Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill

Absolutely; my hon. Friend is on to the real point that trade union membership has been declining and the unions would like to be able to access a new cohort of potential members. That is really what underlies this, because with membership comes money, and with membership and money comes more influence in the Labour party and over the Government. We have seen examples recently of the consequences of that for the Great British people. The issue of detriment in clause 3(4) is serious, and that is another reason why employers are so concerned about the Bill. One has to take a deep breath when one realises that clause 4 is promoted by the Chairman of the Regulatory Reform Committee. It talks about"““the appointment of a regulatory authority with suitable duties and powers for the purpose of enforcing the rights afforded to agency workers””," and"““the appointment of statutory officers with suitable duties and powers””" and so on, and ““alternative dispute resolution””, but with matters ultimately going to an employment tribunal. We know about the costs and delays in the employment tribunal process. We also know the way in which employers, particularly small employers, are held to ransom by the threat of cases being taken to the employment tribunal. Were the Bill to be enacted, it would only need a temporary or agency worker even to suggest that they will take the issue to an employment tribunal for the small employer to quake in his boots and say, ““Well, I can't possibly face the costs that might be involved in going to such a tribunal, in terms of my time and that of other employees who might have to give evidence; I certainly can't afford to employ counsel or solicitors to make representations on our behalf; and I certainly can't afford all the delays and hassle in preparing the case.”” Therefore, as so often happens, the threat is made by an employee and the case is settled and the employee goes away with some money, often quite a large sum of money, on the basis that the employer feels that it is better to pay a lump sum to get rid of the problem than to defend rights in the tribunal.