| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
David Cairns: I am in a slightly invidious position. Although I am steering the Bill through the House, the effect of the amendment would be to call on the Government to do various things, so I must await the response of my hon. Friend the Minister.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) suggested that she did not wish to press the amendment to a Division, but is using the classic probing
amendment technique that I have come to know and love during the passage of the Bill. While remaining in order at all times, she showed remarkable ingenuity in covering such contemporary issues as national insurance contributions and pensions. I was wondering how she could get the euro, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) and whether Celtic or Rangers would win the premier league into her speech. I look forward to hearing whether the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) is backing Celtic or Rangers for the title—[Interruption.] He must answer.The narrow effect of amendment No. 5 would simply be to delay the commencement of the Act by one month, which does not seem to present a huge problem. If the Government are happy to give that assurance, I should be happy to agree to the proposal.
With regard to the amendment proposing a further regulatory impact assessment, there is a slight irony in the position of Opposition Members; they want to spare businesses from form-filling and from having to respond to yet more Government initiatives by sending businesses even more forms to complete and consulting them yet again. It may take only five or 10 minutes but, as the hon. Lady said, those minutes add up. It is a peculiar wish to want to spare people from something by giving them more of it to do.
The hon. Lady's points were well made, and I understood them. However, this legislation has one key element: the fact that it actually exists. It has been working since the passage of what became the Sunday Trading Act 1994. These proposals are not just theoretical. When we are thinking of introducing a new piece of legislation and are not sure of its effects, of course regulatory impact assessments are crucial. One makes assumptions, which may or may not be shown to be accurate, so it is necessary to probe the limits. But this legislation exists: it is up and running.
The hon. Lady posited the hypothetical example of a person who, having worked for 22 hours a week, drops to 17 hours a week and falls below the national insurance threshold. She is concerned about how that will affect that person's pension. Presumably, that happens day in, day out in England and Wales. I should not have thought that it was as widespread as the hon. Lady implied, but it must be happening and it does not appear to be presenting insuperable problems for those individuals. At the end of the day, it is an individual choice. We are telling people, "You have the right not to work on a Sunday but there will be consequences to that right."
Mrs. Lait: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the current problem has arisen because the Inland Revenue decided not to—as opposed to forgot to—write to people who had fallen into that position, to ask whether they wanted to top up their contributions. These things do not happen in isolation. Obviously, as it now appears that the Inland Revenue had decided not to write, it does not care too much. I suspect that most people do not realise. I am concerned about any increase in the number of people who will not have access to a full state pension.
David Cairns: I do not wish to break the relatively convivial and non-partisan nature of today's debate, but
I could remind the hon. Lady of the decision taken by the previous Government to change the rules of the state earnings-related pension scheme, and not tell people who were going to lose out very badly that they had changed the rules on inherited SERPS—an extremely costly blunder, which the Labour Government had to make up. We did not go back to people who lost out and say, "I'm afraid you will have to make it up." We inherited that disaster and we made it good. The hon. Lady must acknowledge that the Conservative party does not have an unblemished track record on changing rules and not communicating with people about the change.It would be out of order to discuss what did or did not go wrong, and whether it was planned, in terms of informing people about their national insurance breaks. My simple point is that a further regulatory impact assessment will not alter the situation one jot. It will make no difference to those people. That is the situation for everyone who is affected in this regard, whether or not they work in the retail sector, or are local government employees, or whatever. That matter must be dealt with separately. It does not impinge to such a degree as to render a further regulatory impact assessment necessary.
I am not, as the hon. Lady suggested, an expert on all these matters and in every field. The draft regulatory impact assessment, of which I have a copy, which she has seen and which has been widely available, is extensive. It makes a range of assumptions, which are quite prudent, and contains a range of cost options. However, we can base the assessment on the practical reality of the legislation as it has been operating in England and Wales for several years.
Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman said that the legislation was up and running and working in England and Wales. I wonder whether he would share with the House his more general thoughts as to the real effect and impact of the legislation in England and Wales. As far as I am aware, only one tribunal case in England and Wales has cited the 1994 Act since its provisions came in, in 1996. My worry is that the reality for most shop workers is that they are scared of losing their jobs and of the hassle of going to a tribunal and everything that is entailed in that process. They are scared of taking up their rights, particularly because, as the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do, the norm in the retail trade is to have variable five-out-of-seven-day flexible contracts, which do not guarantee that any of the two days off will happen to fall on a Sunday. What are his thoughts on the effectiveness of the current legislation?
David Cairns: I thought that I had partly addressed that issue in the previous short debate. The hon. Gentleman may have a point; I have not sought to deny that. When I said that the legislation was up and working, I was referring to the narrow point that the hon. Member for Beckenham made.
On the general principle, when I spoke to USDAW, the union that represents most of the people that the hon. Gentleman mentions, its officials did not say, "There is no point in replicating this legislation across the border. It does not work and there has only been one tribunal case." They said, "This is exactly what we want." Obviously, when a case reaches a tribunal, the
process has gone beyond the stage where it can be settled amicably between the employer and employee directly. Perhaps—the hon. Gentleman does not know this any more than I do—many of these issues have been settled at a lower level and the fact that there has been only one tribunal case is not an indication that the legislation is ineffective. It may be, and perhaps we need to look at that, but I would not say that it automatically follows that it is ineffective.
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon): I agree that there may be a case for reviewing whether the lack of tribunal cases is an indication that the legislation is not working, but the fact is that because of the 1994 Act, many of the major employers have almost divided their work force and they specifically recruit some people for weekend work and other people for weekday work, so the issue does not arise for many individual employees. The choice is made when they are recruited. That would not have happened if that legislation had not come into effect.
David Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that valid point.
Although the hon. Member for Beckenham was right to table the amendments to probe the legislation, focusing on small shops with five or fewer employees, the majority of people who work in this sector on a Sunday work for larger businesses—businesses that have bases and operations in England and Wales. It would not be an enormous administrative burden for them to extend the practice, with one qualification, given their understanding of how things work in England as opposed to Scotland.
The difference is that in Scotland, Tesco in Greenock can, and does, open 24 hours on a Sunday, whereas Tesco in England and Wales, because of the 1994 Act, opens for only six hours. That was one of the issues on which there was consultation. One issue that must be taken into consideration as part of the regulatory impact is that shops that open 24 hours on a Sunday must find more staff than those that open for only six. There is a clear difference there. When we were discussing the draft of the Bill and considering regulatory impact and consultation, I bore that point very much in mind. That is self-evident.
The consultation went out to businesses, including the large companies, and as far as I am aware—the Minister may correct me—they did not make that argument in their response. I do not think that Tesco said, "We cannot apply the law in Scotland because we have a 24-hour operation as opposed to six hours in England and Wales." Tesco appears confident that it could make the provisions work in Scotland, should the House be pleased to grant the Bill a Third Reading. Such businesses do not appear to think that it will be an insuperable problem.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |