Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (Tribunal Composition) Order 2009

My Lords, I am very grateful for the comments and questions, particularly as many, if not all, noble Lords who have spoken are significantly more experienced in this area than I am. Therefore, I shall write on any questions that I am unable to answer. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, asked about the 17 recommendations from the Gibbons review. My understanding is that we accepted almost all of them and that they come into force on 6 April. If there are any exceptions to the 17—which is a rather precise number—I will write. With respect to the question asked about the moratorium, this is a very difficult area, not least because at a time of economic crisis it is important that we reduce as much as possible the burden of regulation and other burdens on businesses. That is why we have had discussions with the FSB and other wider business organisations. It is clear that it is very difficult to stop employment regulations that have been planned for and are in mid-flow, because preparations have been made by certain companies. It is difficult both in law and in practice to discriminate between employees who work for small employers and those who work for larger employers. That is something that small employers simply do not wish to happen, because they do not believe that they would be able to compete effectively in the labour market if they were seen in any sense to not have protections that would apply if employees worked for larger employers. The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, my noble friend Lord Wedderburn and other noble Lords asked whether there were any further plans for changes to the tribunals and the composition of the tribunals. I am advised that there are no current further plans, but if there were, obviously we would consult fully. I have already made a commitment, as I am aware that noble Lords would have wanted to have been consulted personally and specifically, and we will ensure that happens, but there happen to be no current plans for changing the composition of the tribunals. I wish to go back to the main issue, which is that there is in some sense a view or a desire—in the rather emotive language used by my noble friend—to pension off lay members or to see them phased out. I reassure noble Lords that that is absolutely not the case. I will take back to the department the strength of feeling on this matter, to make sure that we consider it effectively and properly, but I do not believe that that is the view of the department or of the Government. As I stated at the start of the debate, we value the role of lay members. The issue was raised that, essentially, whether lay members are used is a matter for the sitting judge to decide. I assure noble Lords that there is specific guidance on this matter, and this guidance has obviously been in place and has been working effectively since the mid-1990s, because it already applies to certain areas of employment law, including claims for breach of contract, unauthorised deductions from wages, claims from redundancy payments and certain national minimum wage claims since 1998. There is a practice that is seen to have worked effectively. In particular, the judge is required in the guidelines to take account of the views of any of the parties on whether the proceedings ought to be heard by a full tribunal or by a judge sitting alone; so there are safeguards in place. Nevertheless, I understand and accept the strength of feeling that has been expressed. I would be very happy to take that back to the department and write to noble Lords to assure them that we have no further plans and that we value very highly indeed the role of lay members. In fact, the number of tribunal claims is forecast to increase, so we would expect their role to increase. The holiday pay issue that we are talking about relates only to 3,000 claims, so it is not material. Furthermore, it would obviously not be appropriate for all 3,000 to be heard just by the judge sitting alone. I do not believe that we are talking about any material impact on the integrity of the tribunal system, which we respect. I appreciate the points that have been raised, and I shall take them back to the department. I commend the order to the House. Motion agreed.