Working in the New Normal - GLD Video with Isabelle Parasram and David Eastham

"Working in the New Normal"
Examining the implications for working patterns post-Covid19

Joint event at GLD 2020 Vision Conference co-sponsored by the Association of Liberal Democrat Trade Unionists & Green LibDems

Thu 2nd July 2020 1.00pm-2:30pm
Isabelle Parasram (Vice President, Lib Dems)
David Eastham (ALDTU)

shortlink = http://grn.lib.dm/a61dzK
edited by Anna Beria

In this session, which was held on 2nd July 2020, Isabelle Parasram, LibDems Vice-President and a very successful barrister specialising in employment law, examines the legal implications of home working, the risks and the opportunities, from the point of view of both employers and employees, at time when many employees will have been forced to accept homeworking as "the new normal", but many will have embraced it as a welcome chance to achieve a better work-life balance. David Eastham (ALDTU) was unable to participate.

Despite being recorded when the first lockdown was about to end, the discussion has lost none of its relevance as the country was forced to return to a second, and then a third lockdown.

[recording starts at 1:19]

Isabelle Parasram … and you've probably just got a message on your screen to say that the meeting is being recorded so just so that everybody is aware of that. So, yes, it's been brilliant to be invited because I know you've got a very packed schedule and it's wonderful that you view this as such an important topic and hopefully what we're going to talk particularly about today is Coronavirus and how it impacts on employment law. We can talk more generally about other employment law issues on another day, I'm sure, but linking it in with the green economy and understanding how the work that we do impacts the environment, and by environment I don't just mean trees or what the colour of the sky is and things like that, but also the way that we live and the way that we work, because we're all a part of our environment. So, that's what we're going to be speaking about today; I really look forward to some of the questions that you have to ask.

What I would say at the start, being a barrister myself, is that what we discuss here will be very general information as opposed to specific legal advice, and it's correct as at today's date, and as we know the situation is changing on a continual basis.

But if you need specific legal advice then please do contact a lawyer, the Citizens Advice Bureau, ACAS, and your insurers if you're an organization, etc. if you really want tailored advice. But hopefully we're going to be able to discuss some broad principles today and answer some of your questions.

So, what qualifies me to be here? I'm head of the Barristers Chambers that I established in 2012; prior to that I had a couple of decades in the public, private and charitable sectors as an in-house lawyer and a lawyer in private practice, etc. So, I've got a lot of experience across a number of sectors: I've done all sorts of types of law but my favourite is employment law, and so I'm focusing really at this stage in my life on regulatory compliance which is all about organizations following the rules, doing things the right way, and ideally following not just the law but policy recommendations of how to grow a brilliant business and keep your employees safe, motivated, and happy. So, that's my background in terms of the law.

I have another background which is in education. I was a former school governor and I've got teaching qualifications for adults and Early Years as well, and in addition to that I'm heavily involved in politics as you probably know, which Keith has already mentioned, so really pleased to be here.

Some of the things that I'm really keen to think about, or focus on, or perhaps discuss with you, are the particular precautions that we've got to take now that we know that more of the hospitality industry is opening again this week; what does this mean for you if you're a member of staff or if you're an organization, how do you navigate the minefield of rules and regulations of what we've got to do, and how we keep people safe.

Looking also at the future, prior to the lockdown there was a lot of resistance in some sectors on the idea of virtual working. What has the lockdown really meant for those people in those organizations now? Are we going to have a different way of working, and how does that impact on people, for example, who have disabilities, who have perhaps previously been excluded from the workforce?

Does it mean that we can now open up more jobs and did we really have a very poor excuse in the past? I would say probably yes.

And then the final thing that I think would be really interesting to talk about, again in this discussion with you, I'd really invite questions and comments, is about people from BAME backgrounds who are at significant risk from being exposed to Coronavirus, and what measures are being taken within workplaces to take account of those risks, given that this whole situation is developing and there has been a lot of information about what is happening to BAME people, but there's not really a solid plan going forward as to how to deal with it. So, for example, are you a parent of children and you know you may have BAME teachers in your school, what measures are your schools taking to protect those teachers? And indeed, if you're a BAME person who's sending children into school, because you're a key worker, you're possibly exposed by having to travel on the trains or buses to be able to get into work, but you may have BAME children who are now going into school and perhaps being exposed to those risks.

So, there's a lot to talk about, and I'm really looking forward to hearing quite where your thinking is going, and I will be watching the chat very avidly and listening to what Keith has to say about people's comments. So, thank you for the welcome.

Keith Melton - I should know by now that I need to unmute myself whenever I want to speak, it's really quite frustrating. OK, thank you very much as well for that introduction, and what I'm going to do is to welcome Martin Horwood, who is co-chairing this session with me, and I think we can call David back onto the stage as well and let him introduce himself and his background.

Martin, hello if you want …

Martin Horwood - Hello, I apologize for technical problems that I didn't manage to join the discussion on time but I was listening to Isabelle.

Keith Melton - OK. Well don't worry about the technical problems it's been happening to all of us and we're […entirely selfish…] learning a lot of technical problems over the last two weeks it's really quite fun. So, Martin is President of the Green Liberal Democrats and one of our… as I have said the other day, I don't like this expression because it's very sad, but he's one of our former MEPs.

Martin, just give a little bit of background now you've arrived on screen.

Martin Horwood - Yes, and I'd say I'm also a current borough councillor in Cheltenham, where we have had the benefit of Isabelle's expertise actually very recently in trying to tackle some of the difficult issues. This actually arose out of a debate on Black Lives Matter and how we responded to certain things that happened in Cheltenham on that basis, rather than Covid, and I think there's a combination of issues at the moment which is a potential minefield for councillors, for activists, for the party as a whole. And on the basis of what I've experienced, I think we're extraordinarily lucky to have someone of Isabelle's expertise and communication skills (which don't always go together) to advise us and to be involved in the party at a time like this, and it's great to hear you, Isabelle.

Keith Melton - Good, thank you. And Caron, is David Eastham in the audience, is he? Can you bring him on? no, he's not unfortunately, no… unless he's calling himself a different name, I'm not seeing him in the audience just yet]He, yeah… I think he was having problems earlier on, I saw a message about him having problems. OK. Well, we'll run with what we've got. What I have got, Isabelle, is a couple of questions that we had thought about, pre-cooked, pre-prepared, just in case we weren't getting any questions from the Q&A. I don't think there are any questions in the Q&A at the moment…

Martin Horwood - No, just for any participants who aren't familiar with this, the Q&A button is at the bottom. If you click on that and type your question in, then Keith or I will we'll pick those up and either ask you to come forward or fire them at Isabelle ourselves. So, please do use the Q&A button at the bottom of your screen.

Keith Melton - And we will at times be asking you if you want to ask your Q&A question, if you want to ask your question in person, if you'll put your blue hand up, and that is available to you also at the bottom of the screen as well.

So, one of our pre-prepared questions, if I can find them again, is this: "During a lockdown I've been working from home and this has given me a better work/life balance. My employer acknowledges that I've been working more productively, I'm not looking forward to returning to the daily commute to the office, which includes travelling two hours each way, I would like to continue to work from home. Would my employer have to take my request seriously if I asked to continue to work from home?" Isabelle, if you'd like to tackle that question…

Isabelle Parasram - Yes, sure. So, employers always have to take every request seriously, even if the answer is no. So, they should be doing that in any event, but if they do want to retain a motivated workforce then I'd certainly be advising them to do that. I think probably your question is more geared to… do they have to say "yes", and prior to the lockdown the situation with flexible working was that you could make an application to work flexibly so that you… there are all sorts of arrangements and I will run through some of them for the benefit of the audience who may only know about those circumstances. So, there's such a thing as working… having every other Friday off for example, or working part-time hours, job sharing, being able to work virtually from home for the majority of the time… there are all sorts of arrangements that people can come to, and they are really subject to the creativity of the organization and the individual, and I know that over my lifetime I've enjoyed the benefit of flexible working, and I've had four young children over the period of my career, and I've studied at university, and done various diplomas while still practicing as a barrister, so I've really benefited from those, and I'm an example of the product really of what you can get if you do encourage people to work flexibly, because it may well have been that I would have exited the workforce completely for a period of time, and I wouldn't have got to the place that I am at now. So, really, I'm addressing that little speech to those who are running businesses, or who are managers within businesses, that flexible working is, broadly speaking, a very good thing because it enables a member of staff to manage their lives in a much better way, it cuts out unnecessary travel time, it's great for the environment, staff are often more willing to give much more, partly because they feel so grateful that they've been given the opportunity to work from home.

So, those are all the reasons why it's a brilliant thing, and traditionally people have asked for flexible working mainly linked to caring responsibilities, so that has been because you've got a young child and that elderly parent, a sick relative, something along those lines. And certainly from my experience in practice I would say my role has been mainly advising organizations in how to really run themselves far better in a way that … has good job retention, and … market themselves as a really brilliant organization to work for, so that's really the slant that I have taken. Which is why I would have loved David to join us, I hope he can because he will give the perspective much more from an employee. But, broadly speaking, those applications have been really linked to caring responsibilities; since the lockdown, what's happened is that everybody has discovered how brilliant it is to work and study from home, and to socialize from home, and I think what we're going to see is a complete revolution in what employers consider reasonable. So, the fundamental requirement for an employer is to reasonably consider the request that has come in, and to give a business case for why the answer is yes or no. And in circumstances like this, if you, the inquirer, have got a specific case that is particularly linked to caring responsibilities, you're much more likely to get a yes. If it's simply that you find yourself more productive, that is far more flexible… it's going to be much more of a discussion to be had, and what your employer… what a tribunal I guess would be looking at is whether the decision made by the employer is a reasonable one in the context of their business.

We can go on because I don't want to take too much time on one question but we can go on to talk about people who don't have to stay at home, who are simply shielding because they're worried about catching Coronavirus, but that's broadly speaking where you would stand. So, first place to start -- contact your employer, yes, they do have to listen to you, they don't have to say a yes or no, and a lot of it will be by negotiation.

Keith Melton - Thank you. One of the things that, from an environmental point of view of course, is that a lot of the travel requirements, and therefore the pollution, inevitably associated with travel can be reduced. So, societally there's actually a very strong case for this. Does that have any bearing on the legal position of the of the employers or is that simply to do with the employee-employer relationship?

Isabelle P - I'll say a very brutal "no". It's completely irrelevant, I'm afraid. And I see that Christopher Gleadle is one of the attendees here and he is the CEO of the Paddy Ashdown Forum, of which I'm a trustee, and he is an avid … he's a great green campaigner, and he knows everything there is to know about climate change and all of the arguments in terms of a green economy, and I remember just a couple of weeks ago sending him some photographs of what the sky looks like, and the ozone layer, and how beautiful our environment has become just by everybody staying indoors, and it would be such a shame to lose that or to scale, to really wheel back, but I fear that's what's going to inevitably happen, although I hope that the pace and the extent will be far less significant. But, broadly speaking, green issues in this context are not relevant, I'm afraid.

Keith Melton - Shame! We'll have to see if we can make … when we're marching we'll have to see if we can make some headway on making them more relevant.

Martin Horwood - Yeah, I think… I mean one of the interesting things about the travel side of it is that I suspect finance directors of many companies are going to look at their cash flow over the last couple of months, and think "oh, this is quite good! Look how much cash we've saved by having people sort of flying around the world on frequent flyer tickets and business class, actually just doing everything by teleconferencing and Skype and Zoom and all the rest", and I think they'll discover they've saved a significant amount of money, and that might be a whole different driver towards actually a more pleasant and more environmentally friendly way of doing business anyway we do have a list of questions stacking up now.

Keith Melton - We're doing… sorry Martin you're obviously reading them.

Martin Horwood - Yeah, well, no I'm happy for you to, but we could ask people to come forward if they like. Have you…

Keith Melton - His hand is up, I see…

Martin Horwood - Good, OK, maybe we could bring him forward to ask his question.

[Karen? - He's on his way] He's on his way… OK, virtually on his way… he's virtually… [Keith Melton: here we go, Clive fire away!]

Clive Trussell - Yes, I did mention this the other day… I was wondering because I think we should get more attention with the Unions because we're in an ideal situation anyway: more people working from home now with this 'new normal', whether they will be covered by their union, because I did suggest the home workers union they don't know if other unions do cover people when they work from home, or is it something that needs to be set up? But if we were connected to it in some way to know because they could be taken advantage of by having to work more hours than they would if they were on the premises, if you know what I mean… So, there's a lot involved there. That was it really, whether we could get some kind of 'homeworkers' union' connection?

Keith Melton - Ideally that would be a question for David First (?), but since he's not here, Isabella, I think you need to answer that for us if you can.

Isabella P. - Yeah sure. So, when an employee works from home, they are covered by any of the agreements they've got so if they're a member of a trade union they will still have access to all of the resources and David … will be able to speak about that in much more detail but, broadly speaking, it actually doesn't matter where you work in terms of the protection so long as you are permitted to work at home and you're not kind of going rogue and doing your own thing. So, you will be protected and in terms of politically … how we become engaged in that and take things forward, I wouldn't want to speak on behalf of any of our MPs in terms of how that develops, but it's certainly an idea that … it might be worth putting it to the leadership panel and when you have the debate that's coming up so that might be an interesting thing to talk about because it's quite a … not something that I've heard about before Covid (?)

Clive Trussels - No, I don't suppose we could start it as the Liberal Democrats Union but… oh I'm expecting a call about my car and it's just come! It's just a lot of people are not in the union that's what I was thinking.

Martin Horwood - I mean, there are staff representation for… certainly for the people who work for our MPs as well as for [Clive Trussels: it's alright to understand they were for] our MEPs. I wonder if I can ask Clive to mute while he's on the phone… oh no he's turned away… could we mute him do you think? Yes, well done! So, there are staff representation, they're not always trade unions though, actually… there are sometimes different arrangements, different places as in Parliament.

We've got another question here which is from my former leader in the European Parliament, so we'd better take this and that's Caroline Voaden. So, has Caroline got her hand up, I think… So if we could bring Caroline forward to ask her question… it's almost more an environmental question than an employment compliance question, but it's an interesting one and I think we should hear it. We're still muted from Caroline… I don't know if…

Caroline Voaden - sorry my Zoom suddenly disappeared… Hello, [hi welcome] hi Isabelle! Yeah, it wasn't really a question, it was more of a comment… we're all sort of commenting on the green skies and the lack of pollution and everything, with everyone working from home, but somebody said the other day (and I don't know if there's any truth in this, so it's something that would be interesting to follow up) that actually the emissions are much less if we're heating and lighting office buildings than if hundreds and hundreds of people are heating and lighting their own home offices, particularly in the winter, and particularly because we have so many houses that are badly insulated and that the effect of that on carbon emissions… obviously you're taking out the travel, so that is a benefit, but that heating one office block is actually much, much more efficient than thousands of people heating their spare bedrooms which … had never crossed my mind but sounds like it might be something to think about.

Keith Melton - Indeed it is. I've certainly read the same thing and I think it's very much something that we should be doing politically is trying to insulate all those homes; it would be very wise use of government finances, to be honest. So, Isabella, I think you've got a view of this from a legal … legalistic point of view.

Isabelle P - And I know, Martin, you were going to say something probably quite deep about the green issue, so I'll pass to you in a second, but … just as a side issue, really, as you've raised it and one thing that people may not be aware of is that, if they have to work from home or choose to work from home, their employers do have a responsibility to ensure that the environment is safe and that they have sufficient equipment and they're not out of pocket. Now, in a lockdown conducting a risk assessment would be a very difficult thing and the requirements for different businesses would be different. So, although there are standards of behaviour for organizations in general, if a case were taken to tribunal (and I'm sorry to always refer to that but it's kind of the bottom line of a test of how to behave) so if a case were taken to tribunal, what a tribunal would look at is -- are the resources of the organization, their experience, how long they've been trading, all sorts of factors that go into … was their behaviour reasonable, and "reasonable" is quite a hard thing to define but, broadly speaking… let's say you work for a government department. The requirements for them to be able to provide … reasonable adjustments to your desk for example so people who are fairly tiny, like me, would probably need something to put their feet on if their desk has to be a certain height so that their arms are 90°, so there are adjustments that need to be made, and that additional equipment might be something that your employers ought to be providing. So, what they should be doing -- this is in an ideal world, when we're not in lockdown -- but they could do some of this over the 'phone by discussion, by Zoom, etc., is to look at your working environment and figure out what they can do to help you to work more effectively and safely in your environment. And there is also an argument because I know that some employers are potentially claiming from HMRC tax rebates in terms of the contributions that they're making, so if an employee is having to pay extra for lighting and heating that they would not otherwise had to pay, then sometimes employees are claiming those sorts of things, so, even things like stationery… I'm a barrister, very heavy duty on stationery, and this is just the amount of paperwork that I created this morning in terms of trying to draft some documents that people unfortunately have to sign by hand, and that's probably just representative of an hour's work. So, as I am the employer, I'm paying for that myself, but if I had staff who were doing that then I would be paying for their stationery. So, that's just a side note about working at home that has very little to do with lighting and eating, and climate issues, but I'll pass back on now to Martin because I think you were going to say something in ???

Martin Horwood - Yes, although that's a really interesting point because … I worked in an international organization where about half the organization spent time at home and some of them were in different countries so … it was very difficult to monitor stuff, but actually you do end up using a lot of electricity, using your mobile 'phone, using a lot of paper that you have to buy and ink for your printers and things like this, and it does add up if you're not careful. So, making sure that employers aren't … craftily saving quite a lot of money by having you working from home is quite a real issue. But on the environmental thing, I mean I think Caroline's raised a really interesting point and I think it's really down to what happens in those buildings when there's nobody there and that could be the office when it's largely but not entirely empty, maybe it's still being heated anyway, and also in your home … if when your kids are out to school and you're out to an office, is your home still being heated? I think actually, in many cases, in the UK people keep a little bit of heat going during the day anyway so it's not a freezing cold house when they return unless they've got a very good smart technology. And maybe that's part of the answer, maybe we just need to use the new technologies now to make sure that heating and lighting follow people around rather than are on auto sets that just heat buildings regardless. So, I think … the important point Caroline's made is that we can't take it for granted that one way is more environmentally friendly than the other actually, and you do need to be smart about that.

I don't know if Caroline wants to come back in on what she's heard…

Caroline Voaden - Yes, I can never find that mute button! No, not particularly… I think you're right… I mean … I think there are so many variables, aren't there? Like, if you say if an office block is operating at 10% capacity, it's probably still using the same heating and lighting as if it was operating at 100% capacity. So, we do need to be smarter.

Martin Horwood - Yep, I think so … technology and environmentalism needs …

Caroline Voaden - And we need better insulation. Political point: why is Boris Johnson's build-build-build mantra, all about roads. Why isn't he saying, "Let's insulate every home in the country" and then we're providing jobs, we're providing government investment but we're also getting a good by-product from it with insulated homes. Why does that have to be new roads?

Martin Horwood - Or installing teleconferencing facilities and things like that. There was a brilliant initiative locally here in Cheltenham by … it was just by the local Chamber of Commerce who set up a really fabulous teleconferencing suite which is … way above what you could do on your own home computer, and it enabled … meetings of seven or eight people to take place in a completely realistic - well, not completely realistic but a more realistic - environment where you started to forget instinctively that people weren't in the room with you. Now, those kinds of things could be installed all over the place; councils could do it but they would need funding because it's expensive kit; I mean, it still costs thousands of pounds to install these things, tens of thousands if you're talking about the really high-end things. But it could be a real aid to smarter working, cutting down at least on travel emissions, as you said.

We've got a few other questions. We've got one from Tom Harney now … I'm having difficulty seeing the hands going up but has Tom got his hand up and can we bring him forward to ask this question?

Keith Melton - It will go to the top of the list of names if he is. Tom if you want to put your hand up …

Martin Horwood - Tom, do you want to …

Keith Melton - No, I think we're going to have to read the question now. Martin Horwood - OK. Well, the question was: thinking about working from home, what is the situation if someone finds that their home isn't suitable, perhaps they're having to move home or some other sort of reasons why they can't work from home at that time? And I might add having a very intrusive dog or child might be alternative reasons. Does the employer have a responsibility to ensure they are not disadvantaged if circumstances change? So, if it's the employer who wants you to work from home but you feel you can't, what's your position then? Isabelle…

Isabelle Parasram. - That's an interesting one. So, the word "disadvantage" is the sticking point, I think, for me, because the employer is not really responsible for equality of opportunity. I know within political circumstances we really do consider that it's at the forefront of our minds, but their role is not necessarily to make sure that Martin has as much access to being able to be successful in his career as, say, Keith, and therefore figuring out what can we do for Martin to make his life better, his work life better. What they are responsible for, is if you are working from home, they have to ensure that the work environment that you're in is safe and that it you have sufficient equipment and you have the capability of doing the job. If you are in a situation where your house is being renovated or something along those lines, probably what I would do as an employer, or advising employers, is to explore with you other places that you could work, and I appreciate that that's difficult, literally at present, until the 4th of July. But some people do work in cafés… I mean, this is all subject as well to confidentiality and data and things like that, but some people are able to work in cafés, libraries, going to… colleagues of mine work at the end of court, which is very peaceful and quiet. So, there are ways of accessing … because if you think about working from home, it doesn't mean I'm working in the place where I have my bedroom and my cup of tea and… the washing machine, where I can put loads on in between. That's not the point. I guess working from home is about not working at the office or in a building, and so their responsibility is to provide you with a basic level of support so that you can do your work. Now the word "disadvantage" comes in or "inequality" comes in where a person has a protected characteristic, such as race, age, say they're pregnant… something along those lines, and they are suffering a particular disadvantage because of one of those characteristics, and that's where really the idea of equality comes in. It doesn't come in with people who are not particularly from a minority group. So, I'm trying to think in what circumstances race or maternity would be different … Let's say, we've got somebody who is pregnant and she is working from home and the environment is not safe because she needs to have a back rest to support her as she's sitting up, or that she needs to have regular rest breaks. What the employer in those circumstances would have to do, or would be wise to do, is to ensure that she's provided with a proper place to sit… a chair that's adjustable, for example, or that she is guided to taking rest breaks and they agree how often she can do that. But if you are moving home and you can't work from home, then we would be exploring ways in which you can work in another location or get your work done by some other means. And what that would be in different circumstances depends on where you live, whether there's access to confidential spaces that you can work in nearby, that kind of thing. So, I hope that that gives you some flavour … Employment law is a very flexible and difficult thing to pin down in terms of black and white, and that's why I really love it because, ultimately, there are very few circumstances in which something is outright wrong or outright correct. There's a lot of negotiation involved, there's a lot of flexibility and the reason for that is we're working with people, and that's why it's my favourite area of law because it's all about negotiation and bringing the best out of people, so that you get the best for your organization. So, I hope that that gives you some pointers if you have to have that discussion with your employer.

Martin Horwood - Thank you. Can I just ask a little supplementary on that? I mean, obviously by the time someone gets to getting counsel from someone as potentially expensive as you, Isabelle, it's got quite serious and it's got quite heavy but I think many employees would presumably find it quite difficult to challenge their employer on a matter of law. Is there any… I mean, as an MP I sometimes used to tell people to go to the Citizens Advice Bureau for this kind of advice, but actually that isn't a very adequate and sometimes not even legally qualified source of advice. Is there a way where people can get low-level advice if it's just a kind of a rumbling discussion rather than a really major issue that might go to law?

Isabelle Parasram - Yeah, absolutely! So, the first place that I recommend employees, or employers actually, go to if they are strapped for cash or just don't want to… bring in the big guns, as it were, is to go to Acas because they are simply fantastic at advising. If you have links with business associations, such as the CBI, you can get advice there, if you're running an organization. The CAB… I have had patchy feedback to be honest. Sometimes they're quite helpful from the point of view they can't actually take a case forward, and we'll do that for free but it depends on the area that you live, in their capacity. And there's also access to free barrister advice via a website. I think it's now called We Are Advocates.ⁱ It's a bit of a strange name but that's what I think it's called, We Are Advocates, and so you can get free access to barrister advice from them. So, there are a number of organizations.

I'd also advise, particularly if you're an employer and you want to know what the rights and wrongs are, you can go through your insurance. In fact, you should be going through your insurance because otherwise you won't be covered if you then make a claim and you're taken to tribunal. So, always start with your insurance, if you are an employer. Employees might be covered by their home insurance and you might be surprised. Let's say you're a premier customer with Barclays Bank or another bank where you've bought a particular package or a credit card, you might well be covered through that. And some barristers also offer a service where you can spend an hour talking with them through your problems. So, it's "litigants in person" that's the thing that you should look into on the internet "litigants in person" or LIPs and that sounds very serious because it gives the impression that you're taking somebody to court, but it's just the language that we use for somebody who doesn't want a lawyer to represent them and so some barristers offer a service where you can pay them to talk with you for an hour through the things that are concerning you before you get to tribunal. And I'm particularly keen on that because my approach is very much… if we can avoid litigation, I would rather we did it at all costs, and people often don't believe me. I would make more money if I took every case to court, but ultimately, I'm in this because I want the best for the people I represent and the organization. And going to court or tribunal is not in many circumstances the best thing because it's costly, it's stressful, and it can end up in an awful reputation for the organization and the employee. Sometimes they never recover from it. So, my preference is to deal with things well before we get to tribunal. In fact, before the organization even gets to that point I like to help with policies and procedures and negotiations that stop conflict. I mean, you've seen that already because you've seen me do that kind of thing in other contexts not in… So, that's really the ethos that I would come from. So, I think there's quite a lot of free help or subsidized help, that means that you don't need to shell out a lot of money or instruct a lawyer.

Martin Horwood - That sounds like very, very good advice, and of course if David Eastham was here, he'd say the other possible source of good legal advice is your trade union, if you're a member, because they often have very, very good employment legal teams who can advise employees.

Keith Melton - I think that goes back to the point that Clive Trussels was making, whether you've got access to trade unions and I don't see any reason really why trade unions can't take advantage - they probably are taking advantage of Zoom just as much as management meetings are - to get in touch with people who are working at home, I presume.

Martin Horwood - Of course there are many trade unions who will accept individual members as well… I mean, you don't have to have an organized sort of trade union shop, as they used to be called, in your workplace. Many unions are of a general nature and will accept individual members. Keith, should we go to Stewart Mott? Yeah, is Stewart up for asking his question in person?

Keith Melton - Shall we bring him forward? You have Stuart who will appear very shortly by the look of it… There he is, and Stuart you cross the hair[?] now with your question.

Stewart Mott - Hello everyone, As an employee of a trade union, I would echo the sentiments that were just raised. Yeah, you don't have to be in a recognized workplace in order to join a union and get legal advice if you need it. So, my question really, despite working for a trade union, I think there's a bit of a culture of 'presentism' at my workplace and after the success of working from home, there's lots of us that would like an approach of being at the office if there's a reason to be, and if we're just going to travel to the office to sit in a room with a bunch of people that we don't talk to and then go home at the end of the day, why bother? And about whether actually having such an ill-defined request for working is actually difficult to get agreement on, or is actually potential as other different difficulties (?) when it comes to… managing expectations and managing performance? I didn't know if there was any sort of expertise or advice around there… nuggets of wisdom that you could give.

Isabelle Parasram - So, if I were… let me put myself in the shoes of the organization, really… If I were advising an organization, I would spell out the benefits of staff working in lockdown, and there are many as I've already described, and I would advise them that if people are wanting to have a different way of working, that way of working has got to be flexible according to the individual. So, that's what's key because everybody has different circumstances that they're trying to grapple with. So, for example, you might have an hour to come into London to your office. I might be five minutes around the corner. You might be somebody who has young children and I might have an elderly mother in a care home two hours away from my home. So, it's got to be individual, but there has to also be a kind of operating procedure so that teamwork can take place. So, for example, I've been in workplaces that have thought that virtual working was completely impossible and I have always had a mantra which is that almost any job can be shared, almost any job can be done virtually, and almost any job can be done flexibly, and that is even in positions that I've held as leadership. So, that is where I start from. But an organization equally has to know from you, I guess, Stewart, how it's going to benefit them. So, if you're going to be approaching the organization and saying I would like XYZ, you need to be able to say why it's going to benefit them, and that's the case with any negotiation. You negotiate all the time in other fields, I'm sure, but you don't win unless you convince somebody else that they too are going to win, unless you're dealing with somebody like Mother Teresa or somebody who's completely altruistic. So, what you could say, Stewart, is that these are the reasons why working virtually has worked; this is how productive I have been; these are the things that I've assessed have not worked and that I've got answers to those. So, for example, what happens if you are out of signalling distance and you've decided to go for a walk in the park at three o'clock in the afternoon when there might have been a call for you to help. And the thing about working from a home, as a side issue, is that it does not mean that you have to sit at your desk from 9am to 5pm. You are allowed to have a break, and if you want to have a break watching Netflix or going out for a walk in the park, you can do that. So, you're out of signal and you need to be able to say to your employer, "look, this is what has gone wrong: I was out of signal. Is it possible that I can have some other system by which I can communicate with you, so I'm going out for a walk in the park at three o'clock, I will contact you at five to three, make sure that everything is settled? I will let you know when I'll be back at my desk and I'll be able to access my mobile 'phone, that kind of thing. So, why does this benefit the organization, what could potentially go wrong, how can we fix it. These are my individual circumstances; this is the pattern and shape that I would like, and I have consulted with other colleagues who equally want to do the same thing. What we figured out is, we need face-to-face, I mean… I like to see people eyeball-to-eyeball on occasion, so we will come in every Wednesday. That will be the day that we come into the office and we will all have a team meeting in the middle of the day to accommodate those who have school pickups and drop-offs and things like that". So, in summary, if you are trying to negotiate with your employer and you're the one who's saying "I effectively want you to accommodate me", I would advise you going fully prepared as if you're going to the bank for a loan. You've got your business plan: that's what an employer wants to see; it saves them the headache of thinking it through, you present something that… "Wow, I'm sold on this! This is amazing" and you tell them how brilliant this is going to be for the company, and if they're the kind of company who would refuse that unreasonably, then maybe you should consider whether you would rather be working somewhere else, because being miserable in a job and resenting the work that you do (which I'm not saying you are, but you could do if you get a lot of requests refused) is not going to be good for them and it's not going to be good for you.

Keith Melton - One of the things that just raises in my mind is that what has happened over the last two or three months is that a lot of employers have actually had to invest in equipment to allow their employees to work at home and that has made it much easier for many more people to do it and I think that in itself is going to end up with more companies thinking it's well worthwhile doing because they've already made the investment. They need to get some return on that investment.

Martin Horwood - And Isabelle, can I ask about one aspect of that? I mean certainly when I worked for this previous organization that I was talking about, they did pay for some things which were not kit but things like… I mean, for instance, I have an irrational hatred of Microsoft office and Outlook and all that stuff, and so I'd never bought it for my home computer, and it's now a subscription service -- hundreds of quid -- and so my employer wanted me to use Microsoft and they paid for that subscription, and I suppose things like broadband, if you needed to use quite sort of a higher grade of broadband than you would normally have. Are those kind of things sources of dispute when people are homeworking, or are most employers being pretty reasonable about that kind of thing, and how do you know? Are there guidelines on how to judge these sort of ongoing costs that are a kind of a benefit to the employee as well, if you're not careful?

Isabelle Parasram - So, the answer would vary depending on whether you are working for an organization like a huge corporate bank that has lots of sites across the world vs a person who, let's say, is a psychotherapist and they're employing you as their PA to work from home and just take appointments. The resources and capability of both on one end of the spectrum to another are quite different and what I would expect from a big corporate organization is effectively to put you in the position that you would have been in as if you were working in the office; with some exceptions because you're not going to have access to the super-duper kit that banks often offer their staff in terms of employee perks in their staffroom and that kind of thing. And so, if you're required to use a particular type of software, then it would be reasonable for the employer to provide that, but the next question is whether that's something that they could afford. And if they've got a good business case for saying that they can't afford it, then you're in difficulties because I equally wouldn't expect the employee to pay for it either. So, we would have to explore or work around to that and that might end up meaning for example… this is why you need such creative solutions and employment law, why I really love it because you have to think outside of the box so regularly. So, in a situation where you know somebody didn't have access to the particular software, it might mean that they have to come into the office, that might be a reason that the employee can't work from home, but it might equally mean that they are loaned a laptop where the organization has that software.

I know certainly when I've conducted investigations into companies, they have asked me to come in to do work for them where they've been accused by a group of staff that they're racist or their policies are homophobic, and I will conduct an investigation and interview witnesses and come up with my conclusions of yes, this is happening, or no, it's not, and this is how you can improve the situation. In order to do that work, I have been supplied with a laptop and that's granted me access to all of the software that I have needed, and the reason for that is because of security, but also, I don't necessarily work with the kind of equipment that a particular organization does, nor do I want stacks of laptops in my office. So, there are ways to work around it but if it's fundamental to doing your job, then it's not only reasonable: it's probably required. There are probably things that are in the kind of grey area… so, broadband for example: is that purely going to be used for the organization or is that going to be a benefit to you as an employee? And it's sort of like the tax regime with HMRC: if you purchase something, is it solely for business use or is it going to benefit you, so you can't claim expenses. For example, if I claimed expenses for going out to buy stationery and I wanted my petrol money back, if I also went out and bought a pack of chocolate ring doughnuts (which I am particularly keen on) from Gregg's, if I did that then I wouldn't get my petrol expenses back, so… you have to… divide up what the benefit is going to be and what the purpose of this purchase is. So, I hope that's helped a little bit, Martin.

Martin Horwood ­- That's very helpful, and actually you mentioned tax. This reminds me of a… slightly humorous story now, which is that when I was a Member of Parliament I bought a printer on expenses, and you remember the MPs' expenses regime, and we had to use it in the office; I didn't use it at home, but I discovered that it was taxable because it was regarded as a perk, and I thought about it, I was a bit incensed by having to pay tax on something I'd bought for my job and thought about putting out a press release saying "MPs' expenses not generous enough!" then thought better of it really. But is this a risk that people are storing up little tax liabilities that they don't know about?

Isabelle Parasram - I won't pretend to understand everything that HMRC does, including enforcement, but that is a really good point that you have raised. I was listening actually to the CBI -- they've got a brilliant podcast that they issue every day now -- and so I'd recommend that you go onto their website and listen to that; it's so informative, and Martin's Moneysaversⁱⁱ is a brilliant one as well; listen to him because he's so fantastic at the money side of things. And actually, yes… there are risks that you may, as an employee, be enjoying benefits that you then have to declare via a self-employed tax return later on. So, be very careful about the things that you ask for and weigh up whether the benefit of that thing and the cost that it's going to be to your organization vs the cost that you may have to pay out in some extra tax liability is actually worth it. So, in the days that I was an employee I tried to be fairly reasonable and this was many years ago, when I worked for the government and they were fantastic in terms of providing me with the equipment I needed to work from home on occasion, but I didn't claim for every single thing. So, stationery for example, I would never have done and I didn't ever fall into the regime of needing to pay extra tax because of what they provided, because they owned it; effectively, they loaned it to me from a big warehouse. But it is something to be cautious about, both as the employer and an employee, because in some circumstances (you probably know this and we can get on to it later), if you have… somebody working for you… let me rewind: a worker who is self-employed who remains in that role, on a consistent basis, for over a period of three months they become an employee, or who pays the taxes for them? HMRC are going to go for the people who can afford the most and often that's the employer. So, it's not always clear-cut in terms of you've provided something for the employee, they may now be subject to tax and as the employer you're home and dry, because you may find yourself in difficulties of one sort or another. But, yes, HMRC is also another brilliant source of advice. A lot of people are scared to call them but they are actually very helpful because they want you to pay your tax fairly and they want people to understand the rules; so, I'd recommend, if you have the courage, to call them if you've got queries.

Martin Horwood - Yeah, I'd endorse that as well. Actually, I've always found them extremely helpful and clear and, as you say, they just seem to want to do the right thing in terms of tax, not necessarily fleece you for everything you've got and treat you like some kind of inveterate tax dodger from the word go; so, they're very helpful.

Keith Melton - We have a comment in the Q&A. There isn't a question mark and I I'm not sure what the question is associated with it, but if Timothy Lockington would like to come and clarify what it is that he's wanting to say…

Martin Horwood - This one's almost a public health question rather than a legal one but it's an interesting issue.

Keith Melton - But it relates to what Isabelle was saying earlier on about the potential difference of responsibility towards BAME staff. I think that's the implication. Timothy, are you available and do you want to ask the question yourself? Not getting a response… he may well not be there. I'll read it out and it might generate a little bit of discussion, but I think… I'm not entirely clear what the question was. "My understanding [is] that BAME citizens are catching Covid more than white British citizens, but the result of catching it is more serious". I think it was to do with the implications of employers having a greater responsibility for safety of BAME employees.

Isabelle Parasram - Timothy, thanks for the question. I will answer it… I'm not medically trained but I have spent a lot of time doing webinars through my roles as patron of the Liberty Networkⁱⁱⁱ and trustee of the Paddy Ashdown Forum^iv, speaking to a lot of health experts and also having the benefit of Munira Wilson MP's input on this. I'm also linked with a lot of organizations that represent BAME people, and this is an issue that has really exercised our minds. I've helped our offices, through Christine Jardine, Munira Wilson and others… I can't really talk about the leadership candidates, but others of our parliamentarians, let's put it like that, in terms of drafting letters to the government raising issues along these lines.

The concern with BAME people is not only that they are more at risk of catching the disease but the consequences can be more serious, and there is no medical… statement or definition, there's no kind of concrete evidence of why, which is the big concern. All we know, is that it's a fact that is happening. So, for example, black people are four times more likely to catch Coronavirus, Bangladeshi and Indian communities double, and that statistic was from roughly a couple of weeks ago so it may have changed, and I know it sounds strange that it's changing, but it changes as the information becomes more apparent and we have more access to it. But the bold fact is that BAME people are more at risk, possibly because… many of us have lower paid jobs, so we're more likely to be on the front line in terms of the NHS, we may be the people who are driving the buses that have people coming on on a regular basis, so it may be because of jobs, it may be… there is a theory going around about the lack of vitamin D and how much vitamin D means to somebody like me vs somebody like Martin, for example. It may be something genetic… we don't yet know why, but the issue is that we are more at risk. And certainly, if you look at the… I have a Twitter feed that tells me about the deaths that are happening, particularly with nurses, and at one point, several weeks ago, all I was seeing was non-white faces and I thought 'how could nobody really realize that this is happening?' So, at the end of the day, for the purposes of employment law, I don't think it really matters whether we're more at risk or is more serious when we get it. The issue really is (and I think that's what you're getting at perhaps) is that we need to make better effort in terms of protecting our BAME staff. And I know, I checked a couple of weeks ago in terms of what is happening in schools for example, and is it a well-known fact that BAME people are more at risk, BAME children therefore may be more at risk? And it really isn't… it's a case of us, people like me, raising awareness and flagging this to schools, for example. And I think that the situation is changing slightly as BAME people are becoming more aware, therefore raising the issue, but the fundamental thing that we need to be doing is not only looking at BAME people, but people who are older, people who are pregnant, and ensuring that they have the proper risk assessments in place, and also the accommodations that they may need. I know that the latest advice with pregnant people is that they now are in a… the seriousness has been raised in this sense. It used to be that all pregnant women were in a special category of safety and now the category has shrunk, so that you have to be at risk of particularly serious… you have to have very serious underlying conditions to be somebody who would be viewed as needing to self-isolate. So, have a look at the latest guidelines. And I wanted to bring the focus away from BAME because I think we can sometimes get side-tracked with that and forget the other categories as well, though BAME is probably top of the headlines for this.

Keith Melton - OK, thank you. We don't have any more questions in Q&A but I do have a question from earlier on: "My employer has had a difficult time during Covid-19 and has told me that they want me to become self-employed rather than be directly employed by them and they would provide me with work on this basis. If they remain my only source of work, can I legitimately describe myself as self-employed, and would employment and health & safety legislation apply to me?" So, that's a fairly complex question… I'm not sure whether the answer is as complex as the question is, Isabelle.

Isabelle Parasram - So, if you go from being an employee to self-employed, that brings a whole extra heap of admin and hassle, and I say that because I have done that myself, and it does bring flexibility, it means that effectively you're your own boss, but it also reduces the number of protections that you have got. So, no you're not entitled to all of the protections that employees are entitled to, but you are entitled to some of the fundamentals, such as some health & safety legislation would apply to you, the right to be treated without discrimination, those kinds of things. But if you go from being an employee to being self-employed and you carry on working effectively in the same role, doing the same thing, being paid the same amount, then my question to you would be, why would you do it? And are you effectively remaining as an employee but losing many of the benefits that you would have had, like sick pay, holiday pay, etc.? There is also the concern that I've raised earlier which is that if you remain as an employee in action but not in name, HMRC may not view your self-employed status as genuinely self-employed, and then they will want the back taxes that cover the fact that they believe that you're an employee. So, what we would be looking at in terms of is somebody genuinely [self-]employed vs an employee is -- do you have the freedom to do what you want, when you want effectively? So, you may have an agreement to say you will work on somebody's website, but are you free to work for somebody else? Can you substitute yourself for somebody who will do part of that work for you? And do you have a requirement to be in a certain place at a certain time? Do you have that element of control from the employer that really restricts what you do? And if that's the case there are a number of criteria to look at, I'm just giving you a sample of some of them, but if really in effect you're an employee and all that's happened is that your contract status has changed… the black and white of the contract has changed, then it's effectively a sham contract, a sham set-up, and I would urge you really to look at what the benefits are for you because if your employer, if your organization is struggling, then they're doing this because they're short of cash. And is it an organization that you can see long-term growth in, if they're making you go from being an employee to being self-employed, what is the next step going to be? It might be an easier way to avoid making you redundant, and I don't know how long you've worked in the place that you're working, but this just may well be a device to work around some of the obligations that they have to you. So, think carefully and find out what is really going on, is what I'd say.

Martin Horwood - It's an interesting point on that though that if it's a device by the employer, it seems a bit harsh that in the end it's you that gets the possible heavy-handed treatment from HMRC at the end of the tax year. I mean, surely, they should be coming back on the employers, if the employer is encouraging people to do something for their benefit and trying a crafty way of saving money, and presumably this harks back to the Deliveroo and Uber discussions on the gig economy and what's really a freelance and what isn't.

Isabelle Parasram - They will come back to the employer, eventually, so if they believe that the set-up was really that of employee/employer, they will seek that money from the employer as well, in tandem, and that's my understanding… there may be somebody who's better qualified on what HMRC does, but that they will look to the employer in a circumstance like that. In fact, in most of the circumstances like that, if somebody's deemed to be an employee doesn't really matter what the employee wanted… so, there are many people who want to work in a freelance role, but however much as an employer you say "oh well, they really wanted to have this, they're the ones who came up with the idea", you're the one (a) who has more cash available, but (b) you have the responsibility and if you're breaching that arrangement by taking somebody into the role of employee, by keeping them in a kind of employee-type relationship for three months or more, then you are at risk and you are expected to have known better. So, sorry that it's harsh but it's the reality of how it works.

Keith Melton - OK. Let's take another question from the list we had earlier: "Due to health issues, I was required to self-isolate and I'm very nervous about returning to work in the shop where I worked, where I deal directly with customers. If or when my employer asks me to return to work, what can I expect or require them to do to provide me with a safe working environment?" Clearly this is something that is relevant coming up to July 4^th, and a lot of different shops opening up, and may even be relevant to the situation in Leicester, where Leicester is closed down, but just outside Leicester isn't, and some of the shops just outside of Leicester may have got employees who have been in Leicester and may be locked down still. So, there are some very odd situations that they were putting on TV news this morning.

Isabelle Parasram - Yes, absolutely and… I guess there are two questions really in that but you may not have asked. So, can you decide you're just going to stay at home and not return to work because you're too worried about the consequences? If you want to stay at home you're going to have fairly good reasons for staying at home and so it may be that you have the symptoms of Coronavirus, that you are particularly at risk, so… there is a list of vulnerable groups that has been updated, so I'd urge you to go onto the government website and look at that and, as I say, it's become quite technical so even pregnant women are not in the category that they were before (not all pregnant women) and so you may have the symptoms, you may be in a protected risk category, you may be in a separate category that's not listed there… so, if you're BAME you may have an argument to say that if you are forced to come in it may… it may be a form of race discrimination -- and "MAY" is a big… I will spell that out in big capital letters, because arguing discrimination is a very difficult thing; it's very legally technical and it involves a lot of statistics, so that is one to put on the back burner - so, there are lots of reasons why you might say you don't want to return and you need again to be able to say to your employer, "And these are the reasons why, here's the evidence", and I know this is a big ask because not everybody is going to sit down enjoying reading research and statistics like I would, or be up-to-date on all key policy issues, but really the point of negotiations with your employer is to get what you want, it's not to prove a point and it's not to set things up so that you can sue them later because, believe me, it's really not worth it.

So, if at the end of the day you want to achieve something, you've got to do your homework. So, explaining to them why you feel the need to self-isolate or remain at home, but it's got to be backed up by evidence. If, let's say, the guidance changed and the government said, "Actually, scientifically, everybody's fine to go out, we can all shake hands and it's all okay", you're not really going to have an excuse, and if you don't have an excuse your employers would be justified in taking you through disciplinary proceedings which could lead to your dismissal. In these circumstances, where we are really phasing back into normal life again, there will be much more flexibility in terms of staff who are dismissed or disciplined, and that flexibility will be much more weighted towards the employee, I suspect. But you can't… kind of make up what you think the dangers are, and that is a very tough thing to hear because we all have our own judgments, and at the end of the day you've got to take personal responsibility for your own health.

And what we don't want to hear later on is, "Oh, the government said that we could go out and stay a meter apart. I did that and then it ended up in bereavement or illness within my family or for myself… I became incredibly ill". So, you have to balance what the government is saying vs your own personal responsibility vs how much you want to keep the job, and how much you're willing to fight. So, there's quite a lot of factors in that…

So, that's the "Can I stay at home instead?" and the other thing about being safe at work, Martin -- I may come to you because I know you have, you run or you're an MD of a company, and it would be nice for somebody else to answer, I'm sure people are probably getting quite bored of hearing my voice because I could talk on any question for hours! -- But there are basic fundamentals that if your employer is not following those, then you can report them to the Health & Safety Executive.^v But I hope that it would not get to that stage. There should be a poster on display at your workplace alerting you to how to contact the Health & Safety Executive and what your employers should be doing, and every business owner should access that, go to the HSE website. So, there is guidance there, but there will be specific guidance for different organizations.

So, taking hairdressers, for example, there should be stickers on the outside of the building to show where people can queue, there may be a requirement that only one customer comes in at a time, there may be a requirement that hairdressers wear visors because they, for some reason, can't wear a mask. So, you're entitled to all of those things to have protection. If a customer comes too close, will your employer back you up if you say that you won't serve them because they're continually breaching the guidelines?

If you work in a pub, the people who come into the pub shouldn't be leaning against the counters because that requires more cleaning and it may mean that you touch it and you get sick. So, use some pragmatic common sense because you're the person in the environment. What is it that you want to see to keep yourself safe and then share that with your employer and if they are not reasonable in making those adjustments (most of which do not require a lot of money or a lot of thinking) then your fall-back position is to contact the HSE or your local authority actually, which may be the enforcement organization.

But you don't want to go to that place; what you want, and probably what your employer wants, is to do a good job of people staying safe because they don't want their staff to get sick, they don't want their customers to get sick, and at the end of the day, if they see that that's the benefit of you kicking up a fuss, as it were, then they will appreciate the fuss that you're making. And, Martin, I don't know if you've got anything to add to that because I don't know what kind of business you run.

Martin Horwood - I don't actually… I deny being an MD of a company at the moment, but I've certainly been an employer in the past, and as an MP of course I got quite a lot of casework that was coming out of employment disputes, and everything you've said about trying to avoid escalation, avoid going to law if you can possibly help it, but really not doing anything unless you've done your homework, I think all of those are… that's very good advice indeed.

Interestingly, my wife works for Public Health England and on the epidemiology of risk they are very reluctant to draw any hard and fast conclusions at all now, because the science is still being done, the epidemiology is still being done, it may be years before we really understand exactly what's happened, exactly why, for instance, BAME populations have been so vulnerable, whether that's genetic or whether it's because of the prevalence of diseases like diabetes that's much more prevalent amongst the Asian population, or whether it's social and environmental factors confounding things. Which may all be true, but of course that does raise this tricky issue of who judges the risk and where you do your homework, because if you go then to the government guidance, the government guidance is equally kind of cagey about saying anything definitive on any of this stuff.

So, it does come back to a bit of a personal judgment, doesn't it in the end? And your judgment against your employer's judgment, if there's a disagreement. So, it is quite hard for people to make those choices and those judgments that you are describing, because if you try to do your homework on some of these things you find the homework is years away from being definitive. So, it is a genuinely difficult issue.

Keith Melton - OK. I think you shouldn't worry, Isabelle, that your voice is being treated as monotonous in any way. I just wanted to read a comment from the chat. It says, "Thank you for a really interesting event, first class as always. Isabelle covering complex issues in a way we can all understand." So, I don't think you've any cause to worry whatsoever. I am sorry of course that David Eastham hasn't made it in for some reason or another, and I dare say we'll find out why later. Do we have any more questions from the audience? That's my first comment, and while you're thinking about that and anybody who wants another question quickly write it down in the Q&A session, I will see if there are any more questions from earlier on that we haven't yet answered.

Martin Horwood - While you're looking Keith, I'd just say the only risk I see to Isabelle from being so good at covering complex issues in a way we can all understand is that she might well end up as representing us in some parliamentary assembly or another and be dragged away from all the fun of employment law and into the mire of politics but that would be a very positive thing for the rest of us that's all.

Isabelle Parasram - Thank you, Martin!

Keith Melton - I think you're going to have to think of a question, Martin, fairly quickly because the only question I could find that we haven't directly answered is one that I think Isabelle has covered: "My employer has offered me the opportunity to continue work from home. If I take up their offer, what responsibility do they have to ensure that I'm working in a safe working environment?" I think you've covered that, haven't you, Isabelle?

Isabelle Parasram - Yeah.

Keith Melton - OK, well that's the only other question I got written down here there aren't any more yet appearing in Q&A… people still…

Martin Horwood - I think, I mean… one [question] occurs to me. I mean, I was… because of the Brexit issues that everybody knows about, our tenure in the European Parliament was very short but in that time, we employed people in the UK as well as in Brussels, and many of them worked from home or worked from local working environments, and we didn't have to worry about the sort of long-term issues really because we realistically knew it was all rather short run. But actually, if you look at a large company, if they make a judgment that they can afford to have far fewer people working in their offices and downsize the office so they don't actually have the capacity to employ everyone in the office anymore, I think any difficulties there were… is there any kind of liability for them in actually no longer having the ability to employ everyone in an office even if they wanted to? Or is that more of a managerial issue than a legal one, I guess, isn't it? Because I can see companies taking advantage of this and saying, "Well, actually… we only need one building instead of two now."

Isabelle Parasram - Yeah. So, the trend across organizations, and I'm speaking really globally, is that it's a great opportunity to revise… do you need all of these staff? Can we change the way that we work in terms of making it more virtual and cost effective from the point of view of not having so many flights etc., not paying for tea and biscuits at a meeting, that kind of thing. And also… the other thing is, in terms of redundancies, that's one of the things that I wanted to touch on.

So, can we get rid of staff, or reshape the way that they work, that kind of thing. And the 1^st of July was quite a good opportunity or a deadline really for organizations to look at this, and if you just take one glance through the newspapers today, you'll see how many jobs are being cut. I've seen Harrod's, Top Shop, Upper Crust (which I think is a bakery chain that I've never accessed but)… So, there are lots of job cuts being planned, there are organizations that are downscaling, some organizations are going entirely online, lots of clothing shops are going entirely online… So, this is going to be such a huge period of adjustment, but if an organization reduced to working, let's say, from two buildings to one -- which is actually a project that I managed when I was working for a huge organization: it had several sites, and we ran investigation teams, interestingly, into companies and we reduced from three sites to one, and in order to accommodate that we had to incorporate much more home working, desk sharing, that kind of thing. And it meant that we could never all be together because we had expanded so much into home working, but it didn't affect the ability of the organization to expand or have more people or fewer. It just meant that we had to work in a different way.

So, I always think that there's a solution to every problem within an organization because there always is a way forward, and that's just the negotiator in me coming out. So, I don't think that there's an excuse in terms of downsizing and what it then means for longer-term implications, but I would warn those who are employees that the times ahead will be fairly rocky because… it just makes common sense for organizations now to really have a good review of where they stand as an organization, doing it when everybody comes back in October is not a good idea.

And so, I am advising organizations really to reconsider the entire way that they are structured, and unfortunately for some people that may mean redundancies, it may mean that offices that they were used to going to won't be there, but on the positive side it may mean that more people can work from home or it's the opportunity to say, "I don't want to work full-time, I'd like to take a part-time role".

So, there are pros and cons to both of this lockdown and I hope that you are able as a result of this webinar and some of the things that you've learned… to take that forward and just make it work for you, whether you're an employee or somebody who runs an organization.

Martin Horwood - That's a very positive thought, and I think if you think about the way… ways of working have changed over time anyway… I mean, I remember the slight shock some time back of visiting Bloomberg's offices in New York and it was all kind of fruit bowls and cafés and hot desks, and nobody really had their own space, and that felt bad compared to what I had at home, but then I thought, "Actually, this is a lovely working environment!" and if you think back far enough, people were very resistant to abandoning walled offices and moving to open plan, and yet now we just take that absolutely for granted. So, I think people just discover new ways of working, and more flexible ways of working, and hopefully we're on an improving path, and maybe an environmentally improving one as well as a work-improving one.

It does force you to tidy up your house a bit as well, actually if you have to work in it! I mean, I cheat with this background. You've got a very impressively sort of organized and smart background, Isabelle, for home videocalls and you'd certainly get the prize for best wig, in terms of the background. We've had quite a few impressive libraries… how many of them are read -- who knows? But so, I mean, you have to rethink your environment, your home environment, as well as your work, your office environment, and I think this is all part of the evolution of work and the evolution of society, I guess.

Keith Melton - Talking about wigs, Martin, I must read you this comment from the chat: "Very good webinar. Just wanted to say to Martin that I like his background, but does he realize that whenever he moves up and down, he leaves his hair behind?"

Martin Horwood - Yes, I know! we're hoping the technology will improve… I need a green screen really, don't I?

Keith Melton - We do have an actual question in the Q&A and I think we're going to have to make this the last one because we are very close to the end. Steve Bolter, if you want to ask your question directly, if you want to put your blue hand up, please… Otherwise I shall ask you… Yes, he does. So, Karen can we bring Steve onto stage? Interesting that I am now thinking of this as a stage. We've used the word several times, and it's become a stage. This series of screens is the new normal… And "don't forget to unmute yourself". There's another 'new normal' phrase that is used with great regularity. Steve, the floor is yours… screen.

Steve Bolter - I haven't got a screen on, or tidy shelves, but I'm just thinking… if people are working from home and find that they have something… a little bit too much going on in the house on a particular day, and they feel they need to concentrate, we have a village hall which is currently not used for anything because we don't have meetings; if they asked to hire that, would the village hall committee have any extra responsibilities, on top of the responsibility they have when there are committee meetings, or there are social events happening? That's all.

Isabelle Parasram - You probably… So, when you hire something like a village hall or a church hall, something like that, what you are granted is a license, and the license will contain the terms and conditions of you using that venue. Usually, the license is drafted in their favour, so it's all about returning the position of the hall to… the space that it was before, making sure the caps are all washed etc., depending on what type of venue. I used to teach some of my adult education classes in a Salvation Army hall, so I've got personal experience of this!

So, if you are hiring the hall then the contract is between you and the hall, and it doesn't have any particular extra responsibilities because of what you're doing in it. It's probably… more the other way around that they would want to make sure that you are not being dangerous in there. So that… often with these licenses they will have criteria or rules as to what you can and cannot do in their hall, and the public liability insurance that they have taken out will cover general activities, and sitting working at a desk probably will not fall within particularly the range of dangerous [activities] for the purpose of their insurance; so, I won't worry too much about that.

In addition, I'm going to add on something, Steve. I'm going to use your question to add something else that I wanted to [touch on] briefly before we end (we've probably got a couple of minutes) which is to say that we've talked about hot-desking, we've talked about working from home and I can see in the chat that somebody has talked about water-cooler discussion, and I know that we don't have time to come to you, whoever asked the question. People have different personalities: some people are introverts, extroverts, ambiverts… There are people who have particular working styles: some are very creative, others like reading from paper… we all have different ways in which we work.

I have gone through the whole spectrum of working with a walled office, hot-desking, working from home, I've worked on a beach… I remember attending a federal board meeting in the middle of a hurricane in Tobago. Interestingly enough, underneath the palm tree, hoping that I would live, but I was that dedicated to the party that I attended! And what it's important for employers to remember as well is that hot-desking, for example, doesn't work for everybody. For me, I simply find it very, very difficult because I really need to concentrate when I'm working. And so, constant distractions… maybe it's having four young children… I really find it difficult to have extra distractions. I'm at home, I'd get distracted enough. I don't want them when I go to work.

There are people who would hate being in a walled office. They want to be out and about, talking to people. There are others who would find it very difficult to ensure that they comply with data protection from working at home. So, you've got your papers that… you might have a huge family, like me, you've got to move from the kitchen to your desk in the office, you might work out in the garden… how do you ensure that your case papers, in my case, are safe in a locked cabinet at all times outside of the work time? So, that's why I always talk about circumstances and arrangements being as individual as possible, because… if you want to have the best out of somebody like me, you've got to have things that bring out the values and characteristics that I can exemplify the most. And so, I would urge employers and also (?) an employee to realize that actually… look at yourself with curiosity, take the opportunity, having been in lockdown, to think, "Am I a morning person? What have I naturally done in these circumstances? Have I naturally sprung to life after 12 o'clock? Do I work better if I've exercised? Am I the kind of person who needs to go to the park and see nature to do a good job? And just use this time before you go back into the swing of things in October to say, "Actually, this is me, this is how I'm going to do really well", and to engage with your employers as to how that can be accommodated. And it may sound very wishy-washy, but really good employers will want to have that kind of discussion. We have moved on from the dark ages of "you will sit at that desk, get things done from nine to five, and that is how it will be." So, that's what I would urge, as a final ending note.

Keith Melton - That brings us brilliantly in just about exactly the right time Isabelle, to our finishing point, so I'm not going to ask you to sum up because I think you just did. Martin, I don't know whether you've got some summing up comments to make?

Martin Horwood - No, I'd only just refer to one comment that was actually in the chat, not the Q&A, just now… I think possibly from Karen, saying that it's very important though, if you are working from home, as well as all those other considerations, to retain the social element and to make sure you're meeting people and seeing people. And even if that's online, because we do have to fight for what Green Liberal Democrats always value, which is our quality of life as well as just our economic productivity.

Keith Melton - Well, I have found the quality of life on Zoomn to be quite good most of the time. I'm meeting all sorts of new people that I haven't met before. So, hello Isabelle, nice to meet you, thank you. And I'm going to finish there. I think we have the opportunity to go into the meeting or… Karen do we? For anybody who wants to pick up any odd bits and pieces in terms of chat, but Isabelle is not required to be present -- thank you very much! You've performed sterlingly in the absence of your fellow speaker, and I'm just sorry David wasn't here to share the load with you. Karen?

Karen - Well… I think most people we didn't have a title screen today that actually had the title of the event for various reasons, so for this very one occasion you'll get the treat of actually seeing the host. Hello, [Keith Melton: the voice of God!] So, yes if you would like to go into the meeting hall for half an hour, I will put the link to the meeting hall in the chat because I know that some people have only come here today for the conference hall so may not have a conference pack to find the meeting hall link. So, let me find that link for you in my desktop notes. And we have the meeting hall here so if I put this into the chat for you. Anyone who wants to come and join a chat and that will be open in about five minutes, once we close this down and I quickly nip out of the conference hall and reopen the meeting hall. So, thank you everybody for coming along; thank you to our chairs and Martin and thank you so much, Isabelle. That was absolutely spot on and I think, as it said in the chat, it was really good to have some really straightforward legal understanding before we go back to the workplace. So, thank you very much everybody. I will end this session and I will see you all in the meeting hall. I will give you five four three two one or a bit longer than that to copy that onto your clipboard I will return these wonderful people to the audience, just to give you a little bit of time. Let me return you there to, Isabella, and you too, Martin, and that just leaves me on screen to… I see it's popping down it's popping down… just get back onto your clipboard because this time I am going to hit that button so that I can end this recording I can save the chat and quickly digitally run to the meeting hall.