| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Miller: Does the Minister agree that the resources of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service should be expanded?
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman anticipates a point that I shall make shortly in my speech. If he will forgive me, I shall reach it in due course. I noted that point in his speech and I acknowledge that it should be addressed.
The hon. Gentleman talked also about the changing world of employment, but he may have made a false point about the advisory role of ACAS. He said that ACAS should be resourced to provide an advice function to employers about handling disputes. It is important to remember that ACAS's conciliation role requires it to maintain its independence from either side in an industrial rights dispute. That independence would be put at risk if ACAS were given an advisory function in that area. However, ACAS's public inquiry points give information about the law.
The hon. Gentleman spoke also about an opinion survey carried out by his union--which I think that he said is the MFI--
Mr. Taylor:
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I do not have the correct acronym: I withdraw it.
He referred to the opinion survey that dwelt upon insecurity--a subject that is fashionable these days with Opposition Members. The worst form of insecurity is unemployment and jobs will be created only if British industry is efficient and competitive. Flexibility--including pay flexibility--is an important factor in achieving that. Rigid pay systems take little account of business performance or labour market conditions. Such inflexibility jeopardises competitiveness, investment and jobs. A national minimum wage would be a major destroyer of jobs.
Mr. MacShane:
If a minimum wage destroys jobs, how is it that so many jobs are being created in America, where there is one, or in Taiwan, which is a full employment economy?
Mr. Taylor:
Because it is pitched at a very low level indeed. If the hon. Gentleman and Opposition Front
It does not stop there. Fixing a national minimum wage creates a group of people whose earnings are just above it and who wish to have their differentials restored. That is the secondary effect of a national minimum wage and the damage that it would cause to the economy.
Flexible pay has mutual benefits. It can help to improve business performance and it can mean better pay for employees as a result of increased efficiency. It can also help employees to feel properly valued and give them a sense of ownership over their pay.
The DTI booklet "The Rewards of Success", published last month, contains a number of case studies of flexible pay systems in Britain. Employers have increasingly recognised the need for flexible pay systems. For example, a survey of employers just published by the Industrial Society found that nearly all respondents had some flexible pay arrangements. Nearly two thirds operated monetary bonuses or incentives to reward individuals; more than half operated performance-related pay and just under a third had profit-related pay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire(Mr. Fabricant) abandoned his usual shyness and told us some interesting facts about the building up of his business in the radio and communications world. He drew some American comparisons, but more than once--rightly, in my view--he spoke of balance and the need to recognise an obligation to the unemployed in seeking to strike that balance. He also told us in no mean terms what he thought about the social chapter. He doubted whether there was any difference between old Labour and new Labour. Having heard the closing speech from the Opposition Front Bench, I am disposed absolutely to agree. He despaired of the same old arguments for high inflation, high unemployment and deteriorating industrial relations.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) recalled how the works council directive had been adopted in the rest of the European Union. I have to tell him something about that. The voice of business was opposed to the works council directive throughout the15 member countries, but only in the United Kingdom did the political and ministerial voice and action follow the business voice. The Government have been faithful to their business interests.
The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the citizens advice bureaux. Having helped to start a citizens advice bureau in 1973, I join him in that tribute, and it is a source of modest pride to me that, 23 years later, I am still president of that citizens advice bureau.
The hon. Member for Rotherham said that the opt-out from the social chapter makes no difference because European employers will go ahead without us. I find that difficult to understand. Without the opt-out, many more United Kingdom-based companies would have been caught by the works council directive because employees here would have counted towards the directive's thresholds. They are now completely excluded. The opt-out also means that United Kingdom employers will
not have to apply provisions on paternity leave, assuming that the social partners agreement is adopted as a directive of 14 member states.
The hon. Member for Makerfield spoke of a clash of ideology between the two sides of the House and returned to the confusion between rights and burdens--or at least the confusion in his mind. It is our view that employers and employees have their considerations, as do the unemployed--a point returned to often by Conservative Members--and that employers, employees and the unemployed need to have their rights taken into account, balanced and recognised. Nor is it a coincidence that we now have the lowest level of strikes for 100 years, which is hardly a symptom of tyranny in the workplace. I should also tell the hon. Gentleman that 50 per cent. of people who lose their jobs are no longer on the unemployment register within three months.
The hon. Member for Makerfield spoke of a national minimum wage. The Labour party--old or new--still will not come clean on that. Do the Opposition intend to leave us at this unfinished stage of the debate with the impression that their national minimum wage will indeed be national and will apply in the north-east the same as in the south-east, the south-west and the midlands?
We have had a lively debate and I have listened carefully to all the points that have been raised.I congratulate my hon. Friends on their thoughtful and constructive contributions. By contrast, Opposition Members have seemingly paid no heed to the speech of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and have continued to promote a gross distortion of the Government's policies and intentions.
I repeat that we fully recognise the legitimate entitlement of employees to a minimum level of statutory safeguards against unreasonable treatment by their employers. There exists a comprehensive framework of employment protection legislation designed to secure that entitlement and I can reassure all hon. Members that we have no plans whatever for dismantling that framework. However, it would be of absolutely no benefit to employees--and certainly not to job seekers--if businesses were weighed down with unreasonable legislative restrictions which constrained their competitiveness, damaged their profitability and destroyed job opportunities. That is why, since 1979, we have pursued a policy of appropriate deregulation in those matters.
Mr. Ian McCartney:
Before the Minister sits down, will he tell the House which rights that people have at present they will no longer have under the Government's proposals? He has given us no information whatever other than generalisations. Which specific rights will be lost under the Government's proposals?
Mr. Taylor:
I will not answer the hon. Gentleman in those terms because that is a false question. The Government live in a veritable millrace of ideas, particularly as we have invited small businesses to give us their ideas in conferences, and they are worth considering. It is no use asking firms for their ideas and then dismissing them out of hand. There is no shortage of ideas, and so far as I can tell they have come to us in
The Government are not ruling anything in or ruling anything out. We are pleased consistently to receive ideas and we evaluate them. Ideas that survive that process and look fruitful can be candidates for further implementation down the line, after the fullest consultation. That is the proper answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. Taylor:
I said that I was giving way for the last time. With only a minute or two left, I intend to draw my remarks to a conclusion.
The measures that we have taken include increasing the qualifying conditions. In unfair dismissal cases, we have removed from employers the burden of proof and made the balance neutral between the parties. In deciding such cases, industrial tribunals are now required to take into account the size of a business and its administrative resources. Furthermore, we have extended the scope for costs to be awarded in tribunal cases against parties who act frivolously, vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably. Our current proposals for reform of the industrial tribunal system mentioned by my right hon. Friend will continue the process of sensible improvement. They have been widely welcomed.
A balance must be struck between safeguarding the legitimate interests of employees and placing administrative and other cost burdens on employers. That commitment to a balanced approach has always been and remains at the heart of our policies. I urge the House to resist the Opposition motion and to support the Government amendment.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |