DIGNITY AT WORK (Hansard, 29 March 2004)

§ Valerie Davey (Bristol, West) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The need for the Government to be more proactive in promoting and ensuring dignity at work for all employees at every level has been reiterated from the Back Benches of this Chamber and the House of Lords since at least 1996. I am pleased to have the opportunity briefly to consider new clause 1 and raise again the serious anxiety about the widespread nature of bullying in the workplace.
All Members of Parliament must know through their surgeries of cases of constituents experiencing bullying at work and being unable to voice that experience and seek a resolution. When we first heard about those often desperate cases, most of us were unaware of the scale of the problem. In November 2001, the Manchester school of management and the university of Manchester institute of science and technology published the report entitled, "Destructive Conflict and Bullying at Work". Five thousand people in 70 workplaces responded to the survey, which showed that one in 10 people—10 per cent.—had experienced bullying in the previous six months and that one in four—25 per cent.—had experienced bullying in the previous five years.
Subsequent evidence from trade unions confirmed that, despite years of campaigning against bullying, it remains a persistent and extensive problem. I want to identify and thank especially Amicus-MSF and Chris Ball, the national secretary, for persistently bringing the matter back to public attention, for producing good material for the use of members and officers and for drafting policies for employers and organisations. That experience led to the union concluding: The size of the problem cannot be overstated. Amicus, and the Andrea Adams Trust, which is the only charity that responds to the counselling needs of those who have been bullied, encouraged the all-party dignity at work group to seek statutory action. I want to put on record my appreciation of the work of both organisations.
Further, more recent evidence has come in response to the new clause from the Royal College of Nursing, which offers its support and reports that its "Working well" survey showed that, in 2002, one in six nurses had been bullied in the workplace. It wants additional protection for employees and redress for those who suffer bullying in the workplace. Until last week, the Government's response on each occasion had been concerned words but limited action.
In response, dare I say it, to the new clause, which I tabled only a fortnight ago, the reaction was almost instantaneous and remarkably proactive. I offer my sincere congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on her announcement last week that, together with Amicus, the Government will launch the world's largest project to stamp out bullying and discrimination at work.
Alongside the need to support individuals, the Government have recognised that some 5 million people are affected, that 13.5 million working days are lost through stress and that the cost to the economy is £4 billion every year. The project has been launched to 1341 provide supportive advice and training to organisations that are trying to tackle bullying, train employees as counsellors, devise and promote a voluntary charter on dignity at work, promote examples of excellent employers in the United Kingdom and produce a benchmark that enables organisations to measure their success in achieving dignity at work and a "ban bullying" pack. The Government are working initially with Amicus and 10 leading employers, including British Aerospace, Royal Mail, Legal and General and British Telecommunications.
Although I understand that another 180 employers will join the project in the autumn, it is voluntary. However, it is far-reaching and extensive. The partnership with Amicus means that great experience will be brought to it, and that will be invaluable.
I remind the Government that other European countries have followed the legislative route and I hope that the project will be compared with the work in other countries. However, in the light of what the Government have produced and are doing, I would seek to withdraw the new clause on the understanding—and with an assurance—from the Minister that the project will be monitored and that, should good practice not prove as infectious as we all hope, the Government will reconsider the possibility of legislation and revisit the new clause or a similar provision later.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady cannot move and withdraw the clause in the same speech. I have to take it that she is moving the clause in the speech. We can then put the Question, on which the Minister and perhaps other hon. Members may wish to comment. Has the hon. Lady concluded her speech?

§ Valerie Davey
May I simply say that I am minded to withdraw the new clause and thank you for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

§ Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
It may not have been in order for the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) to mention at this stage her intention to withdraw the new clause, but since she has expressed it, I welcome it. Although I entirely agree with her sentiments and intentions, I disagree with the idea that passing further legislation will achieve them. The new clause is too prescriptive. Clearly, I do not have to make that argument because she acknowledges its validity.
New clause 1 would place an enormous burden on employers and employees to understand what constitutes a dignity at work policy and the way in which it would be enforced. That applies especially to a small workplace in a small or medium-sized firm that does not employ many human resources people. It cannot be good for industry to employ more people to deal with further regulations than it does to manufacture goods and services. Business and industry should be about the latter, not keeping to the letter of complicated laws.
I commend the hon. Lady for presenting the matter for discussion in the House and drawing it to the Minister's attention. The thrust of her comments is 1342 right. She has outlined the problem well but, unfortunately, new clause 1 is not the solution—would that it were. If the solution to the enormous problem that she described was passing such a law, we would all be pleased. Employers and employees alike would be pleased if we could eradicate the dreadful problem of bullying by merely writing something in statute.
Most employers want to be good employers and most employees want to be good employees because it is far preferable if everybody gets on well. Employers want to encourage their employees by being good employers because that is how to get the best out of their work force. It is as simple as that.
The hon. Lady was right to talk about dignity. How terribly undignified, therefore, that many people heard last week on radio and television that they would be made redundant. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said: I am not prepared to have our workers hear on the radio that they will lose their jobs or find that they have already lost their jobs through a text message."—[Official Report, 14 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 821.]
So it is not all right for workers to suffer the indignity of hearing about the loss of their job by text message or on the radio or television, but it is all right if they hear it in the Budget. That is hardly a dignified way for the Government to treat large parts of their work force. If the Government backed their words with actions, many of the problems that we have been discussing throughout the passage of the Bill could be eradicated immediately.
It would be bad jurisprudence to pass new clause 1 into law, as it would be difficult to enforce. It is bad in principle to make laws that cannot be enforced and would be unclear. However, I join the hon. Lady in asking the Government to take seriously the problem that she outlined, which we would all like solved.
8 pm

§ Mr. Sutcliffe
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) for tabling the new clause and for commending the Government's decisions over the last couple of weeks to work with the trade union Amicus on bullying. I agreed with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) had to say, but if she is so keen on information and consultation, she will have explain to employees why her party will vote against the principles and proposals surrounding those issues later this evening. I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks, and I ask her to withdraw her new clause.

§ Valerie Davey
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.