Deregulation Bill

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I endorse very warmly the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. They make a powerful case. I hope that, after also hearing from my noble friend Lady Thornton, the Minister will be persuaded to give some ground, as what they say is very compelling indeed. However, this may be a little academic given the fact that there has been an 80% reduction in the number of cases brought to employment tribunals since the charges were imposed by the Government last year. It seems to me that we are seeing the whole system being rather rapidly eroded. I hope that the Minister, in reporting back to his colleagues about the outcome of this debate, whatever it may be, will invite them to look again at the status of employment tribunals, and the great reduction in cases being brought, to see whether they intend to allow this nearly 50 year-old provision to wither on the vine, because that is the impression that is being widely—and, I think, rightly—inferred from the history of what has happened over the past year or 18 months.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is very nice to be back discussing equalities matters opposite the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. He did a brilliant job helping to put the Equality Act 2010 on the statute book. We were very pleased to work with him at that time. I join the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Hunt, in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Lester, better and well for the future.

The noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Hunt, have explained perfectly well what the issue is: in future an employment tribunal would only be able to make a recommendation aimed at preventing or reducing the adverse effect of the discrimination on the claimant in the case. That would mean that the potential to reduce discrimination against the employer’s wider workforce would be lost in the majority of cases. The EHRC has powers of enforcement on employment tribunal decisions. It was very clear on this in its evidence to the Joint Committee scrutinising the Bill. It said that it strongly disagreed,

“with the proposal to remove employment tribunals’ wider recommendation making powers”.

It said that,

“it is too early to judge the effectiveness of the power which has been in force only over the last three years. The available evidence suggests that the power has been used proportionately, and that there are important clear benefits for all concerned (including employers and employees) in exercising the power to clarify necessary remedial action, and this helps to prevent further discrimination and to reduce litigation”.

This power has not been in place long enough for evidence to suggest that it is either a burden on business or not effective enough. Those are both arguments that the Minister has used in the course of these discussions.

On these Benches, we regard these amendments as very important. We believe that we have to continue to address the concern that the law should be effective not only in providing redress for victims of unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, but in preventing those unlawful acts from occurring, and in helping employers to comply with their duties. I will give one example that illustrates very well the importance of this law. Last year, the Metropolitan Police had to pay a female firearms officer who featured in Scotland Yard’s Olympic poster campaign damages of £37,000. Those damages were levied by an employment tribunal after she was bullied and victimised for being black. The tribunal branded Scotland Yard as “malicious” and “vindictive” in its treatment of Ms Howard and told the Met to review all internal complaints of discrimination made since 2009. I stress that. I have no idea whether the Met has carried out and complied with that recommendation. I hope that it has and that it is taking remedial action, because it was heavily criticised at the time.

The point is that the tribunal’s power to make these wider recommendations is under threat from the Deregulation Bill. If the Minister wants to take this amendment away and come back that is fine with us. But this is very important and I think that it is the right thing to do.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I rise to move this amendment in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Thornton and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. As we make steady progress through this Bill, your Lordships will encounter many amendments more elegantly drafted than this one, I have to admit. Given the evident affection in which lawyers are held in your Lordships’ House, I trust that this member of the junior branch of the profession will be forgiven for the drafting of this amendment, especially as I was not responsible for it—

[Baroness Thornton]

You are.

[Lord Beecham]

But I did subscribe to it. There is a sort of collective responsibility on these Benches, too.

This is a probing amendment—it could hardly be anything else in the circumstances—that tries to deal with what actually constitutes the health service. Of course, this phrase runs through the Bill but there is not within the Bill a definition of what constitutes the health service, let alone “a comprehensive health service”—the words used in Clause 1, which we will be returning to on Report. The amendment seeks to add to Clause 1(3) and the intention is to reflect Section 3 of the 2006 Health Act, which laid out clearly, to a reasonable extent at any rate, the scope of the Secretary of State’s duties. The Secretary of State was obliged to,

“provide throughout England, to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements”

broadly six categories of service, amplified in Schedule 1 to the Act by more detailed requirements around medical inspection for pupils at schools and issues of that kind.

It clearly is impossible to lay down in legislation everything that might be brought within the purview of the Secretary of State or indeed any other body for the purposes of defining precisely what a national health service should be and what would constitute a comprehensive health service. Clause 10 in any event transfers some of those responsibilities to commissioning groups, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has pointed out, but it is not entirely clear from the clause, to put it mildly, what functions will be included in their responsibilities.