| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): I raise this point as a point of order, because it is not strictly connected with the Bill. Will the Secretary of State make a statement, given the announcement by Professor Joachim Milberg, the chairman and chief executive of BMW, on
- "the slow pace of negotiations with the UK Government over"--
Mr. Fabricant: The Secretary of State might like to comment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Secretary of State will resist the temptation. We are discussing the Employment Relations Bill.
Mr. Byers: I shall, as always, try to keep in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and thank you for your clear guidance.
A number of issues were raised during the debate and I welcome the tenor of the remarks that have been made. As several hon. Members have said, the PIDA had all-party support in the House, which is why we were able to get it on the statute book last year. Hon. Members have asked about commencement. The Government's objective is for the Act to commence in the very near future. I want to work towards the Act being in operation, with appropriate notification to employers, to meet the anniversary of its enactment. That is a good target to set ourselves. Now that I have said that, hon. Members will want to keep me to it; I shall be pleased to be kept to my task of achieving that particular objective.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) is absolutely right that the proposals in new clause 11 are restricted to examples covered by the PIDA and to issues related to health and safety matters, and do not go beyond that. I hope that that reassurance is helpful. On the point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)
and reinforced from his Front Bench, tribunals will be able to take into account the circumstances of a particular employer, including its size, in deciding whether it has acted reasonably or unreasonably, and thus whether the dismissal is fair or not.
The important aspect is that compensation must be suitable to the particular circumstances, a point that was raised from the Opposition Front Bench. Whistleblowers must have unlimited compensation because they are often in positions of great responsibility and at the higher end of the salary range. So going beyond the cap of £50,000 would be appropriate.
I confirm for the hon. Member for Daventry that there is no question of exemplary damages being applicable. The measure will give the tribunal the opportunity to award beyond £50,000, if that is appropriate in the particular circumstances of the case before it.
I hope that I have been able to address hon. Members' concerns and that we can agree to new clause 11 and the consequential amendments.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham):
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2--Microbusiness exemption--
Amendment No. 5, in schedule 1, page 19, line 39, leave out '21' and insert '51'.
Amendment No. 6, in page 19, line 40, leave out '21' and insert '51'.
Government amendments Nos. 66 to 68.
Mr. Redwood:
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are consequential on new clause 1, should the House agree to that, and I have no objection to Government amendments Nos. 66 to 68, subject to anything that the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary may wish to say by explanation.
I remind the House that I have declared an interest in certain companies in the Register of Members' Interests. I am not speaking on their behalf or at their request today, but all companies are obviously affected by these new clauses and amendments, so it is right that I should remind the House of those interests.
I thought it curious that the Secretary of State was so generous to whistleblowers but not others until I remembered that it is to a whistleblower that he owes his job. We were grateful to the whistleblower who exposed the goings-on at the Department under the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. It was good that we were able to find common cause on the issue of whistleblowers in the first exchanges.
I hope that we can make similar progress by tempting the Secretary of State to live up to the fine rhetoric that he has placed in the newspapers in recent weeks about the need to deregulate. Some of the words which have been planted in the press, perhaps at his request, allegedly on his behalf, could have been uttered by me. They were fine deregulatory statements, saying that the costs of business must be cut, that the burdens on business must be reduced, that the Government have at last got the deregulatory message coming loud and clear from businesses, small, medium and large.
Mr. Fabricant:
Does my right hon. Friend think that, with regard to deregulation, that is just rhetoric, not actual delivery? Could that be why Joachim Milberg today said that BMW is thinking of moving the Longbridge operation to Hungary, where there is not only little regulation but low pay and no excessive charges on top of employment?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) will take a gentle reminder from me that that can hardly be answered in the context of small employers.
Mr. Redwood:
I take your warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is noted for his persistence and I know that he has the interests of all British business at heart. With your permission, I shall answer within order by saying that I fear that, on the issue of deregulation in general, and deregulation for small businesses in particular, there will be many more words than actions from the Secretary of State.
The right hon. Gentleman has a marvellous opportunity tonight to prove me wrong. If he would like to intervene at this moment and welcome the new clause, I would
forgo the advantage of the rest of my speech, congratulate him warmly and say that he has at last understood some of our message on deregulation. However, I see the right hon. Gentleman is not about to leap to his feet, so I fear that we must tease him a little further about the big gap that is growing between the rhetoric, the spin, in the unattributable briefings in the press and the reality of a Government who put cost upon cost, burden upon burden, regulatory requirement upon regulatory requirement upon small and big businesses alike.
Mr. Bercow:
My right hon. Friend, as the House knows, is renowned for his generosity of spirit, but on this occasion, I hope that he will not over-egg the rhetorical pudding. To that end, does my right hon. Friend recall that, in the course of 46 minutes of speech from the Secretary of State during the Budget debate--a 36-minute opening speech and a 10-minute statement on enterprise and competition--the word "deregulation" did not come forth from his lips once?
'.--(1) The additional individual rights conferred by sections 8 to 21 of, and Schedule 3 to, this Act shall not apply to any worker unless the employer of that worker, taken with any associated employer or employers, employs--
(a) at least 51 workers on the day in respect of which the employee claims the right, or
(b) an average of at least 51 workers in the 13 weeks ending with that day, to be determined in accordance with the methodology established under paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 1 to this Act.
(2) The lower of the two figures in subsection 1(a) or 1(b) shall be known as the qualifying limit.
(3) The Secretary of State may make an Order modifying the qualifying limit for workers, or applying, varying or disapplying any rights conferred under this Act for workers employed in numbers below the qualifying limit, but no such order may be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(4) An Order under subsection 3 may make provision for the continuation of employment rights mentioned in subsection (1) and already enjoyed by an individual worker or workers at the time of the passing of this Act.'.--[Mr. Redwood.]
'.--(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the Secretary of State may by Order disapply or modify such rights of individual workers under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (but excluding any rights conferred under that Act by the provisions of this Act) as he deems appropriate in the interests of businesses employing 10 or fewer workers (or such lesser or greater number as he may by Order specify from time to time).
(2) An Order under subsection (1) shall not apply to rights already enjoyed by individual workers at the time at the passing of this Act.
(3) No Order under subsection (1) shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a Resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |