| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Browning: I will be happy to allow speedy progress on some amendments, but not amendment No. 17. What has happened as a result of the amendment bears full examination.
As the Secretary of State said, the amendment was introduced in Committee in another place by the Opposition. I go back to the beginning. Amendment No. 17 concerned continuation of the right of employees voluntarily to agree with their employer contracts that differ from those of a collective agreement that applies to them, as long as the different terms were agreed through a revised contract of employment, the employee had voluntarily accepted the new terms, and the employer's purpose in offering such terms was to further a change in his relationship with all, or any class of, his employees, as set out in section 148(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
It was thought in another place that the Government supported the amendment in principle. Indeed, we were led to believe that it was Government policy, not least
because we had looked carefully at the Government's White Paper "Fairness at Work", particularly paragraph 4.20, which is reinforced by annexe 1, paragraph 8. I am sure that it is engraved on the Secretary of State's heart, but let me remind him of what annexe 1 says:
It is interesting to note what the Minister, as quoted in the Lords, said in respect of an employee who had refused to sign a personal contract:
After Baroness Miller of Hendon moved the amendment successfully in the Lords, a debate took place with Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He stated:
I continue with the words of the Lord McIntosh:
Later, Lord McIntosh continued:
It was on the basis that there was little dispute about the amendment that my noble Friend Baroness Miller was asked to withdraw the amendment. Wisely, she did not do so, but put it to a vote instead. In the same debate, Lord McCarthy, in response to what Lord McIntosh said in support of the Opposition amendment, said:
I believe that the Secretary of State has abused his position--and the ministerial commitments that are on record. Instead of allowing a proper and full debate this evening, he has promised that the matter will be subject to regulation at a later date. That has become a hallmark of the Government's approach.
In another existence just over a year ago, I was a member of the Committee considering the School Standards and Framework Bill. The Secretary of State was then Minister of State with responsibility for school standards. It was typical of his approach then that he did not want matters to be debated in detail and pressed for a vote. He preferred to push them into the long grass, in the hope that regulation,
when it was introduced, would not be given the necessary scrutiny. This important amendment certainly warrants detailed scrutiny and debate.
Will the Secretary of State explain why the word of Ministers in another place can no longer be taken as a matter of honour? It is an insult to both Houses that commitments made on the record are not honoured.
There is considerable interest in the matter outside the House. Business has questions to which answers must be given in this debate. For example, what is meant by the phrase "detriment by his employer"? I should be grateful if the Minister would give the House a definition. What are the Government seeking to achieve with the power that the clause gives the Secretary of State? Will the Secretary of State make a clear and unambiguous statement about the right of employees voluntarily to agree with employers contracts that differ from those under the collective agreement that applies to them?
The White Paper and the Government's words both here and in another place appear to indicate that their policy was that employees had that right, but now they have performed a complete U-turn. As was said in connection with the previous group of amendments, this is the House's last chance to discuss these important matters in detail.
If the comments of Lord McCarthy in another place were indicative of concern among the Labour ranks, I hope that the Secretary of State is not involved in a cynical exploitation of the democratic process. With the trade union and party conference season just a few weeks away, is the Minister hoping to avoid putting in the Bill something that the unions will not like? Employees and employers want clarification of a matter that the Minister appears to want to kick into the long grass by saying that it will be dealt with in regulation rather than in the Bill.
The Secretary of State risks incurring contempt for the ministerial statements that have been made on the matter, and he will put in jeopardy the process by which hon. Members can debate amendments tabled in another place. I hope that he will explain why he has not tabled a substantive amendment to tidy up what he might perceive as flaws in the original wording. Amendment No. 17 states only that
"The terms of agreements resulting from collective bargaining are normally incorporated into individual employees' contracts either explicitly or by custom and practice and thus set the minimum terms and conditions for all employees in the bargaining unit".
The annexe goes on:
"Under the existing law an employee and an employer can agree different terms if they wish. Since the current law works well, the Government sees no reason to change it".
When the amendment was introduced in another place by my hon. Friend Baroness Miller of Hendon, there was quite a lot of discussion. It was Conservative peers who, in the absence of a Government amendment, sought to honour what they thought was a Government pledge--not least because of what is contained in the White Paper, and an indication in Committee from the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry that the Government would look at the matter. Therefore, there was an expectation that, before the Bill had proceeded too far through another place, the Government would table something similar to the amendment that is now part of the Bill.
8.15 pm
"The employee may . . . think that it is unreasonable of the employer to . . . give the employee a pay rise, but that is the employer's right".--[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 356.]
We think that an employer and employee should always be free to make their own bargain, notwithstanding union recognition in the workplace. There is a need for flexibility in respect of an employer rewarding people in the workplace, based on agreements--even individual agreements--with the work force. That was what we believed the Government felt was the state of play as well, but it was not the Government who introduced the amendment; it was Baroness Miller of Hendon.
"I sincerely congratulate the noble Baroness both on the care which she has clearly taken in drafting the amendment and on the evident passion with which she has moved it."
That seems to contradict the Secretary of State's words a moment ago, when he identified what he regarded as flaws in the drafting of the amendment. I should like him to comment specifically on why a Minister in another place congratulated Baroness Miller on the drafting of the amendment, but only a little while later, in the House of Commons, the Secretary of State said that he believed it to be flawed.
"I think that I can assure her"--
Baroness Miller--
"that we can achieve substantially the objectives which she wishes to achieve. As my noble friend Lord Simon explained in his letter of 10th May, in response to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, the Government hoped to replace the power in Clause 15 with a substantive provision and we hoped to bring forward an amendment in Committee."
21 Jul 1999 : Column 1264
It is thus clearly on the record that the Government, as we had anticipated, hoped to introduce such a measure, but we have received no explanation of why it was left to the Opposition--in the absence of that measure--to table successfully the amendment that we are discussing.
Lord McIntosh went on:
"I am sorry that we have not been able to do so, but I am confident that we shall be able to produce an amendment on Report which will, in a sense, go further than that of the noble Baroness because, instead of adding to the regulatory power, which is what her amendment does, it will produce a substantive content in clause 15 instead of a purely regulatory power."
So clearly, at the close of the Committee stage, although the Government had been expected to table an amendment themselves in Committee, there was a firm commitment by the Minister to bring back a substantive amendment on Report as the Bill proceeded through another place.
"I repeat our apologies that we have not been able to produce the substantive amendment which we wished to introduce in Committee."
He concluded:
"I hope that with the assurances and details I have given about the substantive amendment which we propose to introduce on Report, the noble Baroness will realise that we intend to introduce something which is along the lines of what the noble Baroness wants".
In other words, a firm ministerial commitment was given at the end of the deliberations in another place to bring the matter back on Report. Ministers acknowledged that the content of the amendment that we are discussing was not, apart from a few details, a matter of dispute. However, the Secretary of State seems now to have changed to his mind about that.
"Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he realises how much he is worrying some of us?"--[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 359-62.]
That was the first indication that not all Labour peers were happy with the Government's line. Perhaps the Secretary of State's neglect of the amendment tonight shows that the Government are responding to the concerns that have been expressed. If not, his approach is a mystery, given previous ministerial commitments about the amendment in another place. Perhaps that is why the Secretary of State has not tabled a substantive amendment for debate tonight.
"this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment."
That is a contempt of the democratic process.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |