| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Irene Adams (Paisley, North): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the difficulty relates to the employees' contracts? Often, home workers are not sure whether they are contracted to a sub-contractor or to the actual manufacturing company. Part of the difficulty with fair estimate agreements is that employees do not actually know who is employing them.
Mr. Hoban: I understand the hon. Lady's comment. In the case that I am describing, however, the worker is employed by the person making the rubber parts. There is a clear contractual relationship between the employee and the employer so, thankfully, that confusion does not arise.
When the Bill comes into effect and an enforcement notice is issued against Industrial Rubber, to what extent will the measure apply retrospectively? The company is a manufacturing business so, given the lapse of time, there is a question as to what resources will be available to pay the compensation to which the home workers may be entitled. When the Inland Revenue considers how enforcement notices are to be applied to businesses, I hope that it will bear in mind the problems encountered by employers in implementing fair estimate agreements and the complexity of working out back pay.
Mrs. Irene Adams: I refer the hon. Gentleman to a report on home workers and the minimum wage that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has just completed in which the Inland Revenue states that it is working on precisely the part of the agreement that he is talking about.
Mr. Hoban: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that information. Not only will I read that report, but I will send a copy to the company in my constituency. However, I fear that it is too late for many people. It is now more than three years since the fair estimate agreements were put in place, and a lot of employees may have lost out in the process, as a consequence of legislation being introduced in haste, with perhaps insufficient consultation and consideration of the implementation problems.
I wish to conclude by saying that I hope that the Inland Revenue will look carefully at such cases and at the complexity of the calculations involved and the difficulty that the Government have acknowledged in consulting on a replacement for fair estimate agreements. I also hope that they will consider the interests of not just past employees, but future employees—those people whose livelihoods depend on the financial viability of the firm—and ensure that their jobs are secure, as well as looking after the interests of those who have been employed previously by that company.
9.36 pm
Mr. Stephen Timms: With the leave of the House, I wish to thank all those hon. Members who have contributed for supporting the Bill. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) for his sympathetic understanding of the reasons why my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions has been unable to lead this debate, as he would have wished to do this evening.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to say something about the Bebb Travel appeal. As he indicated, on 16 April, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in August 2002. The three judges ruled that, under section 19 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, enforcement officers may not issue enforcement notices on behalf of former workers. He also asked me about the costs. The Inland Revenue was ordered to pay costs of £9,420.
The ruling on the interpretation of the 1998 Act may be perhaps correct in the strict legal sense, but the key point is what policy Parliament wanted to enact. In a
sense, the ruling demonstrates the wisdom of the decision to introduce the Bill, as it will make the position clear beyond doubt.The Bill will restore the position to what we understood it to be last August—once more, officers will be able to issue enforcement notices in respect of former workers—but those cases covering former workers that had been partly processed before August 2002, under the 1998 Act, and put on hold while the appeal was brought, which may well be what happened in the case referred to by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), will have to be restarted because of the court ruling.
We have, of course, logged the details of all the cases involving former workers that have been brought to our attention since August. I do not have any update on the number of those cases beyond the figure of 250, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that was provided in February. During the next few weeks, we shall review the position on all those cases, so that we can make a running start when the Bill comes into force.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions said in Committee that the Government would continue to pursue the appeal to the Court of Appeal, but not necessarily to the House of Lords. We believe that that decision was right. We did not know last autumn that we would obtain the Bill, and we believed that we had a good case that should be argued before the Court of Appeal. We have now lost, and on the basis of the debate, I am confident that the Bill will be passed. My hon. Friend has obviously considered the issue and taken the view that it would not make sense to take the appeal to the House of Lords.
The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk asked me about implementing the Bill with immediate effect. Of course, we cannot do so because clause 2(2) states:
- "This Act comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning on the day on which it is passed."
Nevertheless, the point of principle that he raised is perfectly fair. We have taken advice from the Cabinet Office that the two-month lead period should only be waived in exceptional circumstances: for example, emergency legislation on terrorism. He gave a number of examples, which I acknowledge. I think that he will accept, however, that the Bill is not really in the category
to which the Cabinet Office advice refers. As the Bill will be retroactive in effect, I hope that he will take the view that it will ensure that there is a fair settlement of all the outstanding cases without undue delay.The hon. Gentleman also asked about interest. The legislation does not envisage the addition of interest to wage arrears identified in an enforcement notice. If the debt is claimed through the county court, however, interest on debts can usually be claimed at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum. He talked about the question of three years versus six years, on which the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) also commented. He attributed to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk the view that the period should be three years—I do not think that he argued that position tonight, although he has put the case previously; his concern tonight was more in relation to whether guidance should be given to companies to keep the information for six years. Some might argue that that was an additional burden on business, but I thought that he made a fair case for that change. It is an interesting suggestion and we shall consider the point carefully.
I am grateful to other Members who have spoken for their support: the hon. Member for Twickenham, to some of whose comments I have referred, and the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing). The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) raised a number of concerns, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions was also interested in some of his points about home workers. I understand that the case is still under appeal, and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am not familiar with the details of it. It might be best if I were to write to the hon. Gentleman to pick up some of the fair points that he has made on behalf of his constituents.
I am delighted that the Bill has commanded such wide support, and I am sure that all of us would wish it to be implemented as soon as possible, given the two-month period to which we have referred.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
ADJOURNMENT (MAY)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
- That this House, at its rising on Thursday 1st May, do adjourn till Tuesday 6th May 2003.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
Princess Royal and Royal Shrewsbury Hospital Trusts
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
9.42 pm
Peter Bradley (The Wrekin): I am very grateful for the opportunity tonight to raise my concerns and those of my constituents about the proposal currently being considered by the Secretary of State for Health and his ministerial colleagues to merge the Princess Royal and the Royal Shrewsbury hospital trusts. The Princess Royal is, of course, the hospital that serves Telford, the Wrekin and the east of Shropshire. I am grateful too for the opportunity to raise the implications of that proposal for my constituents.
I also want to touch on the scope of the consultation that has recently been concluded and its quality—the way in which it has been conducted. In the course of my comments, I hope that the Minister will accept that I will be expressing the views of a great many of my constituents. I am sure that if my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) is fortunate in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will make similar points.
It goes without saying that hospitals are important places. They are not just places that provide health care but local landmarks that help communities define their identity. People feel very strongly about their hospitals and take pride in them.
Certainly when I was a councillor in the Millbank ward in Westminster some years ago, the Conservative Government's announcement of the closure of Westminster hospital was met with almost as much alarm, despair and anger as were many of the depredations visited on the electors by Shirley Porter and Barry Legg, and their colleagues in the administration of Westminster city council. People had been born in that hospital and had given birth to their own children there; it was part of the cultural fabric of this part of Westminster, and they felt its passing very bitterly. I do not need to remind the Minister of the passions aroused in Kidderminster, not far from Telford and the Wrekin, when the hospital there was perceived to be under threat.
Hospitals are important in many ways, particularly in new towns such as Telford, because at this stage of the town's development, there are not many landmarks to steer by. We have no league football club, although we are very proud of Telford United and we look forward eagerly to seeing Telford play derby matches against Shrewsbury Town next season. We have no theatre, although one is planned, and the sooner it is developed the better. There are many reasons to visit Telford, but its nightlife is not one of them.
The town puts me in mind of the famous comment that Rayner Banham made about Los Angeles in his seminal book on that city, in which he spoke of 50 suburbs in search of a city centre. Telford does not have 50 suburbs, but the comment is not entirely inappropriate. It is a town seeking its identity. The suburbs are not so much in search of a town centre as fleeing it since USS imposed car parking charges there.
The Princess Royal hospital is important to us because we fought for it hard. It was built in 1989 after a long struggle. Many people, particularly in the west of
the county, fought against the hospital's development, and they have continued to campaign against it, explicitly or implicitly, ever since. The hospital's future is of immense actual and symbolic importance, and I am sure that the Minister recognises that. I know from his speeches in the House that he is proud of his constituency and the landmarks that define it and its community. He will therefore understand the points that I am making.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |