Standing Committee E
Tuesday 2 March 1999
(Afternoon)
[Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody in the Chair]
Clause 18
Part-time work: discrimination
4.30 pm
Mr. Graham Brady (Atrincham and Sale, West): I beg to move amendment No. 118, in page 10, line 36, at end insert—
`(1A) The Secretary of State shall publish within two years of the coming into force of the regulations a report setting out the impact which the regulations have had on levels of part-time working in the United Kingdom's economy.'.
The amendment follows the theme of this morning's very productive discussion on the potential impact on the labour market of the changes relating to part-time work. I was pleased to hear the Minister's comments at the end of that sitting. I found them most encouraging, not only in the immediate context of the amendment but in a wider and more important sense. He suggested that Ministers understood and accepted that a significant impact on the profile of part-time working could follow from the regulations that were introduced under the clause.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), with whom I sit on the Select Committee for Education and Employment, is aware of my discussions on the subject. The evidence supplied to the Select Committee informed my thinking when I tabled the amendment. I am sure that I am not providing information other than that which is in the public domain but, in their submissions to the Select Committee, numerous witnesses and others suggested that the Government's proposed regulations could have a wide effect on the nature of the labour market, particularly on part-time work.
I do not for a moment imagine that it is the Minister's intention, but the measures will increase the cost to employers of part-time working. Measures that may be laudable in themselves, given their aim of increasing the rights of part-time workers, their pay and their status, will reduce employers' flexibility. There is a danger that the Government inadvertently are moving in a direction that will undermine the position of part-time workers in the economy.
It was suggested earlier that there was a clear relationship between the cost of employment and the type of employment that might be offered by employers. I am thinking especially of situations in which an employer contemplates offering additional employment to create new jobs within his enterprise, perhaps a part-time job leading to a full-time job. A decision could be taken to employ people on a part-time basis because it enables the employer to react more flexibly to fluctuations of demand, market circumstances, seasonal changes and so on.
All of those factors have for many years driven the growth of part-time working in the British economy. Members of the Committee have recognised the importance of that growth in providing employment to many people. The Government's policy could result in the loss of that flexibility and cost advantage to employers, a concern that has been raised not only by employers' organisations and by business people, but by numerous trade unions. The Transport and General Workers Union and the Association of University Teachers in particular have said that the cost benefit to employers has led to a massive growth in the part-time sector. It does not take a genius to work out that if that recent growth in part-time working has been driven by reduced costs and by greater flexibility for employers—measures that may have the laudable aim of increasing the status of part-time work—reducing the flexibility and increasing the costs may change the pattern of part-time work relative to full-time work.
I am sure that hon. Members will differ—on opposite sides, and perhaps the same side, of the Committee—on the likely effect of the proposals on the levels of part-time work and on whether my arguments are outweighed by arguments of social justice, or by whatever issues hon. Members consider important. Nevertheless, changing the regulations on part-time working will have consequences on the labour market and on the appeal of part-time work to an employer, who may be less or more inclined to offer it, or to an employee, who may be less or more inclined to seek it. All the individual measures will feed through into the labour market and affect the amount or type of work available.
I accept that my and the Government's conclusions will differ—although I read in this morning's press that the Prime Minister is suggesting that we follow the United States model on the matter, a notion with which I have some sympathy. Perhaps we will shortly hear more such revelations from Ministers. However, I imagine that some Labour Members differ from the view that I and the Prime Minister hold so dearly and that many of them believe that, contrary to the Prime Minister's view, costs and inflexibility should be increased.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): Come and sit here.
Mr. Brady: The Minister would have to live an unnaturally long life to see that happen.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): My hon. Friend is wrong. Within the next two or three years, he will be sitting where the Minister is sitting, no doubt bringing some logic back into government.
Mr. Brady: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I am not sure about that, but the question of where the present Prime Minister may be sitting at that time is another matter.
The Chairman: Order. In the interim, I am sitting in the Chair and it would be nice if we dealt with the amendment.
Mr. Brady: I am delighted that you are sitting in the Chair, Mrs. Dunwoody, and that you are bringing such a light touch to bear on our proceedings.
To return to the precise subject of the amendment, I am sure that all members of the Committee, regardless of their political views, believe that the Government's proposals will have an effect on the labour market. Some may think that increasing the status and security of part-time work, will make it much more attractive, and that levels will increase dramatically, while others think that the increased costs and regulatory burdens will cause a dramatic reduction in the levels of part-time work. There will be some change, although it may be less marked than I have suggested.
I hope that the Committee agrees that my amendment is entirely reasonable. The Government should accept that there may be some changes in the labour market following their actions and undertake to investigate them and produce a report setting out their impact. Amendment No. 118 would provide that a report should be published
``within two years of the coming into force of the regulations''.
I should be delighted if Ministers could produce a worthwhile assessment of the impact of part-time working in a shorter time scale. I have suggested a reasonable approach. Two years would give the Department long enough to undertake, collate and publish the research.
I hope that Ministers find my proposal useful, especially given the nature of the Bill and the fact that much of the detail will come in regulations. The regulations may be changed at some point in the future, so I hope that Ministers will accept that there is a strong case for such information to be produced and made publicly available. It would inform the views not only of Members of Parliament and the public, but of Ministers themselves, who may feel that it is appropriate to review the regulations, or to increase or decrease the burden on businesses that engage part-time workers. It is simply a matter of common sense, and I hope that Ministers will accept the amendment in that context.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I support my hon. Friend, who made his case persuasively.
I am certain that the Government are not trying to do away with part-time work—we would certainly have a different view if that were the case. However, we on the Conservative Benches are concerned that there may be unintended consequences that will impact on part-time workers and the volume of jobs. We know that the proportion of the United Kingdom population in work is higher that that in any other country in the European Union because there is a large number of women in the workplace. The economy benefits from their being in work. The vast majority of part-time workers are women and most of them want to be in part-time work, although occasionally people take part-time work while trying to find full-time employment. We want to see whether the patterns change.
I shall not give a long explanation of what happened after the Equal Pay Act 1970, but the Government introduced that Act specifically because there was a measurable margin between the pay of men and women. The unintended consequence of that Act was that the rapid coming together of those two salary levels stopped. Last year, women's pay drifted further away from men's pay.
When the 1970 Act was debated in Parliament, I was working in a factory, and I know that the company—it was owned by Marconi—decided to separate the work force, so that women would do certain jobs and men would do others, which it had not done previously. It did so because it knew that it would have to pay equal wages for equal work.
I am afraid that companies will decide that the way around the Bill is to say that all part-timers do a less-skilled job than full-timers and put the full-timers into a different system, even though both groups used to work side by side doing the same job.
In asking for such a report, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) is genuinely working with the grain of what the Government wants to do. The Government do not want the Bill to have unintended consequences. A wise Government would accept the amendment; they would know that they had to consider carefully what happened in the labour market and take action if any unintended consequence had the wrong effect on the United Kingdom economy.
4.45 pm
| 
