| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.42 am
Mr. Stephen Byers (Wallsend): I congratulate the hon Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on the topic that he has selected as the subject of his measure. The plight of home workers is all too often ignored, and we should welcome the opportunity that the Bill provides to discuss it today.
More than 1 million people in Britain work from home. The majority are women and many are black or Asian. They are often isolated, and they have no collective voice to speak on their behalf. They are extremely vulnerable and they look to the House to defend and protect their interests. They are perhaps one of the least protected sections of the work force.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that home working is a growing sector. As the profile of the labour market changes, it is important that employment law is amended to reflect those changes. The traditional view of the home worker is someone working from a Victorian terrace, perhaps somewhere in the east midlands. That has changed dramatically. Many new home workers live in rural areas and often work in rather professional employment. Nevertheless, their needs remain clear.
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor):
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the point that he is making. Does he accept that, since 1981, the proportion of home workers in manufacturing jobs has decreased from 21 per cent.
Mr. Byers:
Yes. I accept that point absolutely. However, we should not ignore the employment needs of those individuals. Although there has been a change in the nature of home working, and many of the individuals concerned are in managerial and professional employment, they still need the protection of employment legislation; that issue is at the heart of our debate.
Although the nature of home working has changed, individuals working in that sector continue to be exploited. A recent survey by the National Group on Homeworking shows that many people work exceptionally long hours for as little as 30p a hour.The average home worker works 36 hours a week for £46.
In addition, we should reflect on the conditions in which those people carry out their work at home. Approximately eight out of 10 home workers have children. About 70 per cent. of them work in the same room as their children play. One in five care for a dependent relative while working at home. Many home workers struggle to provide a living for themselves, their children and their dependants, often in difficult circumstances. They are often vulnerable and open to exploitation, and it is becoming increasingly clear that the legal difficulties surrounding the definition of an employee, as opposed to someone in self-employment, are not helpful to people in those circumstances.
One would have hoped that the Government would recognise the vulnerability of many home workers and be prepared to take some positive steps to assist them. Unfortunately, in the last couple of months the Government have taken steps that will create difficulties for many home workers.
The Minister will be aware that on 28 November 1995 the Government repealed section 133 of the Factories Act 1961 as part of their attack on red tape, as they see it. That section required employers to notify the names and addresses of their home workers to the relevant local authority. The purpose was to allow authorities to ensure the observance of health and safety measures and to offer welfare advice. It was a key part of local authority strategy to tackle poverty among home worker families. The Government, in their infinite wisdom and as part of their bonfire of regulations, decided to remove section 133. That has created difficulties, because that modest measure was of benefit to many local authorities in helping home workers in their areas.
The Minister may say that the Health and Safety Executive was not a greater promoter of retaining section 133 of the 1961 Act. I was disappointed that the executive was not prepared to oppose the Government's repeal of that measure, but many sectors of society and organisations regret that the Government felt it necessary to repeal section 133.
At the heart of the Bill is the legal definition of "employee". The distinction between employees and the self-employed has, for a variety of reasons, become blurred. The Patel case is particularly significant. That
individual was regarded by many organisations and bodies as self-employed, but the industrial tribunal held her to be an employee. Government clarification is needed.
Mr. Wigley:
Given the forthcoming ILO conference and European Union discussion document, and in the event of the Government failing to tackle this important problem, can the hon. Gentleman indicate whether an incoming Labour Government would tackle it as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Byers:
That is always an interesting question. Later, I will outline Labour's approach.
Mr. John M. Taylor:
Does it have anything to do with stakeholders?
Mr. Byers:
Much of Labour's policy reflects our commitment to the stakeholder economy--and that covers home workers as well as other employees.
The Patel case has important practical and legal consequences. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on that decision and say today how the Government view the blurring, legally, between employees and the self-employed. Given the changing labour market, it is in the employer's interests for people to be self-employed--although in practice they are employees. In journalism, teaching and the construction industry, people are increasingly encouraged--some might say forced--to seek self-employed status because of the benefits for the employer. It removes statutory obligations and offers substantial savings in terms of the employer's national insurance and tax payments. Employers should not be able to use a legal loophole to escape those liabilities--they are stakeholders too, and they have a responsibility and duty to the public purse.
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor):
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for his clear explanation of the concerns that led him to introduce the Bill. I have been most interested in what he had to say. May I also thank the hon. Member for Wallsend(Mr. Byers) for his balanced contribution? I am sorry in retrospect that I diverted him into the subject of stakeholding, but perhaps he feels at home with the concept even if the rest of us do not understand it.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon spoke on behalf of a group of people whom he considers to be especially vulnerable. Today is not the first time that he has spoken in this place for the underdog. The hon. Gentleman is highly regarded in the House and I, having been the Welsh Whip for almost four years, also hold him in high regard. I recognise that this is a matter on which he feels
strongly, and I have listened carefully this morning. While I cannot make any promises, I hope that I may have some success in persuading the hon. Gentleman that the legislation already extends significant protection to home workers.
One difficulty is the definition of the group of people about whom the hon. Gentleman is concerned. The technological changes that we have seen in recent years have meant that more of those people who work from home do so through choice. Furthermore, many are highly skilled, well paid and well trained. The term "home worker" can cover computer experts, local solicitors and accountants.
The spring 1995 "Labour Force Survey" revealed that nearly three quarters of those who work from home are in managerial, professional, technical, clerical and secretarial occupations. Only a small proportion are unskilled manual workers falling into the traditional view of the home worker who fills envelopes or sews eyes on to soft dolls. There is nothing wrong with those occupations--they need doing and are done. In any event, many home workers, whether they sew or write programmes for computers, are employees who are already covered by the full protection of employment legislation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |