| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Byers: Just a second; I want to answer my hon. Friend's point first. I understand the concerns about the cut-off, but we believe that the Bill is a balanced package.
Before I give way to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), I must give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins).
Charlotte Atkins:
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Is he aware that the accident rate in a workplace that has unionised workplace representatives is half that of non-unionised workplaces? Does he agree that the Bill will improve health and safety at work, even though it has no specific provisions on that?
Mr. Byers:
I have no doubt about that. Health and safety representatives are important, and there are measures in the Bill to help those who carry out that important responsibility. There is no doubt that businesses that have union recognition are far safer places to work than those with no such provision.
Mr. Byers:
I want to make progress, but I shall give way in a minute.
There are three fundamental strands running through the Bill. The first is to promote family-friendly policies. The second is to promote a new culture of partnership in the workplace. The third is to ensure equal and fair treatment for all in the workplace. There will not be a continuous drip, drip of employment legislation throughout this Parliament. We have no plans to bring forward further measures. We intend this industrial relations settlement to last for the remainder of this Parliament.
Mr. Fabricant:
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I should like to pursue the point raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about small firms with perhaps 18 employees. Does the Secretary of State accept that there might be one or two unscrupulous employers--to use the words of the hon. Member for Bolsover--who might be disinclined to employ 20 or 21 people for fear of compulsory union recognition? What assessment has he made of that?
Mr. Byers:
The hon. Gentleman always makes interesting interventions. If a business needs to employ
I wish to refer to one of the most important aspects of the Bill--the package to promote family-friendly policies. The Bill's provisions form a major part of the Government's agenda for supporting families. Many businesses, large and small, have adopted practices in support of the family, to the mutual benefit of the organisation and the employee.
Let us consider some illustrations of those companies and individuals who have benefited from flexible, family-friendly arrangements. One example is one of our leading supermarket chains, which has seen the benefits of being family friendly. The company wants staff to be flexible but, in return, is prepared to recognise individual needs. The supermarket chain has introduced maternity leave, study leave, paternity leave, child-care leave, adoption leave, shift-swap and bereavement leave. [Hon. Members: "Which chain is it?"]
Tory Members would have us believe that the company would be headed for bankruptcy as a result of all those changes. However, absence is down, saving the company £3 million. Labour turnover is down by 4 per cent., saving the company £2.4 million. In addition, 95 per cent. of female staff who go on maternity leave are now returning to work in the company's stores. Customer numbers are up by 35 per cent. and the company has 8.9 per cent. growth. That is clear evidence of how these policies work. [Hon. Members: "Is it Asda?"] Tory Members have identified the supermarket chain--it is Asda, where the shadow Chancellor has one of his many directorships. In addition, the deputy chairman of the Conservative party is, I think, now the chairman of Asda.
The secret is that Conservative Members know that these policies work, and are prepared to have them in companies where they are directors. However, they seek to deny the policies to organisations elsewhere. When Tory Members, as they have done in the amendment, seek to make the point that family-friendly policies are a burden and affect the profitability of organisations, they are talking nonsense. They work in practice and give security to the individual who, in return, provides loyalty and commitment to the employer. That works well, and the Bill will ensure that those good practices apply to all organisations and businesses.
Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh):
The Secretary of State says that good practice is the key. However, is he not a little concerned that the many regulations proposed by the Bill demonstrate that the Government have, so far, failed to convince the rest of the world of the benefits of good practice? Does he not find it rather odd that, a couple of weeks ago in Bristol, the Prime Minister was telling business men that many of the regulations coming from European directives were out of date and should be reviewed, and yet the Bill is proposing extra regulations, over and above the European directives? Is he concerned that the Government have failed to get the message across and have to bring in the measures through regulation?
Mr. Byers:
It seems that the Liberal Democrats are opposing the family-friendly measures in the Bill. If that
Mr. Jon Trickett (Hemsworth):
Does my right hon. Friend endorse the findings of the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report, declaring that Britain's hire-and-fire labour market had trapped people in low-paid jobs, entrenched insecurity at work and had no beneficial effect on economic performance? Does he agree that the reduction in the qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal, the right to individual representation and the other measures in the Bill will begin to strike a better balance between employer and employee in the workplace?
Mr. Fabricant:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order that the hon. Gentleman did not tell us that the OECD went on to say that our flexible labour market contributed to low unemployment?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
That is a matter for debate. It is nothing to do with the Chair.
Mr. Byers:
There are 400,000 more people in work than when we took office in May 1997. We can marry the need for prosperity and profitable companies with giving individual rights in the workplace; that is what the Bill is designed to do.
There are clear examples from organisations of the benefits of family-friendly policies, but those policies also benefit the individual. For example, a mother of two summed up the position well when she said:
Contrast that with the case of a woman in Nottingham--the sort of woman who would get nothing if Conservative Members' approach was adopted. She was disciplined for taking time off work when one of her children had flu. Her daughter, frightened that her mother would be sacked if she stayed at home to look after her, hid the fact that she had a throat infection. Another woman, from Chesterfield, wanted to reduce her hours when her son was diagnosed with a disability. Her employer refused. Conservative Members think that that is fine, and they will do nothing to protect such parents with their family responsibilities. We reject that approach. We will stand by those parents, and the Bill will ensure that we can do precisely that.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the overwhelming evidence shows that, over the past 25 years, the American record of job creation is massively superior to that of the member states
Mr. Byers:
I agree that the American employment record is commendable, but it is underpinned by minimum standards in the workplace, a national minimum wage, statutory trade union recognition and, indeed, a parental leave directive, which gives effect to family-friendly policies such as those in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman should carefully consider the American experience of implementing policies that are reflected in the Bill.
"My company has allowed me time off when my children have been ill. It makes such a difference. If I have a crisis at home, I don't have to worry about my job because my company is so flexible. I have been very fortunate, but it works both ways. I am treated well by my company, so I try to put as much back in as I can."
That is the approach that we favour.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |