemployment queue?

Column 1138

Mr. Spring : My hon. Friend has made a very important point. Flexibility in the way in which we operate our employment market is important. Flexibility is one of the reasons why we have been so successful as a nation at reducing unemployment in comparison with other countries in the European Union. I value the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe).

When considering management, we must ask why Japanese companies operating in the United Kingdom are so successful at raising productivity levels and reducing absenteeism. Their productivity is reflected in lack of absenteeism. They have 2.3 per cent. absenteeism, as opposed to the national average of more than 4 per cent. That has not come about as a result of coercion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) referred to the Audit Commission study of London boroughs which was undertaken in 1990. The Audit Commission enunciated five principles based on good management practice which included appropriate information, suitably trained managers, attention to staff welfare, clear responsibilities and commitment by senior management. Absenteeism was running at two and a half times the national norm. However, as a result of the Audit Commission study, there has been a substantial decline in absenteeism as a result of the actions of management. That is an important part of the equation and it is an important element in the philosophy behind the Bill. Management should take responsibility for their employees, including for sickness and days off through absenteeism.

Motivation to make people a part of a team and an enterprise and to feel that they want to be at work and not absent is a clear objective of all good management. It has also been said that 90 per cent. of employees in this country are covered by occupational pension schemes for short-term sickness. Therefore, employers have a significant role to play.

Several hon. Members referred to the difficulties facing small businesses. I fully understand that point. The Federation of Small Businesses has been critical of the Bill. However, it is only fair to say that the federation and the Confederation of British Industry must consider the issue within the overall context of the Budget. After all, the Bill is a budgetary measure. The federation and the CBI both welcomed the Budget for the exceptional help it has provided for small businesses. I am a vice-chairman of the Small Business Bureau which is very much in touch with, and sympathetic to, small businesses.

It is important to make the point that the Budget offers help with cash flow. There has been a dramatic cut in interest rates over the past year. We have also seen an extension of the loan guarantee scheme and the rollover of capital gains reliefs. In addition the Government are rightly considering the question of prompt payment. Small businesses have been greatly encouraged by that. If they are critical of the Bill, they must consider it within the context of the enormous help that the Government have given the small business sector, which it has accepted unanimously, as a result of the Budget.

It goes without saying that individual employers will depend, with regard to absenteeism, on particular levels of pay and sickness. I want to consider the specific point of small businesses and the challenges that they face in the context of the Bill. We must consider whether this is a cost-saving exercise for the Government.

Column 1139

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to a transfer away from welfare spending. However, a misleading impression has been created that the cost of not reimbursing 80 per cent. of SSP is about £675 million in 1994-95 and £720 million in 1995-96. However, the cut in employers' national insurance contributions is worth £830 million. That is much greater than the change in SSP. It is a saving of £160 million to businesses.

Let us consider the example of a medium-sized company employing staff who earn an average of about £170 a week. It will save £88 a year on national insurance for each employee. If the firm experienced average levels of sickness, it would forgo reimbursement of SSP over the next year of about £44 per employee. That is a gain per employee of £44 a year.

Ms Eagle : Will the hon. Gentleman admit that he is reading directly from the central office brief? Given the information that it provided during the last general election, why should we believe anything in the central office brief?

Mr. Spring : The hon. Lady has made a point on which it is worth reflecting. With regard to what the electorate believe, we know what the electorate did in the last general election and what they will certainly do in the next one. The fact is that reductions in NICs outweigh the higher cost of SSP and improvements in maternity pay which may come about through the EC pregnant workers directive. I want now to consider specifically the small business situation. At present, any employer whose NIC liability is £16,000 or less--with, say, 10 or fewer employees--can recover 100 per cent. of SSP paid to an employee after the first six weeks of sickness. In effect, that means that raising the threshold to £20,000 is way ahead of inflation. Also, the reimbursement period is cut from six weeks to four weeks.

Two thirds of employees--about 750,000--will be helped. That is an increase of 50,000 employees. All small firms with average levels of sickness will benefit overall. To sum up, there will be 100 per cent. reimbursement for small companies with average sickness rates and where absences are in excess of four weeks.

I particularly wish to comment on what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the establishment of the working group which includes Department of Social Security officials, employers and employers' organisations to remove or ease the administrative burdens of the SSP. Its review will be completed in April 1994, as part of the Government's resolute determination to reduce red tape and bureaucracy wherever it is found.

At the heart of the matter is the question : can companies be encouraged to manage absenteeism and sickness better? In the Financial Times of 8 December, Angela Baron, a policy adviser at the Institute of Personnel Management, said :

"The experience of companies that have started monitoring sickness absence is that the very fact that they have started paying attention to it is enough to reduce the absence rates in their companies." That is an extremely important point. In practice, most big companies top up statutory sick pay in different ways.

Column 1140

Some companies have introduced a number of measures and bonus schemes to attempt to reduce absenteeism further.

Iveco Ford in Slough did that. Its absence level of 7 per cent. is now down to 2.8 per cent. In 1986, Vauxhall had sickness absenteeism of 8.8 per cent. Today it is down to 4.5 per cent. That was after the company introduced a negotiated incentive scheme which saved employees £4 a week in contributions to the company's sick pay scheme if average levels of sick pay could be kept below 5 per cent. Rover, a great jewel in the manufacturing crown of this country, introduced a return-to-work interview scheme for staff who were frequently off, and it cut absenteeism by no less than half in the past three years. Those are practical examples of successful management of absenteeism, and they have had an enormous impact on reducing costs to companies. After all, such companies provide employment in this country, and that is partly why companies such as Rover are doing so well capturing markets and are able to provide yet more employment, compared with other companies in Europe.

Can a change in statutory sick pay have even more dramatic effects? There is an extremely interesting example in Sweden. Opposition Members used frequently to cite Sweden as a great example of a model social welfare state. One has only to look at the implosion of the Swedish economy, its rapidly rising unemployment, and the collapse of national morale to see that the social welfare state grew so fast that it literally grew out of control.

Earlier this year, Sweden reformed its sick pay arrangements. For the first time, the payment for an employee for the first two weeks off work had to be borne by the employer. A curious thing happened early in November. The flu vaccine in Sweden ran out, not because of a flu epidemic but because employers saw the wisdom of taking preventative action in the face of a possible epidemic. Swedish companies have taken those steps to try to keep down sick pay costs. No doubt Sweden's soaring unemployment has much to do with that and has played its part, but, in three years, absenteeism has fallen in that country, from three out of 10 workers being on sick pay at any given time to fewer than one in 10 today. That is a remarkable success story of good management which has led to advantageous results for the Swedish economy.

The motivation of people to make the best of their jobs is at the heart of any business enterprise. Of course, motivation is more likely to be in the private sector than in the public sector. It is worth noting that, on average, sickness absence rates are a quarter higher in the public sector than in the private sector.

I particularly welcome the abolition, in April 1995, of the lower rate of SSP. That will be worth £3.70 a week to the lower paid. That harmonisation will remove the time-consuming exercise of establishing whether an employee's average weekly earnings entitle him to the lower or the standard rate of SSP. There will be only one rate, and that will further reduce bureaucracy and administrative burdens. Administration will be cheaper and the system will be easier to understand. Of course, lower- paid employees are less likely to be covered by occupational schemes.

The Bill gives employers an incentive to improve further the health of their staff, while protecting smaller businesses more generously. I very much welcome the Bill.

Column 1141

8.5 pm

Mrs. Bridget Prentice (Lewisham, East) : I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on his use of the word "reverist". It will entitle him to some toys for children in his constituency. I hope that, if I use the word "victrix" in the same way, I will be able to join him in that--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : Order. The hon. Lady was probably not present when Madam Speaker expressed her views about that matter. She was not very happy about such practices in the Chamber. If the hon. Lady would refrain from making such comments, I would be more than grateful.

Mrs. Prentice : I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, I was not present when Madam Speaker made that comment.

The hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) seemed to advocate movement towards a 35-hour week. I was most impressed that Conservative Members were beginning to think that such flexibility in working arrangements might be considered. However, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds implied that nurses, for example, seem to be less well motivated than car workers. He implied that people doing such public service jobs are more likely to be absent, deliberately miss work and generally have no incentive to do the quality of work that we know that they do.

Statutory sick pay is not a giveaway--it is not easily obtained. It is a benefit to be received only if a person is sick or disabled and is unable to work as a result. We obtained the impression from Conservative Members that it is a skivers charter. We also know that people on poverty wages do not even qualify for it.

I should like to think that society is at a stage at which we should be working with employers and employees to enhance the world of work rather than to denigrate it, and that we should not make matters more difficult for employers but give them more help and opportunities to expand their work forces. The essence of the Bill contradicts what the Government say is their policy for business and employers. Indeed, they freely admit that it will cost employers at least £100 million. We have figures to suggest that it will be considerably more than that.

The Confederation of British Industry thinks that the measure is a fundamental breach of the partnership agreement between the state and employers delivering a vital social security benefit. That is what statutory sick pay is about. There is a responsibility on the Government, in favour of the citizens of this country, that they ensure that proper statutory sick pay is available to all. The Bill is really about the Government reneging on that policy and on their responsibility to govern and protect communities and individuals, and to act in a responsible and civilised manner.

Mr. Spring : Is the hon. Lady suggesting that the CBI is opposed overall to the Bill?

Mrs. Prentice : The hon. Gentleman will know that we have disputed the position that the Government have taken with regard to the CBI, which is not at all happy with the Bill. The so-called support from the CBI which we heard about from Government Members is a contorted view of what the CBI believes.

Column 1142

The Secretary of State said in his opening remarks that there was no evidence that the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991-- and, he implied, this Bill--involved discrimination against people who may be off work through illness. I do not know why the Secretary of State has come to that conclusion. At least he does not go as far as the brief from central office, which says that evidence shows that the Labour party got it wrong when in 1991 we predicted increased discrimination. Let me tell hon. Members that citizens advice bureaux totally and absolutely refute the Secretary of State's position. They are extremely concerned that employers will dismiss sick people as a result of the Bill. We know already of many employees who do not receive the full amount of statutory sick pay, and some who do not receive any at all. The CAB gives examples, such as a client in the west midlands who said that his employer's policy is to issue written warnings for certified absence during sickness. In Avon, a client on sick leave was paid less than the full amount and was told by her supervisor after six weeks off sick that she was to be made redundant and that someone was already doing her job. The CAB provides several other examples.

If the Secretary of State believes that people are not discriminated against as result of being ill, he is not in the world of reality and he does not know what life is really like for employees.

The Government also say that they want to increase occupational sick pay schemes, yet both the CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses believe that the abolition of reimbursement will limit the ability of employers to provide occupational sick pay schemes. There, yet again, is a contradiction of the Government's policy. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) talked about the removal of the administrative burden. The Federation of Small Businesses seems to think something quite different. Its says that, despite the fact that the transfer of sick pay will take place, the administrative record-keeping will still have to go on. Firms must still provide sickness records, and all of the paperwork which is attached to them. They will still be expected to deal with self- certification notes, waiting days, periods of incapacity for work calculations and so on. Firms will still be subject also to Department of Social Security inspections. The federation believes that the administrative burden will not be reduced as a result of the Bill.

Mr. Heald : The point that I was making was that the complete removal of the administrative burden for large employers will be of great benefit to them. I accept entirely that, as far as small businesses are concerned, that has not been removed.

I hope that the review body will be able to cut that administrative burden further. The hon. Lady should not think that I said that small businesses would be better off in that particular way--I did not.

Mrs. Prentice : The hon. Gentleman may have attempted to clarify his speech which was delivered in a fog earlier in the evening. He lives in hope that the review body might do something about it. He should recognise, as others have, that every time the Government set up such a review body, our hopes do not triumph over experience. We do not expect a considerable improvement as a result of the review body.

Column 1143

The Conservative party believes itself to be the party of businesses, big and small. Tonight, through the Bill, it has reneged on its commitments to both. It has reneged on its commitments to reimburse employers, as it had promised in prev of little use to them, because most of their work force would have returned to work in a shorter period. It has reneged on its commitment to remove the burden from business.

The Conservative party cannot even get the business organisations to give their whole-hearted support to the Bill. Those of us who believe in a partnership between Government, employers and employees can do no better than to thoroughly oppose the Bill.

8.17 pm

Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East) : I am sorry that I missed part of the speech by the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), because I was out of the Chamber making inquiries. I declare an interest as I am a small employer. I may declare a further interest of a different sort in that I was fortunate to be winner of the Helping Hands award last year from the Federation of Small Businesses.

While I was out of the Chamber, I took the opportunity to check on what was said during the debate on 28 November 1990, when the House debated the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. I noticed that I welcomed the Bill then, and I said that I thought that the interests of small firms should be considered. I shall quote a sentence which I picked out :

"I support the Bill as whole, but I should like to be assured that there will be full consultation before there are any more changes. Those consultations should be with representatives of smaller firms and with industries that are affected by the Bill."--[ Official Report , 28 November 1990 ; Vol. 181, c. 893.]

Of course the Bill went to the other place, where amendments were made, including the removal of what was known as the "Henry VIII clause". The amendment which helps small businesses was introduced in the other place.

I notice that the briefing that has been issued by the Federation of Small Businesses does not entirely welcome the Bill. However, I wonder whether it has picked up on all of the points that the Government have introduced. It seems that the Government have paid particular attention this time to the interests of small firms. In reading the brief from the federation, it seems that it has not picked up the extent to which small firms will benefit from the change from six weeks to four weeks during which employers are liable before they get full compensation.

The Government have paid attention to the needs of small firms. That was the issue the last time we debated it, and it is still the issue now, although we have gone all the way to 100 per cent. payments by employers. The Government have made the right decision, although it may not be immediately welcome by all employers. The Government have, in effect, decentralised decision-making so that the amount of money provided by the Treasury can be allocated to those who need to draw sick pay benefit through the medium of employers. Those employers are able to make a much better judgment than anyone in the Government will ever be able to as to what the circumstances of each case are. Reducing national

Column 1144

insurance contributions by 0.2 per cent. will amount to very nearly £1 billion which the Government have ensured will not burden employers.

While listening to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), I had difficulty in understanding what the Opposition are opposing. It almost seemed as if the hon. Gentleman was trying to argue the case for the employers, which seemed to come strangely from a party which imposed a jobs tax when it was last in power. The rate of national insurance contributions was 13.5 per cent. when the Labour party was last in power. Was not that the best part of a jobs tax?

It seems strange that the Labour party should now try to argue that it is looking at the situation from the point of view of industry. When it was in power, the Labour party did its utmost to tax jobs out of existence. I still have the greatest difficulty in understanding why the Opposition are opposing the Bill, and I have heard no argument from Opposition Members which would explain. It is just a knee-jerk reaction--as the Government are doing what is perfectly sensible, the Opposition will oppose it for whatever reason. I do not know whether we will hear any arguments from the Opposition which will stand up. I have not heard anything from Opposition Members worthy of interest. The most interesting points were made by Conservative Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) spoke about the importance of reducing the administrative burden on firms. The Bill will make a small contribution to that by relieving employers of having to go through the process of reclaiming the 80 per cent. However, employers still have a great deal of record keeping.

The fact that benefit is available for 28 weeks and is paid straight into an employee's bank account makes it easier for the payments to continue. When the Labour party was in power, it was much more difficult as people had to go to the benefit office to get their sick pay. The arrangements are now easier which may make it difficult for employers to judge the circumstances of an absent employee. When we debated the issue previously, I spoke about the construction industry. I do know know whether my right hon. Friend will be able to say whether there has been any consultation with that industry.

The Electrical Contractors Association is concerned that employers will be more likely to take on 714s--the self-employed--because the traditional role of the Electrical Contractors Association as a self-regulatory body will be destroyed if more and more people become self-employed.

There is concern among the ECA and other construction industries that the Government's measures may lead to more people becoming self-employed. It would be nice to be reassured that the Government have considered that point of view and will consult fully with representatives from smaller firms. There may be an opportunity to participate later in the debate, but that is all I want to say now. 8.21 pm

Mr. Adam Ingram (East Kilbride) : This has been an interesting debate that is worth setting in its historical context. I hope that it will be recognised that it is no exaggeration to say that what Lloyd George started on 4

Column 1145

May 1911 when he moved the National Insurance Bill was ended on 30 November 1993 by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

We are debating the effective end to state participation in a social welfar benefit pioneered and brought into law by the National Insurance Act 1911. In its historical context, that Bill was the most important involvement by the state in social health care until the creation of the national health service in 1948 under a Labour Government. If the measure goes through tonight, as it undoubtedly will, it will be confining 82 years of state welfare provision to the dustbin of history.

That is all part of the Government's programme to dismantle the welfare state. It is the beginning, not the end, of a process and I hope that, as Conservative Members troop through the Lobby, they are aware of what they are doing. To use an old Scottish saying, "If ye didnae ken before, ye ken noo."

I turn to the more current historical antecedents of the Bill. When the Statutory Sick Pay Bill passed through the House in November 1990, hon. Members on both sides expressed fears that the reduction in reimbursement from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. would be the thin end of the wedge--the beginning of a steady decline in the Government's contribution to national sick pay costs. It was one of those all too familiar phrases. The Secretary of State of the time assured the House that the Conservative Government had no plans to make further changes. We have become accustomed to such assurances. At the last election, the Prime Minister told the electorate that there were no plans to increase the scope of VAT or national insurance contributions. We know what has happened to those promises--even if they were made, in the immortal words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on a wet night in Dudley.

The Labour party and the country at large now know that, when Ministers say that they have no plans to do something, they mean exactly the opposite. We have learnt to read between the lines. [Interruption.] Read my lips, as one of my hon. Friends said from a sedentary position.

There is a certain uniqueness about the debate. I cannot recollect a time when every major business organisation has universally condemned a Government measure. The views of industry are remarkably consistent--that is, consistently opposed.

Peter Morgan of the Institute of Directors--not an organisation which Labour Members would normally call in aid--described it as "imposing a heavy compliance burden on employers".

The CBI has been quoted earlier in the debate. It said that "as a matter of principle"

it opposed

"loading these costs onto employers".

The Federation of Small Businesses called it a

"Bill which will prove damaging to many small businesses and their employees".

It also accused the Government of having

"reneged on their earlier commitments regarding statutory sick pay".

The Forum of Private Business--another organisation which it is unusual for Labour Members to quote in support of their arguments--has lambasted the Bill by saying :

"The current proposals, if implemented, are likely to become the principal cause of a significant number of insolvencies". In recent months we have heard much from Conservative Members about the placing of extra burdens on employers in the midst of the currrent recession. They

Column 1146

are really saying that they are against anything which adds to the welfare of the working community. By voting for the measure tonight they are saying that they are in favour of those on- costs which undermine employee welfare.

There is no disputing the extra costs being imposed on industry. They have been accepted as £695 million next year and £750 million the year after. Those costs pose the threat of company closures and further job losses. It is a strange and perverse way to assist companies trying to fight their way out of a Government-created recession. We know that large companies will suffer as they have to meet the full costs of all their sick pay provision. We were led to believe that the Secretary of State had spared struggling small companies from a similar fate.

In his statement to the House, the Secretary of State said : "I propose to abolish reimbursement, except to small employers". He went on to say that he intended to

"increase the help to small employers".--[ Official Report, 1 December 1993 ; Vol. 233, c. 1038.]

Those were disingenuous words.

Under the old rules small employers had to meet just 20 per cent. of the costs of statutory sick pay for the first weeks ; they will now have to meet 100 per cent. of the costs for the first four weeks. Last night the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) muttered in a loud voice, "Is that true?" When it was pointed out that it was true, he buried his head in a copy of Hansard and rapidly left the Chamber. That it is why he is not here tonight.

When the Secretary of State was presenting the measures to the House, he conveniently ignored the fact that the introduction of full reimbursement to small employers would be of little assistance in more than 70 per cent. of the cases as the vast majority of employees are fit to return to work well within four weeks. If the Secretary of State has any doubts about that, let me draw attention to the words of his predecessor :

"The average spell of sickness is probably about three weeks".--[ Official Report, 29 November 1990 ; Vol. 181, c. 639.]

The extension of small employers' relief will apply to fewer than a quarter of the cases where sickness benefit is payable. As a direct consequence, all business will suffer.

The Forum of Private Business was perfectly correct to describe small business relief as "fundamentally flawed". The Bill will exacerbate already difficult cash flow problems.

As the Federation of Small Businesses points out,

"The compensating national insurance contribution reduction to employers will only give a nominal weekly or monthly rebate whereas a high incidence of sick leave must be paid in the week or month in which it occurs."

As I said, small businesses will be acutely affected. For them, a short period of illness among two or three staff will have a proportionately greater impact on costs. A small firm with 10 employees could easily have to manage without 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. of its staff as a result of a flu epidemic. As most of them may return to work before the four-week cut -off point, the small company would bear all the costs. It is unlikely that a company of 1,000 employees would suffer an equivalent percentage of staff being absent through sickness at any one time.

Ministers may continue to stress the compensatory reduction in national insurance reductions--but if they claim that the direct financial cost to businesses will be almost totally offset by corresponding cuts in employer

Column 1147

NICs, what is the point of the Bill? The claim that businesses need the incentive of cutting sick pay entitlement is entirely without foundation. The CBI states :

"Incentives to reduce the cost of sickness absence are not necessary in the private sector, where lost productivity provides sufficient incentive."

The CBI is saying that the legislation will have an effect that industry does not want. The CBI also sought assurances that the Bill is not simply the first step on the road of shifting the burden of legislated social costs on to employers.

Bearing in mind the broken promises of previous Secretaries of State, I repeat the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Will the Minister guarantee that he will not transfer in future the cost of statutory maternity pay or industrial injury benefits to employers? When my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden asked those questions, there was no response, so I ask them again.

Ministers have achieved a double whammy of pitfalls, with the Bill creating both an employment trap and a business expansion trap. The £20,000 national insurance contribution all-or-nothing threshold will discourage entrepreneurs from expanding business capacity and taking on more employees. The last thing that business needs at present are further disincentives to increase employment. The Bill's effect on employment prospects is clear.

The greatest impact of this mean-minded Bill will be on those already facing discrimination in the labour market. Instead of legislating to help them and those least likely to have occupational sick pay provision, the Government will increase discrimination at the point of recruitment against the potentially sick and disabled. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) made a particularly valid point on that and other issues.

That has happened since the rebate was reduced in 1991 from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux amassed evidence showing that the number of employers refusing to honour statutory sick-pay entitlement, paying any sick pay or threatening redundancy or dismissal has increased. Such unofficial practices are a symptom of the vulnerability of employees when jobs are scarce. The Bill will impose even more financial pressure on employers and encourage the spread of bad employment practices.

The Institute of Directors is another organisation to which we seldom refer in argument, but its spokesperson stated :

"Parliament has decided that sick pay is a social benefit, but the Government is trying to make employers bear the cost of providing it. That may well harm the employment prospects of people with pre-existing medical conditions. They should not be penalised because they are disabled or sick- -but the Government is making them uncompetitive in the labour market."

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) made a similar point.

During the debate on yesterday's outrageous guillotine motion, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People referred to the report awaited from the Public Accounts Committee on the impact of the 1991 statutory sick pay changes. He had no basis on which to assert that the report's content would support his arguments. In fact, he told the House that he had not even read the report, but still prayed it in aid. That demonstrates that a crucial body

Column 1148

of available evidence that could have provided substance for this debate has been ignored in the Government's haste to pass the Bill. I suspect that the report does not support the Government's case, which is why the guillotine was introduced. The Government want to get the Bill away before the PAC report undermines their case even further.

I would like to make a number of other points, but we shall begin another debate later this evening, so I now ask the Minister to respond to the specific questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden, which I repeated. We await his answers.

8.35 pm

Next Section

Home Page