| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.13 pm
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): This has been a good-natured debate, and it has been interesting to hear the views of, in particular, Labour Members. I hope to be a member of the Standing Committee, but, given the honesty and straightforwardness of Labour Members today, I suspect that I shall not have an opportunity to hear their views then, because the Whips are putting black marks on the register even now.
Mr. Ian McCartney: A blacklist.
Mr. Bruce: It will be a blacklist! The Minister suggests that it will be, but I am sure that he is jesting.
I must declare some interests at the outset, because clause 28 concerns matters in which I have had a professional interest. For some 12 years, I ran an employment agency in Yorkshire. I have not actively traded in employment agencies for 10 years, but until the
last general election I was an adviser to the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services. I am currently an adviser to Trevor Gilbert and Associates, which is an expert witness practice, but which also owns a business employment agency.
I do not speak on behalf of those organisations. I have received no briefing. I speak from the heart about what I consider to be the basis of the Bill, and about what I consider to be the Government's aim. I assure the House that I have no blind trust and that no funds have been paid to me, even by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) for suggesting that we should all receive £370,000-odd from the hon. Gentleman. However, I want to concentrate on clause 28. I took the Bill home at the weekend, thinking that I was going to make a speech about the employment relations issues that we all thought would be in it. I was astounded when I read clause 28.
Some time ago, when writing an article to be published by one of the employment agency magazines--I do not remember which one--I took advice from the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher). Subsequently, because the right hon. Gentleman was replaced almost immediately--not because of anything that he had done--I took advice from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). Previous Labour party manifestos had made it clear that Labour was opposed to employment agencies: it wanted them to be abolished, and it wanted employment businesses to be abolished. That was the Labour party's settled policy. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members on the Front Bench below the Gangway agree.
I took advice--and, of course, a Conservative must take some note of advice given by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield, who is now the Prime Minister. The advice was that the Labour party did not see the matter as a priority. Indeed, I think that Labour entirely abandoned the idea of abolishing employment agencies. I have heard Labour Front Benchers, both as Opposition spokesmen and as Ministers, express the view that the flexibility of the United Kingdom market, with employment agencies and employment businesses, is one of the things that make our labour force and our labour market work so well. That is why I was so astounded to read what the Government propose. They propose to restrict the services that may be provided by employment agencies and businesses, to regulate the way in which those services are provided and to restrict or regulate the charging of fees. That may not mean a great deal to those listening to me, so let me give an example.
Let us suppose that the Government announced that they would take powers enabling them to decide where British Airways could fly, how many staff would be allowed, how much should be charged for tickets and how much commission should be paid. Let us suppose that the Government said that was the law of the land. Surely, with new Labour, the House of Commons would not lie down and say, "That is fine. Let the Government, by regulation, do what they like with the industry."
Labour Members tend to say that employment agencies are not regulated. In fact, they are the most regulated businesses that we have. No other type of business allows
the Department for Education and Employment to send an inspector to go through every bit of paperwork. That is intended to protect the workers.
Mr. Bruce:
The hon. Gentleman--to whom I shall give way in a moment--will probably say, "£1 an hour. It is the same story that he tells us all the time." Of course that is not acceptable. The Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services would be entirely against it. It would probably drum out--probably has drummed out--the organisation about which the hon. Gentleman is going to complain. This part of our labour market is already highly regulated.
Mr. Hope:
I am still not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is speaking on behalf of his South Dorset constituents, or on behalf of the network of employment agencies that recruits him as an adviser for between £5,000 and £10,000 a year. Does he believe that a supposedly highly regulated employment agency market should allow agencies in my constituency--I am talking about working time directive specifications on holiday pay--to deduct 35p an hour from existing hourly wage rates in order to--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. If the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) gives way to another hon. Member, it is for me to judge whether the hon. Member to whom he has given way has exceeded his position. I cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time.
Mr. Bruce:
I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rather suspected that the hon. Gentleman would speak on issues other than those relevant to the Bill. Of course I accept that, whatever the Government decide are the rights of employees, that must apply to all employees. I am against the possibility that, as a result of special regulations being introduced, employees who currently work for employment agencies might be disadvantaged, might lose their jobs or might be changed around more regularly than the employment agency would want.
Mr. Bruce:
Will the Minister tell us the Government's intention towards employment agencies? Is it to go back to old Labour's decision to get rid of them, or at least to restrict them to such an extent that they would not even be allowed to have long-term workers working under a temporary contract?
Mr. McCartney:
I shall deal in my winding-up speech with the general issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. Let us have clarification. Is he supporting the minority of agency employers who are illegally deducting pay earned by a worker, for the purpose of getting around the legal commitment to pay workers holiday pay? Is that what the hon. Gentleman supports?
Mr. Bruce:
The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. There is to be a legal requirement to pay holiday pay to
Mr. Bruce:
No, I shall not give way again to the hon. Gentleman. I am running out of time, so I shall make my own speech in my own way.
I am grateful to the Minister for informing us that he will deal with the Government's intentions towards employment agencies. More than 1 million people use such agencies to get a job. I can assure the House that the vast majority of them want to be on temporary contracts, or use a temporary contract as a means of getting a permanent job in the same company. That is how employment businesses make their money--they get a fee for placing people in permanent employment. That is what happens, whether or not the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) believes it to be the case.
Mr. Bruce:
No, I am sorry, I cannot give way because of the time already taken up on interventions.
I shall touch briefly on other issues in the Bill. Of course it is right to say that the Government have decided to force people into negotiations. The Bill contains a raft of regulations telling companies how to do so, even if they are unwilling to negotiate. Our Government have helped NATO to force Kosovars and Serbs into negotiations, but we all know what happens when employers are forced to recognise a trade union and forced to negotiate with a group of people with whom they do not want to negotiate.
Of course, the two sides can keep to all the rules and regulations, but the situation of employees will not be improved unless the employers are a willing party to the negotiations. The Labour party is trying to pay back its trade unions--a labour of love, or the love of Labour--I am not sure which. Frankly, that will not work.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |