MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

HC Deb 12 February 2002 vol 380 cc165-80

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 76, line 2, at end insert— 29A In section 98 (fairness of dismissal: general), in subsection (6)—

1. (a) for "are" there is substituted "is", and
2. (b) in paragraph (a), for "99" there is substituted "98A".'.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

9.16 pm

Alan Johnson

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I thank hon. Members for their important contributions to debate on the Bill, not only on Report, but on Second Reading and in Committee. Those who have participated have done so constructively and with great good humour, and they have provided thorough and helpful scrutiny of the Bill's provisions.

The Bill is an important one, touching on many aspects of people's work and family lives. It represents a balanced package, providing new rights and responsibilities for employers and employees alike. The Bill introduces new rights that will ensure that parents are able to spend time with their children when it is most valuable, while they are young—the children, that is, not the parents. We are for the first time introducing statutory paternity and adoption leave, and a requirement that businesses seriously consider requests for flexible working.

Mr. Kevin Hughes (Doncaster, North)

On the issue of paternity and adoption leave, my hon. Friend will recall that in Committee I tabled probing amendments in respect of those who would not be eligible because their earnings were below the lower limit. He informed the Committee that the Department for Work and Pensions was thinking of redressing that problem to coincide with other provisions, and in correspondence the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has informed me that the Department intends to make regulations to deal with that.

None the less, I should like to ask my hon. Friend to ensure, with his colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions, that when those regulations are introduced there is no gap. Normally, benefits are paid after the event, because one has to claim them when one is in the given situation. We need to be sure that people are able to get the top-up income support at the time that they need it, not a couple of weeks after.

Alan Johnson

My hon. Friend raised that issue in Committee. There was general consensus on the need to do something about it, and I have been considering it in some detail with colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions. I am delighted to say that we have now agreed that the income support regulations will be amended to enable fathers who are entitled to paternity leave but who do not receive statutory paternity pay to claim income support. In addition, parents who receive paternity pay but who are normally low paid will also be able to top up their income with income support.

Those changes will ensure that household income does not fall below a certain guaranteed minimum, currently about £130 a week for a couple with one child where the father takes paternity leave. That will provide a degree of financial security sufficient to ensure that all low-paid employees have the opportunity to take up their statutory right to paternity leave. Regulations will be made later in the year, to coincide with the introduction of the new paternity rights. I thought it would be helpful, in response to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), to confirm that to the House today.

Mr. Hammond

As we did not reach amendment No. 6, will the Minister confirm also that self-employed people on low pay would be included within the arrangements that he has outlined to the House?

Alan Johnson

I cannot confirm that. That is a completely different problem. As I explained in Committee, that point applies to a group of people whom we would have to place in an expensive and bureaucratic new system. That would be necessary to meet the same provisions. However, we undertook to consider that as part of the employee-worker review, which I confirmed earlier will be taking place in late spring.

The Government are extending maternity leave and simplifying the rules governing maternity leave and pay. Following extensive consultation with a wide range of interest groups, we have designed the new paternity and adoption rights to mirror the simplified maternity provisions. Business representatives asked for that in their responses to our consultation, and we listened to them. These are changes that benefit society as a whole. The new and improved rights will make it easier for parents to make choices about how they balance their work and family lives.

Removing pressures will encourage employee commitment, motivation and productivity. Many companies already recognise this and use such benefits to employees as an essential part of running a successful and productive business. These measures have been welcomed by business and employees' representatives alike.

Equally, the involvement of partners of people receiving working-age benefits in work-focused interviews will increase participation in the work force and bring other benefits to society and, therefore, ultimately to the economy.

The second substantial area covered by the Bill is dispute resolution. A wide range of provisions will introduce new ways of handling disputes in the workplace, and will help deliver modern, competitive workplaces in Britain through better awareness of rights and more and better communication within organisations.

Ms Walley

Given that we did not reach the amendments that relate to the statutory modified disciplinary procedure, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will give further consideration to the amendments which were tabled but not called before they go to another place? There are now only two steps in dismissal cases, and there has not been the opportunity for anyone to conduct a proper investigation. Will my hon. Friend give further consideration to those matters?

Alan Johnson

As always, we shall keep those issues under review, especially as the Bill goes to the other place. We think that there are clear reasons why the modified two-step procedure is necessary, not least to ensure that those who have been involved in violence and serious cases where there has been discrimination and harassment do not have to discuss the issue. There is the right of appeal. That is why the modified procedure is in place for gross misconduct.

As I have said, the second substantial area is dispute resolution. The Bill represents a real opportunity to change the way in which workplace disputes are managed by putting communication before litigation. It will ensure a modern user-focused tribunal system that will provide swift and efficient justice. The idea that grievance and discipline procedures should be used in the workplace is neither new nor innovative. The introduction of statutory minimum standards will mean that about 3 million employees who do not currently have any procedures available to them in their workplace, and a further 3 million who have substandard procedures, will in future have a right to a basic but crucial first course of action should a problem arise.

There are many other provisions in the Bill. The introduction of an equal pay questionnaire will enable the facts of a case to be established early. It will encourage the collection of evidence and the settlement of cases before they proceed to tribunal. The absence of transparency on pay information contributes to and perpetuates the gender pay gap. The Government are determined to eliminate pay discrimination, and the questionnaire provision is one step towards that goal.

Another long-standing problem in the workplace is the provision of training at all levels. The Bill introduces the right to time off for union learning representatives. This will ensure that vulnerable groups of workers, such as older men, people from ethnic minorities and part-timers, who currently all too often miss out on training and development opportunities, will be given support and encouragement from their representatives, who are adept at reaching precisely those groups.

The provisions on fixed-term employees are equally important. We are ensuring that people on fixed-term contracts cannot be treated less favourably than their colleagues on permanent contracts. We are outlawing the abusive use of consecutive fixed-term contracts. All those measures contribute to the new framework of basic minimum employment rights in a flexible labour market, which the Government are committed to establishing.

Let us not lose sight of the bigger picture. The Bill is well rounded and balanced, and has been introduced after extensive, in-depth consultation with all the stakeholders. It will allow employees some control over their working lives when they have small children, and will lead to better dialogue in the workplace over working patterns when disputes arise. Such dialogue and an increased use of an open partnership-based approach at work will make employees more motivated and businesses more productive. An increase in productivity is the way to make this country more competitive, which is why the Bill is important and why I commend it to the House.

9.25 pm

Mr. Hammond

I, too, congratulate all hon. Members who spoke on Second Reading and subsequently served on what was a constructive Committee.

This is a Bill of parts, which do not always hang together. It is therefore convenient to deal with them separately in the order in which the Committee considered them. Parts 2 and 3 deal with procedures for grievances and discipline. We generally welcome the Government's attempt to reduce the burden on tribunals caused by cases that should be dealt with in the workplace. We welcome measures aimed at encouraging and increasing the use of workplace dispute resolution measures. We regret the fact that some of the Government's earlier ideas have been watered down along the way, and it remains to be seen whether the Bill will deliver effectively the Government's stated objective of resolving a significantly greater proportion of disputes in the workplace and imposing a significantly reduced work load on tribunals.

Two issues remain unresolved: the resourcing of the tribunal system, which we touched on earlier, and the rather difficult relationship between the Government and the president of employment tribunals. Members of the Committee have seen the robust correspondence between the president and the Minister, which hardly bodes well for the future of employment tribunals. Generally, however, we welcome the Government's approach, although we regret the fact that they have backed down on a number of issues. We shall watch carefully to see whether their intended results are delivered.

Part 1 introduces a raft of new rights, to which the Minister referred. The Minister described them as new individual rights given to workers. However, throughout proceedings on the Bill, I have thought of them not so much individual rights granted for the benefit of individual workers but as rights granted for the better functioning of society, which will support families and ensure that children are brought up properly. In that context, I can certainly relate to the Bill, which will have tangible benefits for society. However, it is important to realize—the Minister will agree that this has been the theme throughout proceedings on the Bill—that we are not giving people time off for their own benefit; we are doing so for the benefit of their families. We are not giving adopters time off for their benefit; we are doing so in order that they can bond with the children they are adopting.

That is a sensible approach, and deserves great support. However, we are concerned, both about the burden of costs and the incidence of costs in connection with the benefits resulting from provisions in part 1. The simple fact is that business, particularly manufacturing, is groaning under the weight of regulations, taxes, new legislation, an overvalued exchange rate and foreign competition. This is not the right time to impose further burdens on business; they will damage competitiveness, reduce flexibility and ultimately affect the ability to invest and deliver jobs.

Our plea throughout, and the purpose of our new clauses on the subject today, was to ensure that there was a mature debate about the costs and the benefits that will arise from part 1—there are certainly benefits, as well as costs—the incidence of those benefits and costs, and who, in fairness, should meet those costs. Unfortunately, we have not persuaded the Government to move very far. Although there will undoubtedly be benefits for society and probably for some individual employees, there will be disbenefits for others, and the cost will, by and large, be borne by business. We very much regret that during consideration of the Bill we have not persuaded the Government to move much on that issue.

I was disappointed by the Minister's response to my earlier intervention. I had hoped that he would find a way to include low paid self-employed people in the arrangements for statutory paternity pay, so that they too could benefit from the good that we are delivering, in the same way as low-paid mothers benefit from statutory maternity allowance.

Part 4 is the ragbag that collects all the other bits and pieces. In this part of the Bill especially, we see the agenda of the trade unions. Clause 43 introduces on a statutory basis union learning representatives, with a right to paid time off for union activities. We are the first to recognise that union learning reps have played and do play a significant and constructive role in some workplaces, though apparently not in the Department for Education and Skills, where there is none.

Ministers have been at great pains to tell us throughout the Bill that the introduction of learning reps on a statutory basis will be to the benefit of employers, but the statistics suggest that the largest employer in the country—the Government—as not taken heed of its own advice to any significant extent. One cannot take best practice where it is working well and impose it across th e board by legislation.

In a workplace where industrial relations are not harmonious and functioning properly, one cannot introduce by legislation the role of trade union learning reps in the way that that works in the best workplaces, where unions and employers are both committed. It is a matter for education, not for legislation. We believe that by introducing union learning reps as a statutory right, the Government have gone down the wrong route in seeking to impose across the board a practice that will not work in many cases, and in other cases will damage the good work that is going on between employers and their workers.

Clause 45, which deals with fixed-term working, gold-plates the EU directive, as unions have urged the Government to do and Conservative Members have urged them not to do. We are concerned that there is still a residual hostility to non-conventional work patterns. I emphasise our support for measures that eliminate abusive practice. The Minister mentioned artificial sequential fixed-term contracts. We entirely support the Government's intention to remove that abusive practice.

Our new clause, which unfortunately we did not reach in the timetabled debate, would have exempted from the provisions of clause 45 cases where the employer had offered the worker a permanent employment contract on the same terms as other people in that workplace doing similar work, but the employee had rejected the offer. The purpose of the new clause was to draw the Government's attention to the fact that, although there may be abuses at the bottom end of the employment curve, at the top end there are many people working on fixed-term contracts whose employers would love to get them on permanent long-term contracts, but are unable to do so. It is their choice to work on fixed-term contracts. The Bill does not recognise that.

Clause 47 on flexible working was a late addition to the Bill. When it was introduced, I said that it was appallingly drafted, and I still believe that it is. A great chunk of it was lifted from the Bain report. The Minister has ignored the criticisms and questions that we raised about the wording in clause 47. It introduces terminology such as "staff', which is unknown to the Employment Rights Act 1996 into which it is inserted. Our noble Friends in the other place will want to give those matters further close attention.

The flexible working provisions will impose a new and further burden on business that is not justified by any benefit that will be delivered. I emphasise that we support flexible working, but it cannot be effectively imposed by statute. The issues that we raised have not been dealt with.

There are many other rather more minor matters that we have not had time to discuss tonight. Our noble Friends will want to take those up when the Bill reaches another place.

We are considering the Bill in an environment of increased union militancy in which trade unions are asserting a veto over public policy—even public policy that the Government were clearly mandated to implement in the general election of 2001. Business has suffered a barrage of legislation, regulations, directives and taxes, some of which are specifically designed to hit the manufacturing sector, which is the worst affected. Business faces one of the toughest environments for a decade. Britain is slipping down the competitiveness league. The productivity gap between the United States and the United Kingdom is widening. The Government respond by piling more cost burdens on business, which will damage our competitiveness still further.

There are many good ideas in the Bill. There are also some very bad ones, and I am sorry that during its passage we have not persuaded the Government to modify or drop the worst of them. Even for many of the good ideas that we support and endorse, the time is simply not right. Business, especially small business, is reeling under a torrent of Government legislation, regulation and taxation burdens. It needs a breather and space to recoup, to recover and to regain its profitability. This is not the right time for the Bill and I must urge my hon. Friends to vote against Third Reading.

9.37 pm

Mr. Lloyd

There is not much time, so I shall try to be brief.

The Bill contains many good provisions. Unlike the Opposition, I believe that union learning representatives will be widely welcomed throughout industry, not only by employees, but by employers. The measures on paternity pay and leave and rights for adoptive parents are important steps forward. My hon. Friend the Minister's announcement tonight of the minimum income guarantee underwrites that. It is an important part of the process.

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to ask him to look hard at how we can improve the Bill before it passes to another place. I regret that we did not have time to reach the amendments that were tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends.

The Bill provides a new floor for dispute resolution, which is an important step. As the Minister knows, some of us took the view that it would have been better if the ACAS code had been adopted as the basis; we shall have to agree to differ about that. I hope that he will consider the right to be accompanied and the need for proper investigation to take place during the dispute process.

I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the continuing doubts about whether the concepts of hearing and meeting are really the same thing. I hope that he will reflect on that.

I turn briefly to tribunals. My hon. Friend knows that there is already concern about the loading on of different types of costs to the tribunal structure, as well as the new additions in the Bill. We have not had time to debate that tonight, but I want to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister the deterrent effects involved.

I shall quote briefly from a case that was brought to my attention. It involved an individual who claimed unfair dismissal and who initially acted for himself. His employer's representatives wrote to him, stating: It is clear from the facts that your claim is wholly without merit and is bound to fail. Therefore, we hereby place you upon notice of costs as we are of the view that this claim is frivolous and vexatious and is bound to fail. For the avoidance of doubt, if you withdraw your claim, we shall not pursue you for costs. That individual finally sought help from his local law centre and was awarded £50,000 compensation, but his employer's representative had clearly tried to take him out of the game altogether.

This is a serious issue which cuts through the question of costs and other forms of compensatory structure, and I hope that my hon. Friend will reflect on that. I do not know what he can say tonight to move the debate forward, but I should perhaps remind him that one or two of our noble Friends in the other place are already sitting there with bear traps waiting for the unwary.

I was intrigued by the gap between the performance of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) in Committee—the reasonable and, I think, the real hon. Member—and his performance tonight, for which he had been wound up by the Leader of the Opposition and forced to come along and make rather more divisive comments. Some of those comments were ludicrous, but they are all helpful in ensuring that we shall probably not see another Conservative Government in my lifetime.

9.41 pm

Mr. Prisk

I am aware that time is short, so I shall attempt to be brief. I congratulate the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) on the professional and concise way in which they have led the debate. They have done so with style and often, dare I say, with aplomb, and one learns from this as a new Member of the House. This has meant that we have been able to have a predominantly constructive debate, which we all welcome.

On that note, it is good to see maternity leave being matched by paternity leave in the Bill. It is important that we try whenever possible to recognise the role of fathers in families today, although I am disappointed that low-paid, self-employed fathers seem to be excluded from that generosity. I hope that the Minister will rethink that point.

I shall return, as the Minister would expect, to the question of small businesses. I am still deeply concerned that the Government admit that the Bill will place a disproportionate burden on small firms. We make a fuss about small firms because they are the engine of the economy. They employ the most people and we rely on them for most of our services. The total cost of regulation to business will be in excess of £558 million every year from now on—never mind any costs arising out of the regulations to come—and a disproportionate part of that will fall on the small businesses on which we rely and on which the Chancellor relies for much of his income. The fact that that burden falls on them in that disproportionate way needs to be borne in mind, and I am sure that the Minister will do that.

Unfortunately, the Secretary of State is not here at the moment. She will be given reserve powers to implement various regulations under the Bill, and I ask the Minister to pass on to her a request that the use of those powers should be sparing, well thought through, and carried out in a thorough manner.

In the preamble to this debate, and during our discussions, much has been made by Ministers and their supporters of the fact that this is a family friendly Bill. That is an admirable quality, but there is a group comprising 4 million households that the Bill will not help. I am talking about self-employed people, who already spend 31 hours a month trying to deal with the existing bureaucracy, and who will now have to lose another weekend or evening that they could have spent with their families. Please let us not forget those families; they are important and we should not ignore them. I hope that the notion of this being a family friendly Bill will be extended to them as well.

9.44 pm

Ms Walley

I congratulate the Government on having listened to much of what has been said since the initial consultation. However, given that this evening's debate has been cut short and we were unable to consider two groups of amendments that I very much wanted to discuss, I shall use the couple of minutes available to implore the Minister to look again at the issues that they cover.

Last July, the Government introduced a new regulation in respect of employment tribunals which enables on-the-spot costs awards of between £500 and £10,000. It is already clear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) said, employers are using the regulation to harass and intimidate, and as a disincentive to taking cases to employment tribunals. I do not want this splendid Bill to be spoiled by people being unable to take cases to employment tribunals because of the fear of incurring costs.

Before the Bill proceeds to the other place, I ask the Minister carefully to consider introducing a right to argue against costs and new regulations requiring employment tribunals to take into account people's ability to pay on-the-spot costs of £10,000. Such a requirement does not exist in case law. That is an important issue for smaller companies in particular, where there is often little trade union representation.

On amendments Nos. 12, 34 and 35, which we were unable to discuss, I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central. The newly modified statutory procedure does not take account of the basic rules of natural justice. I have discussed that issue with the Minister, and in my view we could introduce a procedure that is easier to follow.

I congratulate the Government on enabling far more people to be brought under the new regime, but we shall not make progress if our attempts to simplify undermine natural justice and give employment tribunals carte blanche to find against individuals. I implore the Minister to consider those important points of detail before the Bill progresses to the other place. The devil is always in the detail, and the rest of the Bill and the huge gains made on fixed-term contracts, maternity and paternity pay and adoption leave should not be spoiled by a failure to take account of those two small but none the less significant procedural issues.

9.48 pm

Norman Lamb

I begin by reiterating that there is considerable support on the Liberal Democrat Benches for the vast majority of the Bill. We strongly support the introduction of paternity leave, extended maternity leave and adoption leave, which are good and welcome reforms. The introduction, with a light touch, of flexible working is also extremely welcome and it builds sensibly on existing law on indirect discrimination. We are concerned, however, about the Bill's impact on small businesses, which is why we support regular monitoring not only of its benefits, but of its cost to that sector in particular.

I want to focus on an issue raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), which I regard as a matter of absolute principle. I have already crossed swords with the Minister, far too early on a Sunday morning, on BBC Radio 5 Live over the question of the modified dismissal and disciplinary procedure, but I will raise it again. In effect, the procedure removes a fundamental right to defend oneself before dismissal. That applies to all cases of gross misconduct which, obviously, are the most serious cases.

I do not understand the logic. Why are people's rights diminished when the allegations are of the most serious kind? The opposite obtains in criminal law: when serious allegations are made, people have a right to trial by jury. They have almost extended rights of protection. Under the Bill, those confronted by such allegations will not even have the right to a hearing before being dismissed. That is quite simply wrong. An entitlement that survived 18 years of Conservative government is now being removed by a Labour Government.

In cases involving gross misconduct, the facts are often complex. A mass of documentation is often involved, and often the original allegation can be disproved by the employee concerned.

Alan Johnson

The hon. Gentleman should understand that in all cases, including those of gross misconduct, there is a right to appeal.

Norman Lamb

I do understand that, but I know from considerable experience as an employment lawyer—indeed, we all know—that once an employee is out of the door, the right of appeal will rarely lead to reinstatement. The chance to have a say must come before the decision is made.

In Committee and on other occasions, the Minister has said that the Bill provides, in a sense, a bottom line and that many companies have more detailed procedures. He must accept, however, that part of the Bill constitutes an effective reversal of the Polkey principle. That means, in layman's terms, that if an employer can convince a tribunal that going through the more extended procedures would have made no difference, the dismissal is fair. Inevitably, employers will go to tribunals and argue that case. They will say that they have ignored the more extended procedures because they would have made no difference, and that the dismissal should therefore be found to be fair. The result will be less protection for employees.

Moreover, as time goes by employers are bound to amend their disciplinary procedures to bring them more into line with the basic provisions of the Bill. In cases of gross misconduct, employees, according to companies' own disciplinary procedures, will have no right to a hearing before being dismissed. All they will have is a rather hopeless right of appeal after the event.

We hear from the Minister that the ACAS code provides additional guidance and protection, but we are told that ACAS will amend the code in the light of the Bill. Who knows what will result from that? I think it almost inevitable that ACAS will reduce the protection in line with the reduced protection provided by the Bill.

There is no doubt that existing case law provides the right to a hearing before dismissal. That case law, however, is flexible enough to recognise the existence of exceptional cases. The Minister gave the example of a "one-man band", when an employee thumps his employer in the face. A disciplinary hearing would be of little value in such circumstances; under existing law, a tribunal would find a dismissal without a hearing to be fair. Existing law also enables an employer to remove an employee from the premises by way of suspension, in order to remove a difficult problem pending a hearing. The hearing, however, must still take place.

I urge the Minister to listen both to Labour Members and to us, and to seriously consider whether, in cases of gross misconduct, he really wants to remove the right to the fundamental protection provided by a hearing before dismissal. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) said, it would be a shame to damage a Bill that has so much merit by removing a protection that survived 18 years of Conservative government.

9.54 pm

Judy Mallaber

May I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take account of the points that have been raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends? I will not rehearse the arguments which have been put by my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). We have concerns about issues such as preparation costs and whether they will act as a disincentive to people taking cases forward.

I should like to highlight the very positive items in the Bill, especially the paternity and adoption leave provisions. I could give numerous examples of how flexible working will benefit employers and employees. I know of nurses who are unable to return to work, although we want them to do so, because local management is not prepared to be flexible about adjusting their rota to enable those nurses to deal with their child care provision.

I am intrigued by the attitude of Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) was almost cuddly and positively friendly in Committee, yet tonight he tells us that the Bill is all about burdens on business. There is a considerable contradiction in Conservative Members' attitude. My hon. Friend the Minister pointed out the benefits and savings available to employers in operating flexible working conditions. The proposals have been put forward in consultation with employers, unions and representatives.

I was astonished to find that as soon as we discussed union learning representatives—promoting education in the workplace and using that huge trade union experience and history to promote education in basic skills and other areas for people at work—Conservative Members suddenly went completely doolally and decided that this was the end of civilisation as we know it. We spent nearly a whole day debating it—it was simply amazing. Conservative Members have displayed considerable contradiction in their attitude to the Bill's very positive proposals. We should be using people's skills and encouraging them; it is difficult to get people at work to acknowledge that they have a skills gap and that they need training and education. The more help there is to achieve that the better.

I applaud the Bill's positive proposals. We have seen the clear division between Labour Members who want a positive attitude towards relations in the work force and Conservative Members who, even when they are trying to be good and nice on various issues, end up reverting to type in wanting to create conflict rather than co-operation.

9.58 pm

Mr. Simmonds

There is much in the Bill that I welcome, such as new rights for parents, flexible working, maternity and paternity pay and leave and, in particular, the reform of the tribunal system. However, we should be under no illusion: the Bill is driven by the Government's desire to acquiesce to the trade unions. In effect, it is payback time. The Bill redresses the balance and moves the fulcrum from the position that it has occupied, correctly, for so many years.

There are serious issues in the Bill with which I disagree, such as the allowance of trade union learning representatives—time off in which to continue to ply their trade—and fixed-term contracts. Many complicated issues to do with pensions, of tremendous concern to employer organisations, have not been debated properly. Burdens on businesses, particularly small businesses, will continue to lead to the further erosion of competitiveness. Apparently, we have dropped from ninth to 19th in the table.

I urge the Minister and future Secretaries of State to use the regulations provided for in the Bill with consideration and thought, and to bear in mind the continued burden and cost to businesses.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 358, Noes 132.

Division No. 167]	[10 pm
AYES
Ainger, Nick	Bruce, Malcolm
Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)	Burgon, Colin
Allan, Richard	Burnham, Andy
Allen, Graham	Burstow, Paul
Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)	Cable, Dr Vincent
	Cairns, David
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Calton, Mrs Patsy
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary	Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Atherton, Ms Candy	Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Austin, John	Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Bailey, Adrian
Baird, Vera	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Banks, Tony	Caplin, Ivor
Barnes, Harry	Carmichael, Alistair
Barrett, John	Caton, Martin
Battle, John	Cawsey, Ian
Bayley, Hugh	Challen, Colin
Beard, Nigel	Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Begg, Miss Anne	Chaytor, David
Beggs, Roy	Chidgey, David
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Clapham, Michael
Benn, Hilary	Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)
Bennett, Andrew	Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Best, Harold
Betts, Clive	Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Blackman, Liz	Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Blears, Ms Hazel	Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Blizzard, Bob	Clelland, David
Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)	Clwyd, Ann
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Coaker, Vernon
Brake, Tom	Cohen, Harry
Brooke, Mrs Annette L	Colman, Tony
Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)	Connarty, Michael
	Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Browne, Desmond	Corbyn, Jeremy

Corston, Jean	Holmes, Paul
Cotter, Brian	Hope, Phil
Cousins, Jim	Hopkins, Kelvin
Cranston, Ross	Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Howells, Dr Kim
Cummings, John	Hoyle, Lindsay
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)	Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)
	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)	Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Cunningham, Tony (Workington)	Humble, Mrs Joan
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire	Hurst, Alan
Davey, Edward (Kingston)	Hutton, Rt Hon John
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)	Iddon, Dr Brian
David, Wayne	Illsley, Eric
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)	Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)
	Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Dawson, Hilton	Jamieson, David
Dean, Mrs Janet	Jenkins, Brian
Denham, Rt Hon John	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Dhanda, Parmjit	Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Dismore, Andrew	Jones, Kevan (N Durham)
Dobbin, Jim	Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Donaldson, Jeffrey M	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Donohoe, Brian H	Joyce, Eric
Doughty, Sue	Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Dowd, Jim	Kemp, Fraser
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)	Khabra, Piara S
Edwards, Huw	Kidney, David
Ellman, Mrs Louise	Kilfoyle, Peter
Ennis, Jeff	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Ewing, Annabelle	Kirkwood, Archy
Fisher, Mark	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Fitzpatrick, Jim	Lamb, Norman
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna	Lammy, David
Flynn, Paul	Laws, David
Follett, Barbara	Laxton, Bob
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)	Lazarowicz, Mark
Foulkes, George	Leslie, Christopher
Galloway, George	Levitt, Torn
Gardiner, Barry	Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
George, Andrew (St Ives)	Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)	Linton, Martin
Gerrard, Neil	Lloyd, Tony
Gibson, Dr Ian	Llwyd, Elfyn
Gidley, Sandra	Love, Andrew
Gilroy, Linda	Lucas, Ian
Godsiff, Roger	Luke, Iain
Goggins, Paul	Lyons, John
Green, Matthew (Ludlow)	McAvoy, Thomas
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	McCafferty, Chris
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	McCartney, Rt Hon Ian
Grogan, John	McDonagh, Siobhain
Hain, Rt Hon Peter	MacDonald, Calum
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	McDonnell, John
Hamilton, David (Midlothian)	MacDougall, John
Hancock, Mike	McFall, John
Hanson, David	McGuire, Mrs Anne
Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)	McIsaac, Shona
Harvey, Nick	McKechin, Ann
Havard, Dai	Mackinlay, Andrew
Healey, John	McNamara, Kevin
Heath, David	MacShane, Denis
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	Mactaggart, Fiona
Hendrick, Mark	McWalter, Tony
Hepburn, Stephen	McWilliam, John
Heppell, John	Mahmood, Khalid
Hermon, Lady	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Hesford, Stephen	Mallaber, Judy
Heyes, David	Mann, John
Hill, Keith	Marris, Rob
Hinchliffe, David	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Hodge, Margaret	Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Skinner, Dennis
Marshall-Andrews, Robert	Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Martlew, Eric	Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Meale, Alan	Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Merron, Gillian	Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun	Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Miliband, David	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Moffatt, Laura	Soley, Clive
Mole, Chris	Southworth, Helen
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Spellar, Rt Hon John
Moore, Michael	Squire, Rachel
Moran, Margaret	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Morgan, Julie	Steinberg, Gerry
Morris, Rt Hon Estelle	Stevenson, George
Mudie, George	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Mullin, Chris	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)	Stinchcombe, Paul
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)	Stoate, Dr Howard
Naysmith, Dr Doug	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Norris, Dan	Stringer, Graham
Oaten, Mark	Stuart, Ms Gisela
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)	Stunell, Andrew
O'Hara, Edward	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Öpik, Lembit	Tami, Mark
Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)	Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)
Owen, Albert	Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Palmer, Dr Nick	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Picking, Anne	Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)
Pickthall, Colin	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Pike, Peter	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Plaskitt, James	Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Pollard, Kerry	Thurso, John
Pond, Chris	Tonge, Dr Jenny
Pope, Greg	Touhig, Don
Pound, Stephen	Truswell, Paul
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Prescott, Rt Hon John	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Price, Adam	Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Prosser, Gwyn	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Pugh, Dr John	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Purchase, Ken	Tyler, Paul
Purnell, James	Tynan, Bill
Quin, Rt Hon Joyce	Walley, Ms Joan
Quinn, Lawrie	Ward, Ms Claire
Rammell, Bill	Wareing, Robert N
Rapson, Syd	Watson, Tom
Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick	Watts, David
Reed, Andy (Loughborough)	Webb, Steve
Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)	Weir, Michael
Rendel, David	White, Brian
Robertson, Angus (Moray)	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)	Wicks, Malcolm
	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Roche, Mrs Barbara
Ross, Ernie	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Roy, Frank	Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)
Ruane, Chris	Williams, Roger (Brecon)
Ruddock, Joan	Winnick, David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)	Wishart, Pete
Ryan, Joan	Wood, Mike
Salmond, Alex	Woodward, Shaun
Salter, Martin	Woolas, Phil
Sanders, Adrian	Worthington, Tony
Sarwar, Mohammad	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Savidge, Malcolm	Wright, David (Telford)
Sawford, Phil	Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Sedgemore, Brian	Younger-Ross, Richard
Shaw, Jonathan
Sheerman, Barry	Tellers for the Ayes:
Sheridan, Jim	Mr. Tony McNulty and
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)	Mr. Ian Pearson.

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Gray, James
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Grayling, Chris
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	Green, Damian (Ashford)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Greenway, John
Bacon, Richard	Grieve, Dominic
Baldry, Tony	Gummer, Rt Hon John
Barker, Gregory	Hague, Rt Hon William
Baron, John	Hammond, Philip
Bellingham, Henry	Hawkins, Nick
Bercow, John	Hayes, John
Beresford, Sir Paul	Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Blunt, Crispin	Hendry, Charles
Boswell, Tim	Hoban, Mark
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Horam, John
Brazier, Julian	Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Burns, Simon	Hunter, Andrew
Burnside, David	Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Burt, Alistair	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Butterfill, John	Key, Robert
Cameron, David	Knight Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)
Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)	Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Cash, William	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	Leigh, Edward
	Letwin, Oliver
Chope, Christopher	Liddell-Grainger, Ian
Clappison, James	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Loughton, Tim
Collins, Tim	Luff, Peter
Cran, James	McIntosh, Miss Anne
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Duncan, Peter (Galloway)	Malins, Humfrey
Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain	Mates, Michael
Evans, Nigel	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Fallon, Michael	Mercer, Patrick
Field, Mark (Cities of London)	Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Moss, Malcolm
Fox, Dr Liam	Murrison, Dr Andrew
Francois, Mark	Norman, Archie
Gale, Roger	O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Garnier, Edward	Osborne, George (Tatton)
Gibb, Nick	Ottaway, Richard

Page, Richard	Swire, Hugo
Paice, James	Syms, Robert
Paisley, Rev Ian	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Paterson, Owen	Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Pickles, Eric	Taylor, John (Solihull)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael	Tredinnick, David
Prisk, Mark	Trend, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John	Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)
Robathan, Andrew	Tyrie, Andrew
Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)	Viggers, Peter
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)	Walter, Robert
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)	Waterson, Nigel
Roe, Mrs Marion	Watkinson, Angela
Rosindell, Andrew	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Ruffley, David	Wiggin, Bill
Sayeed, Jonathan	Wilkinson, John
	Willetts, David
Selous, Andrew	Wilshire, David
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Simmonds, Mark	Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline	Yeo, Tim
Spink, Bob	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Spring, Richard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Tellers for the Noes:
Steen, Anthony	Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and
Swayne, Desmond	Dr. Julian Lewis.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.