Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Wilcox (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 17 December 2007. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2007.


Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2007

My Lords, most of these regulations merit our support, except regulation 7 which seeks to tackle a persistent defrauding of aspiring actors and models by bogus recruitment agencies. As the Minister said, very often these are young hopefuls who are being ripped off by as much as £100 or £200 a time. It is a practice which preys on people’s hopes and dreams and it is legal because of a loophole in the 2003 conduct regulations which we are trying to amend. The question is whether the proposal before us will do what the Government originally promised—to stamp out the practice in question. Regulation 7 would amend the original regulation by providing a seven-day cooling-off period for payment after a casting session and would entitle a work seeker to back out of any contract signed without penalty. We have been presented with a well-intentioned and, on the surface, reasonable suggestion that the provisions will improve things. However, they will not prevent the scam from occurring in the first place or address the central problem that it is often weeks, sometimes months, after the original event that people realise that no work is forthcoming. The reactions to the Government’s propositions have been quite negative. The first negative reaction was from the Equity spokesman who said that he was absolutely livid with what was happening. Mr Spencer MacDonald, the principal representative of the Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union, said: "““We are deeply disappointed because we have been hammering away at the Department of Trade and Industry for a number of years and we thought they were slowly coming around and understanding the problems being experienced by our members. They have not come up with the goods really—they have not delivered anywhere near what we wanted””." Why have the Government chosen to ignore the views of Equity and BECTU on the issue? Does the Minister agree that instead of a short cooling-off period there should be a ban on up-front fees in this sector, as there is in almost any other business sector? Why have the Government turned their face against this? Further, will the Minister explain why the Government have rejected the eminently sensible suggestion of Equity and BECTU that a distinction should be made between directories and online information services on the one hand and genuine entertainment employment agents on the other? Such a distinction would allow agents to develop the continuing relationship with artists that they need and to charge the fee in relation to work sought, not up front. The publication side would then be clearly distinguished from the genuine process of agency. This is important. The Minister in the other place spoke about not setting up blanket bans but he had the opportunity to distinguish between the two functions. Equity and BECTU suggested that and I suggest it now. The rules of the House require that if we want to oppose the relevant provision in the statutory instrument, we must vote against the whole measure. We do not want to do that because the other regulations merit our support. However, I emphasise that regulation 7 is wholly inadequate. We do not want to support it and it is a great shame that Ministers have chosen to bury the proposal in such a way. As Mark Prisk, my colleague in another place, said: "““For at least four years Ministers have recognised that there is a problem, but they have failed to act. When complaints have been made, their officials have failed to prosecute. When they have brought forward legislative tinkering and changes, those have been slow to be forthcoming and inadequate to the task. The result is that thousands of people have been ripped off over those four years while Ministers have dithered and their officials have failed to prosecute””.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/12/07; col. 12.]" I hope that the Minister can explain why he and his colleagues are happy for this con to continue. I do not believe that this is his wish but it is the net effect of what we are being presented with today.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c547-8 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Fees and charges Employment agencies Entertainers Recruitment Standards Temporary employment
Legislation
Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2007
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk