My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

The Government’s approach to the UK labour market is based on combining economic prosperity with social justice: enabling businesses to grow, employment to expand and delivering opportunity for all. Fundamental to this is the need for an effective and proportionate regulatory framework: one in which complying with the law is simple and straightforward for businesses and where individuals get the rights to which they are entitled, all supported by an effective, clear and speedy enforcement and penalties regime, while never losing sight of maintaining a flexible labour market that allows wealth creation to be at the core of our nation.

The Employment Bill extends this approach and makes changes to employment law with the aim of improving its effectiveness to the benefit of employers, individuals and other interested parties. The two key elements of the Bill increase protection for vulnerable workers while lightening regulatory burdens on businesses. Enforcement of employment law will be strengthened by the introduction of new penalties for businesses not paying the minimum wage and additional powers for employment agency inspectors to deal with disreputable agencies.

At the same time, the Bill will reduce burdens by repealing the workplace dispute resolution procedures. These legislative changes will be accompanied by a package of non-legislative measures to help employers and employees resolve disputes earlier, saving millions of pounds for businesses and individuals. The measures form an important part of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform’s wider simplification plan, which is set to deliver net reductions in administrative burdens worth more than £1 billion per annum to the UK economy within the next three years. In addition, the Bill clarifies the position of cadet force adult volunteers in relation to the national minimum wage and amends trade union membership law to comply with the European Court of Human Rights judgment in ASLEF v UK.

I will now outline the measures in the Bill, beginning with those on workplace dispute resolution. On 21 March 2007, we published Michael Gibbons’ independent, Review of Employment Dispute Resolution in Great Britain, and an associated government consultation paper, Resolving Disputes in the Workplace. The review identified several key problems with the current dispute resolution system including that: the statutory dispute resolution procedures introduced in 2004, although right in principle, carry a high administrative burden for employers and employees and have had unintended consequences which outweigh their benefits; and around 75 per cent of claims made to an employment tribunal are resolved before reaching a hearing—a substantial portion with the involvement of ACAS. But a significant proportion of cases that reach a tribunal hearing really could be resolved beforehand between the parties, saving cost and time for employer and employee alike.

We will publish our full response to the consultation shortly. We have focused on the policy changes that require primary legislation. The responses to the government consultation were broadly supportive of the conclusions of the review. Clauses 1 and 2 provide for repeal of the procedures, and of the linked provisions on procedural unfairness.

Michael Gibbons also argued that there should be an incentive for employers and employees to take steps to resolve their disputes themselves. Clause 3 therefore gives tribunals the discretion to adjust awards upwards or downwards by a maximum of 25 per cent where they find that the parties have unreasonably failed to comply with ACAS’s statutory code on discipline and grievance. This will be a discretionary power for employment judges to apply in the circumstances of the case, without the rigidity of the existing link to the statutory procedures. ACAS will revise the code. The chair of ACAS has confirmed that the draft code will be concise and principles-based, and supported by fuller non-statutory guidance.

Gibbons also argued that the Government should make additional investments to improve the accessibility and quality of the advice services provided by ACAS, and to provide additional ACAS conciliation services for disputes that are likely to become the subject of an employment tribunal claim. We intend to do so. Two legislative changes intended to maximise the effectiveness of ACAS conciliation are contained in the Bill. First, Clause 5 changes ACAS’s existing duty to conciliate in cases which are not yet the subject of a tribunal claim, on request from the parties, to a power. This will underpin our investment in additional conciliation services, ensuring that ACAS is able to prioritise its caseload effectively without the risk of legal challenge. Secondly, Clause 6 removes time restrictions on ACAS’s duty to offer conciliation to parties already involved in employment tribunal claims.

Michael Gibbons recommended that some tribunal cases, which revolve around the determination of facts in cases of monetary disputes, could be dealt with more quickly and simply. The Government intend to enhance existing arrangements to deal with such cases by establishing a new “fast track” procedure. This will largely be achieved by changes to employment tribunal practice, but requires two legislative changes which are provided in the Bill.

Clause 4 creates additional safeguards where employment judges draw on their existing powers to propose to the parties that a fast track case should be determined in writing, without a hearing. Clause 7 will simplify the process for claimants who have suffered direct financial losses over and above the non-payment itself—for instance, as a result of charges for unauthorised overdrafts. The tribunal will be able to make an additional award against the employer to provide compensation for such losses, rather than leaving the claimant to bring a separate action in the small claims courts, requiring additional expense and time from employer and employee alike.

The Gibbons review and the consultation also addressed a number of issues concerning employment tribunals practice and, in particular, consistency across the regions. The Government do not propose primary legislative change but will be working closely with the Tribunals Service and judiciary to ensure a streamlined and consistent service, including in the treatment of weak or vexatious claims. A majority of consultees believed that tribunals had sufficient powers, but many commented that there was scope for those to be used more consistently across the country. We have asked the Employment Tribunals System Steering Board to lead work on establishing best practice and ensuring that it is consistently applied.

I now turn to the Bill’s provisions relating to the national minimum wage. Incidentally, I should point out that I never did oppose the introduction of the minimum wage. If I had been asked for my opinion at the time—and I was not because I was not at the CBI then—I would have supported its introduction with the caveat that its long-term success would depend on the rate at which it was set and to which it was subsequently increased, and the method of compliance. The minimum wage has been a success because it has not adversely affected inflation or employment, yet it has made a real difference to the lives of many people.

Last year’s increase in the minimum wage benefited around 1 million individuals. The vast majority of employers willingly comply with minimum wage legislation; but nearly a decade on from the National Minimum Wage Act some unscrupulous employers continue to underpay. That is unfair to those who are underpaid and to the vast majority of businesses that obey the law and are unfairly undercut in a local labour market. We are determined to crack down on the small minority of employers who fail to comply. Between 2003 and 2006, we completed 15,000 investigations and identified underpayments totalling £9.6 million. In the past year, the Government helped to restore more than £3 million in arrears to more than 14,000 workers. We now want to take that further.

The Government consulted during the summer on proposals for a new penalty for underpayment of the minimum wage and a fairer way of calculating arrears. As a result of this consultation, we have concluded that the enforcement regime for the national minimum wage should be strengthened in several respects.

Clause 8 amends the method of calculating arrears owed to those who have been underpaid. Currently, these are paid at the rate in force at the time the underpayment took place. The Bill will change that so that all arrears owed are paid at the current rate. That helps to compensate for the potential loss of purchasing power since the offence took place by taking into account the length of time that arrears have been owed.

Clause 9 introduces an enhanced penalty regime that reflects the serious view taken by the Government of employers who do not comply with the National Minimum Wage Act nearly 10 years after its introduction. Under the new regime, an employer will be liable to an automatic penalty if it is found to have underpaid. The penalty will be equal to 50 per cent of the total amount of underpayment—summed up for all those who have been underpaid by that employer—thereby ensuring that the penalty is proportionate. The minimum automatic penalty will be £100 and the maximum £5,000. We want to encourage employers to rectify any underpayment as quickly as possible, so we will reduce the penalty by one half if the employer complies with a notice of underpayment within 14 days.

Clause 10 ensures that officers enforcing the minimum wage can take records relating to it in order to make copies of those records. Clauses 11 and 12 enhance the way we are able to deal with the most serious offenders, by increasing criminal investigative powers and enabling offences to be tried in a Crown Court, with the prospect of an unlimited fine.

The minimum wage is a key right introduced by this Government to ensure fairness. We make every effort to ensure that those who are underpaid get what they are owed; but the best protection we can offer is to strive to ensure that arrears do not arise in the first place—and no business should be allowed to get away with unfairly undercutting legitimate business by this exploitation. Those changes will ensure that everyone who is caught not paying will be punished, with a potentially unlimited fine for the most serious cases. This is to send a very strong message with the aim of changing the behaviour of non-compliant employers. Coupled with an increase in the enforcement budget of £11.6 million over four years, the changes underline our commitment to securing the fairest outcome for employer and employee alike.

When the minimum wage was introduced, Parliament ensured that the voluntary sector would be able to continue to operate successfully and with certainty within the law. At the same time, the National Minimum Wage Act has minimised the chances of low-paid jobs emerging which could be unfairly badged as “volunteering”. Our recent consultation has shown that, by and large, these rules are working well. However, it has also shown that cadet force adult volunteers occupy a unique role in our society.

There are currently around 26,000 cadet force adult volunteers, who, despite facing a number of demands and challenges, devote large amounts of their time and energy to engaging 130,000 young people in the cadet forces. I think that noble Lords will all agree that we should be very grateful for their dedication to making a positive difference to the lives of many young people and their wider communities.

Any confusion that might arise about eligibility for the minimum wage could seriously damage the ability of the cadet forces to continue to provide their services. For that reason, Clause 13 amends the National Minimum Wage Act to clarify that cadet force adult volunteers do not qualify for the minimum wage. This will enable cadet force adult volunteers to operate exactly as they do at the moment and will not affect any entitlement to the minimum wage that they might have outside their cadet force activity.

Clauses 14 to 16 make changes to the enforcement of employment agency standards. Under the Employment Agencies Act 1973, any breach of regulations governing employment agencies is a criminal offence capable of being tried in a magistrates’ court. This has proved an inadequate tool to tackle the few seriously non-compliant agencies that seek to avoid their legal responsibilities at the expense of both agency workers and the great majority of reputable agencies. By making offences triable either way, we aim to increase deterrence against non-compliance. Stronger investigative powers, including the right to take documents away to copy and request financial information held by financial institutions, will enable more successful prosecution of the worst offenders.

Alongside the strengthening of those enforcement powers, we will also double the number of employment agency standards inspectors. This will provide an additional resource for legitimate agencies seeking to abide by the law and will also crack down hard on non-compliance. Our proposals have been welcomed by the sector. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation said:

“We welcome the Employment Bill as it aims to crack down on those employers and agencies that are breaking the rules”.

Finally, the Bill amends trade union law to ensure that it complies with the European Convention on Human Rights following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of ASLEF v UK. According to that judgment, the current limitations on the ability of trade unions to exclude or expel individuals on the grounds of their membership of a political party breach Article 11 of the convention. Clause 17 therefore amends the relevant sections of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 which gave rise to the ASLEF case. The case involved the inability of ASLEF to expel BNP members, whose views are clearly incompatible with those of the union. Our proposed changes to the 1992 Act would give sufficient scope for unions to act decisively against such political extremists.

I should add that, to the best of our knowledge, no other membership-based organisation in this country is required by statute to ignore political-party involvement when setting its membership rules. In that sense, trade unions are currently subject to special treatment. Clause 17 has the effect of placing trade unions on an equal footing with other similar associations.

In summary, the Employment Bill makes important changes to key areas of employment law. It will save businesses and individuals time and money through reform of the workplace dispute resolution framework. It provides stronger enforcement of the national minimum wage and employment agency standards to the benefit of individuals and the vast majority of law-abiding businesses in this land. It also clarifies the position of cadet force adult volunteers and makes necessary changes to trade union membership law.

This country has one of the lowest levels of unemployment in the developed world and one of the most flexible labour markets. Whatever those whose vested interest lead to their selective observation may say, that is not a coincidence. We do not want to put a sign up in the UK saying, “Don’t invest here”. We want to continue to be the location of choice in Europe—second only to the United States in the world—for the inward investment that my department of UK Trade and Investment is privileged to promote every day around the world. This Bill does nothing to harm our jealously guarded flexibility. The United Kingdom has a stable economic framework capable of absorbing global financial shocks in a way that predecessor governments of both parties, over many decades, could not achieve. That, coupled with our flexible labour market, helps law-abiding businesses and helps the individual in the community and in the workplace. I commend the Bill to the House.

My Lords, the Minister says that Clause 17 is requisite in providing decisive action against political extremism. In what way is our present law defective in that?

My Lords, I became involved in exploring and researching this because I, too, found it quite confusing. I learnt that membership of a political party is a ground on which any organisation, except a trade union, can say, “You cannot join us”. That was at the core of ASLEF’s case to the European Court of Human Rights: the ruling was, “Sorry, unions will be treated just like every other association”. With this proposed legislation, we are trying to bring UK statute into line with that.

My Lords, the noble Lord very kindly sent me a briefing about the Bill. The final paragraph of the covering letter said that my noble friend Lord Bach and he would take it through the House. It went on to say:

“In advance of Grand Committee, Lord Bach will hold an ‘open house’ style briefing session in the House of Lords in order to help answer any queries you may have”.

Will the Minister be attending that session?

My Lords, first, I would love to; and, secondly, if I can, I definitely will. I have a programme of banging the drum for Britain and selling brand Britain around the world and if I am doing that job for the taxpayer I will be there and not here; but if I am here, not only will I gladly attend but I shall make every effort to attend.

My Lords, perhaps I could ask the Minister to elaborate on what he has just said to my noble friend. I am a lifelong member of the National Union of Journalists. I retained that membership when I was a Minister; I continued to pay my subscription, although the National Union of Journalists was not always in agreement with government policy—I could put that rather more strongly. Under the Bill, would it mean that, if it wished, the National Union of Journalists would be entitled to expel me from membership?

My Lords, I should point out that it is not under the Bill that the NUJ would be entitled to do it; it is the findings of ASLEF v UK in the European Court of Human Rights. This Bill is merely giving legal standing in Britain to what is already applied. Under the Bill, yes, if the union wishes to bring a court case to the European Court of Human Rights that will be precisely the conclusion. What I find difficult to understand, but it is true, is that a trade union is the only association in Britain that is not allowed to make that distinction. Every other sort of association from a golf club to a dog club can do that, but unions cannot. We are trying not only to give UK efficacy to a European judgment but to stop unions being treated as a special case.

Before the Minister sits down, I do not wish to take advantage but he said something that was quite shocking. He seemed to indicate that as the Minister responsible for taking this Bill through the House, he might not be available to do that. Has the ministerial code of conduct changed since my day when a Minister’s first duty was to Parliament and to legislation before the House?

My Lords, there are two consequent answers to that. First, there are two Ministers taking the Bill through the House—my noble friend Lord Bach and me—for precisely that reason. Secondly, it is extremely important that this nation pays its way around the world. I have those responsibilities, which is the basis of the job.

Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Jones of Birmingham.)

My Lords, before I put the Question that the Bill be read a second time, it may assist the House if I make it clear that it is not necessary to use the device of “Before the Minister sits down” at Second Reading. It is possible to interrupt the Minister during his speech to raise a particular issue with him, but I am not sure that it is for the benefit of the House to have a debate on all sorts of matters right at the end. I hope that the House will not feel that it is beyond my role to point that out.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his description of the Bill and his valiant attempt to explain the Government’s intentions in the areas that the Bill covers. I had hoped that his presence on the Bench opposite would signify a change in the Government’s approach to employment law. If he still held to his earlier opinion that this Government should really learn to understand business before pronouncing on it, I would look forward to a new consensus developing between Her Majesty’s Government and the Opposition. But he stated in 2002 that the DTI did not really understand the business agenda, and sadly this Bill shows that it still does not. No wonder the Minister continues to refuse to join the Labour Party. He is sitting on the wrong Benches and he knows it.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will disagree with me and say that his Government have always understood the business agenda and are doing all that they can to reduce complexity and administration costs. But the facts do not bear that out. Since 1997, the Government have brought forward 28 Acts and 280 statutory instruments dealing with employment. We have now been told by PricewaterhouseCoopers that a third of businesses are avoiding taking on more employees because of the complexity of hiring and firing. The Minister said that he did not want anybody to say, “Don’t invest here”, but that seems to be the message that employers are hearing; PricewaterhouseCoopers’s word is pretty big in this area.

It is a shame that the only area of employment law that the Government can conceive of simplifying is that of dispute resolution. All we have here are seven clauses of deregulation. I am very supportive of those seven clauses and am glad that they are in this Bill, but is this really all that the Government can do? The original provisions, as I am sure my noble friends will enjoy reminding the Government, were opposed by my party. We were convinced that they would not reduce the number of employment disputes that escalated to tribunal cases and we were proved right. The Gibbons review shows that the number of tribunal cases has instead risen by 30 per cent and the costs to both businesses and government have shot up. The review states that the regulations cost firms nearly £290 million a year and that the Government spent £120 million on the Tribunals Service and ACAS in 2005-06. It also notes the enormous damage that is done to employees bringing cases before the tribunal, both to their health and to their employment prospects. I am therefore very relieved that the Government have seen sense and followed the review’s advice to repeal these provisions.

My Lords, it would save time if I asked the noble Baroness whether she would agree that the main opposition to the statutory codes of procedure was mounted by my noble friends Lord McCarthy and Lady Turner and me; all the Opposition did was to join in with a few squeaks. I do not know whether the noble Baroness was at the Grand Committee—I fancy she was not. It is important to put that on the record.

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Miller does not squeak. I have never heard her do so; she would have been quite firm.

I am relieved that the Government have seen sense and followed the review’s advice to repeal those provisions. Of course, that raises the question of what they will replace them with, and I look forward to hearing about the Government’s plans in this area in more detail.

I am also interested in finding out a little more about the Government’s thinking on the next clauses. The Government must make a proper case for these new powers and offences and should be able to produce evidence to show that they are needed. The Government’s arguments for increasing the penalty for non-compliance with the national minimum wage hinge on the current lack of a significant punishment for the offending employer. Apparently, last year only two cases led to a penalty notice; all other cases were resolved with no negative impact on the employer. These provisions therefore increase the deterrent effect by making it more likely that an employer who breaks the law will be punished. However, I was assured that the new penalty will fall only on the most egregious 5 to 10 per cent of cases and that the Government believe that the huge majority will continue to be resolved by civil procedure. Can the Minister explain how this new penalty, to be applied to only a tiny minority of cases, will be more of a deterrent than the rarely applied penalty notice currently allowable? Is there a problem with employers being repeatedly accused of underpayment under the current system? If so, why is the penalty notice not used more widely? Can the Minister really be sure that these measures are the most efficient way to help vulnerable workers? What is the expected cost of these new powers and enforcement measures?

It is sinister that these provisions are appearing some months before the Trades Union Congress Commission on Vulnerable Employment is due to report. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Birmingham, whose opinion of Labour’s cosy relationship with the trades unions is well known, has prevailed on the Prime Minister to get in early, but would it not be sensible for the Government to look at all suggestions in this area before proceeding with further regulation? Are they not just continuing the tweaking of employment law that business finds so costly and confusing?

Finally, on Clause 17, the question of trades unions and their relationship with the Government has frequently led to strong disagreement and I hope that we will be able to maintain a constructive note during the Bill’s proceedings. As an employer, I was always acutely aware that for a successful business employers and employees need to have mutual trust and that a trade union can be a powerful way of helping to establish that. I hope that the Labour Party will take care that it does not do anything to destroy that trust. I see that there are noble Lords with strong connections to trades unions on the speakers list and I look forward to hearing their contributions to this debate.

On these Benches, we have severe reservations that this clause is gold-plating. I feel that it can only increase the perception that the Government are in hock to the unions to an extraordinary degree. The Minister must agree with me, for only two years ago he warned that the financial relationship between Labour and the unions led to a conflict of interest in the Government’s dealings with what he called a vested interest group in society. On these Benches, we have always resisted the idea that the special relationship between Labour and the unions is beneficial for the unions or the Labour Party; it is certainly not beneficial for the country. From this Government’s complete surrender over public sector pensions, their refusal to address the serious issues raised by the political levy and their continuing claim that they, and they only, represent the working population of this country, it appears that they too often give in to the temptation of short-term opportunism when dealing with the unions rather than seeking the long-term good health of this country’s economy.

In this House—and across the board—Clause 17 raises several specific concerns. In the clause, there is a large potential for abuse, as the government consultation document itself acknowledges. Membership of the BNP is not illegal, however much we might all deplore its policies. Secondly, the clause opens up difficult questions on where the line should be drawn in future. Will membership of controversial political organisations, such as Greenpeace, or some of the more extreme animal rights groups, be grounds for expulsion in future? Thirdly, how far do the Government envisage allowing trade unions to go to establish political membership? Will only current or former card-carrying members be expellable? What if a member has made significant financial contributions to or has worked for a party that is disapproved of?

The questions seem to be endless. The clause represents the top of a very slippery slope. I will certainly be raising my concerns again as the Bill moves through the House and I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to both me and your Lordships, who, I am sure, will also have much to say on this matter and much experience to bring. Perhaps that is why the Prime Minister has decided that this Bill should start in your Lordships’ House, so that we can discuss in detail all its shortcomings.

In conclusion, the Bill is disappointing. It gets off to a good start with some very welcome provisions, but it goes rapidly downhill. I look forward to hearing your Lordships’ views and to hearing the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on it. He is a most experienced Minister and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Jones, will be as interested as I am to hear what the Labour Party has to say in reply to this Second Reading of the Bill.

My Lords, in rising to speak from the Liberal Democrat Benches as the last survivor on the Front Bench of the 10 years of employment legislation by this Government—I think that I have spoken from these Benches on every one of the 28 Acts to which the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, referred—I cannot resist commenting on the endless schizophrenia that the Tory Opposition seem to have about employment legislation. They never really say whether they are in favour of it, despite the fact that, although the Prime Ministers have not been prepared to admit it because the Daily Mail might not like it, the employment legislation introduced by this Government during the past 10 years has clearly significantly changed the opportunities and rights of workers in this country, very much for the benefit of employees. One day, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, will stand up and say so.

As the Minister will realise, I welcome the approach that his department has taken during the past 10 years to legislation, in the sense of bringing it in, having a review to see how it is working and then implementing what the review comes up with. Although the consultation on the Gibbons review has ended, we have not seen the Government’s formal response, except in this Bill. I understand that ACAS has a concern but has not yet commented on the Bill because it is waiting to see the government response to the Gibbons review. I notice that behind the Minister a number of his colleagues are nodding. This is a significant point.

On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we broadly support the Bill. We think that the statutory dispute resolution procedures introduced in 2004 were overly bureaucratic. I entirely endorse the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, who always puts his point effectively—I was going to say succinctly, but that is not necessarily always the case. He and his colleagues made the point in 2004, which the Gibbons review now supports. It is quite clear that the statutory procedure has proven overly bureaucratic and has acted as a barrier to justice for the most vulnerable. We support the Government’s recognition of that in the Bill. It is sensible to go back to the House of Lords decision in Polkey regarding procedural unfairness. If somebody was dismissed and the procedures were not followed, so that the dismissal would not apply, it is sensible to go back to the Polkey situation, as the Bill does.

Stronger enforcement of the national minimum wage must clearly be supported. We also support the provisions of Clauses 14 to 16 on employment agencies. We are against Clause 17; my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill will speak to that and explain why. I do not want to intervene in something that the world’s foremost expert on human rights knows better than me. However, the proposition that a golf club and a trade union should be treated in the same way is slightly bizarre, given the special employment rights that have quite rightly been given to trade unions over the centuries, which do not, of course, apply to golf clubs.

The problem with the Bill is that the genie is again out of the bottle. This is the 29th piece of legislation in this area since Labour came into office, which inevitably tempts opposition parties to say both what is wrong with the Bill and what ought to be included in it that is not. This is in a sense a clean sheet of paper, on which we can say what the Bill fails to address.

First, on what is clearly missing from the Bill—there will be an opportunity in Committee to introduce amendments to this effect—there is no doubt that the enforcement mechanisms on awards by employment tribunals are defective. I hope that the Government have taken on board the representations made by the citizens advice bureaux on this. It is clear that in significant cases where an employee gets an award there is great difficulty in enforcing it; the costs are often prohibitive. I hope that the Government will look to strengthen the Bill to make it easier for employees with awards from employment tribunals to enforce those awards.

Then there is the question of the wider area of enforcement of all employment rights. Citizens Advice has done valuable work on this, demonstrating that it is a problem. According to its figures, some 275,000—mostly low-paid—workers go to citizens advice bureaux with their employment problems. Of them, 165,000 or more—a large number of people—have any problem from the following menu: a denial of the statutory right to four weeks’ paid holiday; denial of statutory sick leave and pay when unable to work due to illness; the reduction, particularly for migrant workers, of already low wages to illegal levels by deductions for accommodation, transport and other services, which are themselves illegal; being required to work 56 or even more hours a week, having been cajoled to opt out of the 48-hour legal limit; summary dismissal due to pregnancy and denial of time off for antenatal care; and the non-payment of wages owed for holiday pay and notice pay when the employee leaves employment. These are not minor problems; each year, 165,000 people are prejudiced in this way.

We draw the attention of the Minister to the speech made by John Hutton to the TUC in September 2007. He said that,

“the existence of workplace rights alone is not enough if employers think they can flout the law with impunity … Rights that exist only on paper are not worth the paper they are written on ... we must step up enforcement in workplaces across Britain … to root out the rogues, whichever sector they are in”.

A lot of people, including, I think, members of a House of Commons committee, suggested that the mechanism set up for HMRC to deal with enforcement of the national minimum wage could be a model for increasing the opportunity for enforcement of rights for employees. We could have a single gateway for complaints to HMRC, the HSC, the EASI or the GLA—I shall test people on what that means when they want. This is a very significant point and I would welcome the Government’s response on whether they feel that there could be an opportunity in this Bill to create a fair employment commission to enforce these rights on behalf of a very significant number of employees.

I cannot resist turning to the difficult issue of agency workers. In a previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord James, touched on potential exploitation by rogue employment agencies. I know that he will speak about his proposals at Second Reading and in Committee, and we will be very supportive. There is also the more fundamental question on how to define in law an agency worker and an employee. There have been two recent cases—Dacas against Brook Street and Cable & Wireless against Muscat—both of which introduced the concept of “implied” employment status. That is a significant issue, particularly in relation to whether people who regard themselves as freelancers working on a commercial basis are employees or implied employees. This Bill should provide the opportunity for the Government to define that on the statute book, rather than leaving it to case law, which inevitably gets it right, but only in the end—you often need interested parties to sponsor test cases to force such developments. This could be a missed opportunity if the Government do not introduce clear definitions of what is meant by “employee” in this area.

Finally, now that there have been 28 Acts and hundreds of regulations, dare I ask whether this is not the moment to have a consolidation of employment legislation?