Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Julian Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

I will in due course, but I want to make a bit of progress first.

I welcome this opportunity to set out the changes that we have proposed and respond to those made by others, continuing the work of my predecessor to bring reform to the employment tribunal system. Let me begin by explaining the amendments that we are making through new clause 8, which will amend existing provisions in the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.

Following his fundamental review of the rules of procedure for employment tribunals, Mr Justice Underhill made a number of recommendations about how the rules might be improved. In some instances, he felt that the primary legislation would need to be amended before desirable changes in the procedural rules could be made. These changes will help to achieve more effective and targeted case management which will benefit all tribunal users.

The first change involves deposit orders. Tribunals can currently require a party to pay a deposit of up to £1,000 as a condition of continuing to proceed with a weak claim. However, a judge cannot currently use a deposit order to weed out the weak elements of a particular claim, and must instead attach a deposit order to the entire claim as a condition of proceeding. That lack of flexibility does not aid effective case management. Enabling judges to make better-targeted deposit orders will give both parties a clear sense of where they should focus their efforts, encouraging a more realistic approach to settlement, and I believe that it will also lead to greater use of such orders.

The second change relates to the recoverability of witness expenses for people who choose to represent themselves at tribunals and seek a preparation time order in respect of their work on the case. An oddity in the current costs regime places people who represent themselves at tribunals at a disadvantage, as a tribunal cannot make a costs order for witness expenses and a preparation time order in respect of the same party. We are amending the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 to remove that unnecessary restriction.

The final change deals with the recoverability of lay representatives’ costs. Mr Justice Underhill considered that those who chose to be represented by a non-lawyer, and who had paid for that service and advice, should not be put at a disadvantage when a tribunal concluded that the other party’s conduct meant that a costs order was warranted. I agree that those who choose to engage lay representatives rather than lawyers should not be disadvantaged when it comes to the award of costs, and I intend to use the existing powers in section 13 of the Employment Tribunals Act to change the rules of procedure in order to allow for such costs orders. The new clause helps to clarify the scope of section 13 by introducing a definition of the word “representative”.

Let me now deal with new clauses 1 and 2, tabled by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), which amend clause 15. Along with the organisation Public Concern at Work, she has been a powerful advocate on this subject, and we discussed it recently during a Westminster Hall debate that she had initiated.

I think we can all agree that, in an ideal world, legislation for whistleblowing would not be needed at all. In such a world, all employers would be open and receptive when an issue was raised, and would not seek to silence or drive out a person who brought important matters to their attention. However, as we know, such enlightened approaches to whistleblowing are not universal, so legal protection is required. We are equally keen to ensure that the protection offered by the public interest disclosure legislation is not abused by those who seek to rely on it for purely self-interested reasons. Clause 15, which has already been debated in Committee, will ensure that the whistleblowing provisions cannot be used to advance purely personal interests.

New clause 1 addresses a different aspect of the public interest disclosure legislation. It proposes the removal of the good faith test, which has been in place since the legislation was introduced. That would mean that individual whistleblowers would retain the benefit of employment protection even if their reasons for blowing the whistle were malicious, if they deliberately set out to cause commercial damage, or if they acted out of a desire for personal revenge.

There is clearly a balance to be struck. We are conscious of the recommendations of Dame Janet Smith’s inquiry into the tragic circumstances of the Shipman case. She suggested that the good faith test be removed to encourage more whistleblowers to come forward. We also recognise that the motivations of whistleblowers are not always clear-cut. Personal feelings, particularly when a relationship has broken down, sometimes make it difficult to understand the intentions of the person who is making a disclosure. Having said that, I should add that, as we have already made clear, we believe that the legislation is working well overall, and that the good faith test serves an important purpose.

We are also keen to avoid making a change that could allow individuals access to an uncapped award when their motives for blowing the whistle were malicious, and I therefore do not believe that there is a clear-cut case for removing the good faith test. However, I recognise that the hon. Lady has raised an important issue relating to this specific element of the public interest disclosure regime, and we will continue to look closely at the policy aims of the test to ensure that they are still being achieved.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that there is much more scope for whistleblowing in this country, given the number of whistleblowers in America and the incentives that they are given to come forward? Does she agree that there may be more work for the Government to do in future months?

[Jo Swinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is a positive thing that we have an environment where people, rightly, feel able to come forward and blow the whistle. The legislation that was enacted was important and is generally working well. We are proposing small changes to it in this Bill, but it is absolutely important. For the reasons that I outlined, that legal protection is necessary and we should be proud of the fact that we have such legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

Let me now deal with the amendments to clause 7. The early conciliation regime that we are introducing will require prospective claimants to transmit details of their claim to ACAS in the prescribed manner. Where information is missing from an early conciliation form submitted by a prospective claimant, we think that there may be merit in allowing ACAS to obtain the relevant details via the telephone. Our amendments 6 and 7 therefore propose the replacement of the words “send” and “sending” with “provide” and “providing” to give the flexibility needed to implement the best process for all parties. They are minor amendments and have no other effect on the early conciliation process debated in Committee, of which Opposition Members were supportive.

[Julian Smith]

I am heartened by these amendments, because one of my concerns in Committee was that this process with ACAS could become far too formal. It is really important that as this early conciliation develops we make it as informal as possible.

[Jo Swinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He rightly says that we want that process to be a success, and enabling the technology of the telephone to be used in it is a helpful, albeit minor, amendment.

Opposition Members have tabled a number of amendments on the early conciliation process. Amendment 80 seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult on, and undertake an assessment of, the impact of the introduction of fee charging in employment tribunals on the effectiveness of early conciliation before commencing these provisions. Hon. Members will know that the power to charge fees in tribunals is one that already existed; we announced our intention to introduce fees in employment tribunals in January 2011, and subsequently consulted on the appropriate charging points and fee levels in December 2011.

We recognise that the introduction of fees to bring an employment tribunal claim may affect the behaviours of both claimants and respondents, and that there may therefore be an impact on how parties elect to engage with early conciliation. We considered the possible impact as part of the assessment that accompanied the announcement in November 2011 of our intention to introduce early conciliation—copies are in the Library of the House. As part of the implementation planning, we will publish further impact assessments. The proposed amendment would simply require us to replicate work that we have already done and will continue to do, so I am unable to support it. The amendment is unnecessary, but I can give the assurance that we are, of course, continuing to take into account the impact that our approach will have.

--- Later in debate ---

The removal of clause 12 would maintain the current legislative regime. Some might say that is no problem, as settlement agreements will continue to be used by some businesses, but it would demonstrate that we are not listening to what businesses say about what they want and need to increase their confidence to take on new staff. We have heard many times through formal and informal consultation that finding ways to make it easier to end employment relationships that are not working out would remove the fear factor of hiring. The removal of clause 12 would mean that, although we have been given a practical example of a measure that would support business and support growth, we have chosen not to take it. As a Minister at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, it is my role to support growth, not hinder it.

[Julian Smith]

I am heartened that the Minister is not seeking to make any changes to the clause. Is she surprised that the Opposition are so unenthusiastic about helping the 4.5 million small businesses that will benefit from the clause?

[Jo Swinson]

It is intriguing, given the experience of Opposition Front Benchers as employment lawyers. It is worth bearing in mind that compromise agreements already exist and existed for 13 years under the previous Government. They have a lot of merit, but tend to be used by large firms in particular—large firms, which can afford to employ expensive employment lawyers. Small and medium-sized companies often feel very afraid of taking on such conversations and that is what we are seeking to address.

I recognise that there are concerns about how the clause might work in practice and what safeguards there may be for individuals, many of which my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, addressed in some detail in Committee. I strongly believe that in clause 12 we have found the right balance between protecting individuals and giving employers the flexibility and confidence they need to manage their businesses effectively. It is about balance. The settlement agreements measure provides a mutually beneficial solution for employers and employees as regards ending the employment relationship. Let us be clear that this is not, as some have suggested—and as Opposition Members have been suggesting from a sedentary position—the first step to no-fault dismissal or Beecroft-lite. We have made it abundantly clear that we will not go down that path.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith]

We are hearing a load of bluster and rubbish from Opposition Members. This is a balanced measure that puts a bit more power in the hands of those who will create new jobs in this country. The shadow Minister was an employment lawyer; every member of the Opposition Front-Bench team was a business owner. They are being hypocrites about the clause.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw his use of the word “hypocrites” in relation to Members of the House. Perhaps he will be good enough to withdraw the remark and apologise.

[Julian Smith]

I do withdraw it and apologise, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you. I am grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) on his election to the Procedure Committee.

Let me, too, start with an affair of state by saying happy birthday to the shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna). I will not lead the House in a chorus of “Happy Birthday”, but we wish him many happy returns.

While I warmly welcome the new Minister to her place, I have to say, with a tinge of disappointment, that I will miss her predecessor, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), for two reasons. First, we incessantly used his book, “How to maximise compensation at an employment tribunal”, in Committee. [Interruption.] For the information of the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), the then Minister was formerly an employment lawyer. Secondly, at the end of Committee proceedings we bought him a small gift, “Fifty Shades of Grey”, relating to his other passion in life, and I was looking forward to questioning him on that. I hope that the hon. Lady has read the book, because then some of the references in my speech might make more sense.

It is an indictment of how uncomfortable the Minister is with this part of the Bill that the Government have restricted the time available on Report to deal with the complicated issues within it. Let me be clear from the outset. It does not matter how much the Secretary of State stamps his feet or the Liberal Democrat Minister denies it, this Bill is delivering Beecroft by the back door. It is not just Labour Members who are saying that. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon is in his place, because he said the same in Committee, much to the disdain of the former Minister. As is consistent with most of the clauses in this hotch-potch of an enterprise Bill, these changes to rights at work are not about enterprise and are not a panacea for a Government with no strategy for growth.

I cannot emphasise enough that the hard-fought-for rights of employees up and down this country are not the reason we are in a double-dip recession; the failed economic policies of this Government are the reason.

[Julian Smith]

rose—

[Ian Murray]

Let me make some progress, and then I will give way.

To start with the positives, I welcome new clause 8, which is derived from the report by Mr Justice Underhill and his esteemed team. We have always recognised the need to review the procedures of the employment tribunal system to make it work better for employees and employers, but with these proposals we have particular concerns about the increased use of deposit orders. We support the premise of deposit orders in deterring claims which may be unmeritorious, but we fear that their increased use, combined with the introduction of the fees regime, may restrict access to justice. This has the potential not only to restrict justice but to do so for the most vulnerable employees in the employment tribunal system. Will the Minister assess the impact of the changes on deposit orders? I appreciate her giving the commitment that if there were an impact she would return to the issue, but it is strange that these proposals have been introduced. Several of my hon. Friends have been asking about the evidence for doing so. Despite repeated pleas in Committee to produce a proper impact assessment on the insertion of fees into the process, that has not happened.

I welcome the provisions to allow for costs for lay representatives. We agree with Mr Justice Underhill when he said:

“We can see no reason why the claimant should not be able to recover those charges when he would have been able to if he had instructed a legal representative.”

We will not oppose these changes in new clause 8, as they have been properly evidenced, but I could not say that about the rest of part 2, where the Government have absolutely no evidence for any of their proposed changes. Indeed, their own impact assessments, and business surveys, show that there is little appetite for them in the business community. Businesses tell me and other Members that their main concerns are not employee regulations but lack of finance and the general state of the economy.

The reality is that the previous Labour Government created nearly 2 million jobs and 1 million businesses within the current system of employment rights. Mr Beecroft himself agreed, in effect, when he said in Committee that he had no empirical evidence but was basing these recommendations on experience and from talking to people in the pub. In Committee, we had a perfect 10 from Government Members in terms of anecdotes. I am sure that at one point we even heard a direct quote from the managing director of “Anecdotes R Us”. The evidence, particularly from the OECD, shows that the United Kingdom has the third most liberal employment rights regime in the western world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend asks an exceptionally good question. I think that it would amount to a voluntary leaving of work, because the employee will not have been sacked—they will have come to an agreement with their employer that they will leave. They will not have been made redundant. I hope that the Minister will address that issue, because it could have significant consequences.

[Julian Smith]

It is incredible that the hon. Gentleman is unable to understand the frustration of many businesses on the issue of coming to the end of an employment relationship. Does he not understand how frustrating it is for many entrepreneurs throughout the country to finish a relationship with an employee that is not working out?

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman makes a tremendous intervention, because he is actually arguing our point: the proposals are bad for business. We would accept the Underhill review’s proposal to make the employment tribunal better and we would accept, with minor amendments, the ACAS proposal for early conciliation, but to put in place a compensated, no-fault-dismissal-cum-protected-conversation system would be bad for business. The hon. Gentleman must also realise that the Business Department’s own small business survey showed that only 6% of businesses listed regulation as a concern. That included all regulation, so employment regulation was only a minor part of it. He can shake his head, but that is what BIS’s own impact assessment says.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. I do not have the answer, because the Government have not told us, but it seems that if an insurance company can do anything to get out of paying a particular insurance policy, it will do so. Perhaps the Minister will address that.

Citizens Advice has said clearly—I think it has sent this briefing to all Members—that

“this looks less like an attempt to encourage more use of compromise agreements, than a further erosion of the legal protection against unfair dismissal.”

The Minister has been challenged to say exactly what the settlement agreement represents and to come clean. If she did so, this would be a far easier debate to deal with.

The current system allows for the use of compromise agreements when there is a dispute. The new settlement agreements can be used at any time, but it is clear that they are likely to create a dispute. The reality is that the mere fact of instigating discussions without prior process is likely to cause the end of the employment relationship, which is exactly what the employer will want. It is the equivalent of one party in a personal relationship saying to the other party, completely out of the blue, “I don’t love you anymore.” Who would hang around after that? [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) suggests that I am speaking from personal experience, but I could not possibly comment. We propose to delete the Beecroft clause, because it is bad for business and equally bad for employees.

[Julian Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that Labour does not believe that regulation is a big issue for business?

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman spent a lot of time in Committee posing such questions, but the Federation of Small Businesses, the Engineering Employers Federation, Citizens Advice and many of the top groups that deal with employers and employees tell us that a compensated, no-fault dismissal is bad for business, and BIS’s own impact assessment says exactly the same. Until the Government can produce empirical evidence that underpins some of the Beecroft reforms, I am unwilling to believe what the hon. Gentleman says.

I hope that the Minister has listened to my comments on amendment 81 and I will test the opinion of the House on it at the appropriate time.

Amendment 82 would remove clause 13 and its provision on compensatory awards. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to alter the amount of compensation paid to an employee who is found by a judge to have been unfairly dismissed. Every Government member of the Committee indicated that they want the amount to be drastically reduced, despite the fact that the Bill gives the Secretary of State the potential to increase it from its current level of £72,000. The Secretary of State has indicated that his cap would be a maximum of either an annual salary or median earnings, whichever is the lower, potentially limiting all claims to about £26,000, the effect of which would be to hit anyone who earns more than average earnings. This Government have hit middle earners time and again and these proposals have the potential to hit them hardest when they will have actually won a claim at an employment tribunal. It should be up to the employment tribunal judge to decide what an adequate compensatory award is, not the Secretary of State.

I will give the House an anonymised example. A claimant was dismissed at the age of 58. He was earning as little as £26,020 net per year, but owing to dismissal will not attain that level of earnings before he retires at 65. After eight months of unemployment, the claimant got a job on £20,020 net per year. His loss was calculated by a judge at an employment tribunal to be £124,200. Under the current regime, he would receive 62% of that claim. Under the Secretary of State’s regime, he would receive less than 20% of it. That is somebody on fairly average earnings of about £26,000 a year. Citizens Advice has stated:

“The idea that this could have a measurable effect on the behaviour of workers and employers is not credible”.

It proposes the deletion of clause 13 on that basis. That is why I would like to test the opinion of the House later this afternoon.

The critical point is that the combined impact of settlement agreements, ACAS early conciliation, fees and the lowering of the cap on compensatory awards will deliver the very compensated no-fault dismissal that was in the Beecroft report. Let me demonstrate why. If an employer decides that he no longer likes an employee, he might offer them a sum of money to leave his employment in a settlement agreement. The employer could say that the amount offered will be reduced each day that the settlement agreement is not accepted. The employee will feel pressured into accepting an offer for fear of victimisation, for fear that the offer will be withdrawn or reduced over time, or because of the spectre of having to take an unfair dismissal claim with the associated fee structure. Even if the employee were to win the tribunal case, the compensation cap proposed by the Secretary of State would be considerably lower than the losses that they had encountered.

This is a rogues charter that will result in poorly compensated employees who feel that the system is too complicated and expensive to make a rightful claim for justice. This is compensated no-fault dismissal in action. Let us not mention the ludicrous announcement by the Chancellor at the Conservative party conference that people could give up their workplace rights for a few company shares.

I will quickly run through amendments 92 and 83. In Committee, we pressed the then Minister, the hon. Member for North Norfolk, to introduce a better system for the enforcement of employment tribunal awards. He committed to look at that, but nothing has come forward. As the Minister has said today, some 40% of people who have been found by a judge at an employment tribunal to have been unfairly dismissed never receive their award. I am glad that the Minister is as shocked as we are by those figures and is looking at the matter. I will support her if there is a genuine attempt to make the system better.

Amendment 92 would essentially add to the powers of the employment tribunal to impose a penalty on an employer who does not settle the award within the time specified by the judge. It seems strange that the Government are proposing to fine an employer for aggravated circumstances in order to boost the coffers of the Treasury, while the employee has to wait or gets nothing at all. I am sure that many Members have constituents who have not been paid their compensatory awards.

Amendment 83 would merely remove the provision that introduces a parking ticket-style discount to employers if they pay their fine to the Treasury within the set period of time. That could have the unintended consequence of the penalty being prioritised over the awards due to the employee.

I will move on to amendment 94 and the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark). Amendment 94 relates to clause 15, in which the Government attempt to limit the definition of a protected disclosure, which is the basis of whistleblowing claims. Whistleblowing is a day-one right that has the potential for unlimited compensation. The Opposition agree with the Government that this should not be used for an individual’s own employment contract, but we disagree that inserting a public interest test into the legislation will assist in the matter.

The Law Society agrees with us. It has said that the provision should state that a breach of a legal obligation requires something more than a breach of the individual contract of employment, so as to satisfy the public interest test. At present, the provision means that allegations about matters other than a simple breach of a legal obligation must fall within a test of public interest. A disclosure that a criminal offence has been committed would therefore also have to satisfy the public interest test.

We propose that the legislation be altered to omit an individual’s employment contract from whistleblowing claims, unless it satisfies the public interest test. One reason why the Government have got it wrong on this matter is that there has been no consultation with the relevant parties and stakeholders on how best to achieve the goals that we want to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I will speak in favour of the two amendments relating to clause 14 that stand in my name. We have heard many legal arguments today. I am not a lawyer by training, so I have listened as intently as I can. My background is in business, and I draw the House’s attention to my continuing interests.

The Minister did an excellent job of portraying the middle path that she is taking with the legislation. I intervened on her to say that many business people feel that Parliament and politicians are out of touch with the realities of their day-to-day business. In some cases, their voice is not heard loudly enough. My amendments deal with one area where there is further that the Minister could go.

[Julian Smith]

My hon. Friend says that the public feel that this place is sometimes out of touch. From what he has heard from Opposition Members, would he say that Labour is anti-business and completely out of touch with entrepreneurs?

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. All of us are aware that the Labour party has trouble understanding aspiration and even more trouble in rewarding aspiration. I am sure that Opposition Members will reflect deeply on the point that he has made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s perspective, but the Minister made quite clear her belief that there is sufficient evidence and support for the Government’s measures. Many of us think that they will go quite some way towards providing what businesses and employees would see as a reasonable and fair way to make efficient changes in the procedures for dismissal, dealing with unfair dismissal and tribunals.

I wish to focus on clause 14 and my amendments to it. Amendment 58 would delete the clause entirely, and amendment 59 would apply its principles only to businesses outside the micro-business sector—those that have more than 10 employees. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South, has given a number of the justifications for doing that both in Committee and today. First, there is the principle that involving the Government in a dispute between an employer and an employee may complicate the achievement of a settlement between those two parties. It is difficult to understand the a priori reason why a Government should try to achieve a take, because as he made clear, we should be trying to ensure that employers pay the amount for which they are responsible to an employee who has been aggrieved by a dismissal. I listened to the Minister’s comments, but my concern is that the clause will provide additional complexity in the process.

As the Minister indicated, the clause will also create an imbalance between the employee and the employer, and we are not sure how that will play out under the new regime. I hope that if the Minister will not accept my amendments today, she will at least agree to examine how the changes play out, and perhaps consider whether the issue of financial penalties should be reviewed in future.

[Julian Smith]

It is worth recording that every business representative group in Britain is concerned about the clause, for many of the reasons that my hon. Friend has given.

[Richard Fuller]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for that intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I will speak to new clauses 1 and 2, which relate to different aspects of whistleblowing. The current provisions on whistleblowing are in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, a landmark piece of legislation introduced by the previous Labour Government. That legislation was fought for by many people over many years, and came about as a result of decades of campaigning by many across the political divide. I am therefore pleased to see that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) is listening to the debate, as he was one of those who campaigned on this matter during the previous Conservative Government.

Clause 15 introduces a public interest test into the whistleblowing legislation, and future claims will be successful only if the worker believed that the disclosure was made in the public interest and—in the case of wider disclosures—can demonstrate that that belief was reasonable under the circumstances. The clause will make it more difficult for people to rely on the 1998 Act, as it creates yet another legal test in what is already a complex legal area, and means that those who may be considering whistleblowing will face yet another hurdle to obtain the protection of the legislation. New clause 1 would remove one of the other legal tests—the good faith test—from the legislation.

There is no doubt that lives have been saved as a result of public interest disclosure legislation. However, as the Minister indicated, Dame Janet Smith stated in the Shipman inquiry that the good faith test was a barrier to whistleblowers, and that is borne out in reports from the ongoing Mid Staffordshire and Leveson inquiries. Given that another test is being added for a protected disclosure to be met, we must consider whether the proposed legislation will make it more difficult for someone to get the protection of the law.

I believe that Parliament and politicians should want individuals to whistleblow when that is in the public interest. Indeed, at almost any point in history, there have been situations in which it was—and should have been—appropriate for an individual to bring information to the attention of the relevant authorities or, where appropriate, the public, irrespective of whether they could prove that they were acting in good faith.

[Julian Smith]

I pay tribute to the work done by the hon. Lady on this important issue. Does she think that the time has come to consider the American model in which society starts to give incentives to whistleblowers, and will she comment on that?

[Katy Clark]

I would not necessarily say there should be incentives, but people should not be punished for whistleblowing. It is currently very difficult to get the protection of the law, and we need to look at that. That is why I, together with others, have called on the Government to look at the entire area. It is now more than a decade since the 1998 Act was introduced, and we need a thorough review and full public consultation on all issues associated with whistleblowing.

Current topical examples of where I believe it should not be necessary for someone to show that they are acting in good faith include the allegations that are coming to light about Jimmy Savile, and the cover-up that we have seen over many years following the Hillsborough disaster. There will be many other examples central to the political debate where politicians would welcome whistleblowers taking action.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

We have extremely limited time to debate this group of proposals if we are to debate the green investment bank. I absolutely abhor the programme motion, and the Minister took up nearly a third of the time for debate. Report is the only stage at which someone not on the Committee can table and debate amendments, and I have only around five minutes to speak to mine.

We naively debate the detail of legislation and Bills without understanding their political context. The political context of the Bill is the statements made at the Conservative party conference. This is the first stage in a legislative process under this Government of giving employers the licence to sack at will. That is what this legislation is about.

When the Minister spoke, it was like having a delegate from the Institute of Directors in the Chamber. The measure is like the first stage of the IOD programme for reforming employment law.

[Julian Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

No, I will not, because we do not have time and, to be honest, the hon. Gentleman is becoming monotonously boring.

When the Prime Minister spoke at the Conservative party conference, he said that he was on the side of the strivers. He makes it clear in the Bill that he is on the side of employers who want to sack people—without adequate compensation or adequate protection in law.

I have tabled a number of simple, basic amendments to ameliorate the proposed legislation, all of which have been rejected. I suggested that there should be a sanction against employers who do not participate in conciliation. We are told that such a sanction already exists, so my proposal would simply codify what the Minister has said happens in practice. It is important that we include that in the Bill.

I have made a simple attempt to amend the time scales in which claimants can prepare their case. A month is not enough for them—they must collect information and seek legal advice, and individuals often draft legal papers themselves. A six-month time scale would reflect that reality.

Another proposal would ensure that the processes being introduced by the Government have the confidence of all sides. It is unacceptable for the judge to determine who is on the Employment Appeal Tribunal, because it removes the experience of both sides of industry, who could advise the judge. My proposal is simply that consensus should be achieved and that the decision should be made with the approval of both the employee and employer representatives—all parties concerned. Even that proposal has been rejected.

People are not currently adequately compensated, which is why the cap is unacceptable. In no other area of law does a judge make an assessment that someone has lost and determine compensation, only for a cap to prevent full compensation. That is why there should be no cap, and yet the Government are keen on caps—they have introduced a £5,000 cap on fines against employers. What is £5,000 to companies such as Virgin or Starbucks, which we heard about yesterday? They are billion-pound companies. What is a £5,000 fine to them? It is meaningless.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith]

I support the Bill, which backs risk-takers across Britain—the 4 million businesses with fewer than 10 employees, accounting for 7 million jobs. Most of these businesses are run by people earning less than the average wage.

Despite what Labour says about regulation, it is causing those business owners and entrepreneurs a problem. To continue to get job results like today’s, we have to do more to give those owners confidence to take on more staff. The Bill’s measures—tribunal fees, reducing compensation for unfair dismissal, settlement agreements and the slight rebalancing from employee to employer—will give many entrepreneurs the power and the confidence to take on new staff. The Bill also has measures that will be difficult and challenging for business, such as equal pay orders and board votes, which demonstrates that this Government will not accept bad business behaviour.

Under Labour, business in Britain was being hit by six new regulations every day. There was a relentless focus on job protection rather than job creation; poor oversight of the pay of business boards; and appalling comparative performance on board diversity and on equal pay issues. This Government back the risk-takers, are on the side of the entrepreneur while protecting rights, and are challenging the worst excesses of business that went unchecked for 13 years. Labour is for excessive job protection; we are for job creation. I pay tribute to the excellent two new Ministers and I am sure that their work will ensure that our job figures continue to get better for months and years to come.