Employment Bill [HL]

Without doubt, the Government support the intention behind the amendment. It is essential that there is appropriate protection for vulnerable agency workers. However, existing employment agency legislation already covers most—not all—of the proposals in the amendment. It seeks to provide a proper balance between the interests of agency workers, the companies that hire them and the agencies themselves. Regulation 20(b) of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003—otherwise known as the conduct regulations—already requires the employment agency to make all reasonable practical inquiries prior to the placement to ensure that it would not be detrimental to the interests of the work-seeker to work in the position offered by the hirer. Indeed, that is the case for all placements, not just where a number of staff will work on a single contract. I assure noble Lords that the Employment Agencies Act already prohibits employment agencies requesting or receiving fees for work-finding services—with a few exceptions, as we discussed earlier. The provision is therefore unnecessary. Regulation 14 of the conduct regulations already requires agencies and employment businesses to agree terms with the work-seeker, including terms of remuneration and conditions of termination. The amendment proposes that the employment agency should provide the agency worker with terms setting out arrangements for transportation back to the place from which the employee was collected, and that it should provide adequate and secure transport back to the place from which the worker was collected. However, Regulation 24(4) of the conduct regulations already provides that the employment agency must arrange free travel or pay for the return journey at the end of the work assignment where the agency or employment business has arranged free travel or payment of fares for the worker to the place of work. The proposal that the employment agency should provide arrangements to ensure that illicit substances are excluded from the place of work and from any staff accommodation duplicates existing legislation on illicit substances and is therefore unnecessary. Comprehensive legislation prohibiting certain substances is already in place. It would not be appropriate to replicate it in employment legislation or impose such a duty on an agency. I turn now to the aspects of the amendment which are not covered by existing employment agency legislation. There is no specific provision regarding expectations of sober and reasonable behaviour of the employee. The term ““reasonable behaviour”” is not defined in the amendment, perhaps because the noble Lord, Lord Jones, understands how difficult it would be to do so. In any event, agency workers’ assignments can be ended for any reason at any time, and they do not have access to unfair dismissal procedures. It is therefore unnecessary to add such provision to the Bill. The amendment also proposes 24-hour supervision of every place where agency staff are accommodated and where a number of temporary workers are engaged on the same assignment. Agencies are already required to make all reasonable practical inquiries to ensure that it would not be detrimental to the interests of the work-seeker to work in the position offered by the hirer. Any extension of that would be impractical, excessively burdensome and probably unenforceable. In considering any new legislative burden, the Government must take carefully into consideration its impact on those affected, particularly small businesses. Most employment agencies are small businesses. The cost burden on agencies of 24-hour supervision would mean that this kind of bulk assignment would be uneconomic to most and would therefore force up the cost of supplying agency workers. It would not be in anyone’s best interests. In practical terms, the provision would mean the agency supervising the accommodation premises during periods when it was empty—that is, during work hours. The costs would be considerable, especially where the accommodation was located some way from where the agency was based. I have seen no evidence to suggest that the scale of the issue, balanced against the excessive burdens that such a measure would impose, justifies such a measure. In fact, the burden of enforcing such legislation could divert valuable resources away from focusing on the areas where we are aware of abuses, which need to be wiped out as quickly as possible. That is where resources should go. I turn to the proposal for parental consent. Under Regulations 24(7) and (8) of the conduct regulations, parental consent is required for individuals under the age of 18 where an assignment requires them to live away from home. The intention behind this legislative measure is clear. However, the amendment goes further by requiring parental consent for all assignments employing individuals under the age of 18 where a number of temporary workers are engaged on the same assignment. Where young people cannot get such consent from their parents, I presume that they would be precluded from taking up work. If that is what the amendment means, perhaps I may ask what one does with people under the age of 18 who are married. Do they still have to go and ask Mum and Dad? What about those for whom access to parents is impossible? We have to get young people into work and use the agency worker’s environment to introduce them to the world of work, not preclude them from taking up work because they do not want to ask their parents. The Government do not agree that there is a need for this extension. It would only add to the cost of employing young people and reduce opportunities—and it would act against the people whom we are trying to help. It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord James—the author of the Conservative Party’s opus on getting rid of red tape—is submitting an amendment that would add to the mountain of red tape in this area. I thank the noble Baroness for raising the issue. I hope that, having listened to this response, she will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.