| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, because it is important to clarify one or two points. As has been said, 1.3 million women will benefit from the national minimum wage and women will also benefit from the fairness at work proposals. Will the Conservative party go into the next election saying that it would reverse the national minimum wage proposals, which would effectively cut the wages of 1.3 million women? Will it also be saying that it would reduce women's rights at work?
Mrs. May: The hon. Lady will have to be patient for a little while. I shall refer to the national minimum wage later on--[Interruption.] Just be patient, ladies. There is plenty of time for our manifesto for the next election to be written and for the hon. Lady to find out what our policies will be.
Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton): Is not it a fact that more jobs for women have been created in this country over the past 15 to 20 years and that we have a higher percentage of women in the work force than any of those countries in Europe where there are restrictive practices? Is not it the job of a Government to create an economic climate in which more employment opportunities can be created?
Mrs. May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. She is absolutely right: it is the Government's job to create the right economic climate so that jobs can be created, for men and women alike. There are so many women in the work force today precisely because of the policies followed by the Conservative party in government. In her opening speech, the Minister
praised the fact that there are so many women in the work force, but she failed to mention that that statistic is due to the policies of the previous Government.
Ms Jowell: Will the hon. Lady accept that there are 400,000 more jobs compared with the number available at the time of the general election?
Mrs. May: We left a golden legacy, but one job has been lost every 10 minutes under this Government.
The measures being introduced by the Government on the back of the social chapter and under the heading of family-friendly practices are, as yet, somewhat lacking in detail. For example, the Chemical Industries Association recently said:
Caroline Flint (Don Valley):
Is the hon. Lady not aware that the provision for parental leave was put together and negotiated by organisations representing European employers and trade unions?
Mrs. May:
I am not sure what the hon. Lady expects anyone to say in response to that. Is she saying that the provision should be accepted because it was put together by a group of European organisations? She would do well to listen to the concerns expressed by employers' organisations in this country about the impact of the policy. It will do employees, male or female, no good at all if statutory requirements imposed by the Government mean that small businesses, or any business, cannot afford to keep employing them.
Real concern has been expressed by the Confederation of British Industry and by other organisations about the impact of the parental leave legislation, especially in respect of the way in which the measure may be open to abuse.
In its research paper on fairness at work, the Institute of Directors said:
Mrs. May:
No; I am in the middle of a quotation.
The paper continues:
Ms Jowell:
Has the hon. Lady discussed the issue of family-friendly employment with her hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), who has a long association with Asda? When Asda introduced family-friendly employment policies, the number of staff absences fell by 1 per cent. in the first year, saving the firm £3 million. Labour turnover has fallen by 4 per cent., saving £2.4 million. Some of Asda's stores have halved their labour turnover. More than 95 per cent. of female staff who have been on maternity leave are now returning to work. As a result of Asda's family-friendly policies, the number of customers has risen by 35 per cent., and the firm has experienced growth of 8.9 per cent. Does that not suggest that family-friendly employment is good for business and good for women?
Mrs. May:
The Minister would not have needed to intervene if she had listened to what I was saying. I said earlier that Conservative Members support higher standards for workers, and support more flexible working arrangements to meet the challenges involved in fulfilling family and work responsibilities. Our concern relates to the way in which the Government are trying to impose their proposals on businesses of all sizes. I note that the laudable measures taken by Asda were taken without intervention from Government.
Good practice will be supported. The Institute of Directors made the position clear when it said:
Mrs. May:
I will give way, but then I will try to make progress.
Judy Mallaber:
Does the hon. Lady recall that, during a debate on the Employment Relations Bill, the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry implied that even legislating for paternity leave at the time of birth was legislating too far, too fast? Does she agree with that?
Mrs. May:
I think that what my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has been stressing is the importance of flexibility and choice for those involved, rather than the Government simply legislating for things to happen at a particular time.
Labour Members should listen to what some parents are saying. In a recent edition of the Evening Standard, a member of the National Childbirth Trust was reported as saying that, in some ways, time-off-work measures were an empty gesture, because many families could not do without the income for three months. That, however, is not the only way in which the Government are potentially attacking the market for jobs, especially jobs held by women. The minimum wage, for instance, is likely to have a strong impact on a number of industries that traditionally employ a large number of women. The textile
industry and the retail sector are good examples. Bill Martin, chief economist at Phillips and Drew Fund Management, has said:
In his intervention during the opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) made the valid point that, in his experience--he had visited a pre-school this morning that had made exactly the following point--such schools will have problems meeting the requirements.
Jacqui Smith (Redditch):
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. May:
No. I will try to make some progress.
Such schools will have problems meeting the cost of the minimum wage for their employees. It is a complaint that I, too, have heard from pre-schools. They are concerned about the impact of the Government's legislation.
Ms Jowell:
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. May:
I will in just a minute.
That legislation will have two impacts: first, on women who are employed by pre-schools that are unable to keep going; secondly, on women who want their children to attend those pre-schools. Potentially, it reduces choice for women.
Ms Jowell:
Can we return to the question of myhon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton): is it now the Opposition's policy to abolish the minimum wage and to return 1.3 million women to poverty pay?
"Every employer in the chemical industry will be hit by the proposals on parental leave. It is worrying that with Parental Leave due to be implemented by the end of the year, we have seen no detailed proposals from the Government indicating to employers just what they will have to do . . . a consultation period of at least three months would be needed to assess the likely impact of the regulations and respond accordingly."
Where have the Government thought about the impact of what they describe as family-friendly policies on employers and the extent to which employers can afford them?
"Most fair employers won't mind giving time off for family situations."
Ms Jowell:
Will the hon. Lady give way?
"However, if it is made a statutory right, some employees will see it as part of their holiday entitlement."
In Sweden, the Government have found it necessary to introduce a new law to curtail the problems caused by employees' abuse of emergency family leave rights.
"Most fair employers won't mind giving time off for family situations."
The problem arises when the Government impose regulations and restrictions on businesses that cannot provide such opportunities. If a company already has problems and must shed employees because of the extra costs, that will not benefit any members of the work force, be they male or female.
"If one person loses his job because of the minimum wage that is bad news but we expect there to be up to 90,000 job losses in the textile sector and hotel and retail sector".
All those sectors are traditionally high employers of women. How can 90,000 job losses benefit women? How can that be an example of the Government delivering for women?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |