| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed response. He has based his argument on the fact that a large proportion of the vulnerable people to whom I have referred are employees in law. If that is the case, why is it that 66 per cent. of them--according to the survey I have quoted--do not receive an itemised pay slip; 82 per cent. of them do not have a contract of employment; and more than 90 per cent. do not receive
the other benefits which employees should expect to have? If they are employees in law, the law is not delivering the rights that they should have as employees.
Mr. Taylor: I know the answer to that question, and I shall give it to the hon. Gentleman, although I know that it will not satisfy him completely. Employees such as those he mentioned are entitled to written particulars of their employment--what is commonly called a contract of employment--and to an itemised pay statement. There is no question about those entitlements. It is absolutely right that they are entitled to a statement of contractual employment terms and to an itemised pay statement.
The redress for an employee who does not receive them is to take the matter to an industrial tribunal--on that,I think that the hon. Gentleman and I would part company.I think that he is of the opinion that such tribunals are complex and legalistic. My opinion is that they are innately and culturally informal, and that people may be helped by taking their complaints or inquiries to tribunals. We might reach out and agree with each other on the desirability of doing everything possible to ensure that tribunals are simple and user-friendly and that they are not legalistic. That tribunals should be as informal and friendly and helpful as possible remains very much in my thoughts.
Mr. Wigley:
The Minister will accept that many of those who work at home are among the most vulnerable. They do not have backing from any organisation, and find it difficult to pursue cases to industrial tribunals. Given that fact, and the fact that he is predicating his case on the basis that the overwhelming majority of those people are employees, will he consider, as a practical and serious proposition, drawing up guidelines for employers which make it clear that those home workers are employees, and that, without doubt, employers have a responsibility to provide such things as contracts of employment and itemised pay slips? If there is any doubt about whether a person is an employee or self-employed, the guidelines should make it clear that the onus of proof is on the employer.
Mr. Taylor:
The hon. Gentleman knows that I will remain available to discuss the issues with him in the Chamber or elsewhere. I will go this far: I will ask my officials to consider carefully whether there is any way that the guidance material that is produced by my Department could be more helpful, not least in explaining who is likely to be considered as an employed or a self-employed person. I should like to be constructive, because the hon. Gentleman was entirely constructive in his arguments.
I accept entirely that there are people for whom obtaining legal guidance or determination can be difficult or hard to find, and a process with which they feel culturally ill at ease. As president of the citizens advice bureau in Shirley in my constituency, I recommend the wholly admirable--and often unsung--services that it provides. I am sure that, like mine, the hon. Gentleman's constituents will find that the advice that is available from their local CAB is better than they could ever have imagined. The culture, which is friendly and informal,is one that we seek to encourage for those who, by definition, are troubled and who come to the bureau burdened with a problem.
I shall develop my remarks further. I do not wish to trespass upon eternity, but there are more things to say. Those who are not employees can nevertheless benefit
from protection against discrimination, protection against unlawful deductions from their pay, and from health and safety provisions. I recognise that it may not be easy to tell whether an individual is employed or self-employed. That is a recurring theme, and the individual himself or herself may not always be sure.
In the final analysis, it will be for the industrial tribunal to decide whether the home worker is an employee and can complain of unfair dismissal or enforce other rights under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. In making its decision, the tribunal will consider all the circumstances surrounding the employment relationship to see whether there is any reciprocity of obligation between the two parties, which is the necessary condition of a contract of employment.
The Government's position has always been that it would not be right to require employers to carry the full burden of the legislation without the minimum degree of mutual obligation which must be present in any contract of employment. To add to regulation in that way would considerably constrain employers' freedom to run their businesses in the manner they think best. It would add to employers' costs, reduce work opportunities and inhibit the strong economy which we aim to encourage.
Mr. Wigley:
I shall not detain the House unduly. I am grateful to the Minister for his response and I have noted the points that he has made. I am grateful also for his undertaking that he is prepared to look at the possibility of drawing employers' attention to their responsibilities under existing legislation. Those responsibilities may not be entirely clear to employers not for some malicious reason, but because there is a grey area that must be addressed. I shall be very glad if the Government can make progress along those lines.
I noticed a slight contradiction in what the Minister said--particularly in his closing remarks when he suggested that my legislation might impose additional burdens and costs on employers. However, earlier in his
speech he based his argument on the fact that employee rights exist already. Therefore, those burdens--if that is what they are--and costs should be on employers' shoulders already. I invite the Minister to ponder that point.
We are trying to ensure that all employees are recognised as such and have the reasonable protection of law when they are working in their own homes. In some circumstances, the provisions that apply in the factory or at the office cannot apply at home. However, there should patently be protection in other areas, and that protection does not exist at present.
I am glad that the Minister is prepared to look into the matter--particularly in light of the Patel case, which may provide a basis for insisting that people who are not receiving fair treatment should be treated fairly. I accept that the Patel case moves things forward in that direction. I also accept that the measures that will be introduced at a European Union level and in the International Labour Organisation in coming months may add dimensions to the considerations that the House should take on board in legislation, if legislation is necessary in that field. We may have to return to the matter in a year or so.
I urge the Government to act on the positive implications of the Minister's speech. I shall take advantage of any opportunity to discuss the issues further with him outside the Chamber on a formal or semi-formal basis. I hope that, as a result of Government action along the lines that he suggested,it will be possible for home workers who have missed out on their entitlements in the past to secure them in the future without having to resort to industrial tribunals.
If they need to go to such tribunals, I hope that they will note the Minister's assurance that assistance is available from, for example, citizens advice bureaux, and that local authorities will inform them of their rights. It would be better, however, if employers delivered those rights, because--as the Government say--that is the position in law. Employers should note what has been said here today, and recognise that responsibilities go with the employment of home workers.
I hope that this short debate, and the Bill, will at least promote that argument. If, in the fulness of time, we find that substantial progress is not being made, we shall want to table further legislation. I thank the Minister for his response.
Question put and negatived.
Offensive Weapons
Order for Second Reading read.
Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam):
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Frances Lawrence, the widow of murdered headmaster Philip Laurence, made a very true statement when she said: "A knife is an inanimate object, and it needs a human being to invest it with murderous properties."Her husband was brutally stabbed to death before Christmas outside the gates of his school, when he bravely intervened to protect a pupil from a violent attack. The letter sent by his eight-year-old son Lucien to Santa Claus asking for his father back for Christmas was one of the saddest things that I had ever read.
But we also think of John Killick, the security guard who was stabbed to death in Scunthorpe last December. We think of pensioner Frank Dempsey, who died after being stabbed in the throat, and of the frenzied slaughter of Imtiaz Begum and her three children with a nine-inch kitchen knife. That happened only last weekend. I have boundless admiration for WPC Jill Spencer, who disarmed the attacker. Every act of mindless brutality produces a double tragedy--the loss of a life, and the distraught family that that person leaves behind.
I first came into contact with a family struck by such a tragedy in 1987, when I was a parliamentary candidate in Bethnal Green and Stepney. There I met Bill and Valerie Dennison, whose 17-year-old son John had been stabbed to death. He was a model son, liked by all, good at sport and with everything to live for. He became another innocent victim of mindless violence, and his death nearly destroyed his parents. Closer to home, only last Sunday my 20-year-old research assistant Jay Therell was the victim of an attempted knifepoint robbery in Paddington. The weapon was a flick knife.
Above all, we should remember the price that the police pay when trying to protect the rest of us while we are going about our business. It is a humbling experience to talk--as I have--to officers who have been viciously stabbed; they deserve all the protection that is going.We should include in the roll of honour Sergeant Derek Robertson, the father of two children who was stabbed to death after being called to the scene of a robbery at a sub-post office in Croydon in 1994. In that year, more than 1,000 police officers in England and Wales were seriously assaulted and injured.
Police officers who are in contact with the problem are in no doubt that it is getting worse. Worryingly, research suggests that the problem is at its worst among males in their mid-teens. A 15-year-old is currently being held facing charges in relation to Mr. Lawrence's death.
In the year to April 1995, 2,550 offences of violence against the person in the Metropolitan police force area involved knives or other sharp instruments. That compares with 2,332 during the preceding 12 months.In Sutton, which is hardly an area notorious for violence, there have been two stabbings and one knifepoint robbery, and two 13-year-old boys were found carrying knives in the past month alone.
12.11 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |