Employment Bill [HL]

I thank the Committee for this important and interesting debate, particularly my noble friend Lord Wedderburn who opened it with such skill and authority. As has already been said, he has a very distinguished record in this field going back many years. He will forgive me if I say that we were treated to a history seminar about the background to employment tribunals that it would be hard to better. Let me give him straightaway the reassurance that he, those whose names are behind these amendments and, I think, the Committee as a whole, require. The Government strongly support the important role of all the members of the employment tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal. I do not believe that my noble friends are seeking to put these amendments in the Bill just like that: I think that they are seeking reassurance from the Government that the long tried practice of the tripartite way in which tribunals are set up will continue. We recognise the key role played by lay members in employment tribunals and, of course, by the appointed members of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. In the consultation that took place on dispute resolution, numerous respondents told us that they believe that the tripartite nature of the tribunal was a real strength of the system. We have heard that expressed across the Committee from all sides today. For example, the Law Society commented that the role of lay members, "““is very important, as their practical experience provides a balance to the legal expertise of the Chairs””." That point was made by my noble friend in moving this amendment. There has already been reference to the CBI for its belief that lay members make, "““a key contribution in assessing reasonableness of actions and responses””." The Government agree with those views and are committed to the continued presence of the tripartite panel as an integral element of the employment tribunal system. Accordingly, nothing in the Bill has any implications for the role of lay members, except perhaps in Clause 4. Clause 4 underpins the proposed fast track, where the Government intend to exercise their existing powers—to which I will return in a moment—by putting in place a system for a chair sitting alone to determine a case on the basis of the papers, provided the parties consent. Such a fast-track mechanism was supported by more than 70 per cent of respondents to our consultation. The Bill will not in any way change the existing provisions relating to jurisdictions that are heard by a chair alone. Indeed, Clause 4 places restrictions on the circumstances in which a case can be decided without a hearing, thus putting in place safeguards that did not exist before but will do now, limiting powers that have been on the statute book since 2002. In moving his amendment, my noble friend was reasonable in saying that if this stood alone it would not count for much, and then went on to describe how there is genuine concern, which we accept exists, about the future role of the employment tribunal in its present form. In relation to Amendment No. 5, nothing in the Bill or in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, makes any change to the relations between the members of the employment tribunal, which are set out in the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004. I want to make this point as clearly as I can: all members of the tribunal enjoy equal status, save in the rare instance that a tribunal is composed of two members, in which case the chairman has a second or casting vote. The amendments are therefore not required. I am not convinced that those who support the amendments believe they are required so much as want the reassurance that Committee Members have spoken about. Nothing in the Bill has any implications for the role of lay tribunal members or appointed members of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 was fully debated in this House and the other place. Its provisions concern administrative matters and judicial powers, from most of which the employment tribunal system is excluded. The scope of the Bill does not extend to such matters. However, in relation to the transformation of tribunals, the Government recognise the distinctive nature of employment tribunals and are committed to maintaining that as a separate pillar within the tribunal service as provided for in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act. I also want to make it clear, if I have not already done so, that the Government do not intend to interfere with the tripartite arrangement. There was a request from the Committee for reassurance from the Government and I finish as I started—I gladly give that reassurance to the Committee this afternoon.