The Outworking Bill. A Press Release from Caroline Tresman, homeworking.com

The Outworking Bill had its second reading in Parliament on Friday 2  February 2001 from 9.30am to 1.30pm.

It was a tense debate with arguments from both sides of the House for the Bill and many opposition arguments against the Bill. Some of the opposing arguments were valid, others were laughable and confused outworking (which is in effect piecework) with teleworking and other forms of employment at home, such as freelance working.
Many examples of Homeworking Scams were given. The scam merchants were described as "thieves" and "unscrupulous, uncaring and underhand" with the scams reported being "the tip of the scam iceberg". A couple of concerns about the Bill involved whether innocent homeworking schemes would be caught up in any new legislation, and whether powers of entry should be given to Trading Standards officials. Legitimate employers of homeworkers do not demand upfront fees and will not be affected by this legislation.
This was a Private Member's Bill aimed to outlaw homeworking or outworking scams. Legitimate employers do not expect you to pay a fee to work for them and yet Homeworking Schemes regularly want an upfront fee. In reality the only scheme is to line the pockets of the scam merchants.
 You've seen the ads in your newsagents or handed out at stations or in the small ads such as "Make money at home stuffing envelopes" or "Earn £££s working from home". The people most in need fall for these promises and pay up in search of some work at home. In effect, the 'work' involves perpetrating the same scam. Up till now, there was very little legal sanction against these scams.
In brief the Outworking Bill would have:
 
* Made it a criminal offence to seek payment in advance for the provision
   of homework or directories containing so called homeworking opportunities

* Outlawed the advertisement of such schemes and directories

* Given Trading Standards Officers the powers to crack down on these schemes
   quickly and effectively

* Introduced criminal penalties and fines of up to £5000 for each separate
  offence.”

“Would have” because sadly, the debate was lost by just one vote

Click here to Read the Press release from the office of Richard Burden MP