| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Taylor: I think that I have been faithful to the debate. I have answered the House correctly, consistently and in good faith.
I want to say one other thing in connection with a complaint made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who asked why the Government have introduced a loophole--the threshold of fewer than 20 employees.
Perhaps I should say, the 20 threshold that introduces the collective redundancy concept. The loophole to which he refers is in the directive that was agreed by the Labour Government in 1975.
Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North):
On the previous point about clarifying the uncertainty, the Minister told the House that he is putting right an omission from previous legislation. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) about how the draft regulations do not contain what is needed. If what the Minister says is not on the face of the regulations, what opportunity will he have to put that right?
Mr. Taylor:
That is a hypothetical question. So far,I have broadly dealt with interventions, and I think that I have dealt with that point. I should like now to make some progress, because there is an important Government case to be deployed in defence of the regulations.
Mr. Meacher:
Before the Minister moves on, let me say that I do not think that he has satisfied either me or any of my hon. Friends. He read a carefully scripted statement, the essence of which he had memorised and repeated earlier. It is true that paragraphs 4 and 10 of the regulations, and paragraph 3, sub-paragraph 5, deal with complaints, and it is true that complaints may, if people are determined, reach an industrial tribunal. He has not answered the key point: when the case reaches the tribunal, how can one make it stick against an employer who has carried out an election that the employee considers improper in terms of its procedure when there is no prescription in the regulations on the form of that election? One may believe it to be unfair, and it may be unfair, but it is not unfair in terms of the strict rules of the regulations.
Mr. Taylor:
I have faced many challenges in my life, but managing to persuade the hon. Gentleman may be a bridge too far. He demeans the ability of employers and employees to arrive at a system of election that will be fair. Nothing is more English or more culturally part of our inheritance than fairness. An industrial tribunal, which is after all a judicial body--[Interruption.] I am sorry if the hon. Member for Oldham, West thinks that this is not merely unpersuasive but amusing.
Mr. Meacher:
It is not amusing.
Mr. Taylor:
I agree that it is not amusing. For the Government to try to lay down in a codified way in the myriad of workplaces how an election should be held is to demean the good sense of our fellow citizens--the employer and employee between them--who are quite capable of setting up an election. If it is not a fair election, an industrial tribunal will be as good a forum as any in spotting that.
Mr. Bennett:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Gordon Prentice:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Taylor:
I give way to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).
Mr. Prentice:
There are employers who run sweatshop operations, perhaps recruiting Asian women, to take
An employer being at risk of an adverse finding is very different from an employer acting unlawfully. That is why it is central to the case for matters to be on the face of the regulations. If they are not, we cannot leave it to a tribunal.
Mr. Taylor:
The hon. Gentleman helps me in his own appreciation of the eclectic nature of the workplaces of this country. If a group of employees felt that the procedures that were going on around them were oppressive, there could not be a freer country than this one in which they could pursue their grievance. They can take advice if they wish. After all, there are plenty of solicitors in most of our urban centres who will give advice on legal aid green form, which is two hours of advice for free, and that could be extended if the local legal aid authority so wishes. Furthermore--this may be more congenial to the hon. Gentleman--they could, if they wanted to, take advice from the local office of one of the trade unions, perhaps the Transport and General Workers Union. Most of those great unions have offices in our big towns and cities, certainly in our cities.
Mr. Taylor:
I have given way once to thehon. Gentleman. This might be the last intervention, but I shall give him the benefit of it.
Mr. Bennett:
The Minister says that it is important that the process is fair. Which is fairer to elect a works representative: a single transferable vote or first past the post?
Mr. Taylor:
I did not know that we would get down that road. I have always preferred an exhaustive eliminator, but that is very much a personal preference, and it is not Government policy, I hasten to add. In that sense, I speak only on behalf of myself, the hon. Member for Solihull.
Mr. Thurnham:
Does my hon. Friend not think it strange this evening that the Labour party is criticising small firms for not wishing to comply voluntarily with the regulations--if small firms wished to comply with them they could, but the Labour party wants to force them--whereas the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), who I think is the Labour Front-Bench spokesman for small business, has a letter in The Times today praising small businesses as the backbone of the country? I wonder what we are listening to tonight--new Labour, old Labour or a mix. Labour Members obviously do not know what they really mean.
Mr. Taylor:
That intervention has completely wrong-footed me: I simply cannot handle it. I think that, as a matter of courtesy, my hon. Friend--for, after all, he is my hon. Friend--should have given me notice of it.If he had, I might have been able to cope with it in a
We are debating the Government's response, in the form of the regulations, to two judgments of the European Court of Justice made on 8 June 1994. Much has been said about what the regulations do or do not require, and a good deal of that has been based on a misrepresentation of their provision or a failure to understand how they are intended to work. I hope to set the record straight on some of those matters, but on some of them our approach is, and will always be, fundamentally different from that of Opposition Members. We believe in encouraging enterprise and job growth through flexibility, whereas Opposition Members would destroy it with excessive regulation.
The regulations were laid before the House on5 October, and came into effect on 26 October. They have two purposes. First, they give effect to judgments of the European Court of Justice concerning the implementation in the United Kingdom of the 1975 collective redundancies directive and the 1977 acquired rights directive. Secondly, they deal with the separate matter of the judgment of the employment appeals tribunal in the case of Milligan and Bailey v. Securicor Cleaning Ltd. In that case, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981--generally referred to as the TUPE regulations--were interpreted in a way that Parliament had not intended. Regulation 8 of these regulations reverses the effect of that judgment.
The regulations were made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, as they deal with matters that are for the purpose of implementing--or are related to our implementation of--our Community obligations. Let me deal first with the main purpose of the regulations, which concerns information and consultation about collective redundancies and business transfers. Both directives require an employer to consult workers' representatives in relevant circumstances, who are defined as
In implementing the collective redundancies directive in 1975, the then Labour Government required an employer to consult only where there was a recognised trade union. In 1981, in implementing the acquired rights directive, the present Government adopted the same approach. It is interesting to note that Opposition Members did not question that approach at the time.
In 1994, the European Court ruled that, by failing to designate workers' representatives to be consulted when an employer did not recognise a trade union, the United Kingdom had not met its obligations under the directives. The regulations now provide for consultation by an employer, whether or not the employer voluntarily recognises a trade union. They bring UK law into line with the directives as interpreted by the European Court of Justice.
"serious risk of an adverse finding".
"the workers' representatives provided for by the laws or practices of the Member States".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |