| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
John McDonnell: I met Mr. Wilson as well on Friday, and I think that he has set his video recorder for this debate. I do not think that he is completely ecstatic with the Bill as it is now proposed, and I am sure that he would back further amendments. Perhaps we can discuss that at a later time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Bellingham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) would like to speak to our amendment No. 7. [Interruption.] She was present at the start of the debate. Would it be possible for her to speak to amendment No. 7?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I did not see the hon. Lady in her place trying to catch my eye.
Mr. Djanogly: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Not only did my hon. Friend the Member for
Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) stand up to catch your eye, but so did I, so I would appreciate it if that could be put on the record as well.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Both hon. Members were standing, but it was at the point when the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was withdrawing his amendment. I thought that we were moving to the next debate.
Mrs. Laing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I fully appreciate that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was withdrawing amendment No. 15, but it was my intention to propose amendment No. 7, which stands on the amendment paper in my name and those of my hon. Friends.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have to advise the hon. Lady that we have now come to amendment No. 3, and although she stood up, it was not clear that she wished to speak. There was no indication that she wished to speak on that particular amendment. I have to say that we have now reached amendment No. 3.
Brian Cotter (Weston-super-Mare) (LD): I beg to move amendment No. 3,
- in page 30, line 9, at end insert
(1A) The Secretary of State shall consult such persons as he considers appropriate on the establishment of works councils as an arrangement suitable for informing and consulting employees and shall publish the responses received pursuant to those consultations, together with guidance on best practice for works councils, before making the regulations referred to in subsection (1).'.
Mr. Sutcliffe: There are two aspects to the amendment. On the consultation aspect, the implementation of the information and consultation directive has been the result of extensive consultation, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The amendment would impose a statutory requirement not only when the regulations are made initially, but whenever they may be amended in future, which would not be desirable. The Department already follows Cabinet Office guidelines on public consultation and publishes the results of such consultations, so a statutory obligation would not improve things in practice.
In the case of the information and consultation regulations, we are well aware that the implementation of the directive represents a particularly significant landmark in UK industrial relations, so it is very important that we approach the implementation in a positive and constructive manner. For the first step, we published the discussion document in July 2002, and we held a series a round-table discussions up and down the country with a wide range of individual businesses and their representatives, unions and employment experts, to discuss how best to approach implementation of the directive in the UK. Building on that initial consultation, the Government held discussions with the CBI, the TUC and a range of other organisations about the details of implementation.
An agreed framework for implementing the directive was published on 7 July 2003, together with draft legislation, on which we invited comments, and a further series of round-table discussions were held around the country with a similar mix of experts. I attended five of those discussions myself, other Ministers were present at other events, and copies of the responses to the two consultations are available in the Department of Trade and Industry library. The responses indicate strong and broad support for our approach to implementation, and since the second consultation closed in November officials have been working with a range of stakeholders to refine and improve the regulations. We intend to publish a Government response to the consultation before the summer.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) for raising guidance. The Government have always intended that regulations should be accompanied by guidance. We know that it is very important to all the parties who will be affected by the Bill that guidance is available in advance of the legislation coming into force. We therefore intend to publish draft guidance that will explain how key concepts in the legislation are intended to work in practice. In addition, ACAS will produce best practice guidance that is designed to help information and consultation practitioners get to grips with some of the main issues involved in setting up and running information and consultation procedures. In those circumstances, and notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has said about the importance of works councils, which may be included in the consultation process, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Brian Cotter: I thank the Minister for his answer. We still feel that works councils are important, but, in the light of his comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Bellingham: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 41, line 5, leave out Clause 46.
Conservative Members are not against union modernisation, and we are certainly not against trade unions in fact, we are making a real effort to reach out to them. As I pointed out earlier, the Minister got wind of a meeting that my hon. Friend the Member for
Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and I had the other day with Mr. Brendan Barber. The meeting was constructive, and we have a great deal in common.The Minister has said on a number of occasions that the unions have shown remarkable resilience. They are modernising, but the key point is whether the state should fund the process. The Chancellor made it clear in his Budget that the country's finances are fully stretched borrowing is soaring and a black hole is opening up but the Government still spend our money with irresponsible abandon. The original budget for the Scottish Parliament was £44 million, but the cost is now more than £400 million, and there are also the Electoral Commission, the supreme court and now the modernisation fund.
Our concern is that there is no ceiling or limit on the money for the modernisation fund. Clause 116A states:
- "The Secretary of State may provide money".
Furthermore, the Minister said in Committee that the money may be spent only on specific items, and the clause mentions various items and initiatives that it can be used for. Clause 116A(3) states:
- "Money may be provided in such a way as the Secretary of State thinks fit".
Mr. Bellingham: The DTI partnership fund discusses match funding, but there is no match funding in the Bill. If the Minister were following the rules of the partnership fund, the unions would have to put up a pound for every pound the Government put up.
Mr. Sutcliffe: Just to be clear, we followed not the rules of the fund, but the way in which it was introduced.
Mr. Bellingham: We are still not satisfied. There should be an equal pool of money. We do not want clause 46 to go ahead, but, if it does, it should be even-handed. Many employer organisations want to modernise, reach out to their members and introduce new ways of communicating and dealing with their members, but there is no money for them. The clause is in no way even-handed: it is completely one-sided. The Minister has said on many occasions that the essence of the Bill is even-handedness, but this provision is not even-handed; it is biased and unnecessary. How do we know that the money is not a sop or a bung to the trade unions? That is why we tabled the amendment to delete the clause.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) set out three concerns: first, the way in which the money might be spent; secondly, the amount of money, there being no cap; and, thirdly, the lack of
even-handedness. It surprises me that he did not table an amendment to that effect instead of one that would delete clause 46 altogether. That suggests to me that his true motives are not those that he specified and that he has another agenda to do down the unions.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |