![]() House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill |
Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris Shaw, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
Public Bill CommitteeWednesday 14 May 2008[Mr. Mike Hancock in the Chair]Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) BillClause 1Equal
treatment of agency
workers
Amendment
proposed
[7 May]: No. 1, in clause 1, page 1,
line 2, to leave out , or employment
agency,.[Lorely
Burt.]
9.30
am
Question
again proposed, That amendment be
made.
The
Chairman:
Good morning. Please do not hesitate to take
your jackets or whatever else off if you feel that it is too warm in
here. We shall resume at the point at which we stopped in our previous
sitting.
Adam
Price (Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr) (PC): When we
adjourned, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, who is not here at the
moment, was referring to the advantages of labour market flexibility
for women workers. It is true that part-unemployment can be more
appropriate for women and, indeed, men with caring responsibilities,
but that does not undermine the purpose of the Bill, which is to
achieve equality between temporary agency workers and permanent
workers. We want to see off the amendment gently and avoid loopholes
that could be used to undermine the Bills principal
purposes.
Andrew
Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): Let me deal
briefly with some of the points that have come up in the debate. My
hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West was spot on in his
intervention during the previous sitting, and colleagues who believe
that such matters are a problem for head-hunters are wrong. Under
existing legislation and the Bill, an agency worker is a person
supplied by an employment business or an employment agency to work for
another personthe end-userunder a contract or other
arrangement made between
them.
As my hon.
Friend said, head-hunters enter into relationships with the end-user
and, subsequent to that, the person appointed to the task in hand is
under contract to, and has an employment relationship with, the
end-user. That does not alter the fact that there could technically
beand no doubt arecases when head-hunters act in more
than one way, but the position is clear. We must consider definitions
carefully as we proceed through the
Bill.
Some provisions
take us back to 1973 and it is important that we examine definitional
issues, such as the case of James v. Greenwich London borough
council. A woman had worked continuously for the council through
employment agencies for several years.
Written agreements between her and the agencies expressly provided that
she would carry out her work as a self-employed temporary worker, and
that her work would not give rise to a contract between her and the
end-user of her services. In February 2008, the Court of Appeal found
that, as a general rule, a temporary agency worker supplied by an
employment agency to an end-user client would not be the employee of
the client nor the agency. We must be mindful of such anomalies. The
hon. Member for Solihull has highlighted an important issue but,
because of the various circumstances in which employees can find
themselves, I urge her to withdraw the
amendment.
Lorely
Burt (Solihull) (LD): The debate has been extremely
interestingcertainly longer and more involved than I had
anticipated when I tabled the amendmentand it has raised a
number of important issues. I am particularly concerned about some of
the issues raised in the previous sitting by the hon. Member for
Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr regarding builders. Having discussed the
matter with the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, to whom I am
grateful for all its help and guidance, it seems that the issue is not
necessarily covered by the Bill, but it is worthy of further
investigation in another place. We should have a Westminster Hall
debate on it, so that we can get to the bottom of what is happening in
the industry. If people are being exploitedI understand that
there are loopholes: opportunities for unscrupulous employers and
agencies to manipulate self-employment regulations regarding that class
of workersthen it is most important for us to address that,
although I believe that we should do so
separately.
The
right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, who is not in his place this
morning, raised some interesting issues last week about the
entertainment industry. He has tabled an amendment to clause 5, so I
look forward to the joy of discussing the matter again. What is
important is the illustration of the Bills
unworkability.
Andrew
Miller:
It may help the Committee to know that both the
Musicians Union and the Broadcasting Entertainment
Cinematograph and Theatre Union have advised me that they would not
support the amendment of the right hon. Member for East
Yorkshireeven though he is a
musician.
I
do not think that the crux of the amendment is
alteredemployment agencies do not employ temporary workers;
temporary agencies employ temporary workers. Whatever the agency calls
itself makes no difference, because what is important is what it does.
What it does defines where it stands under the law. It would be
completely inappropriate to put this bureaucratic stranglehold on
employment agencies. Therefore, I regret that I am unable to withdraw
the amendment. There should be a vote on the
record.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:
The
Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes
6.
Division
No.
2
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly negatived.
The
amendment would delete subsection (3), which applies the pro rata
temporis principle. What exactly is the principle being applied to? In
lay terms, the principle is, if I am an agency worker I should get
equivalent benefits. What are we talking aboutpension rights,
bonuses, gym membership? It is difficult to understand how one could
possibly pro rata all those benefits. While one could make the case for
equivalent pay, there are two problems regarding benefits and other
things that accrue to a permanent employee in a company. There is the
practical problem of how to achieve that aim, and there is a
philosophical problem. Why should a temporary worker automatically
receive the same benefits as a long-serving employee, if they will be
there for only a few days, weeks or months? Theoretically it is
possible to apply the principle to basic pay, but what about the many
small businesses with no formal pay bands? My concern is that the
principle could open the door to thousands of tribunal cases, which
might fill the pockets of the lawyers but do nothing to improve
fairness and the lot of temporary and agency
workers.
We
have referred to the European legislation going though at the moment,
saying that we should not discuss it today because there is a parallel
process in Europe that may affect the legitimacy of any legislation
passed here. In Europe, one can see widely accepted pay bands in
industry, but in the UK so much is informal, so finding a comparable
pay band is extremely
difficult.
Mr.
Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): Good morning,
Mr. Hancock. The nature of the discussion of the amendment
is similar to a clause stand part debate, so I will speak more fully to
the whole clause at that
point.
Andrew
Miller:
I urge colleagues to reject the amendment. In
clause 5 there is a definition of the pro rata temporis principle, and
I direct colleagues to the phrase, comparable direct
worker. The word comparable clearly takes into
account different rates that may be applicable in a workplace,
reflecting length of service and so on. The most important point that I
make to the hon. Lady is that there ought to be a comparison between
people, whether they are in full-time or part-time work. Leaving the
Bill to one side, I am sure that she would accept that part-timers in
normal workplace environments should not be disadvantaged with regard
to pay and progression and gaining additional holidays and sick pay,
just because they are part time.
9.45
am
Andrew
Miller:
If someone does not work the same hours, they will
not get the same pay as someone who works longer, and the same
principle applies when someone has not been working for as long as
someone else in a workplace in which there is a means of gaining higher
benefits through an established system of progression, and that is
perfectly reasonable. In my model, a temporary worker would move along
the same pathway as someone who came into the job on a permanent basis,
but that is not intended, because of the use of the term
comparable direct worker, to provide any incoming
temporary agency worker with a means of leaping up the pay scale to a
median point. It would be a comparable position, and comparable means
comparable.
Lorely
Burt:
I have tabled an amendment to clause 2 to
substantiate what the hon. Gentleman has just said. If we are going to
go down that road, it should be clear that a temporary worker cannot
just come in and get all the benefits that every other worker should
have. It would amend the clause to insert the words
at the point of
recruitment
for those
who come into a business at an initial stage, and the hon. Gentleman
might be minded to accept that
amendment.
Lorely
Burt:
I was just referring to it in passing,
Mr. Hancock, and do not want to try your
patience.
Tony
Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): The problem with the
hon. Ladys amendment is that, whether by design or accident, it
would blow a complete hole through the purpose of the Bill,
specifically because, were there to be an exemption for part-time
workers, it is not beyond the wit of management to come up with a
system in which, for example, part time would mean 40 minutes or half
an hour less than full time. If that drove a coach and horses through
the whole spirit of comparability, it would render the Bill null and
void.
Lorely
Burt:
I think I see where the hon. Gentlemans
comment came from. He is reading pro rata temporis as meaning part-time
work, whereas I mean temporary work, and temporary full-time work,
rather than temporary part-time work. The fault is probably mine, as it
was not my stated intention to refer to part-time workers. I was
actually referring to temporary workers and I apologise if I caused any
misunderstanding in that
respect.
Tony
Lloyd:
That is helpful, but would the hon. Lady, in that
case, go as far as withdrawing her amendment, which would be the
logical conclusion of where we had got to? If the Committee refers to
the notes in clause 5, which mention the pro rata temporis principle,
it will see that that refers to proportionality
with regard to weekly hours. It is clear that it refers to the
proportionality in terms of weekly hours, and while the subsection may
also refer to temporary workers, if it is to make any sense, it can
refer only to part-time workers.
I hope that the hon. Lady will
withdraw the amendment, as that would be for the convenience of the
Committee. However, for the sake of completeness, I refer the Committee
to clause 1 (2) (b), which
states:
Subsection
(1) above applies only
if
...the
treatment is not justified on objective
grounds.
In any case,
when considering whether part-time, or even temporary, workers are
being treated unfairly, objective circumstances would certainly be
taken into consideration in defence of the difference of treatment. It
is not as if there is no defence built into the clause already. Given
the hon. Ladys ownership of a mistaken principle, perhaps it
would be sensible if I invited her to withdraw her
amendment.
The
Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs (Mr.
Pat McFadden):
I have a few questions for the hon. Member
for Solihull. As the Committee knows, I think that there are a number
of flaws in the Bill, but I am not sure that the pro rata principle is
one of them. It is not unknown in other employment legislation to
ensure that people working part time have benefits on a pro rata basis.
For example, under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable
Treatment) Regulations 2000, workers already have pro rata rights. That
would cover part-time agency workers and I am not sure why she would
object to the same principle here. If she is talking about temporary
employees on fixed-term contracts, those are covered by the fixed-term
employee regulations that came into force in 2002 following the EU
fixed term contracts directive.
A fixed-term employee is
defined as
a person
with a contract of employment which is due to end when a specified date
is reached.
Under those
regulations, fixed-term employees have the right not to be treated less
favourably than comparable permanent employees because they are on a
temporary, fixed-term contract.
I want to explore with the hon.
Lady what the amendment tries to get at. Presumably she understands
that part-time work is an important and flexible option both for
businesses and employees. In todays times, people often have to
juggle with a number of different responsibilities. Why would she want
to move an amendment to not confer pro rata benefits on those workers?
If her real objection is about pro rata of what, rather than the
principle itself, surely there are other ways of dealing with that.
There are a number of flaws in the Bill but the substantial issue is
that of precisely what is covered by equal treatment, not whether
part-time agency workers should get pro rata benefits compared to
full-time agency workers. The focus of her concern about pro rata,
should not be about the pro rata principle, but be about what is meant
by equal treatment.
The draft directive, which
serves as the backdrop to the Bill, defines what is covered by equal
treatment. It
is not exactly the same definition as the one before us, but perhaps
that is not a discussion for the moment. However we come to making
progress on the issue of agency workers, defining what equal treatment
covers and what it does not will be important because we are talking
about usually relatively short-term placements.
The issues
surrounding hourly rates of pay are perhaps easier to compare; issues
regarding other benefits that tend to go with long-term association
with an employer are more difficult to include. The directive makes an
attempt to deal with that problem by including some issues and
excluding others, so it is possible to define what is being compared
when we talk about equal treatment, but I am not sure whether the hon.
Ladys path would be correct, in removing the right of pro rata
benefits to part-time workers. My question is: what exactly is she
driving at with the amendment? It seems an odd way to deal with the
problem of defining what is covered by equal
treatment.
Adam
Price:
I agree with the Minister; we cannot have an equal
treatment Bill without some agreed measure of comparability. That is
true whether, as he said, we are talking about full-time and part-time
workers, or whether we are talking about equal pay between men and
women. One has to have a way of measuring comparability and the pro
rata temporis principle has been widely accepted in other legislation.
If the amendment were passed, it would completely hollow out the Bill
and there would be no mechanism to achieve its objectives.
The Minister is right that
perhaps the debate that the hon. Lady wishes to have is what
constitutes equal treatment and what we should include in the
definition of basic working and employment conditions. It should be
reiterated that the Bill does not say that there should be complete
equal treatmentwe are talking about basic working and
employment conditions as set out in the Bill. That is, of course, the
case in other contexts of equal treatment also, but the amendment would
render the rest of the Bill completely otiose and that is presumably
why the hon. Member for Huntingdon is going to speak against it. I urge
the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment because I am not sure that it
would achieve the objectives that she had in mind when she drafted
it.
Lorely
Burt:
When I read the pro rata temporis definition, I saw
that it refers to agency workers and I therefore took it to mean all
agency workers, whether part-time or full-time. I wholeheartedly
endorse the point that was made about the importance of part-time
workers having the same pro rata rights and entitlements as full-time
workers and if I have given rise to any misunderstanding that I was in
some way seeking to remove those rights from part-time workers, I
certainly wish to dispel that idea.
My concern is
that the pay and benefits are being pro ratad and that they are
the pay and benefits accruing to the employer of the temporary or
agency worker. Such workers have a contract, they have employment
conditions and protections, but those are the protections of the
organisation that they have the contract with, which is the employment
agency and not whichever company they happen to be working for at a
particular time. There is concern about the energy and effort that
would
have to go into providing the pro rata benefits that would accrue. On
pensions, for example, we would have to engage someone in the
employers pension scheme, even though they were not an employee
of that employer. There are some fundamental contradictions. Given the
comments from hon. Members, which may have elucidated matters, I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Question proposed, That
the clause stand part of the
Bill.
10
am
Mr.
Djanogly:
We have problems with this clause and,
therefore, the Bill on many different levels. I thought that at this
stage it would be appropriate to call a stand part debate so that I
could set out those problems. First, there is no definition of
temporary worker. Without clarification of the meaning of this
fundamental term it is impossible fully to gauge the scope and
application of the Bill or the clause. Secondly, we do not think that
employment agencies should come within the scope of the provision. The
individual seeking work has no contract with the employment agency when
it carries out its service, so it makes no sense to compare the
treatment of said individual by the employment agency with that of a
person who is employed under contract as a direct
worker.
Clause 1
represents a one-size-fits-all approach to giving agency workers the
same rights as those given to direct workers. This misses the key
point. There is a huge range of different circumstances in which agency
workers are used. The Bill has been put forward on the premise that
temporary and agency workers are unsatisfied with their current
treatment. That is simply not true in the majority of cases, as borne
out by statistical evidence. The term
basic working and employment
conditions
is poorly
defined and confusing in its implications.
Finally, the provision drafted
into subsection (2), which attempts to allow for different treatment of
direct workers and agency workers, lacks clarity. For instance, there
is no definition of the objective grounds on which an employer can
lawfully pay an agency less than a comparable direct worker. For those
reasons alone, I shall recommend to my colleagues that we divide on
this matter.
Andrew
Miller:
The clause is fairly straightforward. It sets out
the basic principle that shows a clear distinction between the views
held by Members on this side of the Committeethat includes my
hon. Friend the Minister, who has a different opinion about the method
by which the problem is addressedand those of Opposition
Members. I was fascinated to hear that agency workers are satisfied and
that the statistics bear that out; that hardly reflects the views
expressed by the agency workers who have approached me about the Bill
and its formulation. Nor does it reflect the views of a number of
reputable agencies, which recognise that there are unacceptable
practices in their
industry.
I find it
difficult to see where the hon. Member for Huntingdon is coming from.
The simple reality is that the Bill sets out a principle that he
fundamentally disagrees with. He is using his comments on clause 1
stand part to disguise his position, which is that he does not believe
in giving support to this category of workers. If the clause is voted
down, it will damage the intentions behind the Bill. He believes that
workers in this category are satisfied, but he does not produce any
evidence for that.
The
hon. Gentleman rightly says that a huge range of circumstances apply in
agencies, and the reason for the breadth of the definitions used in the
clause is to cover the various circumstances. We had a long discussion
last week about the position of musicians. We have discussed categories
of people who are employed in different circumstances, and agencies
that are structured in different ways. It is vital that the Bill start
by ensuring that any worker who is employed through an agency-type
arrangement is covered by the Bill. Not to do so would do a disservice
to a significant number of
people.
I appreciate
that the hon. Gentleman may not be able to produce wholly reliable
statistics on this issue. He is relying on surveys conducted by people
who are asking their employees, Are you satisfied? If
the reply is no, the employee does not get a job the next day; if it is
yes, perhaps they will get a days work. To my mind, that is not
a satisfactory way to produce meaningful statistics. I ask the hon.
Gentleman to reflect on his contention that agency workers are a
satisfied breed.
There
are severe problems for agency workers, but there are some excellent
agencies. There are several in my own constituency with which I have
first-rate relationships. There are agencies that follow a model such
as that advocated by the Minister, and that do their best to place
people in jobs and develop them into permanent employees. That is a
sound approach. Such companies act in the first instance as an
employment agency and gradually get people into permanent places; they
then look around for other people to join. That kind of practice is
very good.
As I
explained on Second Reading, there are agencies that have serious
ethical problems with some of the practices that are going on to drive
down wages, particularly by manipulating the rights of migrant workers.
There are agencies that work hard to ensure that they do not get
trapped into using those practices. Those agencies should be applauded,
but that does not alter the fact that case after case is brought to my
attention involving circumstances that are deplorable by the standards
of the 21st century. I have examined some of them personally. One would
hope, given the discussions happening outside this place and the
commitment that the Department has given, that those practices will be
severely curtailed by strong use of the existing legislation. To
suggest that there is a great deal of satisfaction with current
practice among agency workers is fundamentally
wrong.
I do not accept
that the definitions in the clause are inaccurate, and even if they
were, I do not see that as a principled reason for rejecting it. If
somebody believes the clause to be insufficiently precise, they should
follow the lead set by the hon. Member for Solihull and seek to amend
it. As the hon. Member for Huntingdon did not do so, I presume that
there is a fundamental political difference between him and
me.
Andrew
Miller:
The hon. Gentleman nods in agreement. The truth is
that he does not want the Bill and that he does not want agency workers
to be protected at any cost. I urge my colleagues to support the
clause, which I believe is fundamental to resolving agency
workers problems
properly.
Mr.
McFadden:
Throughout the debate, there has been a lot of
talk about whether there should be a qualifying period, given the
nature of agency work and its relationship to flexibility. Why is the
clause silent on
that?
Andrew
Miller:
I deliberately drafted the clause without a
qualifying period because a principle of fairness should apply. It
starts from the premise that if two people are working alongside each
other and have the same skills, experience and qualifications, they
ought to be entitled to the same pay. I recognise that we are
considering a complex set of circumstances, and I accept that a single
qualifying period would simplify the problem and enable us to deal with
all sets of circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Minister has
mentioned that the draft directive, the Portuguese attempt to create a
compromise, included a fixed qualifying period. However, that would not
be my first-choice solution. I accept that it is very practical, and I
can well see there being a sensible compromise based on it. My view is
that we should drive a few lawyers out of human resources. Discussions
about comparators and qualifying periods should be addressed on a far
more common-sense basis. We should not allow ourselves to go for the
simplest solution. I appreciate that we are looking for a pan-European
solution, and that a tidy compromise might be necessary. On that basis,
I would be happy if my hon. Friend the Minister came back on Report
with an amendment that had a sensible qualifying period. By sensible, I
do not mean the kind of 12-month date that has been kicking
around.
10.15
am
Lorely
Burt:
If the hon. Gentleman has the stated intention of
driving the lawyers out of HR, what is his estimate of the additional
number of jobs that would be created in the associated occupations of
the tribunal system? How many tribunals would be created as a result of
implementing the Bills
conditions?
Andrew
Miller:
To avoid getting drawn into discussing clause 4, I
will answer the hon. Lady in a couple of sentences. I have always taken
the view that we need a simple system of arbitration that is strong
and, possibly, enforceable, outwith tribunal cases. Of course,
tribunals must be there as the last resortpeople must have
their right to a day in court. However, as a means of driving tribunals
out of the process, I would prefer that we move toward a strong process
of arbitration that can be enforced. Obviously, in collectively
bargained workplaces such matters would be dealt with inside the
workplace. To avoid masses of tribunals, especially for the small and
medium-sized enterprises sector, there needs to be a mechanism. That is
why my hon. Friend the Minister recognised that there needed to be a
money resolution.
I urge colleagues to support the
clause, which is fundamental to the Bill. I accept that my hon. Friend
the Minister raised a perfectly fair point. If we moved toward a neat
and tidy solution in having a single qualifying period, I could be
easily persuaded to support such an amendment if it were tabled on
Report.
Ms
Dawn Butler (Brent, South) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend
explore a little further the comment made about temporary or agency
workers who are happy in their jobs? Is it true that, although some
temporary workersperhaps some session musicianswho can
command higher salaries for temporary work may indeed be happy, the
Bill deals with people at the lower end of the scale? Therefore, those
who are happy would not seek recourse to the law. For those who are
unhappy, the Bill provides an avenue through which to seek equal
treatment.
Andrew
Miller:
I do not necessarily think that it is about where
people are in the pecking order of jobs. There is substantial evidence
of exploitation in all areas of work. Examples are perhaps most readily
identifiable in certain manual occupationsparticularly food
processing and agricultureand some of them are quite
horrendous. Quite a number have been brought to my attention in places
such as call centres, where people have fairly long training paths.
Some of those training paths are quite long, and I would expect such a
person to move along the path in the same way as a permanent worker.
Some interesting practices also occur in health trusts, in that
adjacent trusts treat people in an entirely different way. Okay, they
are individual employers under the structure of that service, but it is
pretty anomalous that an adjacent health trust should treat people
differently.
The
question of social care causes me great concern. People undertake that
work through convictionthrough the love of looking after fellow
human beings. In some circumstances, they may be happy in the work that
they are doing, but not satisfied with their remuneration and the way
they are treated by certain agencies. There are worrying examples
throughout the country of people being forced to choose between doing
work that they deeply and passionately care about, and leaving to do
other work, when social care needs more people with the right mental
approach. It is shameful that some agencies are driving out highly
committed people.
Lorely
Burt:
The hon. Gentleman is being very patient in taking
interventions this morning. On unacceptable exploitation, I completely
agree that it would be entirely inappropriate to depress pay rates for
anyone doing a good job in caring or any other occupation. However, the
employment agency industry is a thriving, competitive industry. Does he
accept that in some circumstances, although obviously not all, if
someone is not happy with a particular employment agency, there will be
more than one agency in the local area, andunless uncompetitive
practices are being engaged inone that will pay them a
reasonable rate for the
job?
Reference was
also made to making people happy and the question of whether they are
happy in their work. Constituents have come to me and said,
Great to hear what you are doing, Lorely, because we are very
concerned about this Bill.
Lorely
Burt:
If I may, I will take just a couple more seconds to
finish this point. Because of the Bill, people such as professional
contractors will have to receive a pay cut in order to get exactly the
same pay and conditions.
Andrew
Miller:
I will deal with the last point first. The hon.
Lady needs to read further into the Bill. I anticipate that my hon.
Friend the Minister, when he enacts the Bill, will introduce secondary
legislation under clause 4(1)(e)he has thought about it
alreadywhich deals with
the applicability of the rights
to special classes of
employment.
The Bill is
a private Members Bill and, as usual, such Bills need to be
relatively
straightforward.
The
hon. Lady raises a perfectly fair issue. As I have said to the
Professional Contractors Group and to other professional organisations,
it is not my intention that the Bill should cover people who sell their
professional services through an agency, rather than setting up a
limited company. There are people in IT and in power
engineeringparticularly in the nuclear sectorin that
category. The Bill is not intended to cover them. My problem, as the
drafter of a private Members Bill, was that the definitional
issues needed considerably more work than I could undertake, given my
resources. I passed that responsibility to the Minister for his civil
servants to ponder. There are some difficult definitional issues when
we come to the secondary
legislation.
Nobody
in the Committee would want the Bill to cover those categories of
workers, whatever their views about the broader issue of agency
workers. However, we do not want a loophole that means that a building
contractor, for example, can say to a shuttering carpenter,
Ill tell you whatregister yourself on this
piece of paper as a professional contractor and we can dodge the
Bill. There are some difficult definitional issues, and there
needs to be a dialogue between the Minister and the stakeholders to
ensure that we do not end up with such a loophole, whether through my
Bill or any other mechanism that
emerges.
I have
drifted on to clause 4, which was not my intention, Mr.
Hancock. With those remarks, I urge colleagues to support the clause
unamended. I point out to the Minister that I understand why he posed
the question about a qualifying period. A logical case can be made for
a qualifying period, and if agreement can be reached on that, I would
be delighted to see the Bill so amended on
Report.
Lorely
Burt:
I have made all of the points that I wanted to make.
In response to my last intervention, the hon. Gentleman said that it
was not his intention to make professional contractors and others whose
services attract a premium suffer. However, my understanding is that
that would be the Bills effect. While it is vital that
vulnerable workers in all areas be protected, by imposing this
sledgehammer to crack a nut, he is catching in his net whole categories
of agency employees who do not want to be caught. If enforced, the
current legislation that protects all employees would provide many of
the protections that the Bill would
re-impose.
Mr.
Frank Doran (Aberdeen, North) (Lab): I obviously support
the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston
that the clause should stand part of the Bill. It is a fundamental
clause that sets out the categories of workers that will be
covered.
I am
interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Solihull that the
complexity of the proposals would add to the work of lawyers. I have no
wish to do anything to harm the career prospects or financial situation
of any of my former colleagues, but one of the reasons why the
legislation is so complex is that employers try constantly to get round
existing law. Employment tribunals are stuffed with lawyers because
employers decided to bring them into the system. The original system
was set up to be an informal process for dealing with problems at
work.
I first
represented someone in an employment tribunal in 1976, a year after the
Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 came into force. The
involvement of lawyers was unusual at the time, but it has now grown. I
was recently involved in a case with the offshore trade unions. The
legal bill has grown to more than £1 million, and that is not
the collective bill but the bill for each side. That is a fact of
life.
10.30
am
Laws need to be
written clearly and definitively. Of course, there will always be areas
of argumentthis Committee is an example of how arguments
developbut, if the aim of the Bill is to protect vulnerable
workers, it will necessarily be complex and precise. I am a Scots
lawyer. Scots law depends on principle, not precedent, but the Bill is
written to cover the whole of the UK, so every t has to
be crossed. It is extremely important that the clause stand part of the
Bill.
I listened
carefully to the hon. Member for Huntingdon, and I want to pick up on a
couple of points that he made. He said that the Bill takes a
one-size-fits-all approach, and that that is the wrong approach. He is
absolutely right to point out that there are different kinds of agency
workers. I mentioned my involvement with the oil industry. There are
about 20,000 workers offshore in the oil and gas industry, all working
out of Aberdeen, where my constituency
is.
Some people in the
industry are delighted to be agency workers. They tend to be highly
skilled, and they are very much in demand at a time when we have a
severe skills shortage. They are highly paid, and the only arguments
that I have ever had with them was over the section 85 tax legislation
that dealt with some of the income tax abuses. Colleagues may remember
that from a few years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port
and Neston was heavily involved in that in respect of some of his
constituents.
Some
agency workers develop into substantial businesses. One small company
in my constituency started off as two men working in a garage. It
recently opened a factory where it employs 100 workers. It works in a
very technical area and has helped the subsea industry based in
Aberdeen to become probably one of the leading subsea industries in the
world.
I accept what
the hon. Member for Huntingdon said about there being different types
of agency workers, but the aim of the Bill, as I am sure Labour members
of the Committee understand, is to deal with exploited workers and those
who are not in the privileged position of having marketable special
skills. We are talking mainly about semi-skilled or unskilled workers
and, occasionally, foreign immigrant workers as
well.
Jim
Dowd (Lewisham, West) (Lab): My hon. Friend and the hon.
Member for Huntingdon mentioned the satisfaction or otherwise of
temporary and agency workers. Will my hon. Friend accept that that is
the primary purpose of the Bill, but that there is a secondary and
equally beneficial element to it, which is equal treatment with the
permanent work force and the cohesion of the work force? The aim is not
only that temporary and agency workers are not exploited but that the
position of the permanent work force is not undermined by the use of
such
workers.
Mr.
Doran:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When Labour
came to office in 1997, we had a policy to develop the principle of a
flexible work force, which was necessary in a global economy. At the
same time, we wanted to establish a floor of minimum rights that were
available to every worker and that protected them from exploitation. We
have done that job remarkably well through, for example, the minimum
wage and several other measures such as the Employment Rights (Dispute
Resolution) Act 1998 and subsequent legislation. One thing that we have
not doneit is unfinished business for many of usis deal
with the problem of agency workers. That is what the Bill is intended
to
do.
The
hon. Member for Huntingdon said that in the vast majority of cases,
agency workers are not exploited. I do not know where he gets that
information from. Most of the surveys that I have seen have been of
employers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston
said in relation to a previous amendment, the workers who tend to be
surveyed are not going to tick a box to say that they are dissatisfied
with their work. Most of them are too scared, and they are not prepared
to put their employment at
risk.
It is worth
looking at a recent survey that was part of a process that has been
started by the TUC. It published last week the latest findings of a
commission on vulnerable employment that it has set up. That commission
includes a number of distinguished representatives of not just the
trade union world but business, including Kevin Beeston, the chairman
of Serco, a large international company, and Paul Myners, chair of the
Land Securities Group. The executive summary of its report
states:
The
Commission on Vulnerable Employment estimate that around two million
workers in the UK find themselves in vulnerable employmentwhich
we
the
TUC
define as
precarious work that places people at risk of continuing poverty and
injustice resulting from an imbalance of power in the employer-worker
relationship.
Again, the
focus is on vulnerable
workers.
Interesting
evidence was submitted to the commission by Community, the trade union.
As I have said, most of the surveys that have been conducted have been
of employers, and if we go directly to agency workers, they do not give
honest replies, for their own
protection. Community surveyed its members across a wide range of
workplaces. It organises and represents workers across the UK in steel,
wire, textiles, footwear, knitwear, betting shops and the voluntary
sector. In particular, it has looked after the interests of the blind
since it merged with the union that previously represented
them.
Some of the
findings of Communitys survey were interesting. Some 75 per
cent. of workplaces surveyed used temporary and agency workers, which
is quite a high proportion. In those workplaces, 40 per cent. of
temporary contracts rarely lasted more than a week. Those involved are
often unskilled workersOn the Waterfront is one
of my favourite films, and it shows the sort of employment situation
that exists. People are picked for work on an almost daily basis in
some cases. According to Communitys findings, some workers in
factories such as I have mentioned are on just two hours
notice, which is a difficult position for any employee to be
in.
Community found
that temporary and agency workers are paid less than permanent
employees in 56 per cent. of workplaces surveyed. That relates
to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West made
that temporary workers can undermine the terms and conditions of
existing workers. More than 60 per cent. of temporary and
agency workers are not entitled to the same holidays as permanent
staff. Again, that undermines conditions, as does the fact that in 40
per cent. of workplaces, temporary and agency workers are replacing
what would normally be overtime for permanent staff.
We should remember that the
union has membership in each of the workplaces surveyed, and
recognition in most of them. Terms and conditions are negotiated
between the employer and the union, on behalf of its members and all
the employees. They therefore tend to be the better workshops and
places of employment, where there is independent
negotiation.
Mr.
Jim McGovern (Dundee, West) (Lab): My hon. Friend mentions
the trade union, Community. I had a disagreement with my wife after the
Committee last week. She is a fully trained secretary and went to
college when she left school and took up the appropriate training. When
an agency worker comes into her workplace, it is generally considered
that if they can use a keyboard and a computer, they are a secretary.
My wife asked why a person who simply has keyboard skills should be
paid the same rate as her, a fully trained secretary. Perhaps I should
point out that my wife is employed by Unite, the trade
union.
Mr.
Doran:
I think I would prefer it if my hon. Friend sorted
out his domestic disputes himself, but he makes a fair point. I said
last week that I tended to use reputable employment agencies when I was
employing. But on the odd occasion I had someone who just was not up to
the job. That is a problem for the reputation of the agency. There is a
problem there, but we are talking about the situation in which there
are comparable skills. If I enter into a contract with an employment
agency to give me someone with a specified range of skills and these
skills are not there, I have to sort that out with the agency as it is
not maintaining its side of the contract. As for my hon.
Friends wife, I understand her grievance and I hope that it does
not carry on into the rest of their
relationship.
Another
important point that is brought out in the survey is that in 34 per
cent. of workplaces, permanent employees are always replaced by
temporary and agency workers. In some areas, we are seeing a drift.
Employers no longer want to take on the full responsibility of
permanent employment. The security in employment at some established
workplaces is being eroded because of the growing tendency for
flexibility and to hire people who can be removed and disposed of very
quickly. That is a worrying trend. Obviously it undermines the
confidence of permanent workers as it becomes much more attractive for
management who have no need to hire these temporary replacement
workers. Some of those workers, as we know, become almost permanent.
They are temporary permanent workers and can sometimes be employed for
years. There has been some whittling away of that process in the
employment tribunal system which we discussed earlier. Nevertheless, it
is a serious trend that is destabilising for the rest of the work force
and concerning because there is always the fear that ones own
job is next.
There
will come a point in some companies when it is cheaper to make someone
redundant, or manufacture a redundancy and take on temporary workers as
a replacement. That clearly creates more instability in the system.
There is also evidence from the survey that some employers are actively
discouraging temporary workers from joining a union. That is
disturbing, particularly as this survey took place in areas where there
are established relationships between the unions and
management.
There are
many issues that will be discussed as the Bill progresses. The basic
point is that clause 1 is fundamental to the Bill. It sets out the
target group of workers who are to be protected and how that is to be
done. Removing the clause would fatally weaken the Bill. Of course,
that is the Oppositions intention. I am sorry about that. It is
an area where, given some of the evidence that is available to us, we
should be able to find some consensus and a way forward. But if that is
not possible, we must vote in favour of the
clause.
10.45
am
Mr.
McFadden:
The clause is very important. It gets to the
heart of the issue about agency workers, which has been debated for
some time. First, we must ask what the problem is that we are
attempting to resolve. We have heard examples from my hon. Friends
about good and reputable practice from employment businesses that
supply agency workers and try to secure the best possible deal for
them, and we all accept that that is a perfectly legitimate part of the
labour market. The issue about agency workers that has given rise to
debate has not been about that reputable end of the market. Rather, it
has been about whether there is unfairness in the system and whether
people can be hired on much lower wages for a lengthy period of time
when they are, in effect, replacing long-term staff.
None of us
would object to the use of agency work to fill in short-term
fluctuations in demand. For example, some companies may experience a
boom at Christmas, during the summer or over a particular period of the
year. It may not make sense for that company to hire permanent staff,
when it knows that the period in which it needs agency staff will be
relatively limited. There may be an unforeseen spike in orders, where
it is simply quicker and more beneficial to get agency staff in, or for
a number of other reasons. There are also other industries, such as the
entertainment industry which we talked about last week, where by its
very nature, the placement is likely to be short-termsometimes
it could be a matter of hours.
However,
there are other parts of the terrain where we have heard about agency
workers being employed, sometimes on less generous terms and conditions
and, for periods of years so that they are, in effect, permatemps. I
think that reference was made to that in earlier discussions, and it
ranges through the whole terrain of short-term placements, perhaps
numbered in a period of hours right up to a period of years. The
question before any of us who are trying to legislate in this area is
about how we attempt to resolve the problems of mistreatment or
unfairness where they exist, without causing an unnecessary reduction
in labour market flexibility for the rest of the economy. That is what
employment rights legislation seeks to achieve.
I do not believe that there is
always a trade-off between greater employment and fewer employment
rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North referred to the
initial aims of the Government when we came into power, and 11 years
on, we now have more than 2.5 million more people in work, and just
about all of those are in work enjoying more employment rights than
would have been the case a decade ago. As a Government, we have shown
that we can deal with mistreatment or unfairness, or simply improve the
condition of people at work, without threatening the economys
job-creating potential. That is because we have always been considered
and careful about how we have extended those
rights.
I
want to discuss several issues with regard to the clause, which I hope
my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will be able to
respond to. I mentioned the qualifying period. That is important in
several respects. The clause is silent on that issue, yet I have
described the hugely differing nature of agency work placements.
Placements can range from a few hours to several years. The Bill is
silent as to whether there should be a period before which new rules
come into force. That has been the subject of great discussion in the
debate on the European directive. There are firm views. Some member
states say that there should be no qualifying period, that there should
be equal treatment from the first day of employment, but that
collective agreements may also operate, whereby equal treatment might
not kick in until after a specific period. Other member states,
including the UK, have said that there should be a qualifying period to
take account of the wide variety of agency work, and to focus the
debate about equal treatment where unfairness and mistreatment is
greatest. That is why a qualifying period is important in this debate.
The clause is silent on that, and therefore its effect would be that
equal treatment would have to be introduced on the first day of
employment.
Perhaps that
brings us to the domestic discussion in Dundee recently, about how one
compares one worker with another. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee,
West may, if the subject comes up again, wish to referor not,
one always has to think flexibly in such circumstancesto the
directives attempt to deal with the issue that his wife raised.
That issue is that the comparison should not be with permanent workers
as such, but with a worker whose conditions are at least those that
would apply if they had been recruited directly by that undertaking to
occupy the same job. Therefore some attempt is made to deal with issues
such as experience and training. The comparison would not be with my
hon. Friends wife, who trained and increased her skills and
therefore her selling power in the labour market, but with a permanent
worker with the same skills as the agency worker, if they were hired on
the same day. That takes some account of the difficulty of comparing
one worker with another. The issue of a qualifying period is important,
and the silence of the clause on that means that it fails to take
account of the wide variety of agency workers and
placements.
Jim
Dowd:
I am sensitive to the idea that there is a problem
about the qualifying period, but will the Minister expand on that and
say what the Governments position is? There are hon. Members
who believe that people have rights based on what they do, rather than
on how long they have been doing it. The Minister has said on a number
of occasions that there is no qualifying period. Can he give the
Committee a broad outline of what period he contemplates as being
necessary to rectify the defects that he identifies in the
Bill?
Mr.
McFadden:
A wide variety of opinions have been expressed
on that matter. The current draft of the directive mentions a period up
to six weeks; others have argued for a significantly longer period. The
Government have said that there should be more flexibility than that in
the arrangements.
On
the other part of my hon. Friends questionthat it is
what people do that matters rather than how long they have been doing
itit is not unknown for qualifying periods to be part of our
employment rights framework. I could give him a couple of examples. We
have successful right-to-request flexible working in operation in our
labour market at the moment: it applies to parents of children up to
the age of six and to those with caring responsibilities. In fact, that
has been so successful that the Government instituted a review of it
recently, headed by Imelda Walsh, head of human resources at
Sainsburys, with a view to extending that right to request to
parents of older children. That right to request requires that a person
exercises their right in a qualifying period of six months, because
building up a relationship with an employer, which may be a small
business, is important before exercising such flexibility. So
qualifying periods are not
unknown.
Andrew
Miller:
My hon. Friend the Minister makes a fair point,
but I am sure that he accepts that the clause would not provide for an
agency worker coming in on
day one and obtaining those rights, because it refers to less favourable
employment conditions than those for a comparable direct
worker. Comparable means a persons
having followed the same pathway as that direct
worker.
Mr.
McFadden:
I was going to come to
comparable, because it is important and requires
definition. As I have said, the draft directive attempts to give some
definition to that term, which is important in this field, partly
because of the potential for litigation, as my hon. Friend the Member
for Aberdeen, North mentioned. I am not convinced that simply talking
about comparable without any attempt at defining it in
context or differently from the directivebringing us back to
our possibly being second-guessed if there is a wider
agreementis necessarily the right way forward on this
issue.
Mr.
Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): The Minister is
tantalising the Committee, but not satisfying it. Will he say what
qualifying period he has been arguing for in Europe? If the Bill were
an unstoppable vehicle into which he had the opportunity of inserting a
qualifying period at some point in its proceedings, what period would
he advise us to go
for?
Mr.
McFadden:
We have been discussing the matter intently with
businesses, trade unions and our European partners. Much as the right
hon. Gentleman tempts or presses me, the answer is not as simple as my
plucking number of days, weeks or months out of the air. It is
something that rightly should be based on taking important soundings
from voices in business and the trade
unions.
11
am
Qualifying
periods are not unknown in employment rights legislation. I referred to
flexible working. We can also consider unfair dismissal. When the
Conservative party was in power, the qualifying period for accessing
rights under unfair dismissal was two years. When we came into power,
we took a different view and reduced it to one year. We thought that
two years was too long and changed the legislation, but a qualifying
period was again built in. It is not something that is unheard of, nor
is it necessarily in itself unfair. It is based on the recognition
that, of course, some rights should kick in from day one. None of us
would expect someone to have to work for six or 12 months before
accessing the minimum
wage.
Mr.
McFadden:
Even among Opposition Members, I am sure that
that is the case. People also accrue their rights to paid leave from
the beginning of their employment. Some rights are there from the first
day of employment, but others are built up over time. Another example
that comes to mind was referred to by the hon. Member for Solihull when
she talked about occupational pensions. It is not unheard of for a
business to say that, before someone can access the pension scheme,
they should have been working there for a time12 months, for
example. Occupational
benefits are associated with a more long-term involvement with the
employers. The qualifying period is
important.
Andrew
Miller:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I
have always argued that the agency worker should follow the same
pathway as a permanent employee. If a permanent appointee on day one
receives particular rights, why should an agency worker not receive
them?
Mr.
McFadden:
I appreciate my hon. Friends point, but
I have set out my position on a qualifying period fairly clearly.
However, let us consider the potential, unintended consequences of a
day-one right inhibiting the route from benefit into work that agency
work often provides. Some people use agency work as a stepping stone to
permanent employment. Many agency workers were previously outside the
labour market because they were unemployed, students or for another
reason. In fact, a European business survey estimates that in the
United Kingdom it could be about a third or more of agency workers.
Short-term placements can be important in giving people a stepping
stone from unemployment, either official unemployment or because they
might be outside the labour market for some reason, to perhaps
permanent employment in the future. That is a difficulty with the
clause.
Another
difficulty is comparators. The Bill refers to a comparable
direct worker. My hon. Friend clarified that by talking about
the path that such a worker would take. The comparison should therefore
be between an agency worker and a comparable direct worker. To use a
colloquial expression, that would do it for him, but I am not sure
whether it would do it for the labour market as a whole. A more precise
definition of who is to be compared with whom is important in this
case. After all, to go back to my first point, what is the unfairness
that we are attempting to address? It is the perceived unfairness, not
just that agency workers are hiredI think that we have laid
that ghost to rest and people are not trying to stop that
practicebut that they are in effect doing the same job as a
long-term worker. Simply talking about a comparable direct worker does
not sufficiently take account of the difficulties. The terms and
conditions should be at least those that would apply if a worker had
been recruited directly by that undertaking to occupy the same job.
That is significantly more precise in terms of what we are talking
about.
Mr.
Knight:
For the avoidance of any doubt, is the
Ministers position that he would like to have a qualifying
period of 12 months, but that because the pass has been sold to the
European Union and we are now no longer masters of our own destiny, he
has to wait and see what consensus is arrived at in these EU
discussions before he dare mention a qualifying
period?
Mr.
McFadden:
I have to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman
on several counts. I have certainly not said that my preference or the
Governments preference is for a qualifying period of 12 months.
That would be too long. He tempts me, perhaps by a process of
salami-slicing, to now settle on a time, but we are not
talking about that kind of qualifying period. The examples that I have
used from existing employment legislation are merely by way of
illustration, to show to him and to my hon. Friends that qualifying
periods are not unusual in the current field of employment
relations.
The right
hon. Gentleman referred to selling the pass to Brussels. We know the
position of his party with regard to any social or employment
legislation passed at a European level. The Government do not always
take the same view on those issues and we do not think that it is
necessarily inappropriate for European legislation to be passed in
these sectors. Indeed, in our previous discussions I referred to the
flexibility intentions of the directive, which could be highly
beneficial to British business by opening up markets in other European
countries, alongside our discussions of equal treatment. It is not
inappropriate that Brussels, as he puts it, or the European Union takes
a view on employment and social matters. That is part of the treaties
to which we have agreed, but we should not go down that road too much
here.
I was talking
about a comparator and the importance of some precision on what that
should be. There is also another problem with the clause that I would
like to raise with my hon. Friend. On line 2, it refers to an agency
worker having the right
not to be treated by the
employment business, or employment agency, or by the end user less
favourably in respect of his basic working and employment
conditions.
I want to
pause on the notion of the end-user, because a thread running through
the Bill is the notion that the joint and several liability for the
agency workers conditions is in the hands of not only the
employment business that supplies their services to the hiring company,
but the end-user. I fear that that relationship could be highly legally
complex and result in more litigation than we would see otherwise.
There will always be some enforcement of rights, and we should not deny
that that will be the case, but dividing the responsibility in the way
that the Bill proposes might make life more complicated than would
otherwise be the case.
Andrew
Miller:
I would have thought that the Minister would
accept that aspects of employment law already do that. For example, in
health and safety law it would be improper for the agency knowingly to
place someone in an unsafe working environment and it would be improper
for the end-user so to do. What is so special about the Bill in that
respect?
Mr.
McFadden:
My hon. Friend refers to health and safety, but
that is not what is mentioned in the Bill. I refer him to clause 5,
which states that
basic working and
employment conditions means working and employment conditions
relating to
(a) the duration of working
time, rest periods, night work, paid holidays and public
holidays;
(b) pay,
including sick pay;
That
is his
definition.
The
Chairman:
Order. I do not want hon. Members to be swayed
to debate clause 5 at this stage. I hope that we can confine our
remarks to clause 1.
Andrew
Miller:
As I said, there are already plenty of legal
examples of where the responsibility is in two places. Surely things
such as rest periods, which would be a safety issue in some working
environments, must be a dual
responsibility.
Mr.
McFadden:
This is certainly not how the draft directive
deals with that issue. With regard to agency workers, it is a three-way
relationship, but it is important to follow the contractual thread of
what is happening, lest we create too much work for my hon. Friend the
Member for Aberdeen, North and his colleagues in the future, important
though it is to keep them fed and watered. It is clear that the series
of directives works so that it is the agency that contracts with the
hiring firm to meet its demand in some way. As I have said, that could
be short-term labour or something more long term, such as a skill that
it does not have, particularly at the high end or in IT.
Therefore, the agency is
responsible for securing such a persons terms and conditions.
Indeed, reputable agencies would say that they had an incentive to
secure the best possible terms and conditions for the workers they
supply in that way, because often the commission paid by the hiring
firm to the agency might be a proportion of earning, so it could be in
the agencys interests to secure the best possible deal for the
agency worker. However, if that went wrong in some waythat is
not an unknown field, as the conduct regulations already govern the
conduct of employment agenciesthe agency is liable, rather than
the end-user. If a worker felt, even under the current situation, that
they were not getting what was due to them under the agreement, it
would be their agency that they would
contact.
11.15
am
There is always
a three-way relationship because however it is structured, there is an
end-user, an employment business supplying the agency workers and the
agency workers themselves. Despite that, I think that the notion of
joint and several liability would overcomplicate the situation if it
came to litigation. I am not sure why my hon. Friend the Member for
Ellesmere Port and Neston has structured the Bill in that way. We have
talked about tribunals. If, under clause 1, someone wants to exercise
his rights because he feels that he is being treated
less favourably in respect of his
basic working and employment
conditions
and he wants
to take his case to an employment tribunal because mediation and
conciliation have failed, does my hon. Friend envisage that on the
other side would be not just the agency, but the end-user? In that
situation, there would be not just two teams of lawyers, as suggested
by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North, but three. What would
happen if the two teams of lawyers on the employers side
disagreed with one another? It seems to me that having three people in
that marriage might be a little
complex.
Andrew
Miller:
My hon. Friend will no doubt accept that under
current legislation, there are people who fall through a gap. Case law
has demonstrated that the rights of some people are inadequately
covered. He has suggested that the draft directive would close that
loophole and that all workers would be covered. I have suggested another
way. His argument is perfectly rational and if he would care to table
an amendment at a later stage, I would consider it
seriously.
Mr.
McFadden:
I have been invited in this discussion to table
amendments on a couple of matters; I give notice that were the Bill to
reach further stages, I may well do so. However, I will stick to the
clause, as I know you would want me to, Mr.
Hancock.
I
think that the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere
Port and Neston regarding joint and several liability is really about
enforcementit is about saying that we want to make it easier
for vulnerable workers to access their rights. That is an intention I
agree with. I chair a Government-sponsored body called the vulnerable
worker enforcement forum, which includes representatives from business
and trade unions. It also has representatives from the different
enforcement agencies around Government, such as Her Majestys
Revenue and Customs, which enforces the minimum wage; the Health and
Safety Executive, which enforces regulations in that area; the agency
standards inspectorate, which operates the current conduct regulations
governing the activities of the kind of employment businesses that we
are talking about; and the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which is a
relatively new body created a couple of years ago to deal with the food
and agricultural
sector.
Going back to
some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen,
North, I agree that we should do everything we can to ensure that the
rights legislated for in this Parliament are fully available to people
at work. Sometimes we have to do a better job of that than we have done
in the past. That is why we have put more money, for example, into
enforcing the minimum wage. Some £3 million more per year has
been used to employ more staff and to advertise minimum wage rates more
widely, and we are changing the law in other ways. Enforcement is
important to vulnerable workers across the piece. We do not want a
situation in which we legislate for rights thatbecause of
peoples precarious position, because they do not know that the
Government have different enforcement agencies, or because they do not
know about the employment tribunal system or their access to
rightsremain only on paper, rather than a reality in the
workplace.
Tony
Lloyd:
My hon. Friend is making an important point. He
said that the forum that he chairs includes employers
representatives. One of the myths that we have heard from Opposition
Members this morning is that the world is polarised, consisting of
employers, who are opposed to protection for vulnerable workers, and
the rest of the world, who are in favour. However, good employers, for
various reasonssometimes out of self-interest, sometimes out of
a genuine desire for improvementare happy to support proper
protections. Employers in my constituency come to tell me about the
anti-competitive behaviour of those who undercut proper employment
protection to gain an unacceptable competitive advantage. Does the kind
of employer with whom the Minister deals negate the basic Opposition
claim that there is no room for protection? Does he agree that the
opposite is true, and that good employers want protection for
vulnerable workers?
Mr.
McFadden:
My hon. Friend is absolutely rightthat
has been shown time and again in the deliberations of the vulnerable
worker enforcement forum. For example, the CBI representative has been
consistent in her view that good employers are sometimes more resentful
than anyone else of the rogue employer. Good employers pay the minimum
wage, give people access to paid leave and abide by the law. They do
not want to see rogue employers breaking the law and mistreating their
workers, thereby enabling themselves to undercutnot in a
normal, market competition way, but in an illegal waythe prices
for work that reputable employers can
offer.
Lorely
Burt:
I totally agree with the Minister. Does he see in
the Bill protections not already afforded by the law that should be
introducedexcluding those relating to permatemps, which we have
already
discussed?
Mr.
McFadden:
Whether or not they are in the Bill, there are
protections in this area. There might be an issue with equal pay after
a period of time, which we talked about at some length, and whether the
Bill deals with that is a different question. Do I think that the suite
of employment rights is complete and incapable of improvement? No, I
would not say that. The Government
have made improvements to the suite of employment rights over the years
in a number of ways. We are always, and will continue to be, mindful of
the need for flexibility in the labour market and the strong employment
record that the country has enjoyedit is much stronger than
that of many comparable economiesso whenever we look at the
labour market, we bear those points in mind. However, the path of
progress for people at work is not a story that is complete under this
Government. Further improvements can be made in certain fields, and
agency work may well be one of them.
Lorely
Burt:
I appreciate the points that the Minister is making.
I agree that there is always room for improvement. The Liberal
Democrats will continue to work with the Government where appropriate
to facilitate those
improvements
The
Chairman:
Order. It is with regret that I say that our two
hours has gone by in this enjoyable atmosphere in the blink of an eye.
I thank you for your attendance, good humour and
participation.
It
being twenty-five minutes past Eleven oclock,
The Chairman
,
adjourned
the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing
Order.
Adjourned
accordingly till Wednesday 21 May at half-past Nine
oclock.
|
![]() | |
©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 15 May 2008 |