Food: Waste
Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord De Mauley(11 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
I thank my noble friend for that important and interesting suggestion. I will take it back.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there might well be a current spike in food waste that could be addressed by more of the waste being taken away by horse and cart?
Lord De Mauley
Very droll, my Lords. I can assure the noble Lord that when products such as those that I think he is referring to are tested, or are part of an ongoing investigation, they will be held securely and when ready to be released the products will be disposed of appropriately. Of course, if it is safe and appropriate for a product to go to anaerobic digestion rather than incineration or landfill, I hope it will. Needless to say, products that are not fit to be sold will not find their way back into the food chain.
Crime: Wildlife Crime
Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord De Mauley(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
My noble friend makes an extremely important point. In the past, I have been on safari in those wonderful countries seeing those wonderful animals. The more that tourism is encouraged in those countries, the more that money is brought into those countries, the more people will recognise the value of the wildlife. That will contribute to clamping down on crime.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, in so far as it is an international wish to prevent the extinction of lions, elephants, et cetera, is it not logical to say that in conjunction with African Governments, who have population pressures—which is why in the localities people are not so keen to do much about this problem—the police forces in those countries need a lot more resource? Would it not be logical to say that there should be international help with that resourcing for the local police forces?
Lord De Mauley
In fairness to many of those countries, their Governments recognise the problem. Some countries are making major efforts. As I said, we are doing quite a lot but we all must do better.
Thames Tideway Tunnel
Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord De Mauley(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
No, my Lords, we are not indifferent; we take these things very seriously. As I say, however, we believe in free access to our capital markets.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, has the noble Lord seriously considered whether he has given adequate answers to all the questions that have been asked in the last five minutes? Will he write, and put in the Library, a full letter on the considerations in the Government’s mind about where we go from here on all these matters?
Lord De Mauley
I cannot think of anything that I would like to expand upon but I will look at the record and, if there is anything, of course I will write.
FSA Investigation into LIBOR
Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord De Mauley(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Companies: Executive Remuneration
Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord De Mauley
Lord De Mauley
Yes, my Lords, there is broad agreement among investors and businesses that the link between top pay and performance has grown weak and that the current pattern of growth in directors’ pay is unsustainable. Binding votes will encourage companies to set out a long-term pay policy that is clearly linked to the company’s strategy. Shareholders have been showing a keen appetite for a challenge on remuneration, and it is important that we give them the tools necessary to keep up this momentum.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, given that the policy referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is viewed with scepticism for the reasons he indicated, is it not time that the leaders of industry and commerce were brought back to planet earth and workers’ representatives put on the boards of British companies and financial institutions, as is the case in successful economies such as Sweden, Germany and Holland?
Employment Law
Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord De Mauley
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, if the Government are interested in the totality of the German system, rather than cherry-picking bits of it, they should look at two-tiered boards and the involvement of the whole workforce through works councils and strong trade union collective bargaining. If the noble Lord is interested in the success of the German model, will he look very carefully at evidence of the whole of the German experience, because it seems that there is no evidence available from the way Mr Beecroft has gone about his business?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, of course we looked very closely at countries we admire, such as Germany. However, we are a different country, we have a different history and we are in a different position. Therefore, we have to do things our way. I emphasise that we will do this in a careful, measured and flexible way.
European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993
Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord De Mauley
Lord Lea of Crondall
Is it not absolutely clear that the funds directly being disbursed in Brussels by the Brussels bureaucracy, as is often said, are the funds that have a clean bill of health in the auditing? It is the funds down to the nation states that are the reason why the auditors cannot sign off all these accounts. It is as simple as that.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I am not going to enter into this discussion any further.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, talked about the general anti-avoidance rule. I am not sure it is entirely relevant to this debate, but I can say that the Government will consult on the GAAR in summer 2012 with a view to bringing forward legislation in the Finance Bill 2013. A targeted GAAR is the right solution to tackle the persistent problem of artificial and abusive tax-avoidance schemes. I will take the noble Lord’s specific points back to the Treasury and write to him on them.
In an amusing speech, the noble Lord, Lord Myners, referred to, among other things, IMF and OECD support. The IMF and the OECD support the Government’s policy. The IMF’s Madame Christine Lagarde said that under the current circumstances the policy in place is the “right thing to do”, and the OECD Secretary-General said on our Budget 2012:
“The Budget announced today is another important step towards a sound fiscal position for the United Kingdom. The confirmation of the UK’s fiscal consolidation programme should keep bond yields low and support the recovery”.
Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (Tribunal Composition) Order 2012
Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord De Mauley(12 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, this first order permits but does not oblige judges to sit alone rather than, as at present, with two lay members on unfair dismissal cases. It is part of the wider package of reforms. It is not a silver bullet, standing on its own, but neither is it a risk to the just handling and disposal of cases.
As I said in Grand Committee, when we debated these orders on Monday last week, the order seeks to replace prescription with flexibility, and helps to secure value for money. It will allow employment judges to sit alone in unfair dismissal cases before an employment tribunal. It will provide discretion for judges to decide whether to sit with lay members, where appropriate. The criteria against which such decisions must be made are set out in primary legislation. It has been tried and tested for years in relation to other types of case to which it already applies.
Many of your Lordships here today were also present in Grand Committee last week. Noble Lords who then opposed the measure did not argue against flexibility for its own sake. Indeed, it is difficult to see how flexibility per se could be easily argued against in this context. Instead, some noble Lords, and some who debated the matter in the other place, seemed to distrust the motives underlying this reform. The perception seemed to be that this is the thin end of the wedge. Fairness, independence and justice must not be compromised. However, proportionality is key to all those concepts, and the Government have a duty to ensure that value is secured.
The safeguard of judicial discretion is real. As noble Lords themselves cited in Grand Committee, academic research demonstrates that employment judges value the input of lay members. Judges tell us that too. We have good evidence therefore—something noble Lords were rightly keen on drawing out in Grand Committee—to explain why we think panels will continue to sit where they are appropriate, and where they will add value. That is as it should be. There is also evidence of support for the proposal. Some, such as the British Chambers of Commerce, say that we should go further and abolish lay members altogether. Some say that we should row back and drop even this order. Some think we have got the balance right. We have considered the numbers, considered the substance of the arguments put, and made sure that we have listened carefully to all parties with an interest. Our conclusion is clear, and I am confident that it is right.
The Government value the role of employment judges, just as the Government value the role of lay members. Each group brings significant expertise and experience to the system. Judges are well placed to make decisions about how best to manage a case to hearing, including about how and where the respective expertise and experience is best deployed, and with what value. Employment judges are trained in active case-management techniques and to deal with cases in the unique fora of employment tribunals. The safeguards are real. The objective of securing value for money is important.
The purpose of the second order, the Unfair Dismissal and Statement of Reasons for Dismissal (Variation of Qualifying Period) Order 2012, is to extend the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from one to two years for individuals beginning work on after 6 April this year. It also extends in the same way the minimum period an employee must have been with the employer before being entitled to request a written statement of reasons for dismissing. The purpose of the statement of reasons is essentially one of evidence when making a claim for unfair dismissal. It is therefore closely linked to the right to claim unfair dismissal and it is logical that the qualifying period for both is kept consistent.
The Government are committed to reviewing all aspects of employment law over the course of the current Parliament. We are doing this because we are serious about rebalancing the economy, supporting job creation and achieving strong, sustainable growth. We want new and growing businesses to thrive and feel confident about taking on more staff.
The legal framework of employment law today is quite different from that which obtained when unfair dismissal rights were first introduced in 1971—by a Conservative Government. In 2012, employees additionally have a wide range of day-one rights: the right not to be discriminated against; the right not to be dismissed for asserting a statutory right, such as asking to be paid the minimum wage; and the right not to be dismissed for making a protected disclosure, otherwise known as blowing the whistle.
The change we seek to make will not affect any of those day-one rights, but it will reduce the fears that many employers have—until a few years ago, I was one of them—that a minor procedural slip-up might land them with a tribunal claim. As the British Chambers of Commerce has noted, a single claim can wipe out a whole year’s profits for a small business. That is a burden that many small businesses are simply unable to bear. The British Chambers of Commerce also reported—this is particularly shocking—that 48 per cent of larger firms have been threatened with an employment tribunal claim in the past three years.
This change will have a relatively small impact on employment tribunal claims and individuals who might seek to bring a claim. We have made a conservative estimate that the increase in the qualifying period will bring about only a 4 per cent reduction in unfair dismissal claims. Furthermore, we have not taken account of the fact that employers will not be under such pressure to let employees go, as my noble friend Lord Razzall pointed out in our debate in Grand Committee on Monday of last week. They will have the extra time to give them a chance, to coach them and to train them. Also, as set out in the impact assessment, we estimate that more than half of unfair dismissal claims currently made by those with one to two years’ service are part of multiple claims, so we would expect them still to go ahead under one or more other jurisdictions.
The Government are taking other measures that will help employers and employees to resolve disputes outside the tribunal system. I am sure that many noble Lords will agree that this is most often preferable for all parties. We are increasing the role of ACAS in conciliating disputes before a claim is made. We are piloting a scheme to boost access to mediation among small businesses in Cambridge and Greater Manchester, and we will be considering how we can deal more quickly with straightforward employment tribunal claims.
Looking back over the history of unfair dismissal rights, a two-year qualifying period has existed for most of the past 30 years, so it is hardly an unprecedented measure, but it is one that we, and large numbers of businesses, believe will make a positive difference to employer confidence.
As I said, our top priority is to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth. We are tackling youth unemployment by ensuring that more and higher-quality apprenticeships are available. We are taking steps on issues such as tax, planning rules and access to finance to boost enterprise. Critically, we have a credible plan to reduce the deficit and tackle the UK’s debts, as set out in the Budget.
The extension of the qualifying period must be seen in the following contexts: the greater employment rights that individuals now enjoy; the Government’s measures to encourage early dispute resolution; and our focus on growth and business confidence.
The Government’s view that employers’ confidence and their perceptions of employment law will be improved by this measure is based not on anecdote but on the views of the businesses that responded to the public consultation and the thousands of businesses surveyed by the British Chambers of Commerce—
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to make my case. There will be plenty of opportunity for him to speak later.
The Government’s view that employers’ confidence and their perceptions of employment law will be improved by this measure is based not on anecdote but on the views of those businesses that responded to the public consultation and the thousands of businesses surveyed by the British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors and the CBI. During the consultation, the CBI expressed the view that,
“the extension of the qualifying period will have a positive impact on marginal hiring decisions, particularly in smaller firms”.
That accords with my own experience as an employer in an IT company, which I ran for six years. I cannot emphasise enough how much time is needed for training and assessing people. I can categorically say that a year is not enough in every case, and it is a view that the Government share. There is a credible body of opinion that employers will have greater confidence to recruit as a result of this measure. I assure noble Lords that the Government will do everything practicable to monitor and assess the impact of increasing the qualifying period.
As set out in the impact assessment, we are committed to a post-implementation review of the Resolving Workplace Disputes policy package, including this measure, in 2016. The amendment laid by the noble Lord, Lord Young, calls for a review after 18 months. With respect, this will be too soon to be able to make an assessment of the policy’s effect, not least because the qualifying period will be two years and will apply only to those starting a new job from 6 April. No employee will therefore have reached the end of their qualifying period in 18 months’ time.
While respecting and preserving the important employment rights that have been established over the years, we must give proper weight to those currently outside the labour market: the school leaver looking for the first job, the long-term unemployed striving to get back into work, and the person who was let go during the first year of employment because the employer was unsure whether they would come up to scratch. These are the real beneficiaries of this order, and I commend the orders to your Lordships.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, I have three points. First, perhaps I may pick up on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, if I have his attention. He made what I would call a Sudetenland remark—the one made by Neville Chamberlain about “peace in our time”. If only that were so. Does he want a guarantee, a white piece of paper in his pocket that he can wave, promising that there will be no more legislation if this order is passed? Well, we shall see.
I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Birmingham. His joke about crèches is the worst joke I have heard in the House in the 12 years that I have been here.
My first substantive remark is about the evidence base. In Committee, I pointed out that the evidence paper presented to us as part of the background material did not give evidence as you would normally understand that term—that it was clear what would happen if you moved from one year to two years; instead, it was evidence about perception. It is probably worth repeating that the Minister said that perception is as powerful, if not more powerful, than evidence.
Today, having been given the challenge that if you have a problem of perception, your job should be to counter perception by evidence—to change the perception by talking to people—the noble Lord said, “Exactly. That is what we are trying to do”, which caused an intake of breath on these Benches. The Minister has reinforced that today by saying, “I want to meet the challenge that there is evidence of perception”. I am sure he has evidence of perception—that becomes a circular argument—but there is still no evidence.
My second remark is that noble Lords repeated three or four times the Americanism about how many people we should let go. I do not think I am alone in finding that American usage distasteful. I deplore the idea that these people want to be let go. Do they come up and say, “Please let me go”, to which the answer is, “All right, I will let you go”? They are being sacked, they are being dismissed, they are being thrown out, they are being put on the scrapheap. That is the language. I have never heard in a pub in Burton upon Trent anyone saying, “I think they’ll let me go”, when they mean that they are going to be dismissed. Does the Minister appreciate that that is not the industrial language in this country?
Finally, I echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Whitty, supported and reinforced by my noble friend Lord Monks. If legislation through statutory instrument as deep-cutting as this goes on and on, one is cutting the legs off primary legislation. We have a growing problem in the role of the House of Lords—second only, perhaps, to the Money Bill question. We are seeing more and more statutory instruments which are not playing around with minor detail of the primary legislation but, bit by bit, salami-wise, cutting the legs off primary legislation. Does the Minister think that we can go on taking 3 million, another 3 million and another 3 million out of the scope of primary legislation without making nonsense of the conventions about the use of secondary legislation?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, perhaps I may start by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Birmingham, most strongly about the quality and value of debate in your Lordships’ House. Today is no exception. We have had a good debate today, as indeed we had a good and full debate in Grand Committee on Monday last week, in which nine noble Lords from the opposition Benches participated, as did two from the Cross Benches and four from the coalition, as well as me.
Many of the questions and issues raised today were debated when we discussed the orders on that occasion, and my answers have not changed much since then. I am also well aware that noble Lords on all sides want to get on with the next business, so I hope that they will forgive me if I focus on the key issues.
The words flexibility and discussion have been deployed liberally throughout our debates, particularly by noble Lords on my side of your Lordships’ House, and my noble friend Lord Risby used those words today. Those concepts are at the heart of what the first order, the tribunal composition order, is about. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Young, suggests that the order will reduce the justice and fairness of employment tribunals and risk increasing costs through a greater number of appeals. These concerns are unfounded. I explained in this debate and in Grand Committee last week why they are unfounded but perhaps I may repeat what I said.
Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (Tribunal Composition) Order 2012
Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord De Mauley
Lord Lea of Crondall
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but he has changed the ball park completely now. Instead of saying that we have evidence, he is saying that we have a problem of perception. If there is a problem of perception, it is the Government’s job to change the perception, unless it is evidence.
Lord De Mauley
Exactly, and that is what we are trying to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to the Government’s focus for growth on small and medium-size enterprises, for which the impact of a tribunal case is often greatest. This measure is intended to deliver a decrease in the number of cases being lodged against small and medium businesses. A two-year period will also give them enough time fully to assess new members of staff and to benefit from skills retention in cases where they might otherwise have dismissed an employee in borderline cases because they do not have the access to sophisticated HR and legal resources.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, also suggested that this could lead to an increase in the number of discrimination cases. I do not buy that assertion. Already, discrimination actions are frequently brought simultaneously with unfair dismissal claims. That suggests to me that, if a discrimination claim has a reasonable chance of success, it is already being made. Indeed, because there is a time limit on making such a claim, it is already now important that, if a discrimination claim is to have a chance of succeeding, it is made simultaneously, so we cannot see that reducing the availability of unfair dismissal as a route will lead to a significant increase in discrimination claims.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, asked about the changes to the written statement of reasons. The statement of reasons is linked to the qualifying period and the specified fair reasons for dismissal, which are set down in law. The objective of the qualifying period is to provide both parties with time to get the working relationship right. If it does not work out, this will not necessarily correspond to one of the specified fair reasons for dismissal. Of course, the employee can ask for a written explanation and I cannot see any reason why an employer would not provide it.
Public Service Pensions
Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord De Mauley(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lea of Crondall
I should be very glad to have such a discussion, but I have an even longer memory. For many years, I represented the TUC on the Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee, which was abolished by the Treasury when we made a recommendation that it did not like. The recommendation in about 1970 was that we should stick with the RPI for general purposes because—
Lord Lea of Crondall
I am quite entitled to come in for a second time within the 20 minutes. I have been asking a question. Is there not a case for looking at which index should be used, based on considerations other than which one is likely to increase more slowly than the other?
Eurozone Crisis
Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord De Mauley(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, there is plenty of time. Perhaps we may hear from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke.
Trade Unions: Ballots
Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord De Mauley
Lord Lea of Crondall
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to remove the threshold of 40 per cent of the electorate having to vote “yes” in ballots on trade union recognition in order to secure a positive result in addition to a simple majority.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the Government have no plans to change the statutory procedure for the recognition of trade unions.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I thank the noble Lord for confirming this double standard. There is a high hurdle—a double hurdle, in fact—for trade unions to jump, but in the Government’s proposals for a radical change to the constitution there is no such double hurdle at all, simply a vote of 17 per cent to 13 per cent or whatever. I have two questions for the Minister. First, given that on 16 February the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, opposed the Rooker amendment on the ground that it would be a deterrent to people turning out because they might not know whether their votes would count, are workers not deterred as well? Secondly, if on 5 May the turnout is 37 per cent, will the Government repeat Mr Clegg’s comment on the Barnsley by-election that 37 per cent was “an abysmally low turnout”, or—surprise, surprise—will they say, “That was astonishingly high”, and that 25 per cent or something like that is a perfectly good basis on which to change our constitution?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the two cases are completely different and there is no reason why the balloting arrangements should be the same. The voting constituencies in union recognition ballots, averaging a few hundred, are tiny compared to those of referendums. The workforce concerned is often co-located and can be easily accessed. It is therefore much easier in this case to ensure a large turnout, provided that the workers are genuinely interested in union recognition.
Agriculture: Dairy Industry
Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord De Mauley
Lord De Mauley
I am grateful for that question, which brings us back to the issue of the ombudsman, whose duties will be precisely that. I agree very much with what the noble Lord says.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in the European Union, Britain is not atypical in subsidising each cow by £900 per annum? Is he further aware that in the two countries outside the EU that are much vaunted by Eurosceptics outside—that is, Switzerland and Norway—each cow is subsidised by £9,000 per annum?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I am not entirely sure what the question was, but we think that competitiveness is extremely important in this market.
Government Spending
Debate between Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord De Mauley(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I think that is the protocol. I have two further questions for the Minister. First, is he aware that, as an annualised rate, the deficit—all this is premised on the huge increase in the deficit—was 2.5 per cent 18 months ago and is now 11.1 per cent? That has created a hole in the economic output against trend of about £50 million. Does he not find it totally incredible to say that that is the fault of public sector workers? Is it more likely to be the fault of the top 0.1 per cent of the population whose average wage is over £2 million? The benefit is going to those people, but the cost is because public expenditure has got to go up to pay for unemployment benefit and tax revenues will go down because of lower income tax and lower corporation tax.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, for his question. He quite rightly points to the huge size of the deficit. He suggests that the Government somehow imply that it is the fault of public sector workers. There is no question that that is the suggestion. We are all in this together. I take his point, but there is no suggestion that public sector workers should bear more than their fair share of the burden.