EEF recognises that it was a manifesto commitment of the Labour Party to make bank and public holidays additional to the statutory minimum annual holiday entitlement of four weeks. However we believe that the principles of Better Regulation, to which the manifesto also commits the Government, require that:
- before it determines to increase the minimum paid annual holiday entitlement by eight or even four days, the Government must be able to demonstrate the burdens and benefits of the proposal and explain clearly why, in its view, the benefits outweigh the burdens. The current proposal assumes there will be legislation before the Government has the data to show it is necessary. As the proposal will cost business hundreds of millions of pounds, this is imperative.
- if the Government does decide to proceed with the proposal, it should increase the entitlement initially by four days only. The Government should then carry out a review of the practical and economic impact of that increase before deciding whether to increase the entitlement further.
- any legislation must be proportionate. It must, as the “Success at Work” policy statement says, protect vulnerable workers whilst supporting good employers. The present proposal will add further ‘red tape’ to an already highly complex area of employment law whilst not demonstrably improving the lot of workers whose employers already give them 28 or more days’ annual holiday.
Therefore, EEF proposes that the Government should not apply this proposed legislation to employers that, by contract, already provide their workers with more than 28 days’ annual holiday. In line with the Government’s Success at Work strategy, this proposal supports good workplaces by providing an incentive to observe good employment practice whilst limiting the burden of excessive regulation. At the same time it protects the vulnerable.
This response was submitted in September 2006.