Employment Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 3: 3: Clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out ““to 33”” and insert ““and 31 to 34”” The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4. This amendment goes simply and straight to the Bill, which repeals the procedures that became the statutory procedures. To put it briefly, Section 30 of the Employment Act 2002 does not contain one of those procedures and does not address them, except in a particular way. It is pure machinery. The Bill before us would repeal the content of the procedures in Sections 29, 31, 32 and 33—and we think Section 34 as well, but that is a minor matter. The purpose of Section 30 of the 2002 Act, which I do not believe has ever been brought into force, was to make what the Government at that time believed to be suitable procedures an implied term of contracts of employment, unless the negotiated procedures added to or were superior to those procedures. Members of the Committee may know that my noble friends Lord McCarthy and Lady Turner of Camden and I opposed the content of those statutory procedures at the time because we thought them unfair to workers and unduly complex and would cause more trouble than they were worth. It has taken a few years, but the Government have come round to our point of view. They are repealing the procedures totally—and we are very pleased to see that that is happening. However, to repeal the content of the procedures is merely to leave a void. What is to happen in the legislation about procedures in the place of work with regard to employment disputes? The Government were right in their choice of a mechanism in Section 30 of the 2002 Act of making something a floor of rights for procedures to operate, unless something more satisfactory was negotiated. That seemed to us a sensible approach to the matter, unless legislation is to play no part. It is perfectly normal for legislation to play this role in regard to employment relations. Indeed, if I may say so, I was the author of the phrase that one sees in books, if one bothers to read them—not academic books, but all sorts of other books and articles—““a floor of rights””. Employment legislation tends to establish a floor of rights, whereby employers and employees satisfy reasonably civilised standards in the employment relationship. One can think of sex discrimination and all the 22 jurisdictions on page 3 of the Bill, which Members of the Committee might like to read if they have not done so. It is always open to an employer and employee representatives to negotiate something rather more satisfactory for the workplace and that is therefore better. Section 30 of the 2002 Act recognises that that is the case. Subsection (2) provides that the procedures are to be the basis of the relationship but that anything "““additional to, and not inconsistent with””" those procedures is not to be affected. That seemed to us a rather good basis for the House of Lords to take: that this is the platform from which we proceed towards more detail at particular places of work. However, the Bill as currently drafted leaves a void—it merely repeals, quite rightly, the content of the procedures. The amendment proposes that the floor be the ACAS code of procedure on disciplinary and grievance procedures. Until yesterday, when I received my copy, I could not be absolutely sure that we would not want to make some footnote exception to that. Now that I have seen the draft, which is what I hope we will be left with as the ACAS code, we are encouraged that our amendment got it right. The ACAS code should be what one begins with at the place of work, and after that it is up to the parties to get on with it if they think something better should be negotiated. It may be that some minor amendment will be made to our amendment—I do not suggest that our drafting is 100 per cent right—but the concept behind it is intended to help. That is what the law should do in this area: it should help at the place of work and make such procedures an implied term of contracts of employment. Unless something better is negotiated, it was rather a good idea in the 2002 Act, and I would be surprised if the Government now believe that it was not. They did not bring it into force, of course, because they came to the view that the content of the procedures they were proposing was horrifying. It was unfair, too complex and counterproductive. I therefore suggest that there is a case on the Government’s own structure of the 2002 Act at least to look favourably on the concepts behind our amendment. I beg to move.