| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Clause 30
Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 18, line 31, leave out ("60(8)") and insert ("70(8)")
Mr. Meale: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
As we heard earlier, this is a minor drafting amendment. The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) pointed out in Committee that the reference to section 60 of the Greater London Authority Bill was incorrect. We undertook to change the reference, but to do so at a later stage, in case there were further numbering changes to that Bill. We are now inserting the correct reference to section 70.
Mr. Woodward:
We have little to say about the amendment, except to commiserate with Ministers that, after the Department has been so singularly unlucky and won so few Bills, it still manages to be incompetent and get the numbering wrong. None the less, we are pleased that it has finally put its house in order as it prepares for the summer, and we shall not oppose the amendment.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 22, line 51, leave out ("section 70") and insert ("sections 70 and 71")
Ms Armstrong:
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 20.
Ms Armstrong:
The Greater London Authority Bill is currently being discussed in the other place. In its Committee stage in the House and in the other place, there were amendments to the provisions for substitute calculations. Most of the amendments to schedule 1 to the Local Government Bill reflect those changes to the Greater London Authority Bill. The amendments also make a few changes to ensure that references to the GLA
I apologise for the number of amendments, but I assure hon. Members that they are not substantive. They simply ensure that this Bill and the GLA Bill are consistent in their provisions for the GLA.
Mr. Woodward:
I have a small number of questions to the Minister about the amendments. We recognise that, in another place, the noble Lord said that these were all technical amendments--we know what "technical" usually means to the Government--and that they related mainly to the Greater London Authority Bill. He also said that they were not substantive.
Can the Minister confirm to the House that the amendments relate only to the Greater London Authority Bill? If they do not, will she tell the House to which other areas they refer?
Ms Armstrong:
With the leave of the House. I said that the amendments related to the changes in the Greater London Authority Bill. Some of them affect the Metropolitan police, but relate to the GLA Bill.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 20 agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Ordered,
Sitting suspended.
Lords amendments again considered.
On resuming--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
I have to acquaint the House that a message has been brought from the Lords as follows. The Lords do not insist on their amendment to the Employment Relations Bill to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose an amendment in lieu of that amendment, to which they desire the agreement of the Commons. They agree without amendment to the amendment proposed by the Commons to the remaining Lords amendment.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney):
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords amendment in lieu, in page 8, line 20, at the end to insert the words--
As my noble Friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey has explained in another place, the Government are prepared to accept the amendment in the spirit of partnership--[Interruption.] I knew that that would wake them up and get them going.
It was our intention to replace the power in clause 17with a substantive provision. Unfortunately, that proved not to be possible in the time available. We had informal consultations with interested parties that revealed complications. Ultimately, we judged that it would be better to give ourselves more time to address the issue. Nevertheless, I shall take this last opportunity briefly to restate the Government's position.
We made it clear, in the "Fairness at Work" White Paper and subsequently, that current law allows the employer and worker, if they wish, to conclude a contract in terms that differ from those in a collective agreement that would otherwise apply to the worker. That is the position now, and it will continue to be the position once the scheme for statutory trade union recognition is in place.
Collective agreements are, of course, increasingly sophisticated, and many already provide flexibility--in the form of performance-related pay and benefits, for example--so that employers who have negotiated such agreements may feel no need to negotiate different terms for individual workers. However, other employers may wish to do so. They are free to do so, and they shall continue to be free to do so. The only proviso is that, in doing so, they must not discriminate unlawfully--for example, on grounds of race, sex, disability, or trade union membership or non-membership.
We believe that employees should be protected against dismissal or detriment if they refuse to give up the terms of a collective agreement. It should not be permissible, for example, for an employer to say, "Unless you agree to an individual contract and give up the collective agreement, I'll see you're never promoted again." We shall continue working to draw up regulations to protect workers from such pressure.
We agree with the Opposition, however, that the mere fact that one worker has received benefits under an individual contract cannot constitute a detriment for those who do not receive such terms. Obviously it will remain unlawful to link the granting or withholding of benefits to a worker's membership or non-membership of a trade union.
The Government should have preferred to deal with those matters somewhat differently in regulations, but we accept that the point was particularly important to the Opposition. We have been willing, therefore, in partnership, to compromise on an amendment that will allow the Bill to complete its passage today, so that the wider benefits that the Bill will confer may commence without delay.
I should also like to take this opportunity to say that the Bill has now involved--in constructive work--two years of my life. I give my thanks to the social partners--particularly the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry, but also others--with whom I have worked, over the past two years, in preparing the White Paper and subsequently the Bill.
God willing, the House will today pass the Bill, making it the Employment Relations Act--which will help to modernise workplace relations; help people to combine work and family responsibilities; underpin a flexible and efficient labour market; and help business to attract and retain the skilled work force necessary if they are to compete and succeed. The Act will also ensure that workers receive the proper rights at work that they should have had and maintained in the 18 years of the previous, Tory Government.
That the draft Northern Ireland Act Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1999, which were laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.
That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 50) on Children's Services (Quality Protects) Special Grants for 1998-99 and 1999-2000 (HC 617), which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.--[Mr. Jamieson.]
Question agreed to.
That Mr. Nick Hawkins be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee, and Mr. Michael Fabricant be added to the Committee.--[Mr. Keith Bradley, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
Ordered,
That Mr. Howard Flight be discharged from the Social Security Committee, and Mr. Desmond Swayne be added to the Committee.--[Mr. Keith Bradley, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
26 Jul 1999 : Column 85
Ordered,
That Mr. Shaun Woodward and Mr. Robert Walter be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Mr. Owen Paterson and Mr. Laurence Robertson be added to the Committee.--[Mr. Keith Bradley.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Since no message has yet been received from the Lords in relation to the Employment Relations Bill, I am now required to suspend the sitting. The Division bells will be rung five minutes before the sitting resumes.
7.10 pm
("(4) The payment of higher wages or higher rates of pay or overtime or the payment of any signing on or other bonuses or the provision of other benefits having a monetary value to other workers employed by the same employer shall not constitute a detriment to any worker not receiving the same or similar payments or benefits within the meaning of subsection (1)(a) of this section so long as--
(a) there is no inhibition in the contract of employment of the worker receiving the same from being the member of any trade union, and
(b) the said payments of higher wages or rates of pay or overtime or bonuses or the provision of other benefits are in accordance with the terms of a contract of employment and reasonably relate to services provided by the worker under that contract.")
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |