Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Earl of Courtown: I was particularly pleased to hear support for the Bill at Second Reading and I was particularly pleased to hear support for its deregulatory purpose, notably from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
As I made clear at Second Reading, the Government strongly support my noble friend's Bill, as currently drafted. I must say, however, that it would clearly be unfortunate to extend regulation in these circumstances on the back of a deregulation Bill. It would be unfortunate and indeed wrong where such an extension is wholly unnecessary and inappropriate, as I believe to be the case here. That would be wholly contrary to the deregulatory purpose of the Bill.
Perhaps I may explain the Government's objections to this amendment in more detail. The proposed amendment is unnecessary because the British Entertainment and Discotheque Association has prepared a comprehensive code of conduct for Sunday employment. I understand that my noble friend has provided copies to Members of the Committee. In my view the code offers as much as anyone could expect and makes very clear the industry's commitment to giving employees a real choice about Sunday working.
The draft code includes proposals to enable employees to opt out of Sunday working, giving no more than one day's notice of their intentions; the offer of independent arbitration in the event of disputes; and proposals for re-employment or compensation where arbitration upholds complaints. Members of the Committee will understand these as the essential elements of a meaningful code of practice about Sunday working.
The Government believe that voluntary arrangements--provided they work to the satisfaction of both parties--are far preferable to cluttering up the statute book with regulations. Arrangements agreed in the industry concerned are more flexible, and can adapt to the particular needs and circumstances of the parties. These benefits are particularly evident in the case before us.
Furthermore, in recognition of the circumstances of the industry, the code requires only one day's notice from staff of their intention to opt out of working on
Sundays. This is in contrast to the statutory provisions under the noble Baroness's amendment which would require a full three months' notice. The Bill's provisions very much reflect the reality: employees in the industry on the whole tend to be part-time and often do not intend to pursue a long-term career working in dancing establishments. Turnover is high, and in many cases the individual might even have moved on before the three months' notice had expired. Employees in the entertainment industry generally are accustomed to working on Sundays. When we consider the type of work they will be doing we can see why. In general, work in discos and nightclubs will be the type of work which is already common on Sundays--waiting, serving behind the bar and so on. I can see no justification in legislating special provisions for employees who happen to work in a nightclub rather than a local restaurant or pub.I put it to the Committee that what this Bill offers is better than imposing rigid and complex statutory requirements on an industry which, after full consultation with its employees and others with expertise in this area, has agreed to abide by appropriate and beneficial voluntary arrangements attuned to the needs of the industry itself. These are reasonable proposals and we believe that they provide a sound basis for resolving any differences that may occur between employers and employees. The industry association has made it clear that it intends to make the proposed code an effective option in practice, and I understand that it is confident that these voluntary arrangements will rarely be called into use. It expects no difficulty at all in obtaining volunteers to work on Sundays. There is likely to be no question of coercion, and no need for it.
I suggest to the Committee that it is clear that legislation is unnecessary and that very satisfactory arrangements can be made without any interference by Parliament. In the light of this, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that statutory regulation is unhelpful here, and will withdraw her amendments.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, asked why there was no statutory protection, which is the thrust of the noble Baroness's amendment. If I heard him right, I believe he said that Parliament agreed that all other types of Sunday trading workers would be protected. If I remember the Sunday Trading Act correctly, it was shopworkers and betting shop workers who were protected, and that was all. If one looks at other types of workers in many industries, they receive no protection at all. The protection was for a limited and small number of people, relating largely to shopworkers.
When one considers similar industries, including restaurants, bars, clubs, amusement parks, cinemas, theatres, zoos, circuses and any other form of entertainment that one can imagine, there is no statutory protection for those industries, which are all open on Sundays. That is the fundamental reason why it has not been thought right to extend protection on a Sunday into this new area.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also said that the code was an amateurish piece of drafting. I have sat on the Front Bench when he has told me that about Government legislation on many occasions. So what is new? I am sure that the code has defects, but I can assure the noble Lord that the code will be looked at very carefully. We shall try to get it right.
My noble friend Lord Brentford said that the 3,000 jobs would not necessarily all be new ones, but that some would be part-time. That is the case, but part-time jobs are as important as full-time ones in our economy. One of the Government's great successes has been the ability to create part-time jobs, which have very often led to full-time jobs and enabled people to get out of the unemployment or poverty trap. Part-time jobs are very important.
I come back to the reason for the code. The industry has sought to produce a code which is fair and strict. It will help employees. I accept the point from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about £8,000. Perhaps we shall look at that. Opening on Sundays will open up a great deal of deregulation for employees because now some of them can never take a Saturday off. If this Bill becomes an Act, perhaps they will be able to do so and work on Sunday instead.
I come back to the fundamental point that I wish to make to the noble Baroness. The reason there is no statutory protection is that the Sunday Trading Act gave it to shopworkers. Other industries similar to this one, such as restaurants and pubs--there are a huge number and many thousands more than there are of nightclubs in this country--do not have protection. There is no similar protection in Scotland where nightclubs have been open for more than 20 years. There does not seem to be a problem and, by and large, they seem to work well.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister and the noble Viscount for those comments. Perhaps I may bring the Committee back to the issue. This amendment is not about those people who are prepared to do the same job on Sunday as they do on other nights of the week. It is not in dispute that there may be many who work in discotheques and clubs who would be perfectly happy to have the opportunity of working on Sunday and who may prefer to do so, and perhaps swap for another night.
This amendment is not about protecting such people, but those who feel that their security of employment is threatened if they step out of line on the issue. That is why I tabled these amendments. We are largely agreed on the value of deregulation, but I believe that regulation has a very valuable place in protecting people who are in that position.
I do not regard it as an adequate argument that a code can do what legislation does. As often as possible I am happy to write Parliament out of a job, but I do not believe that that is a very good argument. However, I take the point that many others who work on Sundays do not have this protection. Parliament has seen fit to give protection to those working in the retail sector. I accept that these workers are members
of another group who have the prospect of working on Sunday. On that basis I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before calling Amendment No. 3, I point out to the Committee that there is a typing error. The "Licensing Act 1994" should read "Licensing Act 1964".
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I must first declare an interest in that this Bill relates to insurance and I am a member of Lloyd's.
This Bill is a modest measure to remedy a gap in the law. But it will be of considerable significance to those men and women who give up their time to help the police.
The Bill is designed to give police authorities in England and Wales the power to hold personal accident insurance cover for members of the public who voluntarily assist the police. Local authorities already have similar powers. The power was also available to the old county police authorities when they were committees of county councils, before the reforms introduced by the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 created the new free-standing police authorities. The decision not to treat the new police authorities like local authorities so that they could hold personal accident insurance for civilian volunteers has been an unfortunate oversight. It is not clear why this arose. The Bill is intended to put all police authorities in England and Wales on the same footing, by giving them this power, in line with local authorities.
Civilians who voluntarily assist the police make an important contribution to the community. In many instances, the police could not manage without their valuable help. We have all read in our papers and seen on our television screens the rescue of people from our mountains and hills. In these dangerous circumstances, voluntary rescue teams, who are trained mountaineers and who know their areas well, assist the police to undertake a search and rescue. They are not paid for what they do. But they may be injured during the course of a rescue or search. Injuries may be due to the dangers inherent in a rescue rather than any negligence on the part of the volunteer or the police.
In 1996 the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in another place looked into the mountain rescue services in Scotland. At paragraph 23 of its report of June last year it concluded that:
Mountain rescue is one of the most visible types of voluntary support from the public. It is one we all know about, but many perhaps do not realise that it is the police who co-ordinate the rescue and call on the support of rescue teams. Mountain rescue teams are the most obvious group to need personal accident insurance cover. But they are not alone. Voluntary assistants help the police in other capacities. For example, with the rescue of potholers, and large-scale searches for a missing person. Some of our rural police stations have their inquiry desks staffed by volunteers. Police authorities also appoint lay visitors. Lay visitors are unpaid volunteers who observe, comment and report on the conditions in which people are detained at police stations. The nature of the duties performed by such volunteers brings them into regular contact with those visiting police stations or being held in custody. Of necessity, there is a risk that such volunteers will face the possibility of assault and injury.
As it is the police service which calls upon the help of such volunteers, it is only right that the police should be able to arrange the provision of personal accident insurance cover for their voluntary assistants. Insurance cover gives both volunteers and police authorities peace of mind at a minimal cost--around an average of £6,000 per year for each police authority, should each authority choose to hold such insurance cover. That is cheap at the price compared with a potential payout to members of mountain rescue teams of anything up to £150,000 if no insurance cover is provided.
I turn briefly to explain the Bill clause by clause. Clause 1 seeks to provide the necessary powers to the police authorities and is straightforward. Clause 1 amends Section 146A(1A)(a) of the Local Government Act 1972 so that outside London the new free-standing police authorities are treated for the purposes of the 1972 Act as local authorities so that they can hold personal accident insurance policies for voluntary
assistants who may be injured while assisting the police. For the purposes of the Bill, voluntary assistants do not include special constables, as subsection (3) of Clause 1 makes clear.The exclusion of members of the special constabulary from the provisions of this Bill is quite deliberate. Special constables are appointed for a police area and are under the command of senior police officers. They have the powers of a constable. The other voluntary assistants do not. A special constable's conditions of service are therefore significantly different. This is recognised by provision in police regulations for police authorities to provide compensation to special constables who may be injured while on duty. That is not to say that we should be complacent about the need to ensure that police regulations treat special constables fairly. A recent Home Office report on the special constabulary in England and Wales commented on the inadequacy of the level of compensation currently available for special constables, and recommended changes. I understand from Home Office Ministers that they are actively considering changes to police regulations which would improve the level of compensation that can be paid to special constables. Therefore, as special constables are catered for by separate provisions and are in a quite different category to the other voluntary assistants, they have been excluded from the provisions of this Bill.
I turn now to Clause 2 which relates to the Metropolitan Police. As your Lordships know, the police authority for the Metropolitan Police is the Home Secretary. The provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 do not extend to that police force. Specific provision is required so that the Commissioner and the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police district have the same powers as the other chief officers and police authorities in England and Wales in relation to holding personal accident insurance for voluntary assistants. Clause 2 will, therefore, provide to the Metropolitan Police the same powers that will be enjoyed by the other police authorities in England and Wales by virtue of this Bill.
Clause 3 makes a consequential change to Part I of Schedule 2 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 in relation to insurance of voluntary assistants in the Metropolitan Police. The relevant class of insurance is set out in Section 140(1)(b) of the 1972 Act--namely, that Class 1 for accident insurance in Part I of Schedule 2 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 will apply to police authorities by the provisions of this Bill. This clause provides for accident insurance as applied by the 1982 Act and Section 140 of the Local Government Act 1972 to extend to the Metropolitan Police.
Finally, we turn to Clause 4. The Bill will extend to England and Wales only. This Bill does not need to extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland. The Scottish Office has confirmed that it considers the Scottish police authorities have adequate powers to take out personal accident insurance cover for volunteers. The Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities concur with this view.
The position in Northern Ireland is unique. Insurance provisions need to be different there because of the troubled situation that sadly still exists. As your Lordships may know, much of the insurance costs in the Province are picked up by Government. It is not therefore appropriate for the provisions of this Bill to extend to Northern Ireland.
Voluntary assistants play an increasingly important role in supporting our police service. By undertaking these potentially dangerous tasks they leave themselves vulnerable to injury. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the powers this Bill seeks to provide to police authorities will help to nurture the concept of volunteering so that our police service will continue to get the support from the public that it fully deserves. I commend this Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.--(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page