| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman will know that, when we tackle the Minister in Committee, he will say that the Government are holding consultations; he will not talk about what will be in the regulations.
Mr. Chidgey: I had rather hoped that, at this stage in the Parliament, the Minister would have enough confidence in the House to allow us to debate the issues here, rather than pushing us to one side.
Mr. Ian McCartney: Let me put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. When the Government introduce regulatory proposals, we do so by debate in the House and by resolution, with a vote.
Mr. Chidgey: I am afraid that we will have to disagree, because only the other week the working time regulations arrived on my desk, and I do not recall any debate on the detail. That is the problem. The Minister looks puzzled. I hope that he will allow us to consider the proposed regulations in detail in Committee. If that is his commitment, I am reassured, but the point still has to be made.
Mr. Hancock: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the Minister was especially vague when he talked about the protection that people who are working on contracts through agencies will get. He did not spell out to those 1 million people what the changes would be, how they would be implemented and what benefits they would get. Surely the Minister should come clean and give them at least some indication of what they can expect.
The Bill is in danger of becoming a bureaucrat's charter, starting an avalanche of legislation which will make a lot of work for civil servants and a lot of money for lawyers. I am also worried that it could create mischief in the workplace, which is the last thing that such legislation should do.
The Government claim that they support business and believe in partnership in the workplace--I know that the Minister sincerely believes in that--but the Secretary of State is on record as saying that he believes that wealth creation is more important than wealth distribution, which I do not go along with.
Only last week, the Prime Minister told business leaders in Bristol:
Mr. Chidgey:
If the intentions of the Bill were clear, I could say where I disagree with it. I have already said very clearly that we wholeheartedly endorse the principle behind it, but we cannot fathom how it will work, and we have a duty in Parliament to do that.
There is an urgent need to put the Bill's aspirations into perspective and concentrate on the worthy, even essential, goal of shifting employment culture to embrace best practice, with the emphasis on example backed up by clear, straightforward, transparent regulations. I agree with the Secretary of State's examples of best practice, and I could cite many other instances of multinational firms recognising the worth of their staff and of good employment practices. They know that employees' working environment, participation in decision making, access to training, and opportunities to balance work, leisure and community activities are more important, in the mechanics of the workplace, than many of the elements set out in the Bill.
The Bill, with its good intentions, sets a context, but it cannot create a future. It is better in rhetoric than in reality, especially in the way in which it encourages women and parents in employment. It is fussy, nannyish and over-prescriptive, but it is not the calamity that Conservative Members claim. There will be no huge leap in overall employment costs. Best practice shows that the rewards for the employer of maintaining good employment conditions far outstrip any costs. The competitiveness of our industry and commerce in Europe will not plummet overnight.
Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Pollok):
Are the Liberals in favour of the 40 per cent. rule and the exemption of firms with 20 or fewer employees?
Mr. Chidgey:
If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I hope that I will get to that before too long.
A cursory examination of employment regulations throughout Europe makes the point clear. For example, if employers in Belgium want to make someone redundant, they have to pay one to three months' salary per year for the first five years of service, and one month per year
after that. The maximum works out at about four years' salary. In Germany, workers who have served 15 years and are over 50 are entitled to a minimum of 15 months' gross salary. In Italy, managers with more than 10 years' service are entitled to a year's salary.
The costs of redundancy and dismissal in the UK are only a fraction of those in continental Europe, and the same goes for employment costs in general, so I do not want to hear any nonsense about the Bill driving firms out of business. That is not the issue.
It has long been our view that individuals should have the right to join or not to join a trade union and that no one should be discriminated against for being in or for not being in a union. The Bill introduces those individual rights, which we welcome. It also introduces measures to protect workers against discrimination by omission, but it fails--a major omission in itself--to deal with the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of age or sexual orientation.
Recent surveys show that a third of men over 50 are unemployed and that one in two of those are expected never to be in full-time employment again. There can be no doubt that those shocking figures are strongly linked to the culture of agism. There cannot be a Member of Parliament who has not been contacted by constituents who are bitterly frustrated at their failure to get employment because of their age. Highly qualified teachers in my constituency, with years of experience, cannot find work because they are passed over in favour of younger, cheaper graduates.
The Bill also fails to address discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. Many hon. Members will recall the rather famous example of a lesbian couple in Eastleigh who were denied the same benefits from their employer that other employees received. South West Trains gives travel passes to employees and their partners, regardless of whether they are married, provided that the relationship is heterosexual. If the relationship is homosexual, no matter how long established, travel benefits are denied. The Bill gives the Government the opportunity to tackle discrimination on grounds of age and sexual orientation. So far, they have failed to grasp that opportunity. I hope that they will rectify that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) pointed out, the Bill also fails to make clear the degree to which the Government intend to extend employment rights to part-time and contract workers. We have long argued that part-time workers should enjoy the same rights as full-time workers, on a pro rata basis. That should be clearly stated in the Bill, which provides instead that the matter will be addressed only if and when the Secretary of State decides to make regulations.
I am pleased that the Bill deals with updating compensation rates for unfair dismissal and that it removes that anomaly once and for all. However, I should still like to see the details of the likely costs of that provision, as they would go a long way towards reassuring business. Figures from the Library show that, under the existing regime, the median settlement for unfair dismissal is just over £3,000. I assume that the Government have assessed the rise in settlements under the Bill, and I have asked the Minister for an estimate. So far, however, he has not replied.
I turn now to the question of collective rights in the workplace, which centres around trade unionrecognition. As the hon. Member for Ochil mentioned,
the Government's protracted negotiations with the TUC and the CBI have been well trailed. Both organisations are still grumbling, so it is likely that a reasonable balance has been struck; more often than not, if both parties in contract negotiations end up slightly unhappy, it suggests that the deal is a good one.
However, there are dangers in relying too much on a rigid formula. The Government should heed the advice of ACAS. After its work some years ago on trade union recognition claims, ACAS came to the view that, although a ballot of worker preferences is a significant indicator, it cannot provide the overall verdict.
The Bill provides for extending the powers of ACAS, but the Government should take note of that organisation's concerns. ACAS is rightly anxious to preserve its role as an independent, tripartite body, made up of the CBI, the TUC and independent members. The Bill must not weaken that position.
The Bill will make it illegal to sack a worker for going on strike, and that is welcome. Any individual should have the right to withdraw labour as part of the due process in industrial action. Yet again, however, the Government have failed to provide any information on the impact of the provision.
I have asked the Minister many questions about the impact of the Bill, and I am conscious of the fact that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. However, the Minister knows that I am still waiting for the answers. I hope that, in due course, I will find out why the Government decided that eight weeks should be the cut-off point before an industrial action causes dismissal to be triggered. However, I shall conclude by dealing with the issues of maternity leave and parental leave.
No one should question the right to take maternity leave. I certainly do not, but I wonder why the Government have not taken the opportunity to simplify the rules and unify the provisions that appear in several Acts of Parliament in one simple, straightforward Act. That would make personnel officers' jobs one heck of a lot easier.
The Bill introduces the right to parental leave, which again is to be welcomed. Good employers know that, if they recognise the demands of family life, their employees will suffer less stress and are less likely to take sick leave. Good working conditions bring greater commitment, greater loyalty and lower staff turnover.
The principle is fine, but what about the practice? What degree of flexibility will be permitted? How much notice will be required? The Bill does not answer those questions. Such details are essential, but they are to be introduced by the Minister at a later date through regulation.
The Government claim that they are business friendly and eager to support small firms, and so they should be; small firms are the engines of our economy. Yet in small firms the absence of just one individual can be critical to success. Employers need rights too: they need to be able to discuss and agree when maternity leave or paternal leave is taken.
The impact of parental leave will be different in different firms. Sometimes, it will be better to take three months' leave all at once, with an agency worker in
to cover. That will not be possible in other firms: a drip-by-drip approach may be better, with the employee taking off one day a week. For example, taking off every Friday for two years would be roughly equivalent to taking three months off as a bloc. That would be less disruptive, to the firm and to the workers. However, any variation between those two extremes would be acceptable, as long as the agreement recognises the legitimate concerns and rights of both employer and worker.
Again, the Government have failed to reassure business. A year or so ago, the cost of the parental leave directive was estimated at about £35 million. The Bill imposes additional regulations, and it is reasonable for business to ask how much they will cost. So far, answer comes there none.
Finally, we come to the new idea, the gold plating on the European directive--the concept of emergency leave. I agree that decent employers will recognise the legitimacy of workers being able to take emergency leave. I also understand that some employers are not so open-minded, and that the provision has to be underpinned by regulation. However, I want those regulations to be simple and straightforward. I do not want the matter to be left for completion at the Minister's discretion, some time in the future. At present, we do not know where we stand, or how the provision will work.
It is possible that each type of emergency will qualify for a different leave tariff. An employee could be entitled to a certain amount of leave if the central heating breaks down, another amount if a child breaks a leg, yet another for a granny's funeral. Will there be a points system, as with driving licences? Will employees be disqualified if they acquire too many emergency leave points over a period? A personnel manager might call an employee into his office and say, "Well, Mr. Smith, in the last 12 months you have accumulated emergency leave points for a broken leg at school and a broken central heating system, and now you've just taken extra leave for a second granny's funeral. I'm afraid your points are over the limit and we have to take your licence away. You're fired." [Interruption.] The answers to my questions are not in the Bill, and we need to know how the measure will work.
"There has been a shift in the debate in Europe. Things like the working time directive are things that were agreed a long way before."
Mark the Prime Minister's words. He went on:
"We can either say that the best way of job protection is more and more regulation to prevent people losing their jobs. But the danger is"--
his grammar, not mine--
"that you end up just clogging up the system so it cannot work properly."
Mr. Alan Johnson:
I have heard the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the Bill. Which parts of it would he remove if the Liberal Democrats had the opportunity?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |