Clause 24 - Extension of protection against detriment for union membership etc.
Employment Relations Bill
2:45 pm
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.