| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman was not listening.I said several times that the original guidance to tribunals, which still stands, was that they should have due regard to the circumstances of the case. That includes--case law from senior courts has supported this--a justifiable defence for a small employer who does not have the same expertise as a large one and who takes a slightly different route in tackling problems. That is perfectly sensible. It is up to the courts to determine whether an employer has acted reasonably in the circumstances.
Mr. Fabricant: As I said, the hon. Gentleman is a woolly thinker without a woolly hat. He would create an employment scheme for judges and those who care for ACAS. The whole point of the debate, Mr. Deputy Chairman--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get the terminology correct.
Mr. Fabricant: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are correct. You know that I am a new Member who has been here for only three years. At times I forget--unlike other, experienced Members who are present. Perhaps I get it wrong because I am so emotionally involved in the issue. I am concerned about job creation, but Labour Members are concerned only with a political dogma based on no practical experience whatsoever.
Job insecurity does not affect this country alone. The issue has come up time and again in the Republican primaries in the United States of America. It is alive--and, sadly, flourishing--in France, Germany, Spain and elsewhere directly because of the changing industrial scene worldwide, as my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) said. It would be foolish in the extreme to ignore that.
There is clear evidence that job insecurity is decreasing. The John Lewis department store in Oxford street is much frequented by the Leader of the Opposition, especially as he likes to talk about stakeholding. I am quite familiar with the management of the John Lewis store in Milton Keynes.
Mr. Ian McCartney:
Name dropper.
Mr. Fabricant:
For the record, I should say that I am not a discount taker. I have no interest to declare in the John Lewis Partnership, other than the fact that I am probably one of its bigger customers.
Mr. McCartney:
How can you afford that?
Mr. Fabricant:
I know that the hon. Gentleman has been searching nervously through the Register of
The John Lewis Partnership is a good employer, but for the first time it is experiencing difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff. People are leaving the partnership to go to other jobs, because the job market is picking up. We should be aware of that, and the Labour party should acknowledge it, instead of constantly carping and criticising the Government's record.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West said thatSir Winston Churchill would be turning over in his grave at the thought of the Government's proposals. I dispute that. Sir Winston said that there should be a safety net below which no one should fall. I do not believe anyone in the Opposition or on the Conservative Benches would argue that the welfare state should not protect those least able to protect themselves.
But this debate is all about balance. We know from experience not only in this country but in the United States, which has a far less extensive welfare system than we do, that too much protection acts as a disincentive to work. That part of the balance must be got right.
As I said in an intervention, the House of Commons has a duty of care not only to Members' constituents but to the nation. That duty extends not only to those in employment--the issue we are debating--but to those currently unemployed. Unless the balance is right with regard to ACAS and industrial tribunals, we will find that small businesses will not survive. As a consequence, we would no longer be the nation with the greatest percentage of its people in employment among the large economies of the European Union. We would experience far greater unemployment as a result. I know that no one in the Opposition or in the Conservative party who would want to see that, but such is the consequence of the Opposition motion.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West talked about the OECD, and came up with a series of statistics to try to prove that this country is a non-performer. Yet the OECD has said that the greatest cause of unemployment in continental Europe are the on-costs specifically arising from the social chapter. The Labour party advocates, however, that this country should sign up to that chapter. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has said, not only would the adoption of the social chapter cause unemployment to rise by a further 1 million, but it would be equivalent to a blank cheque.
The terms of the social chapter would mean that we could merely use qualified majority voting to prevent future legislation dreamt up by the unelected wide boys in Brussels, who have probably never had a real job in their lives. Those are the very people who have created unemployment in France, Germany and Spain. Those are the very people who, along with their cohorts in the Labour party, would create unemployment in this country, too. That is the sadness of it, because the will on both sides of the House is to see the unemployment rate fall, but the very policy advocated by the Labour party would cause unemployment to rise.
We cannot divorce the state of the economy from levels of unemployment. Let us now compare and contrast new Labour, as espoused today, with old Labour of a few years
ago. The hon. Member for Oldham, West criticised at length our reforms of the trade union movement. He said that we are the guilty party. If we are accused of forcing the unions to adopt a democratic selection of their leaders rather than trade union leaders appointing themselves for life, as Arthur Scargill did, mea culpa--we are guilty. If we are accused of forcing unions to hold secret ballots before commencing a strike rather than adopting the Red Robbo tactics of intimidation, mea culpa--we are guilty. If we are accused of forcing unions to opt for a cooling-off period before calling a strike, mea culpa--we are guilty.
Mr. MacShane
indicated dissent.
Mr. Fabricant:
I note that the hon. Member for Rotherham and Lucerne is shaking his head in disagreement. Does he care to intervene? No. He is emptily shaking his head in disagreement, yet the House notes that he has nothing to say.
Under old Labour, Britain was the sick man of Europe. It lost 29 million working days through strike action in Labour's last year of office. In 1995, thanks to the Government's reform of trade unions--a policy so loathed by the hon. Member for Oldham, West--415,000 working days were lost through strikes. I accept that that is 415,000 too many, but compare that with 29 million working days. Old Labour, new Labour--there is no difference, we learned that today.
Inflation is one of the biggest enemies of small and large businesses alike. The inability to predict future expenditure and to budget for inward purchases destroys employment. Let us compare and contrast what new Labour and old Labour has to say about that.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West seeks to submit the country to the blank cheque of the social chapter and the minimum working wage. The Labour party, however, still cannot admit what that minimum wage should be because, at its heart, it recognises that it costs jobs. The inflation that would be caused by a minimum working wage would be reminiscent of the rate achieved in the days of old Labour.
Under the last Labour Government, the inflation rate averaged 15.5 per cent. and peaked at 27 per cent. In January, under the Conservative Government, the inflation rate was less than 3 per cent. Yes, mea culpa, we are guilty of rejecting the minimum wage to keep jobs in the country. Yes, mea culpa, we are guilty of rejecting that minimum wage and thus attracting firms like Toyota to the United Kingdom. Old Labour, new Labour--there is no difference. Just look at those on the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham):
I listened, hoping for some profit, to the text delivered by President of the Board of Trade. He read it at breakneck speed, and, frankly, he did so more quickly than the time it took Mike Tyson to dispose of Frank Bruno yesterday. I had hoped for some guidance.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), but because the President of the Board of Trade represents a seat in Wigtownshire, I made a slight mistake in appellation.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Teignbridge(Mr. Nicholls) has left the Chamber--he certainly entertained us. He took us back to 1979, when the then Prime Minister said, "Crisis, what crisis?" Do hon. Members remember when a newspaper journalist knocked on the door of the hon. Member for Teignbridge to ask about the Register of Members' Interests, and he said, "Consultancy, what consultancy?"
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |