Employment Bill [HL]

I remind the Committee that I was referring to the review that was undertaken. While undertaking that review, we found that temporary work such as agency work is greatly valued by employers and many individuals. I know that ““workers”” and ““agency workers”” are specific terms used in legislation and I use them accordingly. But other than that, I prefer to use words such as ““employees””, ““self-employed”” or ““individuals””; I see the word ““workers”” in the divisive way that I see such words as ““bosses””, ““industry”” and ““sides””. We were given examples of abuse and lack of knowledge about existing rights but there was a lack of evidence that the appropriate response from government was a wholesale change of the current system. That was not going to be welcomed. Employers commented that extending all rights would be likely to result in a reduction in temporary work and that these lost jobs would not all be replaced by permanent ones. The overall conclusion of the review was that the existing framework met the UK’s 21st-century labour market’s needs and there was no need for further legislation in this area. The rationale behind the decision was published in our policy statement, Success at Work: Protecting Vulnerable Workers, Supporting Good Employers, in March 2006, just under two years ago. This amendment implicitly aims to extend the current coverage of unfair dismissal rights to the wider category of ““worker””. We looked at this issue in particular during the review and at the balance of rights and responsibilities. It would be unfair to employees in the workplace to give unfair dismissal rights to individuals who, unlike employees, do not have to give notice or more than short, limited notice if they wish to leave a job. Those on agency contracts working alongside employees enjoy benefits not available to employees, as employees enjoy benefits not available to agency workers. Flexibility is a two-way street. If this right were extended, employers would be likely to respond by requiring workers to give extended periods of notice, undermining the very flexibility that we know both employers and workers value; and the economy values that flexibility. That is why—I repeat—we have the most successful economy in Europe and the most flexible labour market. This would reopen issues that we carefully considered as part of the review. The Government do not support the amendment, but we support the principle of equal treatment for agency workers. We consider that the best way forward to achieve that is for an agency workers’ commission in the United Kingdom, involving all interested parties from all sides of society in the workplace, to address that point and to devise a means of achieving equal treatment while preserving the flexibility that both sides want, and which preserves the flexibility of the UK labour market. The Government take the protection of agency workers extremely seriously. That is why, for instance, last autumn we announced the doubling of employment agency inspectors. I would sincerely caution noble Lords to avoid damaging this very successful employment economy to attack—rightly—a small but damaging minority. We must protect those people. Please do not harm the rest of it to achieve your ends.