| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5 Mar 2003 : Column 898—continued
Mr. Swayne: Does my hon. Friend agree that time at the weekend is even more important for children who have divorced parents?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Perhaps if they spend more time with their parents, they will be able to form better relationships. The Minister should take that into account.
Why is it necessary for local authority employees to work on Saturdays and Sundays? Of course, some emergencies, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) alluded, such as flooding, require local authority employees to work. That also applies to some enforcement functions, such as trading standards, some public information services and some payment collection services, such as council tax collection. However, local authorities should generally be able to organise their functions so that employees are not "required." That is a key word in the new clause.
It is different if employees volunteer to work at the weekend. When they volunteer, and even when they are required, they generally get time off in lieu. However, such time off is not especially satisfactory for people who are required to work, because it is likely to be given during the week when children of school age are at school.
What research has been conducted on the matter? How many local authority employees work on a Saturday and Sunday? I doubt whether comprehensive research has been conducted, but it would be interesting to know whether, as a result of the new clause that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire tabled, it could be undertaken to ascertain the answer to important questions. How many local authority employees who work on Saturdays or Sundays have children of a school age? What would alternative arrangements cost each local authority?
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire will cause the Government to consider the matter seriously. Perhaps local authorities can set a trend that other employers will follow.
Mr. Raynsford: Our debate has been useful and I understand the entirely proper concern, not only of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), but of all other hon. Members who spoke, about ensuring family-friendly employment policies. However, I cannot accept the new clause.
The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire called for more protection for workers against being required to work on Sundays so that families can have one shared day a week when they do together what they please. I assume that the new clause intends to further the campaign, but I am unclear about the reasons for singling out the local government sector for special treatment.
There is no special local government case for such a provision. Existing employment law fully protects local authority workers. Local authorities are generally ahead of the game in promoting flexible working. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions conducted research and produced a report, "Work-Life Balance—A Survey of Local Authorities" in 2001. It found that 94 per cent. of authorities operate job sharing, 95 per cent. operate flexitime and 64 per cent. provide more maternity pay than the law requires. I could cite many other examples.
In local government, circumstances will always arise in which people need to work at weekends. That would regularly apply to, for example, residential care homes, where care needs to be provided 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Similarly, local authority leisure facilities such as swimming pools, sports centres and parks need to be open at weekends if they are to provide for the leisure needs of local residents, including families who will want to be able to go out to a park or to go swimming together. It would be perverse to deny people that option given that we are trying to encourage family-friendly policies. In less regular circumstances, similar considerations apply to, for example, emergency services, which the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) mentioned. To take a recently topical issue, road gritting in adverse weather conditions or other environmental and security emergencies require staff to be able to work at weekends, often at short notice.
Alistair Burt: The Minister's argument is taking a curious turn. Neither my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) nor any other hon. Member suggests that services should be denied. We suggest that it should be possible to change rosters or other arrangements so that, where two parents are involved in working, their children should not be prevented from seeing them. No one is suggesting that any service should be denied, so that is not a good reason to reject the new clause.
Mr. Raynsford: If that argument is valid—I can see some force behind it—any provision would have to apply to the whole work force and there would be no particular case for singling out local authorities. That is not within my remit; it would be a matter to press with
my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. It is important to recognise that some local authority services require substantial attendance because weekends are the times when they are busiest—I particularly singled out leisure-time activities. It might be difficult in some cases to operate a roster that guaranteed such provision.
Mr. Streeter: The new clause relates to local government and local government companies because we are discussing a local government Bill. As many hon. Members have said, it is to be hoped that it could be the forerunner to a wider application of the law that would in due course protect employees in every sector.
Mr. Raynsford: I fully understand why the new clause has been framed in such a way as to apply only to local government: it would otherwise be out of order. That does not in any way change the logic that there is no case for singling out local government for differential treatment, especially given that the available evidence suggests that, on the whole, local authorities are ahead of the game in adopting family-friendly policies.
Mr. Goodman: The Minister is following the line of argument that I anticipated. Can he therefore give any assurance that the Government are investigating generally the problem that the new clause seeks to address?
Mr. Raynsford: I intend to come on to some of the measures that the Government are taking to promote family-friendly policies.
Matthew Green: The Minister's argument is a little perverse. He argues that the measure is unnecessary because local authorities are good employers anyway, but then says that it would put a burden on them. It must be one or the other—it cannot be both.
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is getting excited about his observation, but I am afraid that, in the usual way of the Liberal Democrats, it is wrong. The case for imposing special obligations uniquely on local authorities, rather than on any other employers, would possibly be justified if they were not operating good policies. However, given the evidence that they are probably ahead of the game, it is extremely odd—although Liberal Democrat Members perhaps do not recognise that—to single them out to impose more onerous obligations on them than on other employers.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will remember that, when we dealt with Sunday trading, provision was made on a specific issue, although it has not always been kept to. Does not the same argument apply now: we are dealing with local government, so we want to secure protection for local government workers? We should also bear in mind the perverse attitude of some employers, who may say to people who work in shops, or in local government if we go down that road, "We can't employ you if you aren't prepared to work every Sunday."
Mr. Raynsford: I want to avoid widening the debate too far, because we shall be out of order. This is
specifically about local government. I reiterate that I know of no evidence to suggest that local authorities are unusually unsympathetic to the aspirations of employees who have family responsibilities that would justify the implementation of a special measure in the Bill that did not apply more generally.5.30 pm
Mr. Calum MacDonald (Western Isles): We are all sympathetic to the aims of this new clause, but regardless of our views on its merits, should not such provisions be left to local government, rather than being imposed by central Government? For example, my local authority does not open any leisure facilities on Sundays; it takes a policy decision not to do so, and other local authorities are undoubtedly equally free to take such a decision. Is it not curious that the Liberal Democrats and the Tories, who advocate local decision making, want to be centralist in this particular respect?
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, which I was about to come to. Throughout consideration of this Bill, we have heard repeated complaints from the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats about the Government imposing unreasonable, centralising obligations on local government. Here we have a classic illustration of their being wholly inconsistent, and yet they look pained when such inconsistency is pointed out to them. When it suits them, they say, "Liberalise, and give more freedom to local government", but when the latest issue reaches their ears, they say, "No—we must legislate to impose an obligation." Then they look outraged when they are reminded that they are being inconsistent. That is absolutely typical of the Liberal Democrats, who never know which way they are pointing, unless they get an indication as to which way electors are likely to vote. Then, they say what they think will please electors.
The Government are keen to promote family-friendly policies, and we have a commitment to helping to support working parents. On 6 April 2003, a series of new rights specifically for parents will be introduced. They include a new right for parents with children under six, or for parents with disabled children under 18, to ask their employers for flexible working arrangements. The law will place a duty on employers to consider such requests seriously, and the Employment Act 2002 specifies only eight business grounds on which such requests can be refused. So there are measures—along with others that are the responsibility of my colleagues in other Departments—to help promote family-friendly policies. That is the right way forward, rather than trying to single out local government for special treatment. I therefore urge the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire to withdraw the new clause.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |