Lord Falconer, Labour’s Shadow Attorney
General, has today (Monday
11th) written to the
Attorney General seeking for the legal framework following the
Prime Minister’s statement last night.
The Prime Minister’s statement said
“that anyone who can’t work from home...should
actively be encouraged to go to work.” However, the Health
Protection Regulations that have been in place to respond to the
coronavirus crisis have not been updated to reflect leaving
confusion over the safety of those who are asked to return to
work. Lord Falconer has asked the following legal guidance of the
Attorney General:
· “Is
it proposed to change this provision, or is the position that the
PM’s encouragement of people who cannot work at home to now
return to work is already permitted by the existing
[regulation]?”
· “Do you envisage it is
for individual employees to make their own decisions about
whether their workplace is safe?”
· “If an employee
reasonably believes there is inadequate safety measures at his or
her place of work to combat the virus, section 44 of the
Employment Rights Act 1996 permits the individual employee not to
return to work, without the risk of detriment?”
Without clear legal guidance, Lord Falconer has warned that
there will be “uncertainty, chaos and inconsistency”
for those returning to work.
Ends
Notes to Editors
· The Health Protection (Coronavirus,
Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/contents/made
[Full text of the letter]
Dear Attorney General,
I write as a matter of urgency seeking legal guidance from
the government as to the legal framework which now applies to
employees returning to work, in the light of the PM’s speech last
night.
The speech says, “We now need to stress that anyone who
can’t work from home...should actively be encouraged to go to
work.”
Currently, the Health Protection (Coronavirus,
Restrictions) (England) 2020 provide as follows in respect of
going to work:
“6. During the emergency period, no person may leave the
place where they are living without reasonable excuse.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse
includes the need—
....
(f)
to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary
or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for
that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place
where they are living”
Is it proposed to change this provision, or is the position
that the PM’s encouragement of people who cannot work at home to
now return to work is already permitted by the existing reg
6(2)f?
In relation to the safety of places of work, do you
envisage it is for individual employees to make their own
decisions about whether their workplace is safe? If so, could you
confirm that if an employee reasonably believes there is
inadequate safety measures at his or her place of work to combat
the virus, section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 permits
the individual employee not to return to work, without the risk
of detriment?
The consequence of the change of policy, in the context of
s44, appears therefore it is for each employee to make their own
decision guided where appropriate by their union. Without
proper preparation including clear guidance and who will provide
help in difficult cases there will be uncertainty, chaos and
inconsistency. This is not good law or policy
making.
Please reply as a matter of urgency. I am making this
letter public.
Your sincerely
pp
Shadow Attorney General