---

Mr. Alan Johnson (Hull, West and Hessle): Is my right hon. Friend aware of a decision by Opposition Members to become part-timers? Is there some industrial action by Conservative Back Benchers or is there another reason why only six Conservative Back Benchers are here to support their reasoned amendment?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the way in which the Opposition are treating the Bill. I hope that they will reveal the extent to which they plan to oppose certain key measures. I had expected more Opposition Members to support the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)--[Hon. Members: "Why?"]--The Bill addresses the issue of insecurity at work and the right hon. Gentleman must have deep concerns about his own position, given the comments that have been attributed to the Leader of the Opposition. I have read the Bill in great detail and I regret that the provisions on job security do not cover the shadow Cabinet. I am sorry about that, but if amendments are tabled in Committee, perhaps the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), will give them consideration--or perhaps not.

To return to the changed nature of the work force, more women than ever are working and more families depend on two earners. More than 50 per cent. of married women with children under five work--again more than double the figure a generation ago.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): My right hon. Friend is referring to various categories of worker. There has also been an increase in the number of agency workers. Will he emphasise that the Bill will provide better protection to those employed in such work?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Some 1 million people now work through employment agencies. A Bill that addresses the modern labour market must contain provisions that apply to employment agencies. I am pleased to say that the Bill includes specific measures to tackle abuses involving employment agencies, and I shall refer to them later in my speech.

In a changed labour market, it is important that the Bill addresses the different nature of the work force. Increasing numbers of workers need to balance work with other commitments, such as caring for children or elderly relatives. New working patterns put new responsibilities on the Government, businesses and employees. They place a responsibility on the Government to ensure minimum standards of fairness and treatment for all in society and they place a responsibility on business to ensure that the task of making a reality of the flexible labour market does not fall solely on working people.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde): The legislation is most welcome. May I make a plea to my right hon. Friend on behalf of a very small work force? I refer to the few hundred men employed as fishermen by a small number of trawler companies. Down

9 Feb 1999 : Column 132

the years, they have been treated as casual workers in every sense of the word. I hope that the Bill will enable them to be treated differently by their employers, some of whom have been among the worst in Britain.

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Although their numbers may be small, their needs must be addressed. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield has already had discussions with his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We are giving very serious consideration to the particular circumstances applying to that section of the work force.

Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South): I welcome the main thrust of the Government's legislation. However, as my right hon. Friend is talking about protection of the work force, will he perhaps help the House to understand better why employees working in companies with fewer than 21 employees will be excluded from the provisions on trade union recognition?

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): Why?

Mr. Byers: I shall explain, if my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) will give me a chance to do so.

I have listened to the arguments that the collective rights provisions should apply to all businesses. Such decisions are always a matter of balance. Our view was that undue burdens should not be placed on businesses in circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to do so, and that, in such circumstances, we should not be prepared to extend the trade union recognition provisions. Although I understand the strong views that have been expressed, we believe that the package is reasonable and balanced. As it is balanced, we have not been prepared to accept the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and some of his colleagues. Although I know that they will be disappointed, we think that, on balance, the package is the right way to move forward.

Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South): If the Secretary of State genuinely believes what his Department is saying--that, in the next 10 years, most new jobs will be created in companies with fewer than 21 persons--surely there is absolutely no logic in withholding the rights of those individuals to be members of a trade union, or in companies not recognising the collective might of those employees? Surely his point falls foul of the fact that the overwhelming majority of new jobs will be created in the sector of small businesses with few employees.

Mr. Byers: I should put the record straight. The Bill contains provisions that will ensure that any individual--regardless of the size of organisation for which he or she works--will be entitled to belong to a trade union and not to be discriminated against because of trade union membership. All individuals--regardless of the size of organisation for which they work--will be able to have someone of their choice represent them at a grievance or disciplinary hearing. If a company or business employing fewer than 21 people decides voluntarily to recognise a

9 Feb 1999 : Column 133

trade union, it will be perfectly entitled to do so. However, on balance, the Government have taken the view that it is reasonable to have a cut-off.

It is worth bearing it in mind that, in the past decade or so, many large employers have gone for derecognition. Now, because of the Bill's provisions, there will be automatic recognition of a trade union of which a majority of the work force are members. The provision will be welcomed by many thousands of people who are trade union members but have been denied recognition of their union.

The Government believe that the Bill strikes the right balance and will be an important step forward. I should hope that most people, on examining the provisions, will agree that they provide a structure that will serve in the years ahead.

Several hon. Members rose--

Mr. Byers: I shall give way in a minute or two, but should first make some progress in my speech.

The final point on responsibility is employees' responsibility to demonstrate loyalty and commitment to their employer. However, flexibility does not have to entail--it must not entail--insecurity and poor treatment, which lead only to additional stress for many whose lives are already too stressful, to low morale and to poor productivity. We must help people to adapt to the new world of fast-changing markets and shifting work patterns without sacrificing their quality of life.

The measures proposed in the Bill are already applied widely in many of our top-performing companies, which are reaping the benefits of greater employee commitment and co-operation, reduced staff turnover and absenteeism and increased productivity. The proposals, by underpinning modern employment policies in law, will help to spread just that type of best practice to all parts of the economy. We believe that, if employers treat their work force sensibly, employees will respond with loyalty and commitment.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) rose--

Charlotte Atkins (Staffordshire, Moorlands) rose--

Mr. Byers: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) first.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that having a cut-off point can create problems, whether it is 20, 15 or any other number? Is he aware that a large number of firms throughout the country with work forces of fewer than 20 have granted recognition rights to trade unions? One possible danger--I hope that it does not arise--is that some firms with a work force of, say, 18 might decide to abandon trade union recognition because the new law says that they do not have to recognise unions if they employ fewer than 20 people. What safeguards will be available to trade unionists who have an agreement, but might lose that recognition because of the cut-off?

Mr. Byers: As I said earlier, there is nothing in the Bill to stop voluntary agreements that have already been entered into. I hope that employers will recognise the benefits of trade union recognition. Many companies do.

9 Feb 1999 : Column 134

I shall give examples later of companies that have a positive partnership with their trade unions. They are successful, prosperous companies that are growing and are able to employ more people. Nothing in the Bill should act as a disincentive to employers on trade union recognition. The trade union movement needs to demonstrate to people in the work force the benefits of union membership. It is worth reflecting on the fact that 4 million people in many of the categories of organisation mentioned by some of my hon. Friends are not in union membership. The challenge to the trade union movement, in the light of the Bill in particular, is to recruit people. Unions now have a reason to do so, because if more than half the workers in a work place are in union membership there will be automatic recognition.

---