---

Work and Families Bill

My Lords, I do not wish to pre-empt the discussions that need to take place but it could be done in equal amounts of two days over a period, and there are all sorts of other ways that it could be done. I do not want to mislead noble Lords by suggesting that it will be done in one particular way; I just stress that we envisage phasing as part of the arrangement. If the majority of people who currently do not get the benefit of those extra eight days are low-paid, presumably the Low Pay Commission will take that into account in formulating its proposals. I do not think that the reference was intended to be any more sinister than that. Obviously, in evaluating the position of low-paid people, the Low Pay Commission will reflect on the whole range of benefits or disadvantages that they have in relation to other employees. The amendment would require any regulations made under Clause 13 to be approved by Parliament by the end of 2008. It is, if you like, a rather unusual sunset clause. Rather than seeking to stop something after a certain period, it would require regulations to be brought forward by the end of 2008, otherwise the powers under Clause 13 would lapse. I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment but not because of the timescale that it prescribes. Following the debate that we had on Report and the conversation that we have had subsequently, I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has given us an additional year, compared with her earlier amendments. We certainly intend to make regulations within the timescale set out and are making best progress on that. I do not believe that the amendment is either effective or necessary. It would not be effective because of the way that it has been drafted. First, it refers to regulations regarding bank holidays. As I said during the debate on this clause on Report, we may well not refer to bank holidays or public holidays in exercising these powers. The issues involved in the statutory basis of bank and public holidays are complex. We believe that there may be more straightforward ways of achieving our objective than changing the statutory basis of bank and public holidays. Secondly, the amendment assumes that any additional leave as a result of this clause will be phased in but it makes no reference to the nature of any phasing. As I said both in Committee and on Report, we should not prejudge the outcome of the imminent consultation. Early discussions with business indicate that there are differing views on phasing. Some businesses that depend on tendering for contracts well in advance want a longer notice period of any change so that they can factor any additional costs into their tender prices, and that would be more helpful than a phased introduction. Let us not impose phasing on business without asking first, which we will do shortly. As I said, the amendment is not necessary. I am aware of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on the process of this Bill, which contains a number of delegated powers. She has expressed concern over the ability of Parliament to properly debate such secondary legislation. While regulations made under Clause 13 will be subject to the affirmative procedure, the noble Baroness highlighted on Report the inability to amend draft regulations made under this procedure. I accept that, but the affirmative procedure provides a more stringent form of parliamentary control than the negative procedure because the regulations must receive the positive approval of both Houses. It is also worth pointing out that the proposal to extend annual leave to make paid leave for bank holidays additional to the annual leave entitlement enjoys cross-party support and support in principle from many business organisations. We intend to work closely with stakeholders to ensure that the support in principle for this proposal is maintained in practice. I am happy to assure the House that we will welcome views from the widest possible range of stakeholders throughout the consultation process and in drafting regulations, including from the CBI, small business representatives and the trade unions. I hope that I have persuaded the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that the amendment is unnecessary and that, with the assurances that I have given, she can withdraw it.