I assure my noble friend that I am certainly on the side of 17 per cent. I am amazed that it is so little.
These amendments would make a claimant’s ability to access an employment tribunal conditional on an ACAS conciliation officer or independent mediator certifying that all parties had co-operated with the conciliation procedure, a serious obstacle to justice. An unco-operative employer could prevent a claim being heard simply by refusing to engage in the conciliation process. From my previous experience, I am the first to wish to see the employers’ burden of red tape and expense being minimised, but I am also the first to seek experience. If you have an unco-operative employer, I cannot see that this system would do anything to help that fairness argument. It is possible that it might even contravene the right to a fair trial.
The matter also raises practical problems; for instance, how will the independence of a mediator be assessed? Does the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, propose some kind of additional regulatory regime to determine that? I would have thought that many Members of the Committee would not wish to add to the burden of regulation on business. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Employment Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Jones of Birmingham
(Other (affiliation))
in the House of Lords on Monday, 25 February 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Employment Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
699 c74GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:32:17 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_447954
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_447954
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_447954