Employment Relations Bill

---

Standing Committee D

Tuesday 3 February 2004

(Morning)

[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]

Employment Relations Bill

9.30 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Employment Relations Bill (in addition to its first meeting at half-past Nine o'clock on Tuesday 3rd February 2004) the Standing Committee do meet—

(a) at half-past Two o'clock on Tuesday 3rd February 2004;

(b) at half-past Nine o'clock and half-past Two o'clock on each of the following days, namely, Thursday 5th February 2004, Tuesday 10th February 2004, Tuesday 24th February 2004 and Thursday 26th February 2004.

(2) the proceedings to be taken on the sittings shall be as shown in the second column of the Table below and shall be taken in the order so shown;

(3) the proceedings which under paragraph (2) are to be taken on any sitting shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time indicated in the Table;

(4) paragraph (2) does not prevent proceedings being taken (in the order shown in the second column of the Table) at any earlier sitting than that provided for under paragraph (2) if previous proceedings have already been concluded.

Sitting	Proceedings	Time for conclusions of proceedings
1st	Clause 1, Clause 4, Clauses 2 and 3, Clauses 5 to 30	—
2nd	Clause 1, Clause 4, Clauses 2 and 3, Clauses 5 to 30	—
3rd	Clause 1, Clause 4, Clauses 2 and 3, Clauses 5 to 30	—
4th	Clause 1, Clause 4, Clauses 2 and 3, Clauses 5 to 30	—
5th	Clause 1, Clause 4, Clauses 2 and 3, Clauses 5 to 30	—
6th	Clause 1, Clause 4, Clauses 2 and 3, Clauses 5 to 30	5.30 pm
7th	Clauses 31 to 42	—
9th	New Clauses, New Schedules, Clauses 43 to 45, Schedules 1 and 2, remaining proceedings on the Bill	—
10th	New Clauses, New Schedules, Clauses 43 to 45, Schedules 1 and 2, remaining proceedings on the Bill	5.30 pm

Good morning, Mr. Stevenson. I welcome you to the Chair and look forward to working with you and with Mr. Forth, who will replace you in due course. This is an important Bill and we look forward to the detailed discussions that we will have.

I am delighted to see the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) in his place. Skill, charm and wit are among his attributes and, although I am sure that he will get it wrong in terms of substance, the Programming Sub-Committee has tried to provide ample time to ensure that the Bill is well

Column Number: 4

scrutinised. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place, as I do other Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). On my own side, I am delighted to have my former colleague in the Whips Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), alongside me to keep the expert array of talent on the Government Benches in order as we go through the Bill.

I believe that there is ample opportunity to discuss a range of issues. I want to raise the issue of the union modernisation fund, which has hit the press since Second Reading. I assure the Committee that it will have the opportunity, despite what the press reports may say, to discuss the issue in full at the appropriate time. The Government are currently considering the proposals, but they will come before the Committee and I am sure that it will have wise words to say about the fund. We will give the Committee that opportunity.

Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): I endorse what the Minister has said in welcoming you, Mr. Stevenson, and your colleague, Mr. Forth, to the Committee. We in the Opposition look forward to working with you.

I am glad that we have agreed some alterations to the programme motion. Initially, we took the view that there was no need for a programme motion on the Bill. As the Minister has pointed out, it is an important Bill but not one that will involve our getting into long detailed arguments. I have said all along that we will be constructive and positive about many parts of the Bill, but will want to concentrate on one or two specific clauses.

I regret the principle of the programme motion, but I want to thank the Minister and the Government Whip for their flexibility in allowing us a little more time for discussion of part 1. There are quite a few amendments on part 1, and I am sure that Government Members will want to make various comments. The Minister mentioned the union consolidation fund. It is regrettable that the Bill is already being used as an opportunity to add a variety of new amendments. Although we find that regrettable, we will obviously await the substance and details and return to the matter in due course. However, we are content with the programme motion as it stands.

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD): I support the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and thank the Minister and the Government Whip for their courtesy in allowing consultation on the programme motion. It is both my personal view from experience and my party's view that an agreed programme that allows a Bill to be properly debated is far preferable to an elastic programme that has to be curtailed, leaving significant provisions undebated or undetermined.

We as a party broadly support the Bill; the Conservative Opposition's position is rather different. However, we would like to debate one or two issues and we will also be tabling amendments. I hope that we have the balance and the spirit right. We are here to do

Column Number: 5

a job of work and to debate the issues objectively and tirelessly. The consultation that has taken place in advance has been constructive.

Question put and agreed to.

The Chairman: I now move to a short announcement on Committee arrangements. Adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendment that might be reached during an afternoon sitting. I hope that all Committee members understand that as I do.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Determination of appropriate bargaining unit

Mr. Bellingham: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in

clause 4, page 4, line 5, leave out 'compatible with' and insert 'conducive to'.

''Appropriate bargaining unit'' in the title of the clause refers to the unit of employees within a firm or group of companies that forms the bargaining unit for the purposes of the legislation. Our reason for wishing to substitute the words ''conducive to'' for ''compatible with'' is simple. Compatibility with effective management is too passive a formulation and ''conducive to'' is more positive. If we consider the role of management in the business and its right to create wealth, for the purposes of what the Central Arbitration Committee must take into account, the words ''conducive to'' are stronger and clearer than the words ''compatible with''. That is the essence of the amendment.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye) (Lab): Is it not a problem that the word ''conducive'' is subjective and therefore likely to lead to all sorts of disagreements, whereas ''compatible'' is objective and therefore easier to understand?

Mr. Bellingham: I do not necessarily accept that; it is a debating point. However, I accept that our amendment would make it slightly fairer to management when it came to sorting out one small aspect of the equation. We are suggesting a change to a point of detail in a part of the Bill that is concerned with how the management structure in a particular company is able to run the business.

Let me also touch on amendment No. 16, which is grouped with—

The Chairman: Order. That is a separate amendment.

Mr. Bellingham: In that case, I have finished.

Mr. Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): In getting down to the nitty-gritty of the Bill, I have found it one of the harder ones to contend with, because only two of its clauses are stand-alone provisions. Otherwise, it relates to other legislation—the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act

Column Number: 6

1992, the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Employment Relations Act 1999, the minimum wage legislation and so forth—and it is impossible to consider the Bill without referring to that legislation.

I was struck by the fact that there have been some 25 pieces of pro-union legislation, and this adds to them. The clause and part 1 make more changes, invariably in favour of the unions. I should like to ask the Minister about a matter that comes up throughout the Bill. I would appreciate it if we could address it in the early stages, rather than have it as an ongoing issue. Where did the proposals, including that dealt with in amendment No. 1, come from? Did the Government carry out a review of the changes that would be necessary to existing legislation, or did they ask the unions—

The Chairman: Order. I am a little worried that this is becoming a Second Reading debate or perhaps a clause stand part debate. Will the hon. Gentleman refer to the specific wording of the amendment?

Mr. Djanogly: I thank you, Mr. Stevenson, for your comments, which I respect, but this is an important issue, which will come up throughout our proceedings, so I thought that it might be appropriate—

The Chairman: Order. I respect what the hon. Gentleman says, and I shall try to reflect that in my comments, but I really would like him to get back to the amendment.

Mr. Djanogly: I shall, although I hope that the Minister has taken my point on board.

Clause 4 relates to the appropriate bargaining unit in cases where the parties have failed to reach agreement. I support amendment No. 1. Management's primary concern is the effective running of the company. It must be allowed to manage the units of labour, and that goes to the heart of the problem with much of the legislation, which is stultifying and ties down the units of labour. That makes management harder than it should be, by working against the adaptable allocation of labour. Perhaps the question that was posed earlier could be turned round, and the Minister could give examples of what compatibility means in this context.

 

---

Prepared 3 February 2004