Have your say in shaping our industry’s future, recruitment leaders urge
9 April 2013
Recruitment industry leaders are urging the profession to give their views on a major government consultation that could shape the sector’s future.
Tue, 9 Apr 2013Recruitment industry leaders are urging the profession to give their views on a major government consultation that could shape the sector’s future.
The deadline to submit responses to the ‘Consultation on reforming the regulatory framework for employment agencies and employment business’ is Thursday, 11 April. If you haven’t submitted your response yet, or you need a reminder of the key points up for consultation, see the views of industry chiefs below:
Simon Garbett, chair, The Employment Agents Movement (TEAM)
“Any opportunity to improve legislation should be seized upon – so given the Conduct Regulations affect all recruiters, then all should take this chance to have their say.
“Good business deserves to be supported by good legislation, and the world of recruitment has moved on substantially from when the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and Conduct Regulations 2003 were first drafted.
“Focusing on some key areas: Section 10 of the Regulations should be removed and let recruitment businesses and their clients then decide what fees are ‘reasonable’. Also the consultation makes reference to the industry being governed by a trade association.
“There is a growing comment that the industry and all those affected by it may be better served with a return to licensing but only licensing that is robust and meaningful, which promotes the professionals and removes those that bring the industry into disrepute.”
Tom Hadley, director of policy, Recruitment & Employment Confederation
“The need for robust enforcement has been a consistent refrain from recruiters; getting rid of Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate (EAS) would be a retrograde step and would go against the interests of workers as well as the vast majority of compliant businesses in our sector.
“Current enforcement activities must be refocused – rather than removed – in order to target worst instances of bad practice. The suggestion that temp to perm fees should be subject to a ‘reasonableness’ test is a non-starter as it is not the role of government to intervene in contractual agreements.
“The intention is to streamline regulations but some suggested measures – such as the requirement to include specific information on company websites – could have the reverse effect. It is also crucial that the regulations reflect intermediaries such as umbrella organisations and provide a clear definition of who is in scope.”
Adrian Marlowe, chair, Association of Recruitment Consultancies
“ARC members reject the idea of self-regulation, which may cause standards to drop with few advantages for the industry, the main winners being job boards and less professional organisations.
“We oppose material change to the rules on transfer fees, which work well, or to enforcement through the Employment Tribunal, which would increase costs and engender an element of fear with no tangible benefit to workers.
“Otherwise the opportunity to modernise and remove some unnecessary rules, as well as include new provisions addressing inconsistencies arising from the expanding RPO [recruitment process outsourcing] model, is very welcome.”
Azmat Mohammed, director general, Institute of Recruiters
“Some ‘must know’ key points from this government consultation are:
“Better self regulation and implementation of standards in the codes of professional bodies: This is an opportunity to recognise that by just having a code is not enough; the code must resonate through all aspects of training and promotion of good practice which is recognised across all recruitment bodies.
“Forcing employment businesses to publish more detailed information about their businesses: This can have positive and negative effects. A key point is to ensure the real world outcome meets the initial intention and does not in any way damage a business’s commercial effectiveness.
“The effectiveness of naming and shaming bad practice by agencies and individuals: This is already happening with the EAS but without the resources behind it the programme will have limited impact. What could work better is allowing professional bodies to implement government enforcement, allowing non-profit bodies to pick up the slack in resources not available in a shrinking public sector.”
Click for more Conduct Regulations views from recruiter.co.uk.
The deadline to submit responses to the ‘Consultation on reforming the regulatory framework for employment agencies and employment business’ is Thursday, 11 April. If you haven’t submitted your response yet, or you need a reminder of the key points up for consultation, see the views of industry chiefs below:
Simon Garbett, chair, The Employment Agents Movement (TEAM)
“Any opportunity to improve legislation should be seized upon – so given the Conduct Regulations affect all recruiters, then all should take this chance to have their say.
“Good business deserves to be supported by good legislation, and the world of recruitment has moved on substantially from when the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and Conduct Regulations 2003 were first drafted.
“Focusing on some key areas: Section 10 of the Regulations should be removed and let recruitment businesses and their clients then decide what fees are ‘reasonable’. Also the consultation makes reference to the industry being governed by a trade association.
“There is a growing comment that the industry and all those affected by it may be better served with a return to licensing but only licensing that is robust and meaningful, which promotes the professionals and removes those that bring the industry into disrepute.”
Tom Hadley, director of policy, Recruitment & Employment Confederation
“The need for robust enforcement has been a consistent refrain from recruiters; getting rid of Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate (EAS) would be a retrograde step and would go against the interests of workers as well as the vast majority of compliant businesses in our sector.
“Current enforcement activities must be refocused – rather than removed – in order to target worst instances of bad practice. The suggestion that temp to perm fees should be subject to a ‘reasonableness’ test is a non-starter as it is not the role of government to intervene in contractual agreements.
“The intention is to streamline regulations but some suggested measures – such as the requirement to include specific information on company websites – could have the reverse effect. It is also crucial that the regulations reflect intermediaries such as umbrella organisations and provide a clear definition of who is in scope.”
Adrian Marlowe, chair, Association of Recruitment Consultancies
“ARC members reject the idea of self-regulation, which may cause standards to drop with few advantages for the industry, the main winners being job boards and less professional organisations.
“We oppose material change to the rules on transfer fees, which work well, or to enforcement through the Employment Tribunal, which would increase costs and engender an element of fear with no tangible benefit to workers.
“Otherwise the opportunity to modernise and remove some unnecessary rules, as well as include new provisions addressing inconsistencies arising from the expanding RPO [recruitment process outsourcing] model, is very welcome.”
- Marlowe also wrote a longer opinion piece ‘Regulation under the microscope – again’ in the March edition of Recruiter. And click for more Conduct Regulations coverage in the last edition of the magazine.
Azmat Mohammed, director general, Institute of Recruiters
“Some ‘must know’ key points from this government consultation are:
“Better self regulation and implementation of standards in the codes of professional bodies: This is an opportunity to recognise that by just having a code is not enough; the code must resonate through all aspects of training and promotion of good practice which is recognised across all recruitment bodies.
“Forcing employment businesses to publish more detailed information about their businesses: This can have positive and negative effects. A key point is to ensure the real world outcome meets the initial intention and does not in any way damage a business’s commercial effectiveness.
“The effectiveness of naming and shaming bad practice by agencies and individuals: This is already happening with the EAS but without the resources behind it the programme will have limited impact. What could work better is allowing professional bodies to implement government enforcement, allowing non-profit bodies to pick up the slack in resources not available in a shrinking public sector.”
Click for more Conduct Regulations views from recruiter.co.uk.
