Employment Bill [HL]

I do not know, but I shall find out and I shall come back to my noble friend. Michael Gibbons, in his review of dispute resolution in Great Britain, carefully considered the arguments for requiring mediation before an employment tribunal claim could be considered. That is the essence of this. He concluded that it would not be appropriate to recommend the introduction of mandatory or near-mandatory alternative dispute resolution. As my noble friend Lord Borrie said, we do not wish to make it a condition of a tribunal hearing that mediation has in some form taken place as a legal condition. Gibbons concluded that it would not be appropriate to recommend the introduction of mandatory ADR. Stakeholders who contributed to the review, including representatives of employees and employers, were firmly of the view that if mediation or conciliation were required in all or the vast majority of cases, regardless of their specific circumstances, then it would become just another procedural step in the process and would quickly become discredited. Most mediators would also agree that mediation is effective only when all parties enter into it voluntarily. Michael Gibbons concluded that, "““the Review is very reluctant to propose prescription or compulsion in an arena where it has failed so recently … the Review has therefore concluded that the Government should adopt a voluntary approach to encourage and enable more use of Alternative Dispute Resolution techniques to settle disputes early””." Having consulted on his conclusions, the Government share that analysis. Our approach is to replace the prescriptive requirements of the existing dispute procedures with high-quality advice and support to help people resolve their problems, in a flexible and non-statutory way. We believe that this carrot approach will be far more effective than the stick of statutory prescription. These amendments would introduce a mandatory system of the kind that the Gibbons review decided against. They would make mediation or conciliation after a claim a required step before a tribunal could hear a case. They would also require ACAS to provide conciliation on request before a potential claim in all the circumstances. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn asked where the evidence was. When I was director-general of the CBI I toured the country listening to the problems raised by business. I was told of, especially in smaller businesses, many examples where people left their employment happily—indeed they often had a whip-round for the leaving present—and then, on the day before the statutory period came to an end, in came the claim. Often it came with a ““without prejudice”” letter that said: ““We can wrap you up in all this for months at a huge cost in time and money. Pay us X pounds and it will all go away in the morning””. The system is open to abuse. That is why the Government brought in the original idea. We have to ensure that that does not happen. There is your evidence, my noble friend. I heard many times around the country from business that year after year the process was being abused.