---

Work and Families Bill

moved Amendment No. 3:"Page 11, line 39, at end insert—" ““(   )   If no regulations phasing the inclusion of Bank Holidays pursuant to subsection (7) have been approved by both Houses of Parliament by 31st December 2008, this section shall expire and be of no further effect.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, before I speak to the amendment, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that we do not put business before family. We are very much of the view that a balance must be struck, and we think that the Government have struck a balance. This is another amendment that I have been reluctantly compelled to bring back to your Lordships because of a strange reluctance on the part of the Government to commit themselves to the way in which one of the major provisions of the Bill is to be implemented. The Government have decided to award workers in England, Wales and Scotland an extra eight days’ paid holiday a year. Those were called bank holidays; the idea was that they should be paid as well. Clearly, the manifesto commitment was simply tagged on to a Bill that was originally intended only to deal with maternity and paternity pay and leave to take advantage of a legislative slot. We are not arguing about that. But as an afterthought, the Government have obviously not yet managed to work out the means of implementing this new policy nor, I suspect, its full financial and commercial implication and costs. The Minister conceded:"““Such a phased introduction would give a longer period for business . . . to adjust to the new arrangements; it would spread any additional cost over a longer period, and the amendment reflects the position of the CBI””.—[Official Report, 25/4/06; col. 133.]" In other words, the Minister thought that it was quite an interesting point of view, and I think he used the words ““light touch””. So what are the Government doing about bringing this provision for an extra week and a half’s paid leave into force in several steps? It will not surprise your Lordships to learn that they are engaging in yet another round of consultation, and after what I have said before I will not make any more of that. I understand that the Government consult; they consult lengthily and they then consult on the consultation and so on, and eventually we get there. I understand all that—although I said that I would not repeat it I am afraid I did; I am guilty. If the Government were to bring in two days’ leave a year, the whole exercise could be covered within the theoretical life of the present Parliament—two days in one year and two days in another and so on—because businesses feel that six extra days in one go is rather hard. The only question would be—by which two days in which year? That is not a very difficult problem. Another aspect of this concerns me. It is the suggestion that was made to me during my conversation with the department on 4 May that, rather than just relate the extra eight days specifically to the bank holidays, which is what I had originally thought and was what it said, the time could be given as a straightforward addition to the existing four weeks’ statutory annual leave. I said that we could all understand where that might lead, because the four weeks would immediately become five and a half weeks, and then if the extra eight days were not taken as bank holidays, the employee could either want those days as well, or days off, or extra pay in lieu. When I mentioned that as a concern, I was told during the telephone conversation—and it was confirmed in the note afterwards—that indeed that was a matter of concern and it might happen. So, I understand that the Government felt that I might have a point. As consultation continues, I do not know whether the original idea of introducing the eight days’ leave gradually instead of in a block to make it easier for businesses to accept or the new idea of not calling them bank holidays and just tagging on eight days will be implemented. The Minister obviously does not know yet because we are still in consultation. If the latter option is taken, given that the Minister was concerned when we spoke about employees also demanding bank holidays, will provision be made to prevent that happening? It would be interesting if he could confirm that to put our minds partially at rest? When the Minister responded to my amendment in Grand Committee, he stated that it was difficult, because,"““it may place an excessive burden on business by changing the rules every year for four years or so””.—[Official Report, 9/3/06; col. GC390.]" I submit that an equal if not greater problem is being placed on businesses by this sword of Damocles hanging over them and the absolute uncertainty about whether the burden of the extra eight days will have to be absorbed all at once and, if not, by how many instalments a year, on which days and when: this year, next year or never? Also, in my conversation with the department on 4 May I was told that the Government felt it was necessary to consult with the Low Pay Commission because many of those who will benefit will be on the national minimum wage. I did not comment to the Minister at the time because I wanted to think about it. I cannot see what that has to do with it, because the entitlement is intended to be universal and not means tested. The fattest of fat cats will be entitled along with the poorest of the poor, the neediest or whoever. Purely as a result of the desire to consult the Low Pay Commission, the Government told me that the earliest implementation date would be October 2007. That will be almost two years after the Bill was first introduced in the other place. Even then, there is no certainty about the timetable, because in the same conversation I was told—and I quote from the department’s note because I did not take one and I wanted to report it accurately:"““We are also aware of other potential impacts on the timetable; not least the potential for an issue that has not yet been identified to surface during the consultation process and also the impact of some cases currently before the House of Lords that we may need to reflect in the regulations””." I understand that they may well have to consult on the last bit, but the idea that the Government now expect other identified issues to arise—every minute we find even more things—is a stark admission that this legislation is hasty, premature and not thought through. That is not necessarily a criticism of the Minister’s department, but it applies to many other Bills. Given that all these unforeseen things keep cropping up, it is no wonder that the Government want to consult for ever. It is grossly unfair to commerce and industry that this uncertainty is being inflicted on them and that it will continue for at least another 18 months with no guarantee that it will be resolved even then. But the Bill will have been passed; that is the issue. It is essential that the Government concentrate on resolving this problem that they have created by introducing the concept of the extra eight days’ paid holiday before, by their own admission, they had considered its implications. I am offering the Government a lifeline; I always go out of my way to do that for the Minister. In place of the deadline of 31 December 2007 that I offered for a sunset clause on Report, which would have been more than 18 months away, my amendment proposes a new deadline of 31 December 2008—two and a half years from now—for the sunset clause to operate. If the Government cannot get their act together by then, this clause has no place in the statute book, waiting to be imposed on business at some totally unspecified date, possibly with a mere 40 days’ notice. The Government have to insert some certainty into this process and, as I said, I want to help them to do it. I have given them a lot of time. The Bill has gone through the other place and today is the last time that we can talk about it in this House. The time that I am proposing is more than generous. I beg to move.