| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Redundancy
12. Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North): How the UK Government will respond to representations on its implementation of the collective redundancies directive. [115671]
The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): The Government are satisfied that United Kingdom law fully and correctly implements the collective redundancies agreement.
Dr. Gibson: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware that the directive is quite strong and quite clear on the need to consult workers' representatives before redundancies are made, to improve the prospects of an agreement. Will he ensure that representations are made to the European Commission on trying to ensure that United Kingdom employment law prevents workers from discovering their fate in the morning newspapers or on the radio? Several trade unions are already making such representations. Will he support them?
Mr. Johnson: Thanks to the improvements that we introduced last year, employers who fail to inform and consult in good faith with a view to reaching agreement on matters, including the one which my hon. Friend cited--finding ways of avoiding redundancies, or mitigating their effects--are breaking the law.
Although there is no requirement for the consultation process to begin before the announcement of proposed redundancies, there is a requirement, in accordance with the directive, for the announcement to be made and the process to begin in good time. It will not normally be appropriate for dismissal notices to be issued before sufficient meaningful consultation has taken place. That is the position under existing law.
Business of the House
12.30 pm
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire): Will the Leader of the House give the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business of the House for next week is as follows:
Monday 3 April--Conclusion of remaining stages of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill.
Tuesday 4 April--Progress on remaining stages of the Freedom of Information Bill.
Wednesday 5 April--Conclusion of remaining stages of the Freedom of Information Bill.
Thursday 6 April--Remaining stages of the Armed Forces Discipline Bill [Lords].
Opposition Day [7th Allotted Day] Second Part. There will be a debate on "The Patten Commission Report on the Royal Ulster Constabulary" in the name of the Ulster Unionist party.
Friday 7 April--Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
Monday 10 April--Motion on Standing Committee on Regional Affairs.
Second Reading of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill.
Second Reading of the Television Licence (Disclosure of Information) Bill.
Tuesday 11 April--Second Reading of the Local Government Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 12 April--Opposition day [9th Allotted Day], there will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 13 April--Debate on Armed Forces Personnel on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Friday 14 April--Private Members Bills.
The House will also wish to be reminded that on Tuesday 4 April there will be a debate on Banana Imports in European Standing Committee A. Also, on Wednesday 12 April, there will be a debate on the White Paper on Food Safety in the European Union in European Standing Committee C. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Tuesday 4 April 2000:
European Standing Committee A--Relevant European Union document: 13048/99, Banana Imports; Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 23-v and HC 23-x (1999-2000).]
[Wednesday 12 April 2000: European Standing Committee C--Relevant European Union document: 5761/00, White Paper on Food Safety in the European Union; Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 23-x 1999-2000). ]
Sir George Young:
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us next week's business, and an indication of the business that will be dealt with in the following week.
I am also grateful for the right hon. Lady's response to the request that I made last week for next Thursday's business to be thinned out. She has removed Second Reading of the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill. That is the good news; the bad news is that the following Monday now looks rather congested. We must first debate, for an hour and a half, a motion on a new Standing Committee; then we must debate Second Reading of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, the remaining stages of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, and Second Reading of a Government Bill. At a time when the right hon. Lady is under pressure from her own colleagues to ensure that the House does not sit too late, is it sensible to table so much business for one day?
In view of the widespread problems in agriculture and the expectations aroused by today's meeting at No. 10 Downing street, might we expect a statement from the Government on the outcome of the farming summit?
Last week, when I asked for a statement about BMW, the right hon. Lady replied, referring to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry:
Mrs. Beckett:
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his recognition of the steps taken by the Government to provide some of the discussions that the House has been seeking, and for his recognition of the fact that, in response to his representations, we have thinned out Thursday's business. I undertake to look at next Monday's business, but I must point out that, in a cumulative sense, none of it amounts to more than a normal day's business. It involves useful but relatively minor measures, with which we can deal with no difficulty in the course of an ordinary sitting day. That is what I hope and anticipate that the House will do.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked for a statement on the outcome of the farming summit. I anticipate that my right hon. Friend will seek a means of making information available. He may well answer a question later today and make back-up information available to the House.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked for a statement on BMW. We have just had Trade and Industry questions and I understand that the issue took up a considerable amount of time. As for a longer debate, although I was not able to be here throughout Question Time, my understanding from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is a good judge of such matters, is that it might not be to the Conservatives' advantage to have the matter discussed at greater length.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West):
Proof of the power of business questions came in yesterday's long-awaited
[That this House applauds the Government's intention to ensure that all pensioners entitled to income support receive it, making it a genuine minimum income guarantee; notes that, although the minimum income guarantee was introduced in April 1999, the promised national programme of measures to maximise take-up is still awaited; and urges the Secretary of State for Social Security to announce that claims made by pensioners after the date of that announcement will be treated as having been made on that date and that arrears of benefit will be paid accordingly.]
Unfortunately, we have not had a chance to debate this important Government initiative, but as it has been delayed for more than a year, can we debate the possibility of giving those who have been denied the minimum income guarantee for a year the opportunity to have their claims backdated, just as pension payments delayed by the Government are backdated?
Mrs. Beckett:
When I heard the public announcement of the campaign, I immediately thought of my hon. Friend and thought that it had disposed of at least one business question. I should have known better. My hon. Friend should rest on his laurels for a little while. It was an important announcement and we all very much hope that it will solve a serious problem that has existed under successive Governments of all political shades. I cannot undertake to find time for a further debate on the subject in the near future. He will know that it is constantly discussed and kept under review.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall):
The Leader of the House has just said that her right hon. Friend will make a statement on the outcome of the farming summit. Will she clarify which right hon. Friend? As the Prime Minister has made it clear for many weeks that the issue is a personal initiative and he is chairing the meeting this afternoon, can we be assured that he will demonstrate the severity of the crisis and the seriousness with which the Government are facing it by making a statement himself at the earliest opportunity? Answering a written question late on a Thursday afternoon is not sufficient to recognise the scale of the crisis.
Secondly, will the right hon. Lady clarify how the Government intend to handle the two days of debate on the Freedom of Information Bill? She will be aware that Front Benchers and Back Benchers on both sides of the House have tabled amendments, some of which have been jointly tabled. The management of that debate is extremely important for the interests of Back Benchers, for whom she has responsibility.
I anticipate that he will do what he can to keep the House informed on the progress of any discussion in which he is engaged.--[Official Report, 23 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 1113.]
The exchange that took place at Question Time an hour ago was not sufficient. I believe that the Government owe the House nothing less than a full day's debate on the future of Rover.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |