§ 1. Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the operation of industrial tribunals administering the Employment Protection Act.
§ The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker)Yes, Sir, I am satisfied with the operation of the industrial tribunals. Last week, my right hon. Friend laid some amendments to their procedure regulations which I hope will enable them to operate better still.
§ Mr. RidleyIf the Minister is satisfied, is he aware that he is the only person who is? Most people think this is biased as a system of justice. Having admitted in "Into the Eighties" that some legal points need amending in the Employment Protection Act, will he now consider transferring administration under that Act to the courts, where we can at least be assured of impartiality?
§ Mr. WalkerI am afraid that the hon. Gentleman continues to display his utter ignorance and insensitivity about these matters. First, the question is not about the Employment Protection Act but about the industrial tribunals. The industrial tribunals have been established since the Industrial Training Act 1964 and have a wide range of functions under different statutes.
The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that jurisdiction be transferred to the ordinary courts reveals that he, with many of his hon. Friends, has learnt absolutely nothing from their disastrous experience with the Industrial Relations Act.
§ Mr. GeorgeDoes not the Minister agree that we on the Labour Benches deprecate the attempts being made by the Opposition to destroy not only the industrial tribunals but organisations such as ACAS? Although criticisms may be made about the operation of the tribunals 231 and ACAS, it would be more in the interests of the House and of working people and employers if these improvements were looked at constructively rather than destructively.
§ Mr. WalkerMy hon. Friend is quite right. I hope he has noticed that there seems to be a sustained and orchestrated campaign to denounce not only the industrial tribunals and ACAS but the whole range of employment protection legislation which was constructed in recent years and which has resulted in an enormous improvement in industrial relations.
§ Mr. Richard WainwrightThe Minister referred just now to making the operation of tribunals even better. In that regard, will he, when making appointments to fill casual vacancies through retirement and the like, consider especially appointing those with a background in smaller businesses?
§ Mr. WalkerThe hon. Gentleman will know that appointments are made through nominations from a wide range of bodies, and I hope that those bodies will take account of the point he has made. It is important that on the panels we have people with the experience to which he referred.
§ Mr. WatkinsonDoes my hon. Friend accept that redress for unfair dismissal is a fundamental and basic right that must be preserved? Does he accept also that the industrial tribunals unfortunately have become somewhat legalistic, basically because employers are using lawyers increasingly to promote their cause? Does he accept, finally, that there may be adequate cause for awarding costs out of public funds in certain cases that are brought frivolously?
§ Mr. WalkerI agree with the point made by my hon. Friend about the importance of the unfair dismissals provisions, which, incidentally, were introduced by the Conservative Party in the Industrial Relations Act, one part of which we preserved.
Secondly, there is common ground between the two Front Benches that there has been an excessive tendency towards legalism. We want the tribunals to operate as informally as possible, and I hope that those concerned with the tribunals will take note of what the House has said on this matter.
232 With regard to meeting costs out of public funds, we dealt with that matter in the debate in November last year. I was not then persuaded of the arguments, and I doubt that I would be now.
§ Mr. HayhoeIs the Minister aware that we welcome the changes which have been made in industrial tribunal procedures which somewhat belatedly meet some of the criticisms that were made during the debate last November? Does the Minister also appreciate that further major changes are needed both in the composition of tribunals and the way in which they operate in order to ensure fairness for all concerned, both employees and employers?
§ Mr. WalkerThe hon. Gentleman reminds us that we had a full debate in November last year. In June this year we had a debate on the Adjournment when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) raised some of the points about which anxiety has been expressed.
The part of the hon. Gentleman's question about which I would express some concern is the implication that somehow the tribunals act unfairly. I am sure that on reflection he does not believe that.
§ Mr. RidleyOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment—probably next week or the week after.