| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Healey (Wentworth): What view does the right hon. Gentleman take of the survey produced by the Institute of Management last autumn, which showed that 54 per cent. of British managers agreed that, if a majority of employees wanted union recognition, that should be allowed and the employer should be obliged by law to
negotiate with the union? Before the right hon. Gentleman dismisses that survey, does he agree that his party would kill for that level of support?
Mr. Redwood: The business community strongly supports the line that we are taking on this legislation, as my hon. Friends and I will show in this debate. I have been passed a report of an interesting survey, which shows that 89 per cent. of all employers surveyed believe that this new law will lead to abuse of rights and difficulties for their firms. That is a convincing poll.
We strongly object to the idea that a minority can insist on the majority of the work force, regardless of their views, being represented by a union. We are worried that that will send us back to the bad old days and the bad old ways of the '60s and '70s. This is a '60s and '70s sort of Government. The Prime Minister and his cronies seem to think that rock groups, Carnaby street and flower power are new and cool. They look like a bunch of middle-aged trendies trying to ignore their receding hairlines and bulging waistlines, forcing the whole country into their nostalgia for lost moments, misspent youths or youths that were not misspent enough. That is exactly what their trade union reforms look like. They want to go back to the mistakes of the '70s rather than forward to a freer and more flexible world of the next century.
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State may wish to defy the logic chips of the electronic age. They may want to stand Canute-like against the tides of global capital and new technology, defying the elements, but they must learn that modern business is all about individual contracts, freedom of expression and flexible working practices. It is far too fast moving and diverse to be captured in legislation with one size to fit all.
The Government say that they want partnership in the workplace, yet they are legislating to set employees and employers against each other. Only the lawyers will win. Time off for a family emergency is a good idea, and most employers offer it already. Once it is enshrined in law, however, we shall have to ask what is a family emergency or a domestic incident. No reasonable employer will quibble over time off when a loved one dies or a child is seriously ill, but is a blocked drain or a broken window a domestic incident, and what if England are playing at home that day? Will an employer then have to sue if an employee digs in for his rights? Is that the way to promote partnership and harmony in the workplace? Surely it is better to leave the law out of it, and to hope that common sense and good negotiations between employers and employees will win through, as they do in so many companies and, as the Secretary of State has conceded, as they do in companies led by Conservative Members.
It is especially rich of the Government to preach about fairness at work when they live under the shadow of Maxwell. How much fairness at work was there for Maxwell's less well-paid employees? How much fairness was there for the Mirror Group workers whose pension funds were pillaged? When will the Secretary of State finish the investigation, publish the report and do something about it? Is he the cover-up kid or will he tell us how he will judge the unfairness at work perpetrated by the Maxwell companies?
Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill):
What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say about the case of
Mr. Redwood:
I would need to hear both sides of the case and I should be happy to do so if the hon. Lady thought that I could help her with her problem. Of course I would want to reach a fair and sensible judgment based on hearing both sides of the case. I know from my experience of industrial relations that it is necessary to hear both sides before reaching a judgment.
Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone):
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly in relation to pension schemes. Given what he has just said about Maxwell, will he apologise for the fact that the Tory Administration raided the Bus Employees Superannuation Trust?
Mr. Redwood:
I want answers on the Maxwell issues, which relate to the present Government and to Ministers. The hon. Gentleman is doing a very bad cover-up job when he tries to protect--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not using this opportunity to debate a different matter. We are discussing the Second Reading of a Bill.
Mr. Redwood:
I thought that we were debating fairness at work, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I accept your judgment that I was beginning to stray off the exact subject of the Bill.
About 95 per cent. of British businesses are relatively small and the Government are damaging them day by day, week by week and month by month. They are burying them under European red tape, new Labour red tape and old Labour red tape. They want to be seen as business friendly, but they do not understand business at all.
I hope that the Secretary of State will listen to the voices of business, even if he does not listen to the Opposition. The British Chambers of Commerce says:
Mr. Martin O'Neill (Ochil):
I support the Bill. Today--for the first time in almost 20 years as an hon. Member--I am able to say that I support a Government's employment legislation. The previous Conservative Government introduced and passed a succession of Bills and measures that have done great harm to British industrial relations and contributed to the continual and persistent erosion of workers' rights.
I should first pay credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry--which I do without any disrespect to the Secretary of State--who has lived for many months with the issue of employment relations. We should pay tribute to his Herculean efforts in securing a genuine consensus for the Bill. I realise that there are fringe organisations--such as the Institute of Directors and the official Opposition--that would like to halt the Bill's progress. Nevertheless, on a raft of issues, we can see in the United Kingdom the emergence of a genuine social partnership.
"We fear it is becoming prohibitively expensive and . . . difficult for smaller firms to employ more staff."
The Federation of Small Businesses tells us:
"It is too costly and too risky to employ staff".
The Forum of Private Business says that the measures will
"be disastrous for the nation's 98 per cent. of small firms".
The Engineering Employers Federation says that the legislation
"may make industrial action more common".
The Chemical Industries Association says:
"This is not a Bill which is welcomed by the industry".
Individual companies have even worse fears. One employer wrote:
"I will be reluctant to employ female secretaries who will require maternity leave . . . short term contracts will be the norm".
9 Feb 1999 : Column 156
Another says:
A third company e-mailed us to say:
"I also worry that creeping unionisation will return us to the miserable era of industrial strife".
"It is no coincidence that France finds it difficult to attract new businesses from abroad because of her ludicrous employment costs. The Government is in danger of removing our competitive advantage."
A fourth tells us:
"Our accounts department has spent nearly a full week with seven people analysing the Working Time Directive information. More time, more costs"
will result from the legislation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |