§ DISAPPLICATION OF QUALIFYING PERIOD AND UPPER AGE LIMIT FOR UNFAIR DISMISSAL
§ Lords amendment No. 46.
§ Mr. SutcliffeI beg to move, that the House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 47 to 50, 68, 69 and 71.
§ Mr. SutcliffeThis group of amendments relates to part 3 of the Bill, and covers three topics, which I shall deal with in turn.
1481 Amendment No. 46 is a purely technical amendment designed to ensure that the existing provisions relating to employment tribunal cases, where there may be implications for national security, achieve the scope originally intended on their introduction in 1999.
Amendment No. 47 introduces a protection for employees who are dismissed or otherwise detrimentally treated because they serve on juries or are summoned to do so. Amendments Nos. 68, 69 and 71 are consequential to amendment No. 47.
Earlier this year, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 removed the categories of ineligibility for jury service and excusal as of right from jury service, and thus increased the numbers of people eligible to serve on juries. We are concerned that this wider eligibility may prompt some employers to ill treat employees, either by dismissing them or in some other way, because they find it inconvenient to release them for jury service. At the moment, there is no special protection for employees in that position. They can, of course, claim under the general unfair dismissal legislation, but to do so they must have completed a year's service with their employer, and claims are subject to an upper age limit. Moreover, there is no protection against detrimental treatment short of dismissal. We believe that it is right that special protection should now be introduced. As Lord Sainsbury said when he introduced these amendments in the other place, they are important new protections.
Amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 50 make purely technical amendments to clause 38, addressing a drafting inconsistency relating to the operation of the flexible working law. They amend incorrect cross references in the Employment Rights Act 1996 to avoid unnecessary confusion.
§ Mr. BellinghamAs the Minister said, these amendments give extra protection to employees who might be disciplined by employers for serving on a jury. Jury service has been extended substantially, and some of the exempt categories have been removed.
It would beggar belief if an employer were to discriminate against an employee because that person had been asked to serve country and community by serving on a jury. The Minister is right to grant special protection for employees treated in that way, or who received detrimental treatment short of dismissal. My only regret is that Opposition Members did not spot this gap in the Bill during the Committee stage and so did not table an amendment of our own on this matter. Had we done so, we might have succeeded in getting that amendment accepted by the Government.
§ Sir Robert SmithI strongly support the message sent by the amendments that jury service is a civic duty that should not be impeded in any way by an employer and, in particular, the recognition that not only dismissal but unfair treatment could be used to stop someone from carrying out that duty. If we are to respect jury service, employers should not be allowed to stand in the way of people undertaking it. The legislation sends a strong signal to confirm that we recognise the importance of jury service.
§ Mr. SutcliffeAgain, I am grateful for the contribution from both hon. Gentlemen. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) should not be too hard on himself. He made many eloquent speeches to the Committee over a long period of time. We listened carefully to most of them but were unable to accept any of his amendments. However, we have acted on the intentions behind them in some instances. Jury service is important to our communities and it is right that people are protected in the few cases where problems occur.