Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Bill

My Lords, I look forward to the noble Lord raising that point, which is appropriate to Committee. I shall continue with my Second Reading speech, in which I mentioned social workers, who might be considered. My second substantial point refers to Clause 1(2)(b), which covers a person subject to, "““duties as an employee or as a servant of the Crown””." The words ““employee”” and ““servant”” have of course recently been considered by judicial interpretation in distinguishing subordinate or dependent workers as employees from independent contractors, self-employed persons or autonomous workers, especially since the important decision in the Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance case in 1968. Beyond the terms ““employees”” and ““servants”” are other agents, agency-supplied workers, temporary staff and so on, some of whom are employees and some of whom are certainly not. Many government departments hide behind the cloak of the Crown, but as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, said only the day before yesterday in your Lordships’ Judicial Committee, in the case of Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe: "““These days, the dividing line between governmental and non-governmental organisations is increasingly difficult to draw. The power wielded by the major multi-national corporations is enormous and growing””." That was a most important judgment for the Judicial Committee. Today the outsourcing of work, from building work to call centres, makes the dividing line between the Crown, government and corporation workers more and more difficult. Perhaps the Minister would comment on the phrase used to describe employees, ““servants of the Crown””. To make what is perhaps a Committee comment, I say that one should consider the word ““workers”” instead of those heavily constrained words. My third point is regarding the words ““without reasonable excuse””, which are fundamental to Clauses 1 and 2. Someone who obstructs without reasonable excuse is liable. As I apprehended, this phrase was consolidated into the Bill in Standing Committee C of the other place. But what exactly do the words mean? Not everyone shares the confidence of government Ministers who have said more than once that it is a clear phrase. Perhaps the Minister will guide us on what limits the Home Office foresees the courts putting on ““without reasonable excuse””. I shall give one example which, to my knowledge, has often arisen. When a local authority uses its powers to spray humps or what are euphemistically called speed cushions around its roads in a way that obstructs fire and rescue service vehicles, ambulance and many other emergency vehicles, does it have a reasonable excuse to do so even if it was found that its action had not been preceded by proper consultation in the neighbourhood? The Minister may not wish to answer that today, but it is a point to which he ought to refer at a later stage if he cannot say anything now. Such issues do not detract from the virtues of this highly innovative and important Bill to protect workers in major services about which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, spoke so eloquently. In that respect, despite my three substantive points, I welcome the Bill most vigorously and trust that the Government will see to it that it is on the statute book before the next Queen’s Speech, for who knows how much time the measures proposed in that speech will take?