| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose of the order. As the Minister outlined, the order comes to this House under the deregulation and regulatory reform procedure. Its purpose is to amend the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to simplify the liability and funding arrangements for premises-related work at voluntary aided schools, which the Minister outlined in detail.
I noted that in the first report of the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee of another place, the department was invited to amend the order extending the proposed amendments to Schedule 22 to the 1998 Act to include all "excepted buildings", which the department has since done.
The Minister also stated that submissions of the officials were received by the committee. However, I also noted that the committee took the department to task for poor drafting of the order and that it was not at all impressed by the plea from officials that they had to draft the order in a hurry. That excuse was, and remains, unacceptable. This is a serious point, for if the deregulation and regulatory reform procedure is to work, the accuracy and the quality of the drafting is critical.
The House of Commons committee has been effective in securing improvements to, and clarification of, the order. For example, in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the report of 5th March, the committee was concerned about the definition of an "alteration" in order for a school to attract grant-in-aid. The committee was, however, satisfied with the Secretary of State's assurance that, for example, where a damaged roof has to be repaired, while it will constitute a necessary capital expenditure, it cannot be described as an "alteration" as such, but will nevertheless qualify for a grant at the maximum rate set out in the order because the underlying principles of the existing legislation will be retained.
I join the Minister in thanking the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House for its work on the order. As the order has proceeded through the various committees to this House, the Government have responded positively to the recommendations and I therefore agree that the order should be approved.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the order and agree to it being approved. As both noble Lords mentioned, it has been before the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform
Committee and has been extensively examined by the Commons Select Committee on Deregulation and Regulatory Reform. As the Minister noted, it is to come into effect on 1st April 2002, so there is not much time for implementation.However, as the Minister also noted, it has been extensively discussed in a number of places. In some senses, it is an interesting initiative because it is the first time that we have seen the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 applied to legislation from the DfES.
Anyone who has been a governor of a voluntary aided school will know that there are enormous problems in getting maintenance carried out and funded because of the difficulties of deciding who is responsible. Where governors find that they are responsible for an unexpected cost, even with the 85 per cent support—which will now rise to 90 per cent—coming from the Government, it can be difficult for them to find the necessary money. Stories abound of how badly damaged a window and its frame have to be before liability passes from the LEA to the governors, and when a minor repair to a roof becomes a major one with the ensuing change of responsibility. The evidence from both the Lords and Commons committees, which have worked on the order, indicates that by shifting responsibility for certain items from the LEA to the governors, and at the same time raising the threshold of support from 85 to 90 per cent, the system will be made better and more manageable. We greatly welcome that.
It is interesting also to look at the order in relation to the deregulation initiatives which are to come before us in the Education Bill. The Minister mentioned that. The Commons report indicates the way in which the regulatory reform order has worked. Rigorous consultation is required to meet the needs of the order. For example, the DfES—the DfEE as it then was—established a project board of interested parties some three years ago. A written detailed consultation document was produced nearly a year ago and sent to 1,654 recipients. All schools were told that the proposals were available. There had been previous consultation documents on aspects of the proposal. It has been a very good consultation process, setting an example of what one would like to see.
In that respect, the Education Bill is being sold as a deregulatory Bill. It shifts legislation from primary to secondary legislation. The Minister will know that some of us have doubts about whether that is a good idea. The DfES memorandum which we have been given with the order notes that the process—the consultation that took place within the regulatory reform order—helped to build awareness of our proposals and achieved strong consensus among key stakeholders.
The reason given for not tackling great swathes of the Education Bill through regulatory reform orders is that,
- "it is quicker and less burdensome on the Department's resources"
Generally speaking, and despite those quibbles which perhaps relate more to the Education Bill than they do to the order, we welcome the order and would like to see it put into effect.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, earlier today the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester said that he had to leave to serve a higher authority. Therefore, I thought that it might be appropriate for me to ask him what he would have said had he been present. He confirmed that there has been detailed consultation, in particular with the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches. The dioceses are geared up for implementation, if the order is passed, on 1st April and he warmly commends the order to the House.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to our short debate. I shall not follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in discussing the virtues of the Education Bill. We shall have an opportunity to do so in the near future. As we might be here for a somewhat protracted time if we talked about the advantages of the Bill in terms of deregulation, I shall confine myself to the order.
I thank the noble Baroness for producing the answer I would have given to the main point introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. I refer to the fact that at an early stage the committee criticised the order in terms of its draftsmanship. However, we have succeeded in carrying out the most extensive consultation exercise, to which the noble Baroness kindly made reference. Due to the length of the consultation, we were faced with the question of whether we could meet the tight deadline of making the changes on 1st April.
I entirely accept the criticism, evidenced elsewhere, to which the noble Viscount has every right to refer. I plead the obvious point that the consultation exercise having been so extensive things were somewhat hurried to meet the deadline. However, we have achieved the best of both worlds in that we have hit the deadline and been able to consult sufficiently widely to obtain the comments of the committees of both Houses with regard to the order.
On that basis, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that on this occasion he can act as our messenger to higher places. It is not often that I feel that there is a higher place than your Lordships' House, but I recognise the force of the noble Lord's remarks. We greatly missed the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, but he had a more than adequate substitute and I thank him for his commendations. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Dignity at Work Bill [HL]
9 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen : My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The aim of the Dignity at Work Bill is to counteract bullying at work and to enshrine good practice into law. The main objective is to prevent bullying, but if it does take place, then the Bill provides redress. In opening the debate, I shall explain what the Bill covers and why it is needed, as well as give noble Lords a flavour of what bullying is and what it does to those who are on the receiving end.
However, before I do so, I wish to place on the record my thanks to those who have helped me prepare for this evening. In particular, I wish to thank Chris Ball, a senior official of the union to which I belong and for whom I used to work, Amicus, formerly the MSF. Here I declare an interest. Amicus has been at the forefront of highlighting bullying at work. Since 1994, when the union launched its campaign against bullying, it has pressed for it to be recognised as a workplace issue. Chris Ball is the expert in the trade union movement on this subject. I also wish to thank the Clerks in the Private Bill Office for their involvement and their invaluable advice and guidance in preparing this version of the Bill. Thanks should also go to the Lords Library staff for their help with research related to it.
Turning to the Bill itself, Clause 1 confers the right to dignity at work on all employees and covers harassment and bullying which would constitute a breach of that right. It covers examples of bullying which are not inclusive, behaviour which should not be tolerated in the workplace and unjustified criticism which, if repeated, would breach the right to dignity at work. The reason for the emphasis on repeated action is because such actions could happen accidentally but, if repeated, they would fall foul of this legislation. The clause also covers situations with specific consequences: punishment or changes in an employee's duties and responsibilities to the employee's detriment without reasonable justification.
Clause 2 protects an employee if he or she brings proceedings under the Act. Clause 3 gives rights to contract workers, a group of workers that is often forgotten. Clause 4 allows complaints by employees who believe that their right to dignity at work has been breached to be presented to an employment tribunal. Clause 5 provides for an employer's defence against such claims. It covers the employer's appropriate policy under the Bill and its correct implementation in line with Schedule 1. Clause 6 allows for compensatory payment by the respondent if the employment tribunal has found a case proven and gives advice from an employment tribunal to a respondent about prevention or reduction of adverse effects on the complainant relating to any breach of the right to dignity at work. Clauses 7 to 9 are supplementary and relate to interpretation, the Short Title and the commencement, which will be two months after the Bill has been passed.
Schedule 1 deals with how the dignity at work policy will be implemented. Schedule 2 covers the consequential amendments to the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.
The Bill attempts to be fair to both employees and employers. In an ideal world, it would not be necessary. All employers would be good ones and would already have policies and practices in place which would prevent bullying in the workplace. But this is not an ideal world and employers are not all good ones. This Bill aims to correct those who are not.
Bullying is not a new phenomenon, but it is only in recent years that it has been identified and rightly recognised as a workplace issue. As Angela Ishmael wrote in her excellent book, Harassment, Bullying and Violence at Work, published by the Industrial Society:
- "As employers move towards creating and maintaining a healthy working climate as a corporate priority, bullying and its effects have leaked through the organisations like a crack in a wall".
It is difficult to put a concrete figure on the number of workers bullied, but an NOP poll conducted for a TUC conference on bullying at work suggested that a staggering 5 million working people in the UK had either been bullied in the past or were currently experiencing bullying. Of course bullying does not only have an adverse effect on employees. Employers are also affected by it. Bullying at work costs businesses in employee absenteeism through ill health and lost effectiveness. Professor Cary Cooper of UMIST, an acknowledged expert in the field, has estimated that 40 million working days are lost each year because of bullying. In financial terms, this puts the cost to industry at £3 billion to £4 billion annually. On top of that, it brings to the workplace low morale, poor working relationships and a general depression of spirit. That is hardly conducive to high productivity and quality standards. Bullying blights lives and causes immense and acute suffering and stress.
In the course of the debate, we may be told that there are laws which adequately cover bullying at work. As a former trade union official, I would dispute that emphatically. In the past the UK Parliament has not focused on providing statutory protection against bullying at work. Instead it has concentrated on discrimination. That is fine when it comes to sex or race. But the laws covering sex and race do not adequately cover bullying. It is true that cases can be taken under the Sex Discrimination Act or Race Relations Act. But the great weakness here is that most cases of bullying cannot be shown to amount to sexual or racial harassment and therefore this legislation is not effective in that case.
On the face of it, the health and safety Act can be used by those facing workplace bullying. But again that Act does not specifically mention bullying. It concentrates on the,
- "health, safety and welfare at work of all employees"—
As I know from my years as a health and safety commissioner, the Act is rarely found to be effective for bullying cases. Indeed, because there is no specific law relating to bullying or harassment in the non-sexist or non-racist sense, the only way for an employee to proceed to an employment tribunal because of bullying is to resign from his or her work and bring a claim of breach of contract under the heading of constructive dismissal. That cannot be a just and proper way for an employee to have to proceed in this day and age.
The current laws are not only inadequate for the employee, they also expose employers to a wide range of liabilities without providing the legal tools or guidance to deal with potential bullying problems before they become serious. The existing laws do not help employers to deal with the problem of bullying in the workplace. At best they can provide only a certain financial compensation to an employee who by then has lost his or her health, job or both.
I can best illustrate the absurdity and ambivalence of the law by telling the House of the experiences of two members of my previous union. A young man and a young woman worked in a London teaching hospital. Both received appalling treatment at the hands of their male supervisor by whom they were constantly undermined and their lives made a misery. The young woman's bullying and denigration also included unwanted sexual advances. At the same time, the supervisor embarked on a campaign to humiliate and reduce the standing of the young man by a series of mean and malevolent acts.
They both went to the same internal appeal. The young woman was held to have been sexually harassed and the young man to have been bullied. Both sustained substantial financial losses as well as suffering emotionally. The young woman was advised that she had a sex discrimination claim which she lodged and eventually settled out of court. The young man had no legal basis for a claim and received no effective remedy for his very similar experiences. He would have had to leave his job had he wished to claim constructive dismissal, as I explained earlier. I believe that that highlights graphically why a new law is needed. If the Bill had been in place, both could have presented bullying cases and both could have received their just rewards.
The Dignity at Work Bill supplements existing employment legislation enabling employers to send a clear message to all their staff that dignity at work must be respected and, if they act quickly and fairly, avoid claims and resolve issues in a way that promotes better workplace relationships and higher morale.
I look forward to hearing the forthcoming speeches of your Lordships. I hope to receive a sympathetic response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen.)
9.12 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, the House should be grateful to my noble friend Lady Gibson for reintroducing a Dignity at Work Bill, originally introduced in December 1996 by Lord Monkswell. However, I regret that it is necessary for her to do so. I believe that there has been clear evidence for many years now that unacceptable behaviour to employees in the workplace is widespread. Legislation is not only necessary but also long overdue.
Most definitions of workplace bullying share three elements, all to be found within the Bill: its effect on the recipient, not the intention of the bully; the negative effect on the victim; and the persistence of the bullying. As my noble friend said, it covers many situations and can take many forms. It is that aspect upon which I wish to concentrate my remarks. It can cover unfair and excessive criticism, humiliation, public insults, the constantly changing or setting of unrealistic work targets, withholding information, undervaluing efforts and shouting and abusive behaviour. Bullying is a sustained form of psychological abuse, a gradual wearing down process that makes the individuals feel demeaned and inadequate, and hopeless not only within their own work environment but also in their domestic life.
The recent research undertaken by the Manchester School of Management found that bullying was associated with a negative work climate, high workload and unsatisfactory relationships at work and often coincides with a change of management. That research, which was the first nationwide survey to be undertaken, covered 70 organisations with over 5,000 recipients, so it was a very substantial piece of work. It concluded that 10.5 per cent of people had been bullied in the workplace in the previous six months.
What the evidence clearly showed was that there has been no decline in bullying since the 1996 report by the Institute of Personnel and Development. At that time, the IPD concluded that one in eight people had been bullied in the previous five years, that it was commonplace and that it was getting worse. There are many examples to show that that prediction was absolutely correct.
Perhaps I may elaborate on some of the points made by my noble friend Lady Gibson. The Royal College of Nursing found only last year that up to one in six of nurses had been bullied. Its survey of 4,500 nurses showed that another member of staff had harassed 17 per cent of them in the previous year, and it is of particular concern that that proportion rises to 29 per cent among respondents from ethnic minorities. The serious spin-off is that one-third of those affected intended to leave nursing, which is tragic at a time when the Government are trying to recruit more nurses.
At an NHS trust in the South East of England, 38 per cent of the staff reported experiencing one or more types of bullying in the past year. A survey conducted
by the Grampian University Hospital Trust highlighted serious levels of bullying estimated by the unions to be 47 per cent. UMIST found that bullying was most common in the Prison Service and postal services, both at 16 per cent. In the average school nearly one in six teachers had been bullied in the past year. We have heard a great deal today and in the past couple of days, about assault by pupils. These figures refer to staff on staff and it is something which we must take very seriously.In the words of Professor Cary Cooper of UMIST,
- "the extent to which bullying goes on in British workplaces has reached phenomenal proportions".
Increased pressure on staff and managers to meet targets, including unofficial targets, creates highly competitive environments where many individuals consider bullying as the accepted method of motivating staff and where harassment and bullying are seen as strong management and the most effective way of getting the job done. While victims are spread across all levels from shop managers to shop floor workers, 75 per cent of bullies are managers. That confrontational style of management, so often preached by management and business schools, has to be challenged.
Many employees feel that they have to put up with such behaviour for fear of further victimisation or being labelled troublemakers. It would seem that while ever aggressive management is part of the organisational culture, people will continue not to challenge individual bullying behaviour.
As my noble friend said, what these employers do not seem to grasp is that their behaviour can seriously backfire on them and that it is in fact counter-productive. They fail to understand that staff working in an atmosphere of fear and resentment do not perform well. Absenteeism through sickness increases, morale levels fall and staff resign. Workplace bullying has a significant effect on both mental and physical health which can lead to sleeplessness, back pain, panic attacks, depression, anxiety and other stress-related illnesses. Many millions of working days are lost each year because of bullying. Victims of workplace bullying take an average seven extra days off each year than those not bullied. This results in a significant loss of productivity in both financial and human resources.
The TUC estimates that the cost of stress and stress-related illness is £5 billion a year. However, the CBI put that figure much higher and estimate it at £12 billion a year, which is about £500 each year for every working adult. That is surely something that we cannot sustain.
In a Written Answer to a Question I submitted to my noble friend Lord Sainsbury, he made it clear that the Government were keen to create a culture where bullying is not acceptable, but that further research is needed to establish the real extent of the problem and how it manifests itself in the workplace.
I accept that the establishment of the Partnership Fund which he mentioned is to be welcomed as is the development of management standards by the Health
and Safety Executive. But I had hoped that he would mention and consider the question of legislation. I believe that it is only by specific legislation such as this Bill that we will be able to create an anti-bullying culture.In replying to the Second Reading debate in December 1996, in which I was pleased to take part, the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, acknowledged that there was a real problem, but that the concept of dignity at work was difficult to incorporate in law; that the effects of the Bill would be to make the law more complex and confusing. Rather, I believe that it is the complexity of the many current pieces of legislation which allows bullying to continue.
I have never had the experience of my noble friend Lady Gibson in trying to work my way through employment law and I therefore cannot identify the interesting specific cases to which she referred. But I can look at and be bemused by the lists and lists of legislation which are supposed to have an effect in reducing bullying.
For example, we have protection against sexual and racial harassment and discrimination, and against discrimination against the disabled. Employers have a legal responsibility under Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for the health, safety and welfare of their employees. Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, it is an offence to "intentionally harass, alarm and distress". There is the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, all of which can be used to challenge bullying at work. We need to add to this list the Employment and Race Directives under Article 13 of the EC Treaty, which we hope the Government will implement. No wonder it is possible to identify the wrong piece of legislation when you wish to challenge bullying by your employer.
I appreciate that the Government may well be reluctant to impose more regulations on business and industry, but, historically, evidence has shown that specific legislation is often necessary in order to change the culture at work. The health and safety legislation and the Disability Discrimination Act are but two clear examples of that.
I appreciate that there are many good employers with reasonable contracts of employment incorporating fair policies, but in 1996, when we had the previous debate, only 28 per cent of employers had adopted policies to overcome bullying. I am sure that that figure has increased but I do not know what it is today. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us. I hope that he will be able to say that it is 100 per cent and that this legislation is not necessary. But I have very grave doubts about that because there are still too many mediocre and bad employers.
If employers took a responsible stance and we had the ideal world described by my noble friend, this legislation might not be necessary. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Legislation is necessary for those employers who have no official policy, who have aggressive management styles and who have no intention of tackling this serious problem themselves.
I hope, therefore, as did my noble friend, that the Government will respond favourably to the principle of the Bill, if not to its every detail, and assist its passage through the House.
9.22 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen not only on a timely debate but on the persistence she has shown in pressing ahead with the Public Bill Office and getting this far.
Both of my noble friends who have spoken have presented incontrovertible evidence that there is a major, unresolved problem. My noble friend the Minister will not be surprised to hear that we think this Second Reading is appropriate and timely because it concentrates the mind on the light shed by this Bill on some of the quite tricky issues in the framing of regulations pending in the Employment Bill.
As my noble friend Lady Gibson pointed out, the current approach, which relies on constructive dismissal, is not at all satisfactory. The question is whether we can pick up some of the ideas in this Bill and see what light can be shed on the problems in the debate on the Employment Bill. If I am stretching the procedures of the House by making this connection, I trust that I shall be allowed a degree of latitude because the dilemmas of employment law referred to by my noble friend Lady Gould are very much before us at the present time.
Let me try to identify where the key issues lie. Others will, equally legitimately, view the issues through a different prism. However, tonight's debate could throw some light on the dilemma in the following way. On the question of bullying, we have, at first sight, two legs of the proposed statutory procedures: a grievance procedure and a disciplinary procedure. Of course, there will be a connection—if, for example, a grievance is put forward about the failure of an employer to trigger a disciplinary procedure. That, very typically, is where we would find ourselves under the new arrangements on an issue of bullying.
Then there is the question of whether the procedure in that context should lean heavily on the matter being dealt with within the establishment, given the fact that the other route is to go straight to a tribunal. In the case of bullying, and a number of like issues, many trade union representatives would put a great deal of weight on having a satisfactory domestic procedure to correct the behaviour which is the subject of the complaint. I do not wish to move into the argument about the so-called "compensation culture". However, as my noble friend pointed out, constructive dismissal is not only a very blunt instrument; it also does not really provide what the person complaining about the problem would really like to see in a commonsense, although not perfect, world.
But who will hold management to account if we have only this blunt instrument to use? Indeed, quis custodiet ipsos custodes, as they say in Wolverhampton. The procedural problem was raised only this Monday in Grand Committee on the
Employment Bill. The issue was whether some matters are inappropriate for the 28-day delay in going to a tribunal. So the issue is how bullying is to be specifically dealt with in the regulations under the Bill. On page 7 of its code, ACAS concentrates on the issue being dealt with as a disciplinary matter. However, it can also arise as a grievance issue. It must not fall between two stools; but, as a statutory procedure, it is quite tricky to get right if, as a proper and legitimate goal, we want the procedure to deal satisfactorily with the matter for all concerned in the establishment in as many cases as possible.The topic strongly underlines the advantage—and, indeed, the necessity—of a degree of mutuality; in other words, joint ownership and joint commitment. Dignity is enhanced by trade union organisations, but we are not relying on that in this analysis. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that we need mutual confidence and a degree of mutuality, however one describes it, in the procedure.
We are aware that some procedures are not perfect under the voluntary arrangements that obtain in many parts of industry, but we have a new opportunity here with the 3 million workers who believe that they have, potentially, some new rights coming in their direction through the Employment Bill. We must not let them down. I refer to the 3 million workers who have no protection procedures to assist them at present. A new focus will be provided—I take the analogy of the minimum wage—on the procedures to be covered as bench-mark minimum procedures.
We do not want in any way further to open the door to those whose motive in advocating new statutory procedures is to deter ready access to the employment tribunals. However, there is undoubtedly a connection. Perhaps I may put the matter in more popular language: "If you don't want your dirty linen to be washed in public, let's settle the matter in the workplace". But on what terms do we settle, and what will be satisfactory as regards the procedures and the substantive outcomes of that settlement? That is the question upon which I wish to focus. I hope that my noble friend will find it to be a legitimate question. The only conclusion that one reaches from this analysis is that it requires Rolls-Royce procedures—if that is still an appropriate metaphor.
As my noble friend Lady Gould has pointed out, some employers' organisations have often argued that all those matters are just burdens on business. That is a red herring—to put it in complementary terms to the way in which my noble friend put it—if the issue is a satisfactory domestic procedure versus an argument about how quickly you go on a legislative procedure to a tribunal. How can that be presented as an argument about burdens on business?
I hope that in his response tonight and in his further reflections on the scope, my noble friend the Minister will take advantage of some of the ideas in this Bill when considering the outstanding dilemmas in the other Bill currently before the House.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I rise in the gap, if I may, to offer a few very brief words, having happily succeeded in reaching the House in time to give a warm welcome to the Bill of my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen. I congratulate her on a Bill that would lay a new legal foundation to the philosophy, of which my noble friends have spoken, that human dignity and rights do not end at the office door or the factory gates.
In my submission, the Bill is particularly welcome for two features. The first is its concentration on the terrible problem of bullying, of which my noble friends Lady Gibson and Lady Gould have spoken so convincingly and on which our current law is so manifestly inadequate and confused. Even beyond the focus on bullying, I welcome especially a worker's right under the Bill to escape unjustified punishment and arbitrary change in his or her working life. I also welcome the right, so clearly set out, not to be victimised for pursuing proceedings for his or her rights to be enforced.
All those features need to be significantly strengthened in the current Employment Bill, of which my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall spoke so provocatively. At this stage of the night, your Lordships would not thank me if I followed him in pursuing the detail of that point. I merely say that that Bill is still in Grand Committee, upstairs in the Himalayas of Committee Room 4. It is in its eighth day. Those interested in these matters who have not had the pleasure—or, indeed, the perspicacity—to visit its proceedings should do so and should read Hansard carefully.
I shall make only one comment on that. For all the other virtues of that Bill—and I insist that there are such virtues—parts of it are deeply unfair to working people and need to be improved. As my noble friend Lord Lea hinted, those issues inter-relate to tonight's Bill.
The second feature that I particularly welcome is that this Bill would protect all workers who perform personal work or labour. It is not limited to the legally more restrictive technical confines of the common law contract of employment. The width of protection of our employment legislation, which is so valuably raised by my noble friend's Bill, is a central feature on the future agenda of labour law.
So often today, those whose only way of feeding their families is the sale of their labour power, by hand or by brain, are spoken of as though they were merely items in a labour market, to be manipulated—
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page