§
'.—The powers granted to the Secretary of State in this Act to provide by Regulations that persons who do not fall within the definition of "employee" are to be treated as employees for the purposes of the Act and persons who fall within the definition of employee are not to be treated as employees for the purposes of the Act shall not be exercised until such time as
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
6.30 pm§ Mr. HammondI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause deals with issues that will be familiar to those who served on the Standing Committee. In Committee shorthand, it was known as the "employee versus worker" question. In parts of the Bill, a curious architecture is employed, which is repeated in new clause 6(8)(c). It says that the Secretary of State may by order
make provision for this section to apply, with or without modifications, as if—We have a counter-intuitive provision in the Bill that allows the Secretary of State to define somebody as an employee and somebody else as his employer, even where they are not in that relationship.
- (i) any individual of a description specified in the order who would not otherwise be an employee for the purposes of this section were an employee for those purposes, and
- (ii) a person of a description specified in the order were in the case of any such individual, the individual's employer for those purposes."
The reason for this provision is that our employment law is somewhat confused. In some places, it refers to employees and in others, it refers to workers—for example, in the minimum wage legislation and the working time directive. EU directives typically refer to workers, rather than employees, but the rules governing transposition of directives into national legislation seem to allow that definition to be narrowed when directives are transposed into domestic law. That seems to be the Government's legal advice. The TUC appears to have different legal advice, which goes to show that one can get as many opinions as one can afford barristers to give them.
There is a dispute in relation to the fixed-term work provision of the Bill. The TUC disputes the Government's interpretation, which is that the EU directive applies only to employees. I understand that the TUC is threatening legal action to clarify the situation in the future.
Who are these workers who are not employees? The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but probably Members of Parliament, as office holders, are workers—at least some of them are—who are not employees. A more important category of workers who are not employees are agency workers working for a company but not employed by it.
It is important that I set out the Opposition's position. We believe that for the UK to maintain and enhance its competitiveness, it is essential that we maintain flexibility in our work force. We recognise the increasing need in the modern workplace for flexible working. I will argue against anything that reduces flexibility in the labour force.
Some, if not all, elements within the trade union movement appear to regard any form of non-conventional work as "Mickey Mouse" jobs. It is important that we change that attitude through education. We must make it clear that there is a role for flexible and unconventional 123 work in our economy to maintain and enhance our productivity and efficiency and to defend Britain's role in the world.
§ Judy MallaberDoes the hon. Gentleman accept that most parts of the trade union movement have been keen on allowing flexibility to assist people to have better working arrangements? However, the main aim is to ensure that that flexibility is operated within an environment in which there is still protection for people's rights. We do not want a system in which, for example, an employer can say at the beginning of the day that a worker has to work an extra three hours that night. The question is how we marry decent employment rights to the flexibility that can be of benefit to people in running their lives and to their employers.
§ Mr. HammondIt is interesting that the hon. Lady approaches the issue of flexibility purely in terms of flexible working hours. Flexible working arrangements and non-conventional working patterns go wider than that, encompassing fixed-term working and, in some cases, the outsourcing of work, in which someone moves from being an employee to being a self-employed contractor. That has happened in the Post Office in relation to Parcelforce delivery van drivers. The Minister may tell us something about that, as he is an expert on that subject.
There are a range of flexible approaches to work. My perception—I hope I am wrong—is that parts of the trade union movement are still relatively hostile to some of those non-conventional work patterns; for example, to the use of agency workers in business to provide flexibility at the margin to respond to demand.
That must change, but the Opposition are not in the business of defending abuse. If an elaborate ruse has been developed to pretend that somebody is not an employee, that is an abuse and it is right to deal with it. We heard some scary stories in Committee about fixed-term workers who were on their 40th fixed-term, six-month contract, having been in the same place of employment for 20 years. That is not what we are about. We do not want to deny employees proper protection by allowing artificial classifications of their work to continue.
The Secretary of State has instituted a review of the wider issue of the definition of "employee" and "worker" across the board of employment legislation. The Minister said repeatedly in Committee that the Secretary of State would not use the powers she had under the Bill to define a person as an employee and another person as his employer if they were not employee and employer, unless and until the review is completed. The new clause goes further, in that it looks for a proper assessment of the need for and the expected effects of any proposed exercise of these powers.
The new clause looks for the review to produce more than just a decision to do something; it looks for a proper and full appraisal of the arguments for doing something—in other words, the way in which the proposed change is expected to deal with the mischief that is expressed. It would require a full assessment of the expected costs and benefits and their incidence.
The Government come under pressure from the trade unions. I do not suggest that that is improper—they also come under pressure from some Labour Back Benchers. In Committee, some Labour Back Benchers put pressure 124 on them rapidly to resolve the employee-worker issue. We are concerned that those powers are unnecessary because, if the Secretary of State waits until the review is completed and a comprehensive approach to that legal problem is formulated, consulted on and properly debated in the House, a broader Bill will be needed to deal with not only the issues raised by the Bill, but existing employment legislation.
We are forced to ask ourselves why such provisions have been included in the Bill. Our concern is that the Minister is perhaps offering a sop to the trade union agenda and the pressure that he is coming under. After all, the Labour party received £9 million from the trade unions at the last election, and it is not surprising if the Government are asked for something in exchange. The Minister is wincing. Was the figure not £9 million? If the figure was slightly different, he will no doubt correct me. Compared to the Formula 1 and Hinduja scandals, £9 million is a tremendously large sum and we might expect some pressure to be put on the Government.
Can we be sure that the review is not a cosmetic exercise? Can we be sure that the Government have not already decided to bow to that bit of the trade union agenda and cave in on the employee-worker issue? Under new clause 2, we seek to place at the end of the current review process a rigorous and proper assessment of the need for and the effects of the proposed exercise and its costs and benefits. The purpose is simply to ensure that there is a proper, fully informed debate.
§ Mr. PriskDoes my hon. Friend agree that, under new clause 2, we not only seek to stimulate that debate, but in a sense adhere to the spirit of the National Audit Office's view that any new proposal should be properly assessed and involve a regulatory impact assessment?
§ Mr. HammondMy hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although I have to tell him candidly and in confidence that I am not optimistic that the Minister will accept the new clause, I hope that, in response to it, he will take the opportunity on the Floor of the House to confirm that there will be no move to implement the powers under the Bill to change the definition of "worker" so that workers are covered by its scope until the review process is completed, the proper assessments have been carried out, a consultation exercise on the proposed legislative changes has been undertaken and general legislation is introduced to do at a stroke whatever needs to be done across all employment legislation.
In other words, I seek an assurance from the Minister that the inclusion of such provisions in the Bill does not imply that, on the basis of a quick and dirty analysis immediately after the review is completed and as a sop to the trade union agenda, he will present the prospect of including workers in the Bill's scope ahead of a more comprehensive solution if the review deems that necessary. I hope that good practice will require him to do what he would be asked to do under new clause 2, and that he will confirm what I have asked him to confirm so that Conservative Members can be comfortable in the knowledge that the changes will be made on the basis of properly assessed need, cost and benefit.
I hope that the changes will not be part of a wider political trade-off in the Labour party's smoke-filled tower, with Ministers desperately bidding to win trade 125 union leaders' support for their privatisation of public services, while simultaneously keeping up the flow of cash into Labour party coffers. We hope that the Government will not be tempted to offer sacrifices that perhaps impose more burdens on private sector businesses, while saving Ministers' bacon and the Labour party's funding.
6.45 pm
Frankly, those are our fears, and I hope that the Minister will be able to allay them by accepting new clause 2 or, if he is not in a generous enough mood to do that, perhaps by confirming that he will follow the procedures that I suggest and not use the powers under this Bill until a general Bill is introduced to do so—if, indeed, that is the conclusion of the review.
§ Mr. LloydI thought that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made a fascinating speech. I congratulate him on becoming skilled at presenting an almost acceptable face for the modern Conservative party. He tries his very best to make calm, seemingly rational contributions on various issues. Indeed, he spoke for the Opposition in that manner in Committee, with one or two exceptions. Nevertheless, we get down to the visceral Tory inside him when he talks about giving sops to the trade union agenda and caving in on the worker-employee issue. Let us be a little more grown up than that. The worker-employee question involves very real issues. The simple fact is that there is genuine legal debate about the implementation of the fixed-term directive and whether the British Government's interpretation of EU law and its incorporation into national legislation is acceptable. The matter may or may not end up in the courts, but it is a serious issue.
Fixed-term contracts in higher education present us with an especially serious issue. Some 11 per cent. of employees in higher education are now on fixed-term contracts. Frankly, it ought to be astonishing that the hire-and-fire mentality is used to run our academic institutions. Let us be brutally honest: we are talking not about universities and higher education institutions dealing with the sudden excess demand that arises in the summer, when 27 more undergraduate courses in physics or philosophy may be required, but about universities cushioning themselves so that they can take on or get rid of staff at summary notice. Many of those people have been employed on fixed-term contracts for many years. Frankly, that is an abuse, and it would be a shame if the current system continued in perpetuity
I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument—I am with him in that I, too, want to find a comprehensive solution to the worker-employee issue—but he may feel slightly slighted if I tell him that I do not believe that it is the Conservative party's ambition to sort out the issue in favour of those who are often in the most marginal employment circumstances and who will lose that sort of protection. I hold that view because at no time during their 18 years in government did the Conservatives go down that path. There is no evidence that they even wanted to recognise those issues. In fact, the opposite is the case, as they sought to cast into that employment never-never land 126 far too many of our fellow citizens—people who are just as entitled to dignity at work as those who are formally given the legal status of employee.
The hon. Gentleman would have more credibility if he told us what the Conservative party would be prepared to do if it ever got back into government. What is the modern, Letwinised Conservative party prepared to do? We do not believe that it has any real credibility given the fact that Conservative Members' rhetoric runs in sharp contrast to many of the views that have been expressed. He did not talk about employers abusing their employees by imposing unacceptable employment conditions. He paid passing reference to the fact that that was not acceptable, but we need a little more than the condescending view, "We can recognise bad conditions when we see them." We need to consider how employment law can resolve such evils.
§ Mr. HammondIf the hon. Gentleman casts his mind back, he will remember that we had this exchange in Committee. I suggested that the Inland Revenue had generally been pretty adept at defining a person as an employee, despite all attempts by ne'er-do-wells to define them as something else. I suggested to him that that was a good model on which to base our discussion.
§ Mr. LloydI look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman develop Conservative policy in this area. However, I remind him that an awful lot of the lags in legislation that this Government had to pick up in 1997 were a result of a deliberate and calculated policy. That sort of policy is always justified by the Opposition when the need for flexibility is discussed. He is right that flexibility is important. It is important to employers and it is right and proper that employment relations should be structured so as to allow industry to be maximally efficient. There is no argument about that, and certainly none that mainstream trade unionists would want to advance.
There is also an argument that flexibility cuts the other way and is also about giving the employee access to acceptable working conditions and the opportunity to take advantage of them. We did not hear a lot in the previous debate or even in the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks about the need for flexibility for employees. In that context, I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to reflect hard on what is being said, because the new clause has all the marks of a wrecking amendment. It is superficially attractive—it asks us to delay, to wait and to look for a little more information—but the real intent is to cement the current position more permanently, so the day will never dawn when employers are forced to face up to their real responsibilities.
§ Mr. HammondWhether that day will dawn will be in the Government's hands when they complete the review. The point of the new clause and of what I have said to the Minister is to seek his assurance that no piecemeal approach will be taken using the order-making power in the Bill and that he will wait until a comprehensive solution has been proposed, consulted on and implemented across the board as a definitive remedy. Does the hon. Gentleman support that approach?
§ Mr. LloydNo, I do not, and I shall explain why. The issues are intellectually and practically separable. 127 A decision on what is right and proper in relation to the aspects of the Bill that are covered by the new clause can be made coherently on its own merits. My hon. Friend the Minister will have the legal capacity to make that decision if it is in the interests of the operation of industry, commerce, employers and employees. I urge him to do it at the right time, subject to proper consideration. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that these matters require adequate consultation, but there will be no need to wait if we know what is the right thing to do.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman more generally that we must resolve the overall problem of the definition of employee and worker. I repeat that if he is asking us simply to delay the resolution of that problem, he will find no support among Labour Members. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be reasonably robust in his response and tell him that he is making a good try. However, the real Tory view is coming out in little soundbites designed for the Federation of Small Businesses and in Conservative central office press releases. That is the real voice that he wants the country to hear. Alas, the mask begins to slip away as we reach the end of debate. We look forward to more of that mask slipping to reveal the real Tory party.
§ Brian CotterThere was much talk about tents earlier. On this occasion, we are in need of a tent; indeed, we have our own very large tent that is expanding by the day. People are flocking into it because we have our own view on all these issues. When the Government have been correct, we have supported them. Otherwise, we have taken an alternative view.
The Minister will recollect that, in Committee, I suggested that we should be able to incorporate the concept of worker into the Bill. To put us into line with the EU directive, it was not unreasonable for us to do so. I shall not rehearse our discussion in Committee of the various examples of people who are workers but are not covered by the fair social requirements of the Bill. I am worried that the Conservatives' new clause would not merely allow the Government's review of employment status to decide this issue, but put in its way blocks such as the requirement to prepare and publish reasons for the action and an assessment of additional costs in relation to it.
This issue must be addressed to put us in line with other countries, and I expect the Government to do that sooner rather than later. I look forward to them addressing it as soon as possible.
§ Ms WalleyBefore my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I want to express my concerns about this issue. I did not have the dubious distinction of serving on the Committee that considered the Bill, so I was not party to the shorthand that has been used to describe employees and workers. Clause 45 is about fixed-term work and I hope that he will take full account of the views expressed.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) referred to dinosaurs in the trade union movement and to scandals of various kinds. However, I remind him of the scandal of workers whose employers classify them as such not for reasons of flexibility but because they want to deny them basic employment rights. That cannot be right, especially when we come to interpret important European directives.
128 I flagged up this issue on Second Reading, and I have corresponded with the Minister on it since then. I am grateful to him for considering the points that I have made and I am fully aware that a review is under way. However, the regulations on part-time workers apply to the broader category of workers. The directive that gives effect to the part-time workers regulations and that which gives effect to the fixed-term work regulations contain an identical definition of worker. Therein lies the problem.
Clearly, the Government will not accept the new clause, but it refers to the distinction in relation to considering future definitions. On logical grounds—and perhaps legal one—sit is unsatisfactory for the proposed fixed-term work regulations to have a restricted application. That will give rise to uncertainty and confusion for workers and employers. Part-time workers will have protection under the part-time workers regulations, but fixed-term workers will not have protection under the fixed-term work regulations. However, part-time fixed-term workers will have protection under the part-time workers regulations. That is an anomaly.
The representations made by the TUC in respect of establishing consistency on how to define workers and employees should be addressed as quickly as possible. I would not like the House to accept a new clause that would further prevent the Government from considering the distinction between workers and employees. They need to resolve the matter quickly, especially in view of constituents such as mine who are not receiving their fair employment rights because of the failure to resolve the issue.
§ Alan JohnsonI agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) that it is a shame that the new Tory veneer of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has faded away and that the old Tory is revealed in the claim that these policies are dictated to us by the trade union movement. It is water off a duck's back.
7 pm
The hon. Gentleman alleges that contributions to the Labour party have influenced its policy. We would love to know who contributed to the Conservative party when it was in government between 1979 and 1997. That would be fascinating to hear, because it might enable us to draw the same conclusions and to make the same cheap points. The truth is, however, that we do not know because it is a secret. We do not know who contributed a penny of the considerable funds that went to the Conservative party up to 1997. Labour party funding is open, transparent and governed by law. We introduced the legislation that insists on all political parties being similarly frank about the money that they receive. Before we are criticised, we deserve to know who funded the Conservative party in their 18 years in government.
§ Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent)The Labour party was born from the trade union movement. Why should we apologise for that or refuse to recognise that we are influenced by it?
§ Alan JohnsonMy hon. Friend is right; we have nothing to apologise for. It is interesting to note that the trade union movement in many other countries donates 129 money to mainstream right-of-centre political parties. We have the curious anomaly in this country that no one would consider donating money to a party that, alone among the mainstream right-of-centre political parties, until recently opposed the provision of decent and civilised standards for people at work. Conservative Members should think about that extraordinary paradox.
§ Mr. Kevan JonesDoes my hon. Friend agree that, unlike company shareholders, who have no say in donating money to the Conservative party, individual trade union members have a right not only to opt out, but to vote on the union's affiliation to the Labour party and on donations?
§ Alan JohnsonAnother important point. Were we to have a transparent debate on who funded the political parties that have been in government over—to pluck a figure out of the air—the past 23 years, the Conservatives would regret the day they moved on to this territory. It was unworthy of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to suggest that the trade union movement donates funds on any basis other than the desire to have a properly funded party that is broadly sympathetic to free and independent trade unionism. If he doubts that, he should accompany me when I meet my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central to discuss what policies the trade union movement proposes.
The hon. Gentleman is also mistaken in thinking that we need primary legislation because of the employment status review. We already have similar powers to extend a wide range of employment rights to non-employees by using the order-making power in section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. That has been in effect since October 1999 without creating the problems that he foresees. We have to take additional order-making powers in the three main clauses because they do not relate to employment rights per se, so we cannot rely on section 23 to extend their coverage to non-employees.
On the substance of the new clause, I am happy to reaffirm that we will review employment status in relation to statutory employment rights under section 23. The mechanics of the review have commenced. We hope to publish the consultation document in late spring, when we intend to set out a radical approach. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not intend to use powers contained in the clauses in advance of that comprehensive review.
§ Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) mentioned the problem in the higher education sector. It is crucial that we sort that out effectively and I hope that it will be a priority. The current situation is untenable for lecturers and for the interests of academic work. It needs urgent attention.
§ Alan JohnsonWe will consider that and other aspects of the employee versus worker issue.
The fixed-term work directive is incorporated in the Bill and covers pay and pensions. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) that we discussed that directive in Committee. Unlike the part-time workers directive, it is 130 not clear that the term "employee" causes a problem by leaving groups of workers outside the embrace of the fixed-term work directive. People have mentioned agricultural casual workers, but we established that they have a contract and are employees for the purposes of the Bill. It would not be possible to walk through a Post Office sorting office without tripping over a sociology student from Sheffield university who is employed as a casual worker by a contract of employment and is, therefore, covered by the fixed-term work directive. Incidentally, part-time people on fixed-term contracts are covered by virtue of the fact that the part-time workers directive covers workers and employees.
The biggest problem that we discussed in Committee related to employment agency staff. The social partners who signed the fixed-term work directive specifically excluded agency staff because they decided to have a directive that was aimed purely at agency staff, one of the three groups of atypical workers. It would be ludicrous to extend the Bill to cover employment agency staff in advance of the review under section 23 and of the directive, which the Commission is now producing since the social partnership broke down. That is why the fixed-term work directive should not be extended to cover workers at this stage. We could consider the issue in the review.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was not daft enough to think that I would accept his new clause, and I hope that I have reassured him on that fundamental point.
§ Mr. HammondI suppose I should return the compliment given by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd): he sometimes manages to look like the acceptable face of old Labour, and one has to peel away the veneer to see what is going on behind. For all the talk of big tents, some people will be relieved to know that the small tents are alive and well. They are close at hand should we ever need them, as I suspect some of us might in the forthcoming debate.
There is a proper issue at stake. I have acknowledged that and the hon. Member for Manchester, Central is doing me an injustice in suggesting that I pay lip service to it. Apart from anything else, there is a ridiculous confusion. There is no point in having legislation that cannot be understood by a reasonably educated English-speaking person. Clearly the confusion between worker and employee has become intolerable and needs sorting out. We merely want to ensure that that is properly and objectively dealt with on the basis of the facts, of the benefits that are likely to flow from any changes and the costs of making the changes.
We are trying to disentangle the real issue from what I characterise as political horse trading. The hon. Gentleman might deny that until he is blue in the face, but the Opposition and most of the 56 million people in this country do not believe that difficult discussions do not take place on items of the trade union movement's agenda, because it funded the Government to the tune of £9 million to fight the general election campaign that put them here. We want to ensure that this issue is not lost in political horse trading but dealt with properly and objectively on the basis of the facts. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that at face value; it is up to him whether he does so. I detected in some of his comments 131 a hint of the old attitude that any job that does not conform to a conventional work pattern is a Mickey Mouse job. We must try to get away from that.
§ Mr. LloydI shall read with interest not only the hon. Gentleman's speech but my own, and I think that if he reads my speech carefully he will detect no such attitude. Flexible working is in the interests of an efficient economy and, very often, it is in the interests of employees; but we must get the balance right.
§ Mr. HammondThe hon. Gentleman must understand that such work involves not only flexible working times and patterns for employees but what the Minister described as atypical forms of work. Typically, atypical workers will be difficult to unionise, and I understand that there will be an instinctive reluctance on the part of the trade unions to embrace atypical forms of work. That is a legitimate, self-interested approach, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we must change our attitude in the interests of maintaining flexibility in the economy and trying to maintain our competitiveness against our European neighbours, many of whom are now beginning to embrace concepts of flexibility in the work force after years of our deriding them for not doing so. We must accept that atypical workers will form an important part of this country's total labour force.
In this debate the Minister has, perhaps tactically, thrown up a little smoke in anticipation of the debate to come. I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not want me to stray too far into the subject of trade union funding for the Labour party, but the Bill is about delivering part of the trade union agenda. I am not saying that that agenda is wholly wrong or that we should reject it, but we are entitled to question the relationship between the Government, acting as the Government of the day, the Labour party, recipient of substantial largesse from the trade union movement, and the trade union movement, which has an open and published agenda, some of which is being incorporated in the Bill. Indeed, some of it has been incorporated at a late stage in the Bill's passage. That is a legitimate public concern, and we would be failing in our duty as an Opposition if we were not probing the matter and asking questions.
§ Judy Mallaberrose—
§ Mr. HammondI give way for the last time.
§ Judy MallaberWill the hon. Gentleman at least accept that the motivation of Labour Members on issues such as those that I pursue, including rights for part-time workers, the worker-employee issue that I raised in Committee, decent working conditions and the ability to combine family and work, arises from genuine individual concern and just happens to be the same as that of the trade unions? Will he please stop casting aspersions on our motivation, because it is not influenced by the question of whether there is money in the equation? I espouse those views regardless of money. Does he accept that Labour Members' motivation is honourable?
§ Mr. HammondI suggest that the hon. Lady get herself a slightly thicker skin. We have a Government who got themselves elected in 2001 on £9 million of trade union money and a pledge to bring the trade unions to 132 heel and impose a solution to reform our public services. So far, all we have seen is repeated backtracking. Conservative Members are entitled to ask, "What is going on?" We are scrutinising a Bill that implements a significant number of items on the TUC's published agenda. There is nothing wrong with that published agenda, but we are entitled to ask questions.
§ Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)rose—
§ Mr. HammondAlthough I said that I would not give way again, I am tempted to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
§ Andrew MackinlayI think that there is a third angle. [HON. MEMBERS: "A third way?"] No, a third angle—there is a substantial difference. I have been listening to the debate, and I can no longer restrain myself from speaking. I am of the view that the trade unions are far too acquiescent, and they do not flex their muscles on the Labour party's national executive. They have not exercised their right to interfere with manifestos. This is a matter that will come out in memoirs, but it needs to be said. My criticism is that trade union officials sit on their hands at the national executive committee when the manifesto is being drawn up; they are too deferential to people from the Prime Minister downwards, and then they go to the TUC conference—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord)Order. Before the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) responds, I point out that we are dealing not with memoirs but with new clause 2, and I trust that he will bear that in mind when he responds to the intervention.
§ Mr. HammondOf course I shall bear it in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) will stay to regale the House with his thoughts in the next debate.
The Minister accused me of being veneered. I always think of veneer as rather cheap, and I prefer to be thought of as solid. He suggested that my veneer was peeling away, but we are beginning to see some veneer peeling away on the Labour Back Benches. We have a Prime Minister who appears to be biting the trade union hand that feeds him, and who describes as "wreckers" people who oppose the Government's mandated agenda for reform of the public services, and we have Conservative Members who seek to advance the trade union agenda. It will be interesting for us and, I suspect, for the public, including my constituents who only narrowly avoided a strike by South West Trains today, to see how the Minister responds to some of those issues later this evening.
I sense the House is ready to move on to the next debate. Conservative Members are somewhat reassured by what the Minister has said about the non-piecemeal implementation of the results of the review being undertaken by his Department. We look forward to a full and proper debate on the conclusions of that review before any secondary legislation is proposed. The Minister has previously indicated that there will be proper consultation 133 and an opportunity for parliamentary review. In the interests of economy of time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
§ Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.