Employment Bill [HL]

I sympathise with the intention behind the amendment, but the results would not be workable in practice. I agree that, where the possibilities of conciliation are exhausted, it is important that a hearing should take place quickly to enable resolution of the issue—not just that it is done, but that it is seen to be done. It removes the uncertainty for both parties and enables them to move on positively from the events that gave rise to the dispute. People call it getting on with their lives. At present, there is a gap between the receipt of a case at the Tribunals Service and the listed date for the relevant hearing. That enables ACAS to attempt conciliation. ACAS receives all claim forms and offers conciliation to all claimants. The mandatory fixed time periods for conciliation, which we propose in Clause 6 to remove, currently set the framework for when the hearing date is fixed by the Tribunals Service. For cases where there is a seven-week time period for conciliation, hearing dates are generally fixed for the eighth week after receipt of the ET1 claim form; for cases with a 13-week conciliation period, dates are fixed for the 14th week. The small number of cases with no fixed conciliation period is listed for hearing when the ACAS conciliation officer informs the Tribunals Service that initial attempts to conciliate have proved unsuccessful. The Tribunals Service has a target of holding 75 per cent of all hearings within six months of receipt of the claim form, which it has consistently exceeded. The Tribunals Service will revise its procedures for listing cases if the fixed periods for conciliation are abolished, as is provided for in Clause 6. It may be possible to list some cases for an earlier hearing than at present. Who would be against that? Hearings are listed as soon as practicable, given the need for work to be done in case management discussions and otherwise to elucidate the issues in the claim, and the practicalities of timetabling all the cases where hearings are required. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that the administrative mechanisms already in operation are working and will be further refined should Parliament approve the provisions in the Bill. That will enable just outcomes to tribunal cases as quickly as is practicable. There is no need for the additional mechanism proposed in the amendment. It would create administrative confusion if it served to require the prioritisation of cases where conciliation had been tried and had failed, and where the claimant pressed for a quick resolution at tribunal. It could also create an incentive to engage in conciliation without a sincere wish to resolve the case, perhaps merely to delay things or in the hope that people got fed up and went away. Doing so would enable the listing of the case to be expedited, which is surely in the best interests of everyone. It does not make sense to create a system where certain cases could be accelerated at the request of a well informed claimant. Tribunal resources are finite; this would hold back consideration of cases where the applicant did not know to press for an early resolution. I repeat that I sympathise with the intention behind the amendment, but the results would not be workable.