| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bellingham: Again, the Minister has explained clearly that this group of technical amendments flows from the Wilson and Palmer case, and they certainly improve the Bill. In Committee, we discussed at some length the definition of workers who enjoy rights. The Minister is right to say that it was always intended that that should cover all workers in employment. At the time, despite his many civil servants, he did not spot that the provision also unintentionally covered workers seeking employment. The Opposition should have spotted that small anomaly, and I dare say that my colleague the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) should have done so too, but I think that we can be forgiven. There may be a good legal reason to explain why we missed it, but the amendments ensure that the coverage is limited to the target group of those in employment. That must be positive, and we welcome the change.
Sir Robert Smith: These amendments prove the worth of our bicameral system, which ensures that errors get spotted before it is too late. I also welcome the fact that the concerns of the Joint Committee on Human Rights have been addressed. That shows how useful it is to have a human rights factor in our legislation, as it means that we can try to get our law right so that people do not need to waste time going to a foreign court to ensure that their rights are implemented.
Mr. Sutcliffe: These amendments arose from a complicated and complex investigation of the ECHR judgment. That is how the question of the definition came to light, so hon. Members should not be too hard on themselves for not spotting the problem. Members of the House of Lords consider these matters line by line and issue by issue and over many years they have accrued a great deal of expertise. It is right that the processes available in this House enable other bodies to submit their views. The Joint Committee expressed its view very clearly, and we responded with this solution. I admit that the solution does not meet all requirements, but we believe that it is a fair attempt to protect all workers who are affected.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 43 agreed to.
Clause 32
Lords amendment No. 44.
Mr. Sutcliffe: 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 amendment No. 45.
Mr. Sutcliffe:
During the Standing Committee stage of the Bill, I brought forward a new clause to give unions
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1480
the latitude to deal adequately with political activists who pursue a racist or xenophobic political agenda. At that time, I indicated that the Government and the TUC were giving further consideration to the drafting of the remedies provisions.
I am glad to be able to say that we brought forward amendments on this point in the other place that expressly refer an employment tribunal to the union's objectives, as well as its rules, when determining whether the minimum award should apply. That was a key issue for the TUC, which was worried by the fact that many unions do not refer to their equality or anti-racist policies in their rule books.
The provisions affected by these amendments operate where a person is excluded or expelled from a union mainly because he or she is a member of a political party but partly because of other conduct. In combination, the amendments disapply the minimum award where the other conduct in question is contrary to the union's rules or objectives, provided that it was reasonably practicable for the person concerned to have ascertained the objectives in question.
The amendments give the degree of transparency that we have been aiming for, and improve the practical implementation of this clause. They satisfy the TUC's concerns on this point and, for these reasons, I hope that the House will agree to them.
Mr. Bellingham: These amendments were proposed when trade union legal eagles decided that the Bill needed to be improved. Opposition Members have had discussions with the trade union movement about the Bill, and I have met TUC general secretary Brendan Barber. We may not agree about much, but we do agree about some things. We are pragmatic and practical when it comes to improving the Bill, and common sense is our watchword. We support the amendment.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I thank the hon. Gentleman, and welcome his optimism about the relationship between the Conservative party and the trade union movement. I know that he has met Brendan Barber, and I encourage other Opposition Members to do the same.
The matter at issue here was important, and had the potential to open up a legal minefield. Again, I ask the House to support the amendment.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 45 agreed to.
Clause 34
Lords amendment No. 46.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I beg to move, that the House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 47 to 50, 68, 69 and 71.
Mr. Sutcliffe:
This group of amendments relates to part 3 of the Bill, and covers three topics, which I shall deal with in turn.
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1481
Amendment No. 46 is a purely technical amendment designed to ensure that the existing provisions relating to employment tribunal cases, where there may be implications for national security, achieve the scope originally intended on their introduction in 1999.
Amendment No. 47 introduces a protection for employees who are dismissed or otherwise detrimentally treated because they serve on juries or are summoned to do so. Amendments Nos. 68, 69 and 71 are consequential to amendment No. 47.
Earlier this year, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 removed the categories of ineligibility for jury service and excusal as of right from jury service, and thus increased the numbers of people eligible to serve on juries. We are concerned that this wider eligibility may prompt some employers to ill treat employees, either by dismissing them or in some other way, because they find it inconvenient to release them for jury service. At the moment, there is no special protection for employees in that position. They can, of course, claim under the general unfair dismissal legislation, but to do so they must have completed a year's service with their employer, and claims are subject to an upper age limit. Moreover, there is no protection against detrimental treatment short of dismissal. We believe that it is right that special protection should now be introduced. As Lord Sainsbury said when he introduced these amendments in the other place, they are important new protections.
Amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 50 make purely technical amendments to clause 38, addressing a drafting inconsistency relating to the operation of the flexible working law. They amend incorrect cross references in the Employment Rights Act 1996 to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Mr. Bellingham: As the Minister said, these amendments give extra protection to employees who might be disciplined by employers for serving on a jury. Jury service has been extended substantially, and some of the exempt categories have been removed.
It would beggar belief if an employer were to discriminate against an employee because that person had been asked to serve country and community by serving on a jury. The Minister is right to grant special protection for employees treated in that way, or who received detrimental treatment short of dismissal. My only regret is that Opposition Members did not spot this gap in the Bill during the Committee stage and so did not table an amendment of our own on this matter. Had we done so, we might have succeeded in getting that amendment accepted by the Government.
Sir Robert Smith:
I strongly support the message sent by the amendments that jury service is a civic duty that should not be impeded in any way by an employer and, in particular, the recognition that not only dismissal but unfair treatment could be used to stop someone from carrying out that duty. If we are to respect jury service, employers should not be allowed to stand in the way of people undertaking it. The legislation sends a strong signal to confirm that we recognise the importance of jury service.
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1482
2 pm
Mr. Sutcliffe: Again, I am grateful for the contribution from both hon. Gentlemen. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) should not be too hard on himself. He made many eloquent speeches to the Committee over a long period of time. We listened carefully to most of them but were unable to accept any of his amendments. However, we have acted on the intentions behind them in some instances. Jury service is important to our communities and it is right that people are protected in the few cases where problems occur.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |