HC Deb 28 July 1998 vol 317 cc277-9

Lords amendment: No. 29, in page 36, leave out line 26.

Mr. Ian McCartney

I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 30 and 31.

Mr. McCartney

The House will be pleased to know that this is the last time this evening that I shall get on my feet—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I now want officially to announce that I am on my feet.

These drafting amendments are designed to avoid wording that some may regard as offensive. Paragraph 1 of schedule 1 relates to membership of the Low Pay Commission. Paragraph 1(6)(b), unamended, permitted the Secretary of State to dismiss a commission member who was incapacitated by physical or mental illness". On further reflection, I believe that that formulation is best avoided. Instead, the three linked amendments achieve the result that was originally intended—that the Secretary of State can terminate the duties of any member of the commission who, for whatever reason, is unable to carry out his or her functions as a member. I trust that the House will support the amendments.

Mr. Boswell

This is positively my last response. I agree with the Minister's intentions, but I have a slight reservation about their implications, which may go further than he wanted. The amendments will mean that the objective test of physical or mental illness becomes a subjective test in the hands or opinion of the Secretary of State.

I realise that the Secretary of State—who now honours us with his presence—will want to act, as ever, reasonably and sensitively. If a commissioner were to be so incapacitated, I am sure that he would want to handle the case properly. I make that point merely because we should consider the detail of the Bill. There is a slight change in the burden of proof, and we should pause for thought on that point. At this stage of the proceedings, however—I hope that the Minister and his hon. Friends will not be disappointed—I am not disposed to test the will of the House with a Division.

The Minister has promised not to speak again, and it may be that he will not respond to what I shall now say. It would, however, be churlish of me not to conclude by thanking the Low Pay Commission and the Minister, appropriately given that we are discussing mental capacity. I have not previously had an opportunity to thank the commission for reasons that the Minister will appreciate. Indeed, we have occasionally complained about it. We do not like the context of the Bill, and we do not like the Bill itself, but we pay tribute, as has the Minister, to the commission's work. It will no doubt continue to work in future to monitor the Bill.

Secondly, when the Minister moved tonight from the class war that he fought before dinner to the conciliatory tones in which he responded to our probing of the amendments later in the evening, he showed that he has on his modest shoulders a sure head. He also, occasionally, has some sensitivity for the concerns of the Opposition, and we thank him for that.

Mr. Chidgey

I, too, wish the Minister well after the way in which he has conducted the Bill. He has—almost invariably—been courteous, has never gone off the point and has certainly been industrious. He knows of our reservations about the Bill. He has always listened to them, even when he has not accepted them. He knows that we want to see the Bill pass safely through Parliament. We look forward to engaging him again in debate when the Low Pay Commission arises under secondary legislation. I congratulate him on a job well done.

Mr. Ian McCartney

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those kind remarks. I am not so sure that I am a pussy cat. My new Secretary of State has already nicknamed me Joe Pesci. I accept the hon. Gentleman's points.

In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), I must say that I was precise in the words that I used. The record will show the Government's clear intention to provide non-offensive wording to deal with circumstances that can sometimes be difficult. I am certain that if those circumstances arise—I hope that they do not—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will deal sensitively with the cases.

I must also say hallelujah, hallelujah to the hon. Gentleman. To hear someone from the Conservative Benches at last acknowledging the tremendous work of the Low Pay Commission is very welcome. I note that the shadow Secretary of State could not bear to be here to hear those words. However, I am sure that he will read them tomorrow. We intend to ensure that the commission plays an effective role in the management of our legislative programme.

I thank the hon. Member for Daventry for his kind words, but they will not help him if he makes a late application to join the commission. The Secretary of State is not quite ready to bend over so far as to allow the hon. Gentleman to be a member. However, I thank him for his kind remarks about me.

The Bill's progress has taken a long 12 months. 1 am deeply proud that a Labour Government have made so much effort to tackle at last the issue of poverty pay in Britain. I am proud, too, that I, a former low-paid worker, was given the opportunity to do that. Whatever else happens to me in politics, nothing will beat this moment, at which I sit down in the certain knowledge that the National Minimum Wage Bill will become an Act.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 30 to 36 agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Clive Betts, Mr. Tim Boswell, Mr. Tim Collins, Mr. Frank Doran and Mr. Ian McCartney; Mr. Ian McCartney to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.— [Mr. Betts.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Forward to