This snapshot taken on 26/07/2008, shows web content selected for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search boxes may not work in archived websites.
Ian McCartney - Former Minister of State for Competitiveness (May 1997 - Jun 1999)Working Time Directive |
|
| CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
Introduction - Minimum Fair Standards This Government believes in fairness. It believes that workers should enjoy basic protection against exploitation from unscrupulous employers. It recognises that there is a fundamental imbalance in the relationship between worker and employer in the workplace. In some cases, workers need support. We recognise that providing such protection is not necessary for the majority of employers. However, such protections must apply to workers equally. It is important that good employers should not be undercut by bad employers profiting by exploiting their workers. This is not good for competitiveness or the UK in the long run. Therefore, we are committed to the creation of a flexible labour market underpinned by fair minimum standards. The first step was the National Minimum Wage Act, Fairness at Work will follow, but the implementation of the Working Time Directive represents another major stride. For workers These Regulations provide 7 new rights for workers to protect them against being forced to work excessive hours. These new rights are :
The Working Time Regulations provide protection to the most vulnerable workers and enable them to enjoy exactly the same sort of rights the majority of workers in the UK and the rest of Europe already have - around 90% of workers in this country already have paid annual leave. And this Government sees no reason why all shouldn't. After all, the Hon Members sitting here typically get 16 weeks off a year for which they are paid. I would like to draw your attention to some cases that have been raised with me, and I quote : "My husband works for a large medical company and has for the past 2 years worked on average 51 hours a week. During this period he has been off sick twice through stress and exhaustion....." Or about a factory that : "has a 60 hour week for night workers i.e. 5x12 hour shifts. The workers are exhausted and if they try to take time off when they are, in addition [to this], told to work overtime they face dismissal". These are the types of exploitation that the Regulations will combat. In doing so, they will contribute to the Government's wider goal of promoting family friendly employment. Combining paid work and parenting, or caring for dependants, is a constant juggling act. Being a parent and a worker is not easy and working parents need as much support as possible. The 'long hours' culture has historically not only created barriers to work for women with caring responsibilities, but has also prevented many men from taking an active role in their children's upbringing. Providing limits on working hours, minimum rest periods from work and an entitlement to paid annual leave will help working parents to spend more time with their children and so balance their home and work commitments more successfully. For Business However, the Government also recognises there is a balance to be struck between effective protection and placing unnecessary regulatory burdens on business. Our approach to implementing the Directive has been to maximise flexibility wherever possible that is consistent with the protection of workers. Around 70% of those that commented on the broad approach in the consultation on the draft Regulations welcomed the Government's approach to implementation. The CBI said "CBI members welcome the Government's acceptance of the need for flexibility in implementation"; the Electricity Association said "Electricity Association Member Companies welcome the flexible approach the Government has taken in implementing the Working Time Directive". I hear suggestions that the Regulations will be a burden to business. But a tired and demoralised workforce can be a heavy cost to business. The best companies provide their workers with paid leave and a sensible working week because they recognise that people need time away from the workplace. This reflects good business sense : the CBI estimate up to £25 billion was lost in the last year under a Tory Government due to absenteeism. By providing rights to proper rest, the Regulations will help to combat stress and reduce absenteeism and so reducing costs to industry. [In addition, the London School of Economics also estimates that current staff turnover levels cost employers up to £1800m. Turnover was found to be highest in jobs with low status and low morale.] Partnership As part of our flexible approach, the Regulations allow many aspects relating to the arrangement of working time to be resolved by agreements between workers and employers. Work patterns, within a fair framework, are best set locally rather than by Government. The Regulations allow arrangements to be made through agreement that are appropriate to particular workplaces that suit workers and maximise productivity for employers. This has been one of the underlying themes in drafting the Regulations. And the Government would like to see such an approach applied generally in the workplace. We would like to see a change of culture. A partnership culture can deliver better results - both in standards at work for workers and in productivity, than can be achieved through confrontation. We believe that some of the key ingredients to the success of partnership include :
In other words - it means good management. It is an old management cliché that people are a business' best asset. Such assets should be cared for. A recent study has concluded that a happy workforce is a productive workforce [CEP Corporate Performance programme, University of Sheffield]. They have shown there is a strong link between job satisfaction and company performance. Results from another recent major survey of employment relations and working practices [WERS 98] show that more partnership, more training and more family friendly working practices will lead to higher levels of commitment on the part of workers and higher levels of job satisfaction. We believe that a constructive dialogue between employers and workers, in situations such as ensuring workers receive decent levels of rest and leisure time, will contribute toward a better motivated workforce which should enhance competitiveness. Keep Sunday Special Judging by recent correspondence from Members of this House, there is a concern that has arisen about a so called 12 day working week. I would like to clarify this matter now. It is totally misleading to suggest that these Regulations diminish the rights of workers or place them in a more vulnerable position. The Regulations include a right to a day off a week, which may be averaged over a period of two weeks. This is a new right : workers had no such right to a day off until 1 October. Therefore, I fail to see how it can do anything but improve the lot of workers. We have allowed for the right to be averaged over a period of up to two weeks - to allow for flexibility and avoid unnecessary burdens on business. In the majority of cases, rest will be taken on a weekly basis. However, there are certain industries that require differing or fluctuating working patterns that are not conducive to such a standardised arrangement. This flexible approach received widespread support amongst the responses to the consultation on the draft Regulations Timing I would like to make a few points on the timing of the implementation - some recent comments make me wonder whether some of the rt. Hon members have been asleep over the past 18 months. The Working Time Directive is no secret that has been sprung on an unsuspecting world. The Directive was agreed under the previous Conservative Government in 1993. It was due to be implemented by November 1996, but all the previous government did was procrastinate leaving business with uncertainty. Belatedly, at the end of 1996 they did issue a vague consultation document that made the situation no clearer. It has been left to this Government to sort out the mess left. We made it very clear in our manifesto that we would implement the Directive. The timetable for implementation was announced to Parliament in February. We consulted on detailed proposals, including draft Regulations, in April. The finalised Regulations were laid before the Parliament on 30 July, and they came into force on 1 October. It should be remembered that implementation of the Directive is already two years overdue. We all know that this is because the party opposite do not believe that if you work hard you should be rewarded with proper rest or paid holidays, and think it acceptable for employers to force workers to do up to 100 hours a week for minimal rates of pay. This Government is committed to positive relationship with Europe and takes its treaty responsibilities seriously. Indeed it has been necessary to take prompt action to rectify the neglect of the previous administration. Conclusion In brief, it is the Government's belief that the Regulations provide minimum fair standards of protection for workers exploited by unscrupulous employers. Such rights have been denied to workers in this country for far too long - this is due to those opposite who continue to attempt to deny rights to others, such as paid leave, which they enjoy themselves. There has been ample time for consideration of these measures and I hope the House will support me in opposing the motion. |
|
|
|
|
Other speeches by Ian McCartney - Former Minister of State for Competitiveness (May 1997 - Jun 1999)
(the following are available from the archive) |
|
