| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lorna Fitzsimons (Rochdale): My right hon. Friend is being very co-operative in giving way to all those who want to intervene. Does he share my incredulity at the Conservative party, which claims to be the party of the family, but which, after 20 years of trade union legislation, has successfully undermined everything that was solid about the family? I welcome the fact that families can now plan and have some stability under the family-friendly aspects of our legislation.
Mr. Byers: I agree. Conservative Members are condemned by the fact that they like to portray themselves as family friendly, when they are in fact prepared to accept the situation in which people risk losing their job if they want to care for a sick child or an ailing relative.
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Byers: Not for the moment, as I want to make some progress.
The Bill will increase maternity leave for all to 18 weeks, giving women a right to 40 weeks, maternity absence after one year of employment--not two years, as at present. We will create a right to three months, unpaid parental leave for all employees with a young child. I am pleased to tell the House that we also plan to extend that right to parents who adopt a child. We will tackle discrimination against part-time workers, and we will give people the right to take time off for domestic emergencies. We believe that these are sensible, practical steps to help parents combine home and work responsibilities.
Mr. Brady:
Does the Secretary of State accept that many businesses would feel less worried about the proposals if he were prepared to be more specific about them? He referred to right to time off for domestic emergencies, but will he define what he means by the term "domestic emergencies"? Which people or members of the family does that right cover? He will know that the Irish Government, when legislating on the matter, were specific about which members of the family were covered. Will he give the same information to this House?
Mr. Byers:
We intend to consult on the detail, and that consultation will lead to conclusions. Conservative Members would criticise me if I were to describe in detail today how the regulations will apply. We shall consult business, both large and small, about the details of the regulations. In that way, we can ensure that we can work together in partnership to implement our family-friendly policies. We want to create the right environment and
Mr. Byers:
The hon. Gentleman is stuck in a time warp. He wants to turn the clock back. These measures are forward looking and reflect the need for employment policies that recognise the responsibilities of parents. The Bill will achieve that, as will the regulations.
Mr. Ian Stewart (Eccles):
In light of his response to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), does my right hon. Friend agree with the response to the proposals from the Confederation of British Industry? It stated:
"The CBI will work closely with relevant bodies to ensure that this proposed legislation delivers balanced and achievable rights and responsibilities for all concerned."
Mr. Byers:
I do agree, and it has been noticeable that the CBI has also said that our proposals on collective rights--about which I shall speak in a moment--form a workable package. In addition, the TUC has given the proposals a broad welcome.
The Bill sets out a statutory procedure for union recognition for that small minority of cases in which the employees demonstrate that they want to be recognised, but the employer refuses. It also provides that a union can be derecognised if that is what the majority of workers want.
The Bill makes it unfair to discriminate against employees for campaigning for or against recognition. Employees will continue to have the right to sign individual contracts, but will be protected against pressure from the employer to do so.
At present, the law requires an industrial action ballot to be acted on within four weeks or it will cease to be effective. That provision works against good industrial relations. The Bill will allow an employer and a union to agree to extend the deadline for up to four weeks if, for example, they wish to continue negotiations. That will mean that more disputes are settled by negotiation, without resort to industrial action.
At long last, in 1999, the Bill will ensure that people cannot be blacklisted simply because they belong to a trade union or are prepared to defend and represent the interests of their colleagues at work.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham):
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his generosity in giving way yet again. Has he seen the recent industrial output figures, which show a continuing collapse in British manufacturing? Has he seen the tidal wave of redundancies sweeping through the industrial heartlands? Has he seen the consistent advice from all business groups that this measure will make matters worse, not better? Why does he disagree with that advice--but, given that he does, what is he going to do about the manufacturing meltdown over which he now presides?
Mr. Byers:
I have two things to say in response to that intervention. First, it was a shame that the right hon. Gentleman did not come with me to British Aerospace in
Secondly, the message I receive from manufacturers is that they do not want short-term decisions now, that will create problems later. They offer me the example of what happened under the Conservative Government: in the late 1980s, short-term decisions were taken for politically expedient reasons, but--as the right hon. Gentleman knows--they led in the early 1990s to interest rates at 15 per cent., inflation at 10 per cent. and the loss of more than 1 million manufacturing jobs. We are not going back to those days when there was a real meltdown in the manufacturing sector.
Many manufacturing industries are currently doing well, working in partnership with their trade unions. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to talk down the economy, and we know that that is part of the Conservative party's wider policy, but the people in the country will not accept it.
Mr. Redwood:
Will the right hon. Gentleman examine the facts, the figures and the surveys of business opinion? Does he realise that yesterday's industrial output figures were the worst for 18 years? Does he realise that the surveys show that things are not getting any better? Does he know that there will be a great deal of trouble and further redundancies in the textile, steel and engineering industries? Why does he not care about that? Why does he not listen to the good business advice that is telling him to postpone the Bill and to do something to help business?
Mr. Byers:
Of course I care about the short-term difficulties faced by certain industries in the United Kingdom. That is one reason why I went to Longbridge yesterday to talk to the management and the work force about the difficulties that they face. The Government will not walk away from our responsibilities, but we believe that no short-term decision should be taken that could lead to worse effects later. We are confident that that is the right approach for manufacturing and for other sectors of industry.
No provision in the Bill will have the sort of damaging effects referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. Many parts of manufacturing industry have adopted the policies in the Bill and are doing well.
Mr. Phil Woolas (Oldham, East and Saddleworth):
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Byers:
I want to make some progress and to wind up as soon as possible.
The third element of the Bill is the establishment of fair, minimum standards for all workers in the UK. The idea that only those in secure, full-time, permanent employment are entitled to employment rights and fair
treatment is outdated, short-sighted and bad for business. The Bill will ensure that part-time workers are protected against discrimination, comparable to full-time workers.
The Bill will also ensure it is no longer possible for workers on fixed-term contracts to sign away their right to claim unfair dismissal. Workers will have the right to be accompanied at a disciplinary or grievance hearing by a colleague or by a union official of their choice. That provision will apply to all employers, whatever their size.
The Bill will give us the necessary powers to bring legislation relating to employment agencies--the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike)--up to date. The rules have not changed for 22 years, despite an enormous rise in the number of people working for agencies. The industry has more than tripled in size since 1992 and it covers more than 1 million people. My Department sees many agency contracts that are simply unacceptable. For example, I have seen one contract that stated:
"The agency accepts no responsibility for the health, safety and protection from injury to the temporary worker."
That is unacceptable.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |