Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
living within 150 metres of any part of the route as specified in the proposed scheme?
If one person were missed out, we would end up with judicial review, which reveals it to be a wrecking amendment, does it not?
Paul Clark: I think that my hon. Friend may well have put his finger directly on the intention behind some of these amendments [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for Wimbledon has been closely following our deliberations and he will have read the amendments tabled by others.
Rob Marris: Will the Minister give way again on that point?
Paul Clark: No; let me make some progress. In common, however, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central, I want to respond to the amendments and to comments made by right hon. and hon. Members in the debate. Indeed, it would be discourteous not to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) raised a number of points, particularly about how QCS boards will view the public interest. He hoped that the boards would not nit-pick too muchI think that that was my hon. Friends terminology. It will certainly not be the job of QCS boards to second-guess every point of detail in a local authoritys proposal. Their role will be to ensure that a proper and plausible analysis had been carried out. My hon. Friend was equally concerned about drafting issues and I can confirm that the reference to the
coming into force of a quality contract
does, indeed, mean the date on which services start to be provided under that contract. We think that that meaning is made clear by the rest of the wording in new section (1A)(a) inserted by amendment No. 124.
My hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Blackley and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised a number of issues, including about the number of days of notice to be given. We can confirm that the notice period will be dealt with in regulations and increased from 56 to 112 days, which we believe is the right time for a period of transition towards a quality contracts scheme.
In addition, questions about the tribunal process have been asked. I had hoped that my earlier comments clarified the position, but my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) was particularly concerned about it. I reiterate that our intention is to ensure that the process is not overly cumbersome. We cannot prejudge what our Ministry of Justice colleagues will do, but I can give an assurance that, whatever the outcome, the process will have taken less time than a judicial review does.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Eccles (Ian Stewart) asked about the wording of broadly comparable and whether anyone would end up worse off. The broadly comparable wording in the amendment is consistent with the wording in the Local Government Act 2003, which makes provision for pension protection policy where activities are contracted out by the local authority. We are not aware of any difficulties that have arisen from the use of that wording. We are happy to work with the unions and other interested parties as we develop the secondary legislation that will support this important Bill.
On whether quality contract workers will be eligible to join the local government pension scheme, it would obviously be for an employer to determine what pension provision to offer its work forcesubject, of course, to meeting the requirements set out in the regulations. The Government have confirmed to the trade unions that an operator of services provided under a quality contract would be eligible to join the local government pension scheme in respect of employees engaged in the provision of services under the quality contract.
Ian Stewart: Will my hon. Friend clarify, on that specific point, that that will also apply to employees of operators who are not local government operators?
Paul Clark: This covers all employees who have been working under quality contract schemes.
Let me turn finally to issues of unfair dismissal, particularly whether it is automatically unfair if an employee is dismissed by an operator who fails to win a quality contract. We do not believe that that constitutes unfair dismissal. Because of the changes that we introduced in the mid-1980s, buses operate under a deregulated market, so bus operators, like suppliers in all sectors of the economy, are free to decide what services they wish to provide.
The Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that the dismissal of employees who are redundant is not unfair dismissal. That is an important principle in employment legislation. The best we can do is, first, ensure that, wherever possible, employees in the area of quality contract schemes are protected by TUPE and, secondly, minimise as far as possible the likelihood of that situation arising where TUPE does not apply.
John McDonnell: I welcome many of the statements that the Minister has made tonight with regard to TUPE. A joint mechanism between the Government and the trade unions would be invaluable to monitor the implementation of the legislation in the coming period, particularly the detail that will be in the regulations, which he will publish in due course.
Paul Clark: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be one of those who scrutinises how well the legislation works. He will be well aware that there are mechanisms to check how it operates, and that can be done in conjunction with all those who have an interest, including the trade unions.
Ian Stewart: My hon. Friend has not been able to give complete reassurance to those of us who are concerned about that aspect of employment law, butjust in case any employers do not understandwill he reiterate that all other employment protections remain in place for workers who are made redundant?
Paul Clark: We have made it clear in the Bill that we have moved a long way on TUPE provisions and extended them to include those on pensions.
Before I conclude, may I make one point clear? I gave an answer on the 112-day consultation period: all that is out to consultation with the very people whom some of my colleagues want to see involvedthe trade unionsas well as all concerned.
We have had an interesting debate about major issues. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear!] I am delighted that Conservative Members agree, because I am sure that they want for their constituents good bus services that run on time, use all the available facilities and work in conjunction with all concerned to deliver a public benefit. On that basis, I have no doubt that they will want to join us in the Lobby. I commend new clause 9 to the House.
Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause: (b), in line 31, leave out three months and insert one month. [Stephen Hammond.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Your answer to the following question may well be that we have pagers and that the vote was advertised on the screens, but for those of us who were not looking at either, may I inform you that the Division bell failed to ring in Portcullis House and thus some of us missed the vote? Might you make inquiries as to why it was not working, and ensure that it will be working for any future votes this evening?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman. He is one of several Members who have informed me that the Division bells were not ringing in Portcullis House. On the basis of that information, I extended the period before the doors were locked by two minutes. I am aware that Members rely on the Division bells, but he is right to point out that they also have other means of knowing when there is a vote. As we are speaking, investigations are under way to make sure, as far as we can, that the Division bells will be working in any subsequent Divisions. May I also remind hon. Members to check their pagers and BlackBerrys and the Annunciator?
Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In light of that wise rulingas all rulings from the Chair aremay I remind the House through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that mobile phone signals do not work in Portcullis House and that our pagers are not reliable there? We rely on the Division bells, so they really do need to work.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Perhaps that is a matter that the hon. Gentleman might take up via other channels? In the meantime, may I remind all Members that when
they are not in the Chamber they should keep an eye on the other methods by which they are informed that a vote is taking place?
Next Section | Index | Home Page |