Working Life (Reduction in Hours) (Hansard, 17 May 1988)

§ Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a shorter working week, a shorter working year, earlier retirement and for connected purposes. I introduce the Bill against an economic climate that shows a stark contrast. On the one hand, even on the Government's figures, over 2.5 million people are out of work, although we all know that the real figure is much higher. On the other hand, many people have to work excessively long hours, with shorter holiday entitlements than most of their European contemporaries and, in the case of men, having to work to age 65, whether or not they want to. That is why the main provisions of my Bill, which are in line with a long-standing TUC campaign and with European trade union objectives, are, first, to provide for a 35-hour week, secondly, to provide for six weeks' annual holiday, and, thirdly, to give men the choice to retire at age 60. All this would give enormous benefit both to those at work, by improving substantially their quality of life, and to those out of work, by providing the opportunity for the creation of new jobs to fill the vacancies that would result from my proposals.

Dealing first with the 35-hour basic week, at present the average for people in manual occupations is 39 hours a week before overtime, and the average for people in non-manual occupations is 37 hours a week. I can see no reason for a difference between manual and non-manual occupations. A year ago last January legislation was introduced in Norway to reduce the working week of people in manual occupations by two and a half hours to bring their hours into line with those of non-manual workers.

If we add overtime to the basic working week, the figures are worse. It might surprise the House to know that the average working week has increased since 1983 because of the greater tendency of employers, instead of taking on additional workers, to require more and more overtime. There are also great pressures for overtime from people on low wages. I look for a substantial reduction in overtime. I tell my friends in the trade union movement that where they find large amounts of overtime being worked they should start negotiating a reduction in working hours and the employment of more people.

I have chosen a 35-hour week because it opens the exciting prospect of trade unionists being able to negotiate a four-day week for their members. This is happening in limited cases at present. Many people, given the choice of a five-day week of seven hours a day or a four-day week of nine hours or thereabouts a day, would opt for a four-day week. It would make great sense in terms of travel expenses and the wear and tear of commuting. It would lead to a substantial improvement in quality of life for many of our fellow citizens.

The second provision in the Bill is for six weeks' annual holiday. Most German workers get six weeks' annual leave, but in this country the norm is 22 days for people in manual occupations, which is just over four weeks. In recent years there have been moves in the annual pay round to improve holiday entitlements, but the very 806 minimum that we should require is six weeks' holiday entitlement. This is strongly in line with what happens in many European countries and with the TUC campaign.

No doubt we will be told by employers that they cannot afford to grant such leave but, of course, they have said that in response to every improvement in people's working conditions, ever since we stopped sending children up chimneys. They said exactly the same thing when it was suggested that there should be equal pay for men and women. It is a simple statistical fact that an additional week's annual holiday would add no more than 2 per cent. to the annual wages bill of a company, and it is well within the capacity of most companies to meet that. Six weeks' holiday is a perfectly reasonable request.

Finally, I should like to deal with the matter of earlier retirement. My proposal is that men who want to do so should be allowed to retire at 60. We know that 676,000 men between the ages of 60 and 65 are at work. We also know, from repeated Treasury estimates, that it would cost £3 billion to achieve this reduction in the retirement age. I do not know how that calculation can be substantiated, when we realise that many of the vacancies created by those who would be offered a pension would be filled by people in the dole queue, with dependent relatives. Many people have written to me to say that they are 60 years of age and have already worked for 45 years in a heavy manual occupation. They say, "I think that that is long enough for anyone." I think so too. We should adopt the common sense approach and give early retirement to men who want it, because the vacancies thus created could be filled by people in the dole queue.

My Bill contains the enigmatic phrase, "and for connected purposes." I see this merely as a start. There are many other things in the best practice of good employers that we should seek to introduce. Increasingly, sabbatical years are being offered to workers in mid life, but that is much more in evidence abroad than it is here. I commend that practice. There is also increasing evidence that employers are having the sense to prepare people for retirement by putting them on a four-day week during the six months prior to retirement. That is another example of best practice which I strongly commend.

There is much humbug about the dignity of work and about the desirability of more people working longer hours. I have long been of the opinion that if work were such a splendid thing the rich would have kept more of it for themselves. The Bill offers the prospect of substantial improvement in the quality of life of many of our fellow citizens and the substantial possibility of creating jobs for those in the dole queues who are currently searching for work. It is an enlightened Bill and I hope that it is far-sighted. I commend it to the House.