§ Mr. Chris Davies (Littleborough and Saddleworth)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that employers shall give to their part-time staff either the same holiday entitlements as they do to their full-time staff, or a minimum period as specified.The Bill will make it illegal for employers to give part-time staff fewer holidays than full-time staff, and will introduce in Britain minimum holiday entitlements of the kind that will shortly be enjoyed by workers in every other country in the European Union.The Bill does not stand on its own. It will prove to be the first of a number of measures to be introduced by hon. Members from different parties—which, I believe, will demonstrate the general feeling in the House that it is time that part-time workers were given a fair deal and the due protection of law. I thank officers of the TUC and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, who have done a great deal to identify the problems of discrimination in the work place which too many part-time workers encounter.
As hon. Members will know, the number of part-time employees has increased rapidly in recent years. Part-time work now provides employment for some 5 million people. According to the 1993 employment census, at that time there were some 19,000 part-time workers in my borough of Oldham, and some 17,000 in neighbouring Rochdale. The vast majority of those part-time workers are women: nearly half the women who work in my constituency work part time. Part-time work can and should result from a positive choice, but for some it is a necessity. Whatever the motivation, however, it is surely right for Parliament to lay down some basic entitlements for every employee, which should include a minimum period of leave based pro rata on the leave allowed to full-time workers.
Britain is now the only country in the European Union in which employees have no legal right to paid annual leave—
§ Mr. Davies—and part-time workers bear the brunt of that omission. A Conservative Member has just shouted "Good": that pretty well sums up the difference between Conservative and Opposition attitudes to potential employees.
A third of all part-time workers in this country—1.7 million people—receive no paid holidays; a few, just 13 per cent., receive less than two weeks. Who are we to deny part-time workers even a modest period of paid leave? As Members of Parliament, we claim the right to nearly 20 weeks a year, during which we have the freedom to choose when to take our family holidays. [Interruption.] There is privilege for some, and a denial of rights for others.
The Bill will impose no burden on the majority of employers, who already show consideration to their part-time staff, but it will bring into line the bosses whose attitude to their employees is one of contempt rather than respect. It is a fact that some employers will take advantage of other human beings in the sure and certain knowledge 154 that they can be made to accept not only the low wages that are often part and parcel of part-time work, but the denial of entitlements that other employees expect as a matter of course. That is why we must lay down the basic minimum requirements, and provide statutory protection for employees who are in a weaker position.
Britain was the first industrial society in the world, and, despite the arguments advanced by some hon. Members who have been calling out from a sedentary position, it need not yet be considered a sweatshop economy in which inequalities will inevitably grow. Good employers, who are determined to build for the long term, recognise that they will gain employee loyalty and high productivity only from a work force that is treated with respect and compassion.
As a proportion of this country's total wage bill, the cost of creating a minimum entitlement to paid leave for part-time workers will be very small, and it will of course be nil for employers who already ensure that their part-time workers receive proper holiday entitlement. Employers who are forced to meet the cost for the first time should find themselves amply compensated, if they do the job properly and ensure that their employees are properly motivated, by gaining the benefits of enhanced productivity and staff loyalty, which should be the basis for any successful business.
This measure will not leave Britain in a less competitive position than its European partners—
§ Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South)Oh, yes?
§ Mr. DaviesThe hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, yes". It will not leave us in a less competitive position for the very good reason—of which he should be aware—that, in November this year, the European Union's working time directive will come into force and set a minimum three-week holiday requirement for workers throughout the European Union, which will rise to four weeks in 1999, except, of course, in Britain.
If the Government's current challenge to that directive in the European Court of Justice—that much maligned body—is upheld, they will argue that it should not have been approved by the Council of Ministers, on the basis that it was a piece of health and safety legislation. The Government will argue instead that the legislation affects individual employment conditions and that it should, therefore, have been passed only by a unanimous vote. I have much sympathy for that view, but I have no sympathy at all for the idea that Britain has to be dragged, kicking and screaming, by our European partners into adopting some basic employment conditions for our citizens. It is a national humiliation that we are forced to trail in the wake of our European partners on such matters instead of taking a lead.
This Bill provides and promotes one small aspect of part-time workers' entitlements, but its passage will send a clear message to Britain's 5 million part-time employees that the House values their services, respects their efforts, appreciates their skills and believes that it is high time that they had a fair deal and the support of the law.
§ Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire)I oppose the Bill because this country leads Europe in keeping women and young people employed. This Bill is 155 frightening because what seems to be all reason and light from the Liberal Democrats is merely a recipe for bankruptcy and unemployment. The Liberal Democrats make no secret of their love for a federal Europe. They have said so again today. They would give up our veto. This legislation is just another European tax on jobs.
When Jacques Delors said that Britain's rejection of the social chapter—so beloved of both the Labour and Liberal parties—meant that this country would become an investor's paradise, he was right. Britain attracts well over 40 per cent. of all investment into the European Union from the United States and from Japan, and the remaining 50 per cent. or so is spread thinly among the other 14 EU countries. In the past financial year, 38,876 jobs were created as a direct result of inward investment, and more than 51,000 jobs were safeguarded by inward investment. Since 1992, the United Kingdom has made a stronger recovery from worldwide recession than any other European country. Our economy has grown faster than that of Germany, France, Italy or the EU average. The Bill would jeopardise all that. The social chapter would create unemployment and, through the back door, the Bill is simply part of the social chapter.
The cathedral city of Lichfield is not only a centre of light industry but a tourist centre, but I was born near Brighton and went to school there. That town depends even more than Lichfield on tourism. How many hotels and restaurants that employ part-time workers would fail if this tax on jobs were imposed? I used to work in the electronics industry—how many part-time workers who provide specialist skills would find themselves out of work because small and growing businesses with tight margins could no longer afford to pay this on-cost? Businesses would have to employ extra workers if they were to meet the Bill's requirements. How many students would find it impossible to get work in their vacations? Inflation is now under 3 per cent., but the Bill would cause prices to rise and would damage our recovery.
I believe, as do the Government, that holiday entitlement, like other terms and conditions of employment, should remain a matter of negotiation between employers and employees or employee representatives. It should not be the role of Government to intervene through the statute book; nor should it be the role of Government to stand between a man or woman and his or her job.
It is not by accident that unemployment has been falling month after month for more than two years, while in France, Germany and Spain it continues to soar inexorably. It is not by accident that Britain has more people in work as a proportion of the population than any other major economy in Europe. It is not by accident that this country is enjoying steady and sustainable growth combined with low inflation.
Does the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth wish to return to the dark days under the previous Labour Government when inflation averaged 15.5 per cent? Despite the ominous plans of the Opposition to fall into line with the socialist-dominated European Parliament, this country remains the enterprise centre of Europe. The Conservative Government made this country the enterprise centre of Europe, and we want to keep it the enterprise centre of Europe.
156 For the sake of jobs and for the sake of this nation's continuing recovery, I oppose the Bill.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
§ The House proceeded to a Division—
§ Mr. Chris Davies(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it appropriate for the Labour Whips to instruct Labour Members to abstain because they are not prepared to make a commitment—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I know nothing about any instructions that may have been given—I do not recognise Whips during this period.
§ The House having divided: Ayes 84, Noes 49.
157| Division No. 67] | [3.47 pm |
| AYES | |
| Ainger, Nick | Hutton, John |
| Alton, David | Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H) |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Janner, Greville |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn) |
| Ashton, Joe | Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O) |
| Barnes, Harry | Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Keen, Alan |
| Berry, Roger | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Litherland, Robert |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Llwyd, Elfyn |
| Callaghan, Jim | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | McCartney, Robert |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Maclennan, Robert |
| Canavan, Dennis | Maddock, Diana |
| Chidgey, David | Mahon, Alice |
| Clapham, Michael | Marek, Dr John |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Cohen, Harry | Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Mullin, Chris |
| Corston, Jean | O'Brien, William (Normanton) |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Parry, Robert |
| Cunningham, Roseanna | Pike, Peter L |
| Dafis, Cynog | Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Purchase, Ken |
| Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth) | Rendel, David |
| Donohoe, Brian H | Salmond, Alex |
| Eagle, Ms Angela | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Eastham, Ken | Sheerman, Barry |
| Etherington, Bill | Simpson, Alan |
| Ewing, Mrs Margaret | Skinner, Dennis |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| Flynn, Paul | Spearing, Nigel |
| Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim) | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Foulkes, George | Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd) |
| Godman, Dr Norman A | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Gordon, Mildred | Tyler, Paul |
| Gunnell, John | Wareing, Robert N |
| Hall, Mike | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Hanson, David | Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen) |
| Hinchliffe, David | Wise, Audrey |
| Hoey, Kate | |
| Home Robertson, John | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Hood, Jimmy | Ms Liz Lynne and |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport E) | Mr. Don Foster. |
| NOES | |
| Atkins, Rt Hon Robert | Bruce, Ian (South Dorset) |
| Batiste, Spencer | Butcher, John |
| Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) | Butterfill, John |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes | Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln) |
| Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes) | Carrington, Matthew |
| Chapman, Sir Sydney | Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants) |
| Deva, Nirj Joseph | Moate, Sir Roger |
| Dover, Den | Neubert, Sir Michael |
| Duncan-Smith, Iain | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley |
| Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield) | Pawsey, James |
| Fabricant, Michael | Porter, Barry (Wirral S) |
| Fenner, Dame Peggy | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Gorman, Mrs Teresa | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs) | Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume) |
| Hawksley, Warren | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Hendry, Charles | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Hill, James (Southampton Test) | Speed, Sir Keith |
| Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset) | |
| Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine | Stephen, Michael |
| Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n) | Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th) |
| Lamont, Rt Hon Norman | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Lawrence, Sir Ivan | Wiggin, Sir Jerry |
| Madel, Sir David | |
| Marlow, Tony | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Marshall, John (Hendon S) | Mr. Robert G. Hughes and |
| Martin, David (Portsmouth S) | Mr. Jacques Arnold. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chris Davies, Ms Angela Eagle, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Don Foster, Mr. David Alton, Mrs. Diana Maddock and Ms Liz Lynne.