Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)

This clause relates to the extension of protection against detriment for union membership. We tabled some amendments, but they were not selected because they went to the core of the clause. I can quite understand why the wise parliamentary Clerk decided that was the case, because we are concerned about—

Mr Eric Forth (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

Order. The parliamentary Clerk does not decide what is selected; the Chairman does.

Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)

I fully respect that, Mr. Forth. The clause removes the word ''employee'' and substitutes the word ''worker''. I put it to the Minister that ''employee'' is a great deal clearer than ''worker''. If somebody is working on a contract, he is either an employee or he is not; that is crystal clear. ''Worker'' is much wider. Is it really the Minister's intention to extend the provisions quite so widely?

The workplace is becoming more fluid and more flexible. More and more companies are contracting out various types of work, and the work force comprises increasing numbers of temporary workers, agency workers and freelancers. The wording could cause complications, particularly in industries that rely a lot on self-employed freelance operatives, such as the music industry. Consider also the construction industry—where, although the Government are trying hard to bring many of the self-employed contractors onto payrolls through IR35, there is still a disparate pattern of employment—or the haulage industry, in which there are many large companies, some of which have substantial fleets of lorries. Most of us pass Eddie Stobart's lorries going up and down the motorway, or see them from the train. Most of those lorries are driven not by employees but by owner-drivers, although they are in the Eddie Stobart livery; that is just one example.

The workplace is changing fairly dramatically, and for the better. People want more flexibility but, far from being employees, they are self-employed contractors. Should they have rights under this clause? Do they expect them? I would submit that they do not. There does not seem to be any demand for it on their part, and I should not have thought that the trade unions were particularly concerned about the matter. Although I have not asked the TUC about this clause, I know that it is concerned about the position of agency workers. We have had lengthy discussions about the agency workers directive, which will give agency workers full contractual rights after a certain period. The directive is being considered carefully in Brussels and is currently in the long grass, but it might come back.

Why is a Bill about employment relations being used to widen the definition of ''employee''? Surely definitional issues such as this are not a matter for the Bill. They should be left to the Government's review of

employment status. How is that review coming along? The Government are already in discussion with Brussels on the agency workers directive, which will be vital in terms of atypical workers, as they are called in Europe. Is it necessary to bring in definitional changes in a Bill that is fairly narrow in its scope and should not be used for wider issues?

What representations has the Minister received from different unions? I have read a review of the 1999 Act; there did not seem to be much mention in it of pressure or representations from unions that have been surveyed, such as the TGWU and the Musicians Union. Is there significant pressure for the clause to be extended in that way? I should be grateful if the Minister gave us some answers.

Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us the opportunity to answer his concerns, although he is perhaps confused about the reasons behind what we have done in the Bill; I shall return to those later.

The hon. Gentleman asked when we could expect the outcome of the employment status review. As he knows, the consultation took a long time, and there were more than 400 responses. It is a complex issue, involving the various descriptions of workers and the jobs that they do, as well as issues such as the employment rights of the clergy. It is a detailed issue, but we are making good progress and expect to be able to explain our position on employment status shortly. There has been consultation with the trade unions, the TUC and the employers on the definitions. The hon. Gentleman was right to raise the issue, although he was wrong about what we are trying to achieve.

Clause 24 relates to the Wilson and Palmer judgment. As the hon. Member for Gordon said, our law breached article 11 of the European convention on human rights, which relates to the freedom of association. It relates specifically to the rights against detriment, which are provided for in section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Currently, section 146 applies only to employees, and the clause will ensure that workers, not just employees, benefit from those rights.

The reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights is based on the rights of trade union members, who can be employees or other categories of worker. In complying with the Court's judgment in the Wilson and Palmer case, we need to ensure that our improved protections for trade union members cover all such persons to the largest possible extent. Clause 23 ensures that the new rights that it contains not to be offered inducements apply to workers. Correspondingly, clause 24 extends the coverage of the existing rights not to suffer detriment on grounds of trade union membership and activities to workers.

Detriment can, of course, take the form of dismissal, and our amendments to section 146 will ensure that workers who are not employees can make a complaint under that section when their contracts are terminated. However, there are explicit protections against dismissal on the grounds of trade union

membership and activities in section 152 of the 1992 Act. In common with the rest of unfair dismissal legislation, those protections apply to employees only. To avoid duplication and possible confusion, we need to ensure that employees cannot use both sections 146 and 152 to make a complaint about dismissal. We achieve that in subsection (5) by making it clear that employees cannot use section 146 where detriment takes the form of dismissal. It may help if I mention that such provisions are used in other measures giving workers a right not to be subjected to detriment in relation to the termination of their contracts, and such measures have not given rise to difficulties.

For the present purposes, the definition of the term ''worker'' is that given in section 296 of the 1992 Act. I cannot be categorical about the types of person who might fall within that definition; that will depend on the precise facts of a case and ultimately will be for tribunals to decide. However, I can confirm that the Act's definition covers the vast bulk of agency workers and persons on fixed-term contracts.

Taken together, the effects of the clause are sensible and fit neatly with the important provisions of clauses 23, 25 and 26, allowing us to meet our international obligations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.