| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lorna Fitzsimons: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his gallantry. Is he aware of the direct correlation between the greatest incidence of time off and stress created by bad employment circumstances? As numerous employment studies have shown, good employment relations mean a healthy and loyal work force, greater productivity and less time off.
Mr. Brady: That is precisely why I think that most employers seek to accommodate their employees where
they can, and why it is inappropriate to legislate to require businesses, which may not be able to face the cost and may make redundancies as a result, to do things that may not be in their interests.
In implementing the European directive, the Government of the Republic of Ireland specified urgent family reasons for time off: owing to injury or illness of a child, an adopted child, a spouse or person with whom somebody is living as a husband or wife, a person to whom an employee is in loco parentis, a brother, sister, parent or grandparent. As a result, it is clear which circumstances businesses must face, and what the Republic of Ireland Government intend to happen as a result of the European directive.
In this Bill, there is no such clarity. It has been left deliberately vague. It is not clear precisely which incidents in the home affecting a member of a family or somebody who depends on the employee may apply under the Bill. The provisions could apply to a neighbour. The cost of events surrounding anybody who is in the habit of depending on the employee, such as an elderly person whose neighbour does their shopping, should not be borne by the business. It is not sustainable to add such social costs to the daily operating costs of a business. If Ministers do so, they will put companies out of business.
Small businesses will be affected, discipline and grievance procedures will provide a way of circumventing rights and exemptions that are supposedly being accorded to small businesses, and the Bill's lack of clarity and certainty will give many businesses cause for concern.
The Government's performance over the implementation of the working time directive, the amount of time that they have taken considering its regulations and the fact that they were not prepared to debate them in the House give us no confidence in Ministers' ability to propose regulations that will do what they wish them to do, give us no confidence that the regulations will be brought forward in good time, give us no confidence that businesses will have adequate warning of what they will face, and certainly give us no confidence that there will be opportunities to express concerns about the regulations.
Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Pollok):
I welcome the Bill as the first legislation for 20 years that is not anti-employee and anti-trade union, and many Labour Members welcome it for precisely those reasons.
The Bill's name has changed. A much better change would have been to name it the McCartney Bill, after the Minister of State who has been involved in piloting it through such choppy and difficult waters. The fact that we are debating it is a tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Minister, who has pursued the legislation with
skill, perseverance and, allegedly, not a little cunning--[Interruption.] My pronunciation may have misled the House, but I did say "cunning". My hon. Friend's achievement is all the greater when we consider the sources of the spin and disinformation that have accompanied the Bill through its formative stages.
I welcome the concept of partnership incorporated in the Bill. The idea of involving and negotiating with the CBI and the TUC is greatly to be welcomed. I recognise the need to make allowances for the legitimate concerns that have been expressed, but we have to question the extent to which the partners, especially the CBI, have bought into the process. If the Tories are representing the CBI's views, as they claim to do, I wonder what evidence there is that the CBI has bought into the process, and if it has not, why have we bothered to make any concessions to the organisation at all?
If there are negotiations and an agreement is reached, those involved must support it. If the CBI does not support the Bill, despite its having been involved in the negotiations, perhaps some of the terms in the Bill with which some of us are not entirely happy should be reconsidered.
Redistribution of wealth has recently been discussed in some circles. I am all in favour of wealth creation--as we all are--but wealth distribution in its various forms makes up much of the substance of politics. The Bill gives us the opportunity to realise a much fairer distribution of wealth and power in our society. The strengthening of trade unions will result in a substantial shift of wealth and power in favour of working people and their families. That is what Labour Members should support.
It is possible that the change in the distribution of wealth and power resulting from the Bill will be as great as or greater than any measure introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Bill's impact, which will be more wages and more influence for working people, will dwarf much of what Governments do directly. We ought to consider renaming the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the Secretary of State for redistribution of wealth.
Mr. Chidgey:
The hon. Gentleman almost answered my question with his previous comment. Does he make a distinction between the distribution of wealth and the redistribution of wealth, which I understand was very much old Labour's policy?
Mr. Davidson:
I shall come to that point in a moment--it is included in my notes.
Trade unions will obtain higher wages and better conditions for their members, but I do not believe, as the Opposition seem to do, that our society is a zero-sum game. While workers in unionised firms are likely to be better paid, they are also likely to be better motivated. Just as they are likely to have more say, so they make a greater contribution. Just as they are in less fear, so they are less distracted from the work in hand and more able to concentrate on the job that they are trying to do.
We must get away from the idea that, if one side wins, the other side automatically loses. That is why we should welcome the partnership concept and the positive recognition that workers are not simply units of production, but people with feelings who want to make a genuine contribution to the environment in which they
spend so much of their lives. We ought to be clear that involving the unions helps growth and creates the wealth that we can then discuss how better to distribute. Many Labour Members should stop apologising for being pro-union and should stop being defensive because, although criticisms can be made, I agree with myhon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) that the unions are overwhelmingly a force for good and for progress in our society.
Although I support the broad thrust of the Bill, it is not perfect. In particular, the 40 per cent. rule leaves a great deal to be desired. I wonder how many hon. Members would pass the 40 per cent. test.--achieving 40 per cent. of the eligible votes, not of the votes cast--which is applied in this case. Local authorities would be decimated and the London referendum result would not have been carried if the 40 per cent. rule had been applied.
As far as I am aware, that rule has been applied only once--in Scotland at the time of the first referendum on devolution. There is a lesson to be learned from those events because, not having achieved 40 per cent. of the eligible votes, people felt cheated. The matter did not go away; it returned and in the next referendum the vote was much larger. Those who introduced the 40 per cent. rule as a blocking mechanism ended up worse off because the devolution proposals that were eventually passed were tougher and more devolutionary than the original ones, so the rule was counter-productive.
We should also consider whether the rule about 20 employees being the cut-off point for union recognition is helpful, productive and deserves support. Should employees' rights depend on the size of the firm in which they work? Should not the individual right to be represented by a trade union apply to the individual, rather than depending on the environment in which the individual is employed?
I was disappointed to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say, in response to a question on that matter, that the issue is one of not placing burdens on business. Unionism--or perhaps I should say unionisation, given that a Unionist Member has just left the Chamber--should not be viewed as a burden. My hon. Friend the Minister should be more modern and recognise that unions are a bonus, not a burden. We should make it quite clear that we want to extend individual rights to everyone, irrespective of the size of the firm in which they work.
The Bill is less than perfect on the issue of dismissal after eight weeks. We should not leave the lack of guarantees or defence for workers in its present form. Similarly, in the proposals under which action can be taken if someone is dismissed after less than eight weeks, the concentration is on the procedure that will be followed, but no comment is made about the good faith of those who will follow it. There will still be an opportunity for employers to make unfair dismissals in situations where there are insufficient grounds for response. Much of that will depend on interpretation.
A number of areas are unclear. I hope that they will be thoroughly explored in Committee. They include questions about the Central Arbitration Committee, individual contracts, the definition of matters that are serious for union representation and issues surrounding agency employment.
This should not be the Government's final say. The situation must be monitored in practice. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) that attempts will be made to find ways around the legislation. People will search for loopholes. Union-busters will be brought in and, if they are creative, they may act in ways that we will not have considered during our debates on the Bill. It has already occurred to me, for instance, that a firm employing 38 people could easily redefine itself as two firms, each employing 19, in an attempt to get around the problem of recognition. The Government must make it clear that they are prepared to plug such loopholes and to deal with operations that are contrary to the spirit of the legislation that is eventually agreed by the House. I am not asking them to present entirely new employment legislation.
Let me say a little about what has been said by members of the opposition parties. I am still not sure of the Liberal Democrat view on the 40 per cent. requirement. On three occasions, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) went round and round the houses. I hoped that he would state unequivocally that the Liberals were against 40 per cent., and in favour of the extension of rights to firms employing fewer than 20. Had he done so, I would have asked him to prevail on his leader to prevail on our leader to reconsider, in the fraternal spirit in which such matters are handled by our two great parties. Perhaps we shall discover later whether that is indeed the Liberals Democrat position.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |