Added Tribunals (Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal) Order 2013
Debate between Baroness Donaghy and Baroness Turner of Camden(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, we have seen a series of government proposals over the past year, all designed to reduce employment rights and all apparently in the belief that this will promote employment. So a supine, disposable workforce is expected to result in increased employment. This is entirely wrong. We have legislation now making it more difficult for a dismissed worker to claim unfair dismissal. Already, a worker must be in the job for two years before any such claim can be made. Then a series of steps has to be taken before the case can get to a tribunal. The Government have admitted that they want to make access more difficult, and their policies certainly have done so. Now, the Government want to charge and a complicated system is being proposed.
Level A claims for unpaid wages, and smaller claims under category A, are to have an issue fee of £160 followed by a hearing fee of £230. For unfair dismissal, the charges are much greater, being £250 and then £950. We are told that vulnerable and poorer people will not have to pay but the TUC research indicates that a significant number of people on the national minimum wage and living wage rates will have to pay. It is clear that the Government are moving in the direction of the Beecroft proposals, which were widely condemned even by employers. The Government are trying to do that without seeming to do so. The scheme by which employees give up employment rights in return for shares in the employing company, which incidentally was voted down in this House when first proposed, is not meeting with much success even though the Government managed to get it through the Commons.
The latest proposal about charging for tribunal access is part of the same mindset. An employee seeking access to a tribunal following what he or she deems unfair may have been in the job for a number of years. Losing the job could have a distressing effect not only on the employee but the family, leading perhaps to further benefit claims as well as the illness of the dismissed employee. An appeal to an ET before a judge sitting alone will cost more money, and lay members, who bring experience and knowledge of workplaces, are being dispensed with. The Government are clearly expecting that the whole process will seem too complicated and costly for most employees and that there will be very few claims as a result—with no legal aid, of course, in employment cases. Furthermore, employers will be less inclined to seek resolution internally, as they will understand well enough that the complex procedures and costs awaiting employees claiming unfair dismissal will put off any but the most determined.
Do the Government really think that a frightened, submissive workforce is going to assist us in our present economic difficulties? Of course it will not. Growth requires a committed and enthusiastic workforce. These latest government proposals are completely and utterly unfair. They should be withdrawn.
Baroness Donaghy
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Beecham for raising these issues, and I will not cover the ground that he has already covered. During Committee on the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, I congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Marland, who was then taking the Bill through this House, on the fact that the proposals regarding ACAS were right. They laid emphasis on mediation and settlement, and aimed to enhance ACAS’s role. I said that this was the right thing to do and I still think that. Both sides would receive a reality check and be in a much better position to take appropriate action after the ACAS procedures—that is, until these proposals came along.
Unfortunately, alongside the much needed reform that came up in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Marland, there come these punitive measures for applicants to employment tribunals. It is a classic result of two government departments approaching a problem and coming up with contradictory results. What kind of mood will the client and the employer be in when they get to ACAS? The employer will hold his ground in the hope that the entry fee to the employment tribunal will be sufficient to put the applicant off. The applicant will feel that the cards are stacked against him or her and will be in no mood for conciliation. That is how to sabotage a perfectly good reform.
Today, I spoke to John Cridland, the director-general of the CBI, about these proposals because I knew his views when we were on the ACAS Council together. The CBI agrees with charging for employment tribunals but wanted a lower fee of around £100 and rules that apply more generally to each applicant, rather than all the exemptions and ceilings.
The CBI view is that the high fee is unhelpful. The exemptions defeat the purpose of the exercise and the proposals are confusing. It believes that the Ministry of Justice has concerned itself with recouping charges for its own cost base rather than as a deterrent for vexatious claims. The Ministry of Justice is not focused on how to influence culture, and John Cridland expressed frustration at the poor implementation that he fears, as do I, will get in the way of conciliation. My view is that this apparent deregulation and cut in public expenditure will set up a whole complicated bureaucracy because of the complexity of the scheme, and applicants will not know to which category they belong. This is more red tape, not less.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Debate between Baroness Donaghy and Baroness Turner of Camden
Baroness Donaghy
I was having second thoughts on whether I should speak to this amendment because I would not really be doing so with my former ACAS hat on. However, that should not prevent me commenting.
The proposal for legal officers has been dusted down off the filing cabinet many times. I was a member of industrial tribunals, as they were then called, from 1974 to 1989, and therefore have had a long involvement on both sides of the fence on this. I am sure that the idea of legal officers was discussed in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and the noughties. In fact, the idea must be so old that it must be growing hairs like gooseberries. I congratulate the Minister on again bringing out this item from the filing cabinet. However, I should point out that that does not make it an antique worth buying.
This is intended to be a cheap way of obtaining legal services, and I suspect that the legal profession will wake up to this one quickly. I suspect that it will be disliked by employment judges; equally, there is a danger that it could second-guess the conciliation process at ACAS. Even more equally, in a time of austerity when the Government are seeking to cut the number of public servants, I should have thought that it was fairly unlikely that a whole platoon or army of these, dare I say, young law graduates or whoever will be employed by any department to do this job. And, if so, which department would it be? Will they be part of the Employment Tribunals Service, or will they be direct employees of BIS or another adjunct of the Ministry of Justice?
I am sorry that in this case I cannot be very enthusiastic but I support the amendment because I think that it may at least give some idea of government thinking on this matter. However, I give a warning that, even though this measure has been recommended many times, the devil is in the detail and the practicalities usually overcome any action on this.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I originally intended to delete from the Bill any reference to this form of officer. However, I must point out that the Law Society, which has also briefed me along with the TUC and many other bodies, has already expressed some concern about this provision. It says:
“The Bill provides a new power for Legal Officers to make determinations in some (to be specified) Employment Tribunal Claims. The Society recognises the potential for Legal Officers to perform some duties, but stresses that they must be suitably qualified”.
It is clearly concerned that we will have people who are not suitably qualified making decisions on some of these highly complex potential arbitration cases. Therefore, I echo what my noble friend Lady Donaghy has said: the Government have to be rather careful about this. Given that specialist advice warning, I hope that they will look at it very carefully.
Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (Tribunal Composition) Order 2012
Debate between Baroness Donaghy and Baroness Turner of Camden
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I will speak on the two orders dealing with employment rights. I say at the outset that I oppose both of them. The first provides for an increase in the time that an employee must be in employment before they can claim unfair dismissal. At present, the employee must be in position for one year. The order increases this to two. It is not at all clear why. Surely it is possible for an employer to assess within one year whether an employee is suitable. Increasing the time to two years could involve difficulties, particularly for young people. Many people younger than 24 have not spent as long as two years in one job because of the current employment situation. I see no reason for the increase—and the majority of consultees disagreed with the proposal.
The second order seeks to remove lay representatives from tribunals, so that they will take place with a judge sitting alone. The reason for this proposed change is also unclear. It is opposed by the TUC, the CBI, the Engineering Employers Federation and Citizens Advice. The Government’s own paper states that of the consultees—there appears to have been some consultation—only 33 per cent were in favour of the proposal and 66.5 per cent were against. Surely it is understood that job loss, particularly for older people—and many of those involved are over 45—is a disaster not only for the employee but for their family, as they will probably face a long period of declining living standards and perhaps a reliance on benefits. If the dismissal is felt to be unfair, the trauma is even greater.
When industrial tribunals were first established, it was felt that cases could be heard in a relatively informal way, with lay people involved who had a knowledge of workplaces, and with a judge in the chair. It was thought that employees might not need legal representation since the hearings were such that the employee could represent himself or herself. A judge sitting alone would create a much more legal atmosphere—and of course, under the legal aid Bill currently before the House, no legal aid will be provided. I believe that the Government believe that more cases are likely to be lost in the set-up that they propose. I believe that this is part of a long-term project to decrease employment rights that have been built up over the past century.
The intention is that eventually lay people should be removed from the EAT—the appeal court—which will remove from the system lay people who have a knowledge of both sides of industry and commerce. It should be noted that organisations with a knowledge of the system believe that lay people provide a very useful element, bringing to bear workplace knowledge and often knowledge of local labour conditions in a way that a judge sitting alone may not do. Again, the Government intend to make it as difficult as possible for an employee to utilise the rights that they have, for which previous generations strove. Moreover, the paper that was issued indicated that the intention was that people would have to pay for the right to have a hearing. That, too, I oppose.
We have a low-wage economy in this country, and the Government are aware of that. Because employment is often badly paid, the benefits system supports low wages. Taxpayers are supporting employers who pay badly. Therefore, employers do not need the extra help of having employment rights removed because they already have the assistance of low wages. Should employees simply put up and shut up? Are working people simply disposable? Should we go back to the conditions that existed at the start of the last century, when employment rights were almost non-existent? The orders are a step in that direction. They are not acceptable and I oppose both of them.
Baroness Donaghy
My Lords, these are two shabby little measures that will lead to the further juridification of employment tribunals and encourage lazy management. I speak as someone who was a member of what used to be called the industrial tribunals. It is amazing how long that brand word has lasted, because even now, years after that name ceased to exist, a lot of people still call them “industrial tribunals”. I was a member from 1974 to 1989, a period of 16 years, when the whole employment regime was simpler. I acknowledge that employment law has become a lot more complicated, particularly in the area of equal rights. Nevertheless, I do not believe that that is an excuse for further eroding the role of lay members. I honestly believe that there have been attempts to undermine their role for the past 25 years. Every time a new Government come into office, the filing cabinet is opened, the file is dragged out and the new Minister is asked, “Can we do something about these lay members? They are very expensive and untidy. We need three phone calls instead of one. It would be much neater and tidier if we could get rid of them altogether”. Time and time again the TUC and the CBI have acted in unison and tried to indicate that the world of work is different from the world of the judiciary, and have said again and again that this would be a backward measure. I hope that they will say the same thing again this time.
I also speak as a former chair of ACAS, from 2000 to 2007, so I do not have any romantic feelings about employment tribunals. I fully acknowledge that they represent a failure of employment relations and that there is not always a similarity between employment legislation and employment relations. Sometimes they are the same, but as often as not they are different. When a case has to go to a tribunal, it represents a failure of employment relations, which is why the role of ACAS is so important. In fact, it diverts the majority of cases away from the tribunal service by persuading the employer to negotiate or the applicant to withdraw, or by giving advice in private to both parties as to how they can settle their case. If ACAS was not so successful then the tribunal system would have been swamped years ago. So I think we that can talk from certain knowledge about how important cases must be if they do end up before a tribunal. It is not always unreasonable people who come before one. I have never met anyone who willingly took their case to tribunal; they would always look for a different way.
You could almost say that the increase from one year to two years is traditional Conservative policy, just as decreasing it from two years to one year is traditional Labour policy. It could be left at that, saying that it is a purely political measure. But when you look at the world of work and the journals of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development— I am a fellow of the CIPD—they say everywhere that you need to talk to your new employee on a regular basis; to use the probationary period wisely; and if there is any doubt at all about that employee—if they are not proving to be adequate—you have an outlet. You can extend the probationary period in discussion and agree on how the employee can improve themselves. There is absolutely no need to use the precipice of unfair dismissal eligibility for the promotion of employment relations. The two things are entirely different. To use it in this case is almost predictable.
The Minister spoke of generating jobs and growth by making it easier to sack people. In reply I would say: I don’t think so. He also said, “We value the role for lay members”. I am sorry, but that has a hollow ring to it. I do not think that they are valued, and I think that this is a way of further eroding their role. They are regarded as a bit of a nuisance and, slowly but surely, their role will be diminished over the years. Of course business wants the extension from one to two years. It is a bit like asking a child if they would like two bags of sweets instead of one. It is hardly surprising. Even the Government’s impact assessment says:
“We are unable to infer the causality between Unfair Dismissal (UD) claims and changes in the qualifying period. There are a wide range of variables other than unfair dismissal qualifying period that will impact on the number of unfair dismissal claims such as claimant count inflow. In periods of recession when more workers are dismissed, unfair dismissal claims rise”.
There is no objective justification. This is a purely political measure and we will live to regret both these measures.