Clause
25
Duty
to enable participation: arrangements subsequently
notified
Mr.
Laws:
I beg to move amendment No. 173, in
clause 25, page 14, line 5, at
end add—
‘(8) No part of
this section shall have such effect as to compel a person to whom this
Part applies to work in the evenings or at weekends where this is
outside the conditions of the contract of
employment.’.
I
fear that we are touching on issues and concerns similar to those
addressed by the previous amendment, but in a slightly different way.
What if an employer who is not particularly enthusiastic about the
Bill, which is quite understandable from my party’s point of
view, recognises their education or training obligation, but says,
“Fine, do it on Saturday. Do it at 9 o’clock in the
evening”, when it is outside the conditions of the contract of
employment? Will there be any protection, or will the backstop for that
also be that the young person must simply give up the job opportunity
or end up potentially working a vast number of hours both in formal
employment and in education or training during the
week?
Jim
Knight:
I have now found the relevant clauses to which I
refer the hon. Gentleman. Clause 24(2) states
that:
“The
employer must permit the employee to participate in training or
education in accordance with those appropriate
arrangements.”
The appropriate arrangements are defined
in clause 20. With regard to subsequent notification, clause 25(2)
states
that:
“The
employer must, so far as is reasonable having regard to the matters
mentioned in subsection (3), permit the person to participate in
training or education in accordance with those appropriate
arrangements.”
Therefore,
there are clearly obligations on the employer. They cannot simply be
unreasonable in that
respect.
Obviously,
there are working time regulations that also protect young workers from
being exploited, which was a concern of the hon. Gentleman’s.
Young workers may not work or attend relevant training in the
restricted period, which is normally between 10 pm and 6 am. I hope
that there are not too many young workers working in the Palace
tonight. If the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Yeovil is
intended to stop young people being compelled to work in the evening or
at the weekend against the terms of their contract, it is
unnecessary.
One
course of action under the clause would be to allow the young person
time off in normal working hours. If those hours did not already
include evenings and weekends, that course of action could not have the
effect of requiring them to work then. The other course of action would
be for the young person and their employer to agree to vary the terms
of the contract so that the course times were outside the normal
working hours. If that course was taken, there would be a new contract,
with new terms and conditions and the working hours would be within
those.
If, on the
other hand, the intention of the amendment is to prevent any changes
from being made to the original contract, even by mutual agreement,
that result in a young person working in the evening or at the weekend
when they have not before, I would resist that, as it seems an
unnecessarily restrictive amendment to the arrangements that employers
and employees can make. It is certainly not the intention of the policy
to encourage or require young people to work evenings and weekends if
they do not want to, as I have stated. It is important that we retain
the flexibility in the
clause.
If necessary,
and if the employer of the young person agrees, any contract that does
not already cover evening and weekend working could be varied by mutual
agreement. The clause does not require that, but we think that it is a
necessary flexibility. We hope, on that basis, that the hon. Gentleman
will withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Laws:
I am not sure whether I should be completely
reassured by what the Minister has said. I think that I need time to
read his rather hastily read comments and to establish whether I should
be reassured or whether I should not be hoodwinked. As I need that
deliberation time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Mr.
Laws:
I beg to move amendment No. 174, in
clause 25, page 14, line 5, at
end add—
‘(8) This section
shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has published
guidance.’.
I think that I can also deal
with this amendment in a short time. The clause is quite significant.
Subsection (3) specifies some elements that must be taken into account
by the employer in relation to the needs of the person who is
required
“to fulfil the
duty imposed by section
2”.
They may also take
into account
“the
circumstances of the employer’s
business”
and
“the
effect of the person’s absence from work on the running of that
business.”
Those matters
are all potentially complex in terms of making judgments and it is not
obvious to me how those judgments would be
made.
Amendment
No. 174 would require that the subsection shall not come into force
until guidance has been published in relation to the clause. That would
also give us a better clue to answering some of the questions posed by
subsection (3). I wanted to find out from the Minister whether there is
a plan to publish such guidance or whether it is already available
somewhere and I have missed
it.
7.15
pm
Jim
Knight:
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Yeovil for
giving me the opportunity to clarify for the Committee that we intend
to issue guidance to employers, so that they know how to fulfil their
duties. I think that I mentioned that earlier. We do not believe that
the duty will be an excessive burden on employers and we would not want
there to be any suggestion that one of the employers’ duties
might not come into force at the same time as all the other duties set
out in the Bill, as that would reduce the impact of the policy.
Naturally, as we are going to discuss in clauses 29 and 30, there are
mechanisms to withdraw enforcement notices to ensure that employers are
treated fairly. On the basis of that reassurance, I hope that the hon.
Gentleman will withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Laws:
I am grateful for the reassurance, but is the
Minister in a position to say when the guidance might be available?
Having some idea of how the Government will view such matters would be
useful to the Committee and to the deliberations of the House while we
are debating the Bill. There are some complex judgments to be made,
which will have an important bearing on how the clause, particularly
subsection (3), is applied. Could we have some kind of date? If that
date is a long distance in the future, is there any chance of having a
helpful letter from the Minister to the Committee to enlighten us
all?
Jim
Knight:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me
the opportunity to intervene again. As we said before, on guidance, we
are some way away from the measure coming into effect, so it would not
be appropriate for us to circulate draft guidance, which might then be
superseded by events. However, I will certainly reflect on whether I
can circulate some thoughts to the Committee in order to
assist.
Mr.
Laws:
I am grateful to the Minister and will press the
matter no further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
s
2
6 to 32
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Michael
Foster.]
Adjourned
accordingly at nineteen minutes past Seven o’clock till
Thursday 21 February at Nine
o’clock.
| 
