Children and Families Bill

Lord Popat Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we had been led to believe that this session would finish at 8.15 pm but I have not been briefed about what will happen, so I am in something of a quandary. I wonder if the noble Lord would explain what the position is so that we can understand better what our responsibilities would be to the Bill, before I speak.

[Lord Popat (Con)]

My Lords, I have spoken to the Chief Whip, and we need to complete the Bill today.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am glad to hear it, but what has that got to do with me?

[Lord Popat]

We must debate Amendment 268.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I find this very unsatisfactory. As the noble Baroness said, we are all losing our marbles, if not our words. Trying to get through the Bill at this late hour when there are still two very substantial amendments to go is not what was agreed through the usual channels and certainly was not the basis on which we came into this discussion. I continue, but I do so with the feeling that this is not in the spirit of the best use of our time, and your Lordships’ House will be the worse for having to debate late into the night issues that should have seen the fresh light of day—perhaps next Monday, when of course there will be time.

Clause 104 was in my mind when I started the debate earlier—it seems a long time ago now but was in fact earlier this afternoon—by saying that while the Opposition were broadly happy with the measures contained in Parts 6, 7 and 8 of the Bill, there were one or two bits of grit, and this is one of them. Amendments 267L and 267M and the clause stand part Motion are grouped together in one place so that we can have a debate about them. While they all bear on the same area, they obviously have different impacts. My preference would be for the clause to stand part because I believe that what the Government are trying to do here is antipathetic to the very spirit of British law, which has always recognised the need for a person with a legal case to have the chance to make that case in a court of first instance but, where there have been problems or difficulties with that, the person would then have the right of appeal against decisions taken in the first instance. However, the Bill as it is drafted removes the process by which an employer must respond to an employee’s flexible working request and replaces it with a requirement to respond in a reasonable manner and within a timeframe of three months. We had a debate earlier about the word “reasonable”, and on that occasion the Minister felt unable to accept that word because he felt it was not appropriate for the context in which we were discussing it, although it has come back several times since and he has been quite happy with it. We have a situation here where reasonableness, which in the earlier amendments was a burden on employers, is now okay for employers to use.

The current processes include the provision for an appeal by an employee, and this obviously provides a useful opportunity to discuss why things have not worked out in terms of the process, but the Bill removes that. The history to this is interesting. ACAS consulted on a draft code of practice for the extended right to request flexible working, and employer bodies such as the CBI, the FSB, recruiters, the TUC, EHRC, Opportunity Now and Working Families acted as advisers on the draft code. The group agreed, and the draft code recognised, that an appeal is important. The draft code said:

“If you reject the request you should allow your employee to appeal the decision. It can be helpful to allow an employee to speak with you about your decision as this may reveal new information or an omission in following a reasonable procedure when considering the application”.

Anybody reading that would recognise its antecedents in criminal law and civil law where clearly those who have cases—as I have said—can make them in the first instance and then, if there are difficulties, can appeal against some of the decisions in order that they can be better refined and reconsidered. We believe it is important that the Bill and the code are consistent to provide clarity to employers and certainty to employees that appeals are to be allowed. The amendment would make it clear on the face of the Bill that appeals remain an important part of the process of considering flexible working requests.

In Committee in the Commons, the Government argued that the amendment would mean that an employee always had a right of appeal, and that this would be burdensome and bureaucratic in a very small organisation. If it was an absolute right of appeal, that might be the case, but appeals are usually constrained by matters of fact or law and one would expect that normal processes would be applied. We argue that a very small organisation would be able to deal swiftly with an appeal, but allowing an appeal is important for procedural fairness and may reduce the use of grievance procedures instead. Sometimes employers do not give a statutory business reason for refusing a request, and that could give rise to an appeal. In addition, once the employee understands the employer’s business reasons for refusing a request to work flexibly, they may be more able to negotiate a solution, so it is a win-win all round.

I would ask the Minister to think again about this issue. It is important to retain what we normally expect as the right approach towards consideration of these quasi disciplinary matters. I beg to move.