Employment Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 6: 6: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause— ““Procedure on disputes concerning surveillance and monitoring (1) ACAS shall issue a code of practice, or such codes of practice applying to categories of employers as in its discretion it sees fit, concerning procedures for the resolution of disputes about employers’ use of such methods of surveillance and monitoring of employees’ performance of their obligations at work as affect their human rights and dignity. (2) In preparing a code of practice to be issued under this section, ACAS shall consult— (a) the Information Commissioner; (b) organisations representing workers and employers; and (c) such other persons as ACAS consider appropriate. (3) In preparing a code of practice to be issued under this section, ACAS shall, in particular, take into account technology whereby pilots, astronauts, fire-fighters and other persons are continuously monitored at work, and other modern technologies of a similar nature.”” The noble Lord said: To me, this was a rather remarkable discovery. By that, I do not mean that systems of monitoring and surveillance of workers at the place of work is new; of course all sorts of systems for that have been invented for many years in the past. If I may mention one comparative aspect, the legislation in Italy of 1970 made a special point of demanding that any procedures concerning the surveillance and monitoring of workers at the place of work had to be agreed with the trade union. However, that will not by itself convince many Members of the Committee. The reason for moving the amendment now is that there seems to be a development coming along through which employers and managers can acquire methods of monitoring workers at the place of work in the most extraordinary ways. There are two ways of looking at the employment relationship. One is what is sometimes called the work-wage bargain: that the employer buys a certain amount of labour or, if you wish, labour power, in return for the wage. The other way of looking at it—which I understand, from the literature with which I am familiar, is rejected by all civilised countries—is that the employer buys the worker. I take the notion that the worker retains some dignity and human rights at the place of work as common ground in this Committee. I make the case for some amendment of this kind on that basis. I had better mention that my knowledge of this is through the reports of a new system brought out by Microsoft, for which they are applying for a patent. It has been described by a senior QC, Hugh Tomlinson, an expert on data protection, as a system which, "““involves intrusion into every single aspect of the lives of the employees. It raises very serious privacy issues””." The system operates in an electronic manner which I do not claim to understand. I rest the point upon the accounts of the system which appeared in the Times, the Financial Times and other places. It works by recording and analysing what words and numbers are used, or websites visited, by watching the user’s heart rate, breathing, body temperature, facial expressions and blood pressure. It allows for the automatic recording of frustrations and stress in the user via psychological and environmental sensors, and offers the results automatically. The most important thing in a practical sense is that, as the report says, every person will be analysed in real time to allow the computer to decide what steps and actions should be taken. From this data, the report goes on, statistics relevant to all sorts of problems can be provided to users and employed in gauging their efficiency. One scenario given in the patent is of ““Joe””, who is spending more time on an activity than was originally allocated, and measuring his performance. One has an automatic system which will record the performance of the worker, even down to facial expressions, in way which has never been known before. That is what Microsoft claims, and I have no grounds for thinking that it is not true. I will not detain the Committee with further details of the report of the system, which are very long. However, it is apparent that a system at the place of work that is able automatically to monitor a working person’s activity, facial expression, breathing, heart rate and everything else comes close to the line between buying a certain amount of work and buying the whole human person. That is why the amendment refers to the human rights considerations which appear in the Human Rights Act and in the European Convention on Human Rights, relating to the dignity of workers. Some kind of consideration ought to be given before we have this sort of legislation coming into force in all kinds of places of work. That may be in a few years’ time; it may be longer. However, one of the functions of legislation is to anticipate. It is not merely to deal with problems that have already arisen. The legislature ought to be sufficiently cognisant of what is likely to happen to make some move about it. This amendment provides that such matters should be the subject of procedures, and ACAS should be consulted in regard to the matter. Furthermore, a code of practice on the matter would be very relevant—at any rate, a code that takes account of what is likely to happen, which can be adjusted to the practices at the place of work. If Members of the Committee have not had the opportunity to read about this system, they will find articles in the Times and the Financial Times of 15 January 2008. They provide a much longer explanation than I have been able to give today. It is a serious matter that I have not made up. I came across it by chance—not even by research. It ought to be the subject of the Committee’s attention, which in this Bill has the opportunity to adjust the relationships at work with some sort of view of future problems. I beg to move.