Employment Bill [Lords]

As we are all declaring our interests in trade unions, I suppose I should declare my own. As a trainee nurse, I was a member of the National Union of Public Employees—I do not think that it even exists any more—and after I qualified I was a member of the Royal College of Nursing. I remember well that in December 1975, as a trainee nurse, we received a pay rise, due to pressure from the unions, that enabled us to eat. The previous month—I started nursing in the November—the paltry amount that we were paid was just about enough to exist on. Although as trainee nurses we were incredibly grateful—I will not go into a history lesson, Madam Deputy Speaker—I do not think that the public purse lost the money as easily as nurses received it. Unfortunately, we all know what happened afterwards. In my time, I have appreciated the work of trade unions, but we have reached a point where the unions' demands made in the name of diversity are causing problems with business regulations. It surprises me that in 2008 we are repealing and amending a substantive Act that was introduced and debated in this House in only 2002. Did the Government get it wrong in 2002? Exactly how much are we repealing, and how much is being amended? I wonder whether the Minister can tell us how many regulations fewer there will be as a result of the Bill. Today, Nicola Brewer spoke out on how employment law directly impacts on the career progress of women in the workplace. We are beginning to see how the pressure from trade unions on diversity and equality legislation is shooting women in the foot, when it is supposed to help them up the career ladder. I do not think that flexible working and the procedures that employers have had to put in place to assist female employees is wrong. Some of the comments we heard from employers were appalling—putting batches of CVs in the bin before they would even interview women who might cause a problem to their business—but I wonder whether the amount of equality legislation we are imposing on businesses is having an adverse effect. Perhaps we could use a lighter touch and persuade employers by using incentives or by using the tax system, with benefit-in-kind tax relief, instead of using heavy-handed, burdensome legislation. As Nicola Brewer said today, it seems to be having the opposite effect, and rather than imposing regulation on business I think that there is another way of achieving a desirable outcome. As someone who ran a business that was all about helping women in the workplace, I do not want us to take a step back. In fact, the issue is about changing the culture in the boardroom and the culture of the people at the top who put women's CVs in the bin and do not employ them because of their gender. The answer is not to hit businesses over the head with a massive regulatory hammer. That is not going to give us the results that we need. All regulation is a cost to business. As we know, two thirds of businesses in this country employ fewer than 20 people. Half our GDP comes from small businesses, which feel the cost of regulation more than big corporations do. Having run a small business, I know that owners of small businesses need to maintain their market share, increase their growth, guarantee their employees' security and look for new business. Achieving all those objectives is vital, but when someone has to juggle regulatory reform too, they need additional employees to manage that, which imposes extra cost. If we are going to tinker about with employment regulations again, I would like to see some way of relieving that cost on small businesses and using the Bill to assist them. The Minister will probably talk about that, which is to be welcomed—I know that, in principle, we support it—but there may be another way of doing a bit more for small businesses. Lord Jones of Birmingham—the famous Digby Jones—said that the Blair Government were one of the most regulatory-minded Governments. Can the Minister reassure us that the Brown Government are not, or are they the same? Will the Bill reduce the burden of regulation on businesses today, or are we going down the same path of imposing more regulation? The British Chambers of Commerce estimates that Government regulation has cost British business more than £65 billion since 1998. Will the Minister tell us what estimate has been made of the cost of employing people? How much of that £65 billion is directly related to employment costs? Many small businesses operate in niche markets—I certainly did: I always thought, ““What's the point of doing something that somebody else is already doing?”” It is much more exciting and easier to create jobs if someone can excite by innovating, rather than copying what somebody else is doing. People need the freedom to innovate and the freedom of thought to have ideas and create business, and for that they need to be free from regulation and red tape. It is incredibly difficult for people when all that they can worry about is the administrative process of running their business, which means that they are not free to innovate. Again, the Bill could have done something to help with innovation by freeing up those who run small businesses, who provide half our GDP. Was the Bill a wasted opportunity? The Federation of Small Businesses says that many firms are concerned that they are not being taken seriously. They feel that the Government talk to big businesses, but that they no longer talk to small businesses. People who run small businesses have spoken out against the Government, blaming them for not doing enough and for spiralling costs. Again, that is what regulation does—it brings cost with it. The two go hand in hand. In a poll of more than 9,000 businesses, 96 per cent. of owners questioned by the FSB said that they were not satisfied that the Government were taking the right decisions in the interests of small business. Equally, more than 88 per cent. criticised the Government for not doing enough to bring down the rise in business cost. The FSB wants the Government to step in and ease the burden. FSB national chairman John Wright has said:"““With the end of a period of relative stability, small business confidence in the government has plummeted in the last couple of years. Employment, tax and fuel policies have left many small firms feeling that their concerns are not being taken seriously enough.””"