Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

A range of measures in the Bill will help to improve access to justice. Of course, the most important thing is to make sure that fewer people end up going to employment tribunals in the first place. [Interruption.] I have just discussed the measures on early conciliation, which is a much better way of resolving disputes. We also have measures on rapid resolution, which I will come on to deal with and which have been discussed in Committee. Those are the ways of ensuring that people are able to get the best resolution to their disputes. Obviously there will still be a role for employment tribunals and there will be cases that, for whatever reason, cannot be managed through those other, better options for resolving them. In imposing a fee, there will still be access to justice through the remission regime for those who are otherwise unable to afford it.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

My amendment 51 seeks to prevent employers from applying for costs and using the provisions as an incentive to take part in conciliation. Is the Minister saying that such a power already exists in law and that she does not feel it should be codified? Or is she simply opposed to codifying it?

[Jo Swinson]

As far as I am aware—I am sure that inspiration will reach me if this is not the case—tribunals already have the power to impose costs, but the amendment would seek to limit the circumstances. Where proceedings have been brought or conducted in a vexatious, abusive, disruptive or otherwise unreasonable manner, it is important that the tribunal route retains the discretion to award costs. That happens in a tiny number of cases, because even when a case reaches tribunal most people engage with it in a spirit of genuine concern and with a genuine problem, but there will be some cases in which a relationship is vexatious or in which someone seeks to settle scores. If that is the case, it is appropriate for costs to be ordered in such a way.

Let me turn now to amendment 57, the proposal to amend the period for lodging a claim from one to six months for those whose limitation period would otherwise expire during the early conciliation period or within one month of the early conciliation process ending. The amendment would affect only a small number of individuals: those whose claim was brought under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and who had sent their claim to ACAS towards the very end of the limitation period.

We want all claimants to have the confidence to engage meaningfully in early conciliation without the fear of running out of time to bring a claim. That is why we have provided for all claimants to have a minimum of a month following the end of the early conciliation period in which to lodge a claim, regardless of its nature. It is difficult to see why individuals should require longer than a month to prepare and submit the necessary form to the tribunal, bearing in mind that they will already have gone through the early conciliation process and have been considering the matter for some time, and it is even more difficult to see why such a lengthy extension should apply to such a narrow range of claims. We want all people to be able to engage in early conciliation and to have the confidence to do so and, if it does not work, to pursue other options. I am therefore unable to support amendments 80, 51 and 57.

Opposition Members have proposed three amendments to clause 11, amendments 52, 53 and 54, which relate to the composition of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. As my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), explained in Committee when a similar amendment was voted down, we believe it is right that when the issue under consideration is related solely to a point of law the matter should ordinarily be heard by a judge sitting alone. That is always the case in the EAT, of course. However, when the judge considers that there is merit in sitting with a panel, they will be able to do that, and the Lord Chancellor can also order it for specific proceedings. I am therefore unable to support the proposed amendments.

Government amendments 8, 9 and 10, to clause 12, provide for confidentiality of negotiations before the termination of employment. Since the introduction of the clause in Committee, my Department has sought and received feedback from a number of key stakeholders. Some, including the Employment Lawyers Association and some business representative groups, told us that the original wording of subsection (1), which stated that employment tribunals should not take account of offers of settlement in their deliberations, could be open to misconception and misunderstanding. Although the Government believe that the original drafting of the clause would have the desired effect—namely putting an offer of settlement outside the deliberations of the employment tribunal in unfair dismissal cases—we wish to allay those fears and are amending the drafting of subsection (1) for the purposes of clarity and the avoidance of doubt. Subsection (5) is rendered unnecessary by that redrafting, so amendment 10 is a consequential amendment to remove it. In the proposed amended clause, just as in the original, employment tribunals will remain able to consider an offer of settlement in claims being brought on other grounds.

Amendment 9 does nothing more than reflect the difference in terminology between tribunals in Scotland, where the term “expenses” is used in employment tribunal proceedings, and those in England and Wales, where the term “costs” is used. Clause 12 was debated at some length in Committee—I have no doubt that Opposition Members have fond memories of that—and none of the amendments changes the purpose or effect of the clause, which were accepted then.

Opposition amendment 81 would remove clause 12 in its entirety. It is worth going back to consider the original aim of the clause. It is aimed at helping employers and employees come to a consensual end to employment relationships that are just not working out by facilitating the use of settlement agreements. A settlement agreement offers potential benefits to employers and employees, including a much quicker resolution than that offered by the tribunal, where the average time taken to resolve a claim is 24 weeks. Employers have the security that they will not face a tribunal case that would distract them and other workers from their business activities, and employees end up with the certainty of a cash payment, avoid the time and stress of tribunal, and leave with their head held high and possibly a reference. We want to encourage more businesses and individuals to consider the use of settlement agreements as a viable and potentially preferable means of parting ways than an emotionally draining performance management or misconduct route or a costly and stressful employment tribunal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I apologise for not having heard the opening remarks by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark). I can see, however, that she was doing a bonny job, and these are important issues that, in a sense, have been imported into the Bill because of what she describes.

I am a passionate believer in whistleblowing, and I stand in the shadow of some giants from the time just after the election of the previous Labour Government. Tony Wright came up with the idea that people who make disclosures in the public interest should be protected by law, and that surprising proposition met with approval across the House. Other people were involved. Sir Ian McCartney, then a distinguished Member of this House, fought within his Department to see this process advanced, and the Liberal Democrats supported it with interest and vigour. From my party, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, then Leader of the Opposition, supported the legislation and served on its Committee. Nor should I forget Lord Borrie, who did sterling work in the House of Lords.

Tony Wright’s original idea that something could—and should—be done, set in train a motion that found supporters from across the House and among their lordships, and from the then new Labour Government. I was fortunate enough—or merely the vessel, depending on how one looks at it—to deliver the idea through a private Member’s Bill. I am, therefore, delighted to hear a newish Labour Member standing up for something that reaches across the parties and has an important principle behind it.

The confusion identified by Public Concern at Work seems to many to cut across what the Government are trying to do. Hon. Members are sympathetic to the Government’s attempt to bring clarity, and many of us are mindful of bullying in public places or the workplace. Nothing should harm the feeling that an individual should be able to come forward and argue that they are making a disclosure, because that is in the interest of society as a whole and of corporate government.

I am cheered by comments from some of my colleagues, who clearly want to make this legislation a working part of ensuring that fraud and criminal activities, as well as all the other matters that have been raised by Public Concern at Work and that are in the public interest, do not take place. After all, the legislation is entitled the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. I urge the Government please to enter into negotiations with wider society, and particularly organisations such as Public Concern at Work. The Bill must go to the House of Lords, and I have no doubt that the legal differentiation between terms will be closely scrutinised. I advocate that the bonny Minister raises the flag and fights for a change to the formulation of words, as proposed in new clauses 1 and 2.

[John McDonnell]

We have extremely limited time to debate this group of proposals if we are to debate the green investment bank. I absolutely abhor the programme motion, and the Minister took up nearly a third of the time for debate. Report is the only stage at which someone not on the Committee can table and debate amendments, and I have only around five minutes to speak to mine.

We naively debate the detail of legislation and Bills without understanding their political context. The political context of the Bill is the statements made at the Conservative party conference. This is the first stage in a legislative process under this Government of giving employers the licence to sack at will. That is what this legislation is about.

When the Minister spoke, it was like having a delegate from the Institute of Directors in the Chamber. The measure is like the first stage of the IOD programme for reforming employment law.

[Julian Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

No, I will not, because we do not have time and, to be honest, the hon. Gentleman is becoming monotonously boring.

When the Prime Minister spoke at the Conservative party conference, he said that he was on the side of the strivers. He makes it clear in the Bill that he is on the side of employers who want to sack people—without adequate compensation or adequate protection in law.

I have tabled a number of simple, basic amendments to ameliorate the proposed legislation, all of which have been rejected. I suggested that there should be a sanction against employers who do not participate in conciliation. We are told that such a sanction already exists, so my proposal would simply codify what the Minister has said happens in practice. It is important that we include that in the Bill.

I have made a simple attempt to amend the time scales in which claimants can prepare their case. A month is not enough for them—they must collect information and seek legal advice, and individuals often draft legal papers themselves. A six-month time scale would reflect that reality.

Another proposal would ensure that the processes being introduced by the Government have the confidence of all sides. It is unacceptable for the judge to determine who is on the Employment Appeal Tribunal, because it removes the experience of both sides of industry, who could advise the judge. My proposal is simply that consensus should be achieved and that the decision should be made with the approval of both the employee and employer representatives—all parties concerned. Even that proposal has been rejected.

People are not currently adequately compensated, which is why the cap is unacceptable. In no other area of law does a judge make an assessment that someone has lost and determine compensation, only for a cap to prevent full compensation. That is why there should be no cap, and yet the Government are keen on caps—they have introduced a £5,000 cap on fines against employers. What is £5,000 to companies such as Virgin or Starbucks, which we heard about yesterday? They are billion-pound companies. What is a £5,000 fine to them? It is meaningless.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

No, because the hon. Gentleman came late to the debate.

[Nick de Bois]

I am not boring!

[John McDonnell]

I might allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene if he came to the Chamber occasionally.

The point of my proposals is to ensure a balance of fairness in the regime that is being introduced. There is currently no balance whatever. The Bill is Beecroft. It is based on no evidence and on prejudice, and is the first stage of the Government’s plans to undermine employment law. This is the first stage of undermining the protections that workers have. People outside the Chamber will realise what is happening in the coming months under this Government. Jobs will be shredded and people will have no protection whatever as a result of the Bill and what will follow. On that basis, I wholeheartedly support Opposition Front Benchers in attempting to remove those clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

It is important when we pass legislation in this House that we take into account our duty as employers of the staff who will be implementing the legislation. This legislation will abolish the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission, which will be brought together in one body. In the past, legislation—TUPE—has been introduced to ensure that those staff are protected, but TUPE applies only to those staff who are transferred from the public sector into the private sector. Therefore, to cover the situation where there are transfers within the public sector, there was an agreement under the previous Government—a Cabinet Office agreement of principles that was inherited, and supported, by this Government—that recommended that where there were transfers between public sector bodies there would be placed in legislation a commitment that TUPE would be applied. That has not been included in this Bill. It contains a reference to similar conditions to TUPE, but that does not give the guarantees that the staff are expecting; in fact, it jeopardises some of the benefits that have accrued to them over a period of time.

I send the message to the other place that Members of this House and of the other place have a responsibility for the staff whom we employ to implement legislation. Their views should be regarded—their trade unions have made this point to Government and it has been ignored—and they should be protected. I hope that an amendment will be tabled in the other House that gives this protection to the staff.

This is an extremely significant Bill. It undermines our health and safety regime and undermines the employment rights that have been built up over generations, and it means that bad employers will be able to sack, pressurise, bully and victimise staff with impunity.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission, and the legislation that we enacted in 2006 to ensure that it was effective, have had cross-party support, and I thought that that would be maintained even by this Government. However, this Bill, in addition to the 60% cuts in its budget and the 70% cut in staff, now undermines the commission’s legal foundations. In effect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) said, this is leading towards the abolition of the body and therefore undermining equalities work in this country. What really sticks in my craw is the removal of the duty placed on the commission to promote equality for people with disabilities and to prevent discrimination against them. It reflects badly on the Government if this is the direction in which they are going.

The Bill also demonstrates the Government’s absolute incompetence. We are now in a situation where copyright law is in complete confusion. They cannot even legislate effectively to control estate agents. That is the stage that we have reached with this Bill, and that is why I will oppose it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—