| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. That is why we have concentrated so much on ensuring that it is possible for contracts that are tailored to meet the requirements of small businesses in particular to be arranged. His point is valid, but we have tried to accommodate it as best as is practicable at the moment. We have tried to go with the grain, as he suggested that we should, in promoting best practice--an awful phrase, but it describes something--to ensure that firms have the opportunity to take advantage of mentors in other firms.
Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Minister. As he will have detected, I was nowhere near to attacking the Government. I was seeking to defend them from some Labour Members, who have said that the Government should go further.
I make no bones about the fact that I would not have gone as far as the Government have in legislation. The Government have damaged business and reduced competitiveness as a result, but some of the arguments that have been advanced by Labour Members would accelerate that damage and make its impact infinitely worse. That is not the most full-spirited compliment that I could offer, but I hope that the Government will resist the voices from behind them who say go further. At the very least, having introduced considerable legislation already--too much legislation--the Government should pause, reflect and look at the consequences in the employment market before contemplating any further steps.
Indeed, that was one of the conclusions of the Education and Employment Committee in its report on part-time working. In paragraph 53, it said:
As a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Employment Relations Bill, I was greatly saddened to find that an amendment that I had tabled to the same effect was brushed aside by the Government.
Mr. John Healey (Wentworth):
The hon. Gentleman has referred at some length to the work that we have done
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred to the effect of the Government's new deal programme, about which we hear so much. She referred in particular to the new deal for lone parents. It is often suggested that Conservative Members are neolithic in their opposition to the new deal. However, it is demonstrably a waste of public money, huge amounts of which are being squandered on a programme that is not necessarily having the desired effect.
My party and I are not alone in taking such a view. The views of the Greater Manchester low pay unit were recently published in the Manchester Metro newspaper--
Mr. Kirkwood:
Never heard of it.
Mr. Brady:
The hon. Gentleman may cast aspersions on the quality of that fine journal, but he may also wish to consider what the Greater Manchester low pay unit had to say. Its view was that young people were being let down by the Government's new deal. It cast doubt on the Government's promise to make young people more employable, and recommended that Ministers should take immediate action. The author of a report on the matter was quoted as saying:
Lorna Fitzsimons:
If the hon. Gentleman believes that the new deal is not tackling unemployment, what policy would he advocate?
Mr. Brady:
The hon. Lady kindly gives me the opportunity to blow the myth of the new deal for the young unemployed. The figures for youth unemployment in the years leading up to 1 May 1997 prove that youth unemployment has fallen more slowly since the newdeal was introduced than it did previously. Youth unemployment fell more rapidly under the Conservatives than it has since the Labour Government decided to
Labour used a statistic that was clearly going the right way. Youth unemployment was falling rapidly, and Labour pledged to reduce it by 250,000, only to be embarrassed to find when they came to office that there were not 250,000 long-term youth unemployed. The hon. Lady would be wise to consider that unemployment levels today have far more to do with the flexible employment market created--painfully, and in the face of determined opposition from Labour--by Conservative Administrations. That is why our unemployment is lower than that in Germany and other countries.
The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) has good reasons for no longer being with us, but I was concerned by her approach to my intervention about whether we ought to support marriage as an encouraging environment for child care. Marriage is not the only acceptable environment for child care. Nor should people be penalised for not being married. However, it is legitimate for the state to encourage what is undoubtedly the ideal environment in which to bring up children. Marriage makes it most likely that children will grow up in all the ways that the hon. Member for Rochdale described as ideal. It is generally best if both parents are always there, although I accept, of course, that that is not always so.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham):
I am intrigued. What public policy step would the hon. Gentleman take to support marriage? How would he make men and women happier in marriage, thus preventing them from becoming unhappy in their relationships and divorcing? Everyone wants to support marriage, and everyone wants everyone else to be happy, but are there any practical policies to be taken, or is the hon. Gentleman offering mood music? [Interruption.]
Mr. Brady:
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton is muttering that people would be happier under a Conservative Government, and I am sure that that is true. The right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) might have read in this morning's press that people are certainly found to be happier when married. In fact, the benefit has been calculated financially--at about £60,000. It may not always seem so to everyone who is married--sometimes it seems more, rather than less, expensive--but people are undoubtedly happier in marriage, and it is undoubtedly a better environment within which to bring up children. The Conservative policy is to recognise that fact in the tax system, which is a positive plan. It is a shame that Labour seems determined to give no encouragement to marriage.
Ms Oona King (Bethnal Green and Bow):
May I offer the hon. Gentleman a personal example? A friend of mine was brought up by unmarried parents, and I was brought up by parents who were married. Mine were divorced when I was three, and her non-married parents remain together to this day. Why should Governments have given my parents more money and hers less?
Mr. Brady:
We can all think of particular cases that contradict the rule--[Interruption.] The hon. Lady may
Ms King:
As the alleged exception rather than the rule, I have to say that there were 35 children in my class at school. Of those, only five had parents who were still together. That is a terrible shame, but it proves that the hon. Gentleman is not talking about exceptional cases.
"We would draw the Government's attention to the range of differing views that were expressed to us about the labour market effects of the implementation of the Directive on Part-time Work and we recommend that the Government publish a review of the effect of the Directive on the labour market and patterns of part-time employment two years after it is implemented."
That was an eminently sensible recommendation. I do not think that I am going too far in revealing the private discussions of the Committee when I say that I would think that because I suggested it. I was pleased, however, that the Committee accepted that that was a sensible approach and agreed that the Government should publish a review of the consequences of their legislation on the labour market.
"There should be a presumption that women will be allowed to return to work after maternity leave on a part-time basis, with pay and benefits no less favourable . . . than those which they were receiving before they took maternity leave. We recommend that the Government introduce legislation guaranteeing women the right to return to work after maternity leave on a part-time basis".
Mr. Brady:
I would be going too far in divulging the private deliberations of the Education and Employment Committee if I responded in full to that point. I shall leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions. As I am the only Opposition Member to serve on the Select Committee, I do not necessarily go all the way with my friend, the hon. Member for Wentworth.
"The government talks about young people having rights and responsibilities, but it is the government that is failing to meet its responsibilities towards young people."
That is hardly a ringing endorsement from a pressure group not particularly associated with the Conservative party.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |