| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bercow: Well-meaning fools.
Miss Kirkbride: Sadly, I cannot disagree.
What the Government are seeking to do will have such an impact and import. I hope that they will listen to Conservative Members. I hope that, if they must go ahead on this basis, firms with fewer than 50 employees will not be affected by these provisions.
Mr. Brady:
It is a great pleasure to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), as
I shall be brief, not only because my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is keen to speak, but because as many as four Labour Back Benchers of the dozen or so who were members of the Standing Committee have managed to come to the Chamber to see the Bill through. I am pleased that they are here, although a little disappointed--
Mr. Bercow:
As my hon. Friend knows, I always seek to be fair to Government Back Benchers, so it is only right to point out that five Labour Back Benchers who were members of the Standing Committee are present.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Order. The presence of hon. Members has nothing to do with the new clause; we must come to a discussion of it.
Mr. Brady:
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend. I wish to pay tribute to one or two Labour Members who made worthwhile comments in Committee, and I hope that they will make further helpful and intelligent contributions to our debates tonight.
I am keen to contribute, albeit briefly, because new clauses 1 and 2 are central to the question of the Government's belief in enterprise and whether their protestations about that are to be taken seriously. I have witnessed the repeated onslaught of new regulatory burdens, particularly on smaller businesses. As many of my hon. Friends have said, the burden being placed on people who run businesses--particularly smaller businesses with no recourse to professional advice, no human resources manager and no means to afford the best advice from employment lawyers--is enormous. In turn, that has enormous implications for employment in the small business sector. I hope that Ministers will start to understand the damage that their proposals will do to that sector, which is critically important in the current economic climate.
Those burdens are relevant to the road haulage industry, which has many small businesses. The contrast between what Ministers say about that industry and what they are doing to cause problems for it is quite staggering. It is also instructive in the context of the Bill. In response to complaints that road fuel duty is driving people out of business, or forcing them to reflag their businesses on the continent, the Government say that other costs here are lower than those on the continent. The Bill, however, contains precisely the measures that will remove any current competitive advantage that those small businesses enjoy over their European competitors. That will therefore compound the difficulties that the Government are already causing for that industry.
I suspect that the apparent absurdity of the Government's position is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what we are dealing with here and its implications for businesses in what many hon.
Members may choose to call the real world. That was illustrated by the Under-Secretary, in response to an amendment which I tabled in Committee seeking to limit the practice of gold-plating, when he said:
Ministers labour under the delusion that, far from the Bill costing jobs and being a burden and additional cost on businesses, particularly small businesses, it will do the small business sector a favour, improving returns and reducing costs by increasing regulation. That is palpable nonsense, but Ministers appear to be wedded to it.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex):
Does my hon. Friend also understand the further ludicrous nature of the Government's position in that almost all the bodies that represent small and medium businesses in Britain have repeatedly pointed out to the Government the ridiculous error of what they are doing and how damaging it will be to the competitiveness of the sector of our economy that has the greatest capacity to create jobs? How will that help the British economy?
Mr. Brady:
My hon. Friend makes an important point in his usual magnificent style. The important point that has been made during the debate is that smallbusinesses, business generally, business organisations and Conservative Members understand the damage thatthe Government will do by refusing to accept our commonsense new clauses and amendments. But Labour Members and Ministers refuse to accept what is simple logic and common sense.
As other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall bring my remarks to a close, but I hope that Ministers will think again before causing irreparable damage to the small business sector.
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde):
I am deeply surprised that the Government do not welcome the new clauses and the consequential amendments. The Secretary of State recently addressed the Federation of Small Businesses conference in Blackpool, where he was heckled, booed and hissed because small businesses felt that that was the only way tangibly to demonstrate their revulsion of yet more regulations.
I recently met representatives of the Lancashire branch of the Engineering Employers Federation, and they told me that their main worry at present was overburdensome regulations. They said, "We are relatively small-scale enterprises and we have enough problems as it is dealing with the strength of the pound. Please, no more regulation." They said that, to deal with the working time directive alone, the federation had had to issue a 200-page guidance document. They are struggling so much that the Minister for the Cabinet Office has agreed to see a delegation from the federation to try to sort out the mess.
The federation would, to use common parlance, freak out if it saw schedule 3, to which the new clause relates. That is what the Government will impose on small businesses with fewer than 50 employees if the new clause is not agreed to.
I always worry when Ministers smile at Opposition Members as though we had a screw loose. On this occasion, we do not. Many Conservative Members, such as myself, were involved in modest enterprises before we entered the House. We understand that if a key member of staff is sick, or absent for maternity purposes, someone else must do the job or be brought in. Ministers do not seem to understand the impact that schedule 3 will have on such businesses.
Mr. Byers:
I enjoyed my morning in Blackpool speaking to the Federation of Small Businesses. I was told by an official there that the reaction to my speech was one of the most positive ever given to a Minister. As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said, the very nature of small businesses means that they do not care too much for Governments of any political persuasion. Apparently, when the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) addressed the conference as President of the Board of Trade, the reaction was far more hostile than anything I had to suffer. The federation made me feel very much at home.
Government amendments Nos. 66, 67 and 68 simply mean that workers who ordinarily work in the United Kingdom will count towards the minimum of 21 workers required for the purposes of statutory recognition. At present, the Bill does not clarify that point and these three rather technical amendments seek to do precisely that. I hope that the House will agree to them.
With regard to new clauses 1 and 2, Conservative Members failed to reflect on issues to do with interest rates, inflation and sound public finances. Small, medium and large businesses want economic stability and an economic climate in which they can plan ahead with certainty.
Mr. Fabricant:
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Those are the issues that concern business, but there was not one reference to them this evening.
"I would like to give some examples of the benefits that businesses with a positive attitude to family-friendly work can gain from the regulations. They gain a competitive edge, as we have said many times during the progress of the Bill. They gain improved returns on investments, because by offering good working practices they can attract the right people".--[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 23 March 1999; c. 551.]
I shall not quote at length because the point is made.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |