House of Commons Hansard Debates for 9 Feb 1999 (pt 25)

7.56 pm

Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley): I certainly will not drift into the Lobby tonight. I shall support the Bill with great enthusiasm, as I welcome its provisions. Having heard the speeches of Opposition Members, I am also looking forward to the next election, as I shall have a great time explaining why my Conservative opponent seems to want to get rid of paternity rights, maternity rights and rights for part-time workers, trade unionists and individual workers in the work force--at least that seems to be the pattern of Opposition speeches.

I shall focus on family-friendly policies and flexible working. I welcome the Bill's commitment to women's rights--a matter that has concerned me for many years. Flexible working patterns must be backed by the security of individual rights, and trade union organisation in the workplace can help to negotiate sensible arrangements for the benefit of employees and employers. The Bill provides a sensible framework for employment that will take us into the next century.

I took a note of the opening speech by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). He said that we needed to move to the free and flexible arrangements of

9 Feb 1999 : Column 192

the next century. The Opposition have not caught up with this century. The right hon. Gentleman said that we must not legislate too far too fast. He was talking about a legal right for men to take leave when their children are born. If he thinks that there should be no such legal right in the next century, I should like to know which century he lives in.

At last we have a Government who have caught up with the reality of people's lives. They realise that family life no longer means a man in one employment for 40 years and a woman at home with children. We need a modern employment system and a modern welfare system that match the reality of men and women changing jobs throughout their lifetime, sharing work and home responsibilities and working different hours at different times of their lives. Achieving that will be a complex process, of which the Bill is a part.

It is a long time since women were forced to give up work when they married. It is a long time since 1945, when nurseries were closed down when the war ended because women were expected to give up paid employment and go back home. Hon. Members will know from their personal lives and those of their families how long it is since things changed and how slow Governments have been to catch up. Many employers have introduced flexible working patterns, but others have not. The Bill seeks to accommodate them with sensible measures and additional encouragement.

Women have always juggled different parts of their lives--their home and work responsibilities--but many men would also like the opportunity to see their children grow up. That is why the working time directive is so important in moving against the long hours-short hours culture that bedevils Britain and is unique to it.

The Bill is a modernising measure. As someone who worked for the National Union of Public Employees for many years, representing low-paid women workers, I am delighted that the issues that I raised when they were regarded as unfashionable--a minimum wage, full-time rights for part-time workers, child care and family- friendly policies--are now part of our strategy and that they are seen not as being nice to employees, but as central to economic policy.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Judy Mallaber: No; I do not have very much time, as many other hon. Members wish to speak.

Earlier in the debate, hon. Members--particularlymy hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) and for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson)--stated clearly why family-friendly policies are necessary if we are to have a modern economy, modern businesses and modern employment conditions. The fact is that employers require a highly motivated, flexible and well-trained work force. Moreover, businesses pay a cost if they lose employees because they have not been sufficiently flexible in allowing employees to stay in employment.

I have run an organisation, on a tight budget, of 20 employees. I did what I could to be flexible in assisting employees when they had a domestic crisis. If their request was daft, I told them so, and that they could not have the time off. I should say that, as the Bill does not contain any daft provisions, passing the Bill will not

9 Feb 1999 : Column 193

encourage problems. The point is that I did not want to lose staff members who were trained and good employees because I could not provide them with a flexible employment relationship.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Judy Mallaber: No. I have been asked by other hon. Members to leave sufficient time for them to speak. The hon. Gentleman will know that I allowed him to intervene in my speeches in Committee in the past, and that I am, therefore, perfectly happy to debate with him. However, I must make some progress in my speech.

Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): Stepford wives.

Judy Mallaber: I should like to make a few comments on the provisions on part-time workers.

Ms Candy Atherton (Falmouth and Camborne): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it acceptable for an Opposition Member to refer to women Members, and other hon. Members, as "Stepford wives"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not believe that that has entered the lexicon of unparliamentary language. Nevertheless, I deprecate any immoderate language in the House, particularly if it comes from a sedentary position.

Judy Mallaber: I have worked on employment issues longer than most hon. Members in this Parliament, including some of our Front Benchers and many of my fellow Back Benchers. I am also a member of the Employment Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, which is examining in detail the Bill's provisions on part-time workers. The House may even be interested to know that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) and I are engaged in a debate on how both our views can be accommodated in the report on part-time workers, which will soon be published and deal with many of the points that Conservative Members raised on the details that should be included in the regulations. I am therefore speaking not as a Stepford wife, but as someone with many years of practical experience on the issue.

As a matter of social justice and fairness, there can be no justification for treating part-time workers worse than other workers, simply because they work fewer hours. Since 1989, the percentage of part-time jobs has increased from 24 to 29 per cent. of all jobs. People in part-time jobs comprise a major part of our work force, and I welcome any proposals to prevent discrimination against them.

I should like to comment on provisions in the Bill that have not been mentioned so far in the debate. They provide for codes of practice and guidance on facilitating flexible organisation of working time taking into account the needs of both employers and employees. It is beneficial to employers if they develop flexible working arrangements. The health service provides a topical example--which applies to both the private sector and the public sector--of the benefits of flexible working arrangements.

9 Feb 1999 : Column 194

I should say that positive working arrangements have already been developed in the health service, in other public services and in the private sector. Parts of both sectors have also developed arrangements that are not so flexible. The Employment Sub-Committee has taken evidence on examples of both good and bad practices in both sectors.

The nurses issue is particularly topical. We know that we have a nurse shortage, and have consequently started a nurse recruitment campaign. We know also that nurses' pay and conditions are part of the problem. In a parliamentary question, which was answered on Monday, I asked what evidence the Department for Health has obtained

"concerning the extent to which inflexibility in working hours deters nurses from taking up employment".--[Official Report, 8 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 121.]

I am pleased to note that the Department has conducted a survey on the matter, and that reports on it will soon be issued.

I should like to cite an example of the importance of flexible working arrangements in my own area--not from my constituency, but in Derbyshire--although I cannot provide the details, as they are in dispute. The case involves an E-grade nurse who is seeking to return to work after maternity leave. She cannot afford a full-time nursery place, so she will have to rely on a mix of nursery care, child minders and other family arrangements. She will also have to place her child in a nursery for two days a week if her overall plans are to work, enabling her to return to work. She is quite happy to work a shift pattern or to work varied shifts. However, she will have to tell the nursery on which two days of the week she will require nursery provision. One would think that--with 24-hour working and rotating shifts--it would be perfectly easy to tell her on which two days she will have to work.

The nurse has come up against comments such as, "We all managed. We all had to put up with it. You can't expect the ward to meet your personal needs. You're a nurse; you put up with it." She said:

"I want to return to work and given the current shortage of nurses I felt the trust would welcome me. All I am asking is for a little flexibility in order that I can combine motherhood and a full time post."

We have a nurse shortage, but that nurse cannot return to work because of a simple refusal to consider flexibility.

Last week, I spoke to the chairwoman of the nurses and midwives Whitley council staff side, who told me of her general practitioner--a trained surgeon who cannot find a part-time job as a surgeon. Although she could accept a junior grade, she cannot find a position at her level that would utilise her skills. She is now working as a GP, rather than using the training for which we have paid. The situation is ridiculous; it is absurd.