Annette
Brooke: I beg to move amendment 259, in
clause 39, page 20, line 37, at
end insert ‘except where
that employee is employed by an employer who employs less than 20
employees;’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take
Government amendments 183 and
184.
Annette
Brooke: According to my information, the amendment refers
to line 27, but it should apply to line 37. The suggestion
for the amendment has come from the Federation of Small Businesses. It
urges the introduction of an exemption for businesses with fewer than
20 employees so that they can continue to hold one-to-one informal
meetings, without the need for union representation.
The figure of
20 is based on the number of members that a union must have to be
recognised by a business. If we translate this to even smaller
businesses, with perhaps three or four employees, it puts the measure
in context as to whether it would be practical. The Federation of Small
Businesses makes the point that the best way in which to engage small
businesses with the policy is to keep it informal, making it
easy to identify necessary
training.
Mr.
Gibb: We believe that the amendment is a sensible measure
to support small businesses, provided that it is put into the right
place in the Bill. According to the impact assessment, 1,019,295
micro-businesses that employ fewer than 10 employees. That represents
83 per cent. of firms, but 20 per cent. of employees. Taking that
number up to 20 employees, as proposed under the amendment, the
proportion would increase to somewhere between 20 and 37 per cent. I
guess that it would increase by about a
quarter. The
Government might argue that the amendment would deny this important
training right to too many people—to one quarter of employees;
but, we would argue that to lose one employee in a firm of just 10 or
20 people for a period of training could be disastrous for
that company. Then, no doubt, the Minister would argue that new section
63F(7) provides grounds for refusal of a request for training in those
circumstances, but there is an administrative burden in dealing with
the request. The manager of the firm, presented with an official form
that purported to give an employee the right to time off, would then be
required to look up the provision, read the legislation and
determine that he could refuse the request on the grounds of
new section 63F(7)(c),
“detrimental
effect on ability to meet customer
demand”, which
he might then have to prove. Since most people who run small businesses
are not lawyers, the manager would almost certainly have to take legal
advice to come to that view. It would be better, therefore, to remove
small businesses from the provisions all together.
Mr.
Simon: I am slightly confused now about which part of the
Bill the amendment seeks to amend. I previously took the amendment to
be related to the part where it would actually be inserted, rather than
the part where the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole
subsequently told us she intended it to be inserted. Where it would
have been inserted, it would
have—
The
Chairman: Order. For the Minister’s benefit, I read
out that the amendment is proposed at clause 39, page 20, line 37. We
are debating that part of the Bill.
Mr.
Simon: In which case, we are talking not about whether we
exempt small firms from the provisions all together, but about whether
we exempt small firms merely from the part of the Bill that deals with
the opportunity to take a colleague along to the meeting at which the
right to train is requested. On that basis, although I shall go into a
little bit more detail, I shall take a little more convincing if hon.
Members seriously believe that the Bill requires an exemption to the
provision for people to take a friend to a meeting.
Evidence
shows that, of employees without a level 2 qualification, about one
quarter are in a workplace with 10 or fewer people. It therefore
follows that employees in smaller businesses are more likely to be in
need of support when discussing with their employer a request for time
to train. We also want that right to be as simple as possible for
employers to operate, so setting up different rules for different
groups of business would add complexity and break the close alignment
that we seek with flexible working, which has been recognised as a
factor in making the new right easier for employers to work
with.
We therefore
see no reason to restrict who is given the right to have a companion go
with them to meetings about new section 63D applications. I also draw
the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the way in which the provision
has been defined in the indicative regulations that were provided to
the Committee. They state that a companion must be, first, someone
selected by the employee, and, secondly, a worker employed by the same
employer as the employee. That is quite straightforward and reflects
our policy intention.
Mr.
Gibb: I hope that the Minister, before he concludes his
remarks, will speak to his own, Government
amendments.
Mr.
Simon: I shall and, indeed, was just about to seek
permission to speak to Government amendments 183 and 184.
Amendment 183
relates to the scope of the regulation-making power in new section
63F(4) and how it can be applied to people who act as companions. The
amendment would make a technical change to new section 63G(1) to make
it clear that the regulation-making power at new section 63F(4) was
wide enough to enable regulations to be made about the rights of those
who act or seek to act as companions not to suffer detriment, and about
unfair dismissal. It is clearly important that those people receive the
proper protection when they act as a companion under the
provisions.
3.45
pm
Amendment 184
is a minor technical amendment that would simply ensure that new
section 104E in the Employment Rights Act 1996 was consistent with the
other provisions that clause 39 inserts. The amendment would correct a
minor error in new section 104E, replacing “learning
support” with “section 63D”, the term that is used
elsewhere in the clause. On that basis, I urge hon. Members to withdraw
their support for the
amendment.
Annette
Brooke: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sure
that my colleagues will peruse it carefully and consider whether they
should pursue the amendment further at a later stage of the Bill. I beg
to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Amendment
made: 183, in
clause 39, page 20, line 43, leave
out ‘and (b)’ and insert ‘to
(c)’.—(Mr.
Simon.) This amendment is
about those who accompany, or seek to accompany, employees to meetings
about section 63D applications. It ensures the regulation-making power
at the new section 63F(4) (inserted into the Employment Rights Act
1996) includes power to make provision about companions’ right
not to suffer detriment and about unfair
dismissal.
Annette
Brooke: I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 39, page 21,
line 12, at end insert— ‘(d)
fails to attend more than two consecutive periods of study or
training.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 13, in
clause 39, page 21, line 14, at
end insert—
‘(4) Failure to start, attend or complete the
agreed study or training shall constitute permissible grounds for an
employer to remove the awarded time
off.’.
Annette
Brooke: Both amendments seek to allow employers to act if
the employee is not using the time off to attend the course, which is
perfectly reasonable. I am slightly concerned about the many cases
where there will be good reason for not attending a course, such as
being rushed into hospital, so would prefer some softening on the edges
of the amendments, which both seek to do the same
thing. I
taught in a college of further education for many years, so I am aware
that students can turn up for the first session and then not again for
a long time. It is important that we give employers the backing to
support training; therefore, some provision needs to be made, but
possibly it should be a little more humane than what is in the
amendments.
Mr.
Gibb: Briefly, these IOD-inspired amendments were tabled
to tackle the very real issue of what happens if the employee, having
been granted time off to study, simply fails to attend courses. They
impose a duty on the employee to inform their employer that they are
not attending the course. That seems entirely reasonable, and we
support the direction of travel taken by the two
amendments.
Mr.
Simon: First, I was not at all surprised to learn that the
hon. Lady spent a long time in a further education college. She
revealed herself in the past few minutes to have picked up a set of
competencies, as they are now called, which show her to be practical,
resourceful and resilient under testing circumstances—skills
which I do not doubt she honed in the FE
sector. The
hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton tells us that people
need to have their training attendance ensured and enforced, and they
certainly do. Our firm belief is that those provisions are in place in
the Bill, and that the amendments are
unnecessary. Bill
Wiggin (Leominster) (Con): Is it the Minister’s
understanding, therefore, that if an employee did not turn up at his
training and did not say anything about it at all, that would be
grounds for a gross misconduct charge or lead to
dismissal?
Mr.
Simon: I cannot say whether that would lead to dismissal.
Would it be a disciplinary issue? Yes, and I shall explain
why. The
hon. Member for Leominster will be fascinated to learn that proposed
new section 63H, which is to be inserted in the Employment Rights Act
1996,
states: “The
employee must inform the employer if the employee...fails to
start” or “fails
to complete the agreed study or training...undertakes, or proposes
to undertake, study or training that differs from the agreed study or
training in any
respect”. That
includes a requirement to inform the employer of any change as to when
the agreed study or training is to take place.
The effect of
the section is wide-ranging. It will capture instances of failing to
attend more than two consecutive periods of study or training, as
proposed by the amendment, if it had been agreed that the employee
should attend those periods. It is better to include this broader
requirement than to set what might be arbitrary minimum requirements
for attendance, which might not in any event apply to all training
requests that are granted. Many will not involve more than one period
of study. The measure will give employers the assurance and oversight
that they need to monitor whether employees are fulfilling their
responsibilities. That
brings us to the nub of the issue and amendment 13. If
employees are required to report the fact that they failed to start or
to complete the agreed study or training or that they undertook a
different course of study or training, why is there no corresponding
power for employers to withdraw support if those events occur? In our
view, legislating for the circumstances in which an employer could
withdraw their support, having previously agreed to a request, would
make the provisions complicated and difficult to operate. It is not
done like that in flexible working, which works very well. If we gave
employers a right to withdraw support in the Bill, we would have to
give employees a right to appeal in the Bill. In the interests of
flexibility, it is best to allow the employer and employee to reach an
agreement between themselves on the circumstances in which the employee
should no longer be able to continue with the agreed study or training.
That will enable the individual circumstances of the employer and the
nature of what has been requested and of the absence to be taken into
account. In
certain circumstances, the employer’s normal disciplinary
procedures may apply if the employee fails to attend the agreed
training. In other circumstances, in which the employee’s
request was only for a short course or on-the-job training, the
employer’s withdrawal
of support would be unlikely to be so significant. The employer may
consider taking into account the failure of an employee to attend a
course when dealing with future requests. We plan to issue guidance to
employers and employees to assist with this aspect of training. We
shall consult stakeholders and business representative bodies on the
guidance before it is
issued. There
is one other minor point, which I hope hon. Members will not mind me
mentioning here. It is not accurate—hon. Members generally have
not done this today—to refer to time off when considering
training under these provisions. This is a right to request study and
training. In many cases, that will not be time off. It is important to
bear it in mind that time associated with the new right will be spent
training for the good of the business. On the basis of all those
comments, I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole
will withdraw the
amendment.
Annette
Brooke: I thank the Minister for his detailed reply and
his assurance that there will be guidance with full consultation of
stakeholders. That will give the various employers’ associations
adequate opportunity to comment on the issues. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Amendment
made: 184, in clause 39, page 23, line 6, leave out
‘learning support’ and insert ‘section
63D’.—(Mr.
Simon.) This amendment
makes new section 104E (which is inserted into the Employment Rights
Act 1996) consistent with other provisions inserted by clause 39, which
refer to a ‘section 63D
application’. Clause
39, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Ordered,
That further consideration be now adjourned.— (Ms
Butler.) 3.53
pm Adjourned
till Tuesday 17 March at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
