Proceeding contribution from Lord Razzall (Liberal Democrat) 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, I share the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. These regulations are almost entirely, with one exception, to be supported, and the points she raises on regulation 7 are particularly well made. It is not clear from the Explanatory Memorandum why the Government have gone back on their original intention. It is indicated that this is as a result of consultation, but certainly the consultation with industry leaders to which the noble Baroness referred would indicate that her points are well made. As she rightly pointed out, one of the weaknesses of the procedure under which we are called in the dinner hour, or in the Moses Room, to debate these regulations is that we only have the opportunity to either accept them or to vote the whole lot down; there is no provision to amend them. On an issue such as this, that makes opposition and reasonable debate more difficult. I repeat my congratulations to the Government and to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, over recent regulations and what now appears to be regular procedure. Whether or not that extends beyond his department to all departments, his department is to be congratulated on the regulatory impact assessment, as now appears with all regulations emanating from his department. I found it considerably more informative and helpful than the Explanatory Memorandum that used to accompany statutory instruments. Again, for the record, I press the Minister in general terms on a point that is dear to our hearts on the Liberal Democrat Benches, and appeared in our last two general election manifestoes: the necessity for sunset clauses in regulations. In another context, I notice, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, has put down an amendment providing for a sunset clause, which we will be supporting. The Minister’s department almost gets there when saying—somewhere in here—that the regulations will be reviewed in two years’ time, in about 2010, to assess the benefit. That is almost a sunset clause, but does not quite have the full effect. One of the reasons that we are in favour of sunset clauses is to try and alter the culture of government, where regulation is piled on regulation. I also ask the Minister—although he may feel this is an inappropriate moment—if, in commenting on the regulations, he is prepared to comment on the wider issues regarding agency workers that appear to be emanating from decisions or potential decisions in Europe. He will be well aware that there is a wider context. A number of people and lobby organisations in the United Kingdom are unhappy about the relationship between what an agency worker is and what an employee is—what is the definition of an agency worker? Is he in a position to comment? Also, what about the apparent dispute between his Government and their paymasters in the trades unions on the treatment of agency workers, in general terms, flowing from potential European directives?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 697 c548-9
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 00:00:23 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_430639
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_430639
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_430639