Employment Tribunals (Hansard, 20 November 2001)

§ Lord McCarthy
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make public immediately the full text of the 1998 Survey of Employment Tribunals so that Parliament can judge the case for restricting access to employment tribunals as proposed by the Employment Bill 2001.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
My Lords, publication of the full report has been delayed because a routing problem with the computer program means that we do not have a complete data set for a number of questions. We are planning to publish the full report and data set in 1003 February, recognising the desire of your Lordships to see them before the Committee stage of the Employment Bill 2001.

§ Lord McCarthy
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but does he appreciate that he is talking about a piece of research, a telephone survey, which was begun in 1995? Seven years later we do not have a complete data set. I think we should throw it away. But if we do not do that, perhaps we should do it again and in the meantime surely we should not keep quoting it, as we do, or misquoting it, as we have done. It has been misquoted to suggest that what it is telling us is that the workers and employers of this country are rushing to litigation like an avalanche. However, there is no evidence of that except, of course, the evidence of this useless survey. The employers—they apparently have some access to it—say it means that 64 per cent of respondents never approached their employers on the matter. The Government do not say that; the Government say a different thing every time they quote the survey. If we are to find out anything about this matter, and if we are to justify the Bill, for goodness sake publish the survey or tear it up.

§ Lord Sainsbury of Turville
My Lords, I am not certain of the question that I am supposed to be answering. I shall make some equally general remarks about the report. I believe that it was prepared in 1998. As I hope I explained, the problem is that these days these surveys are conducted by people who use a computer to direct them to different parts of a question. As a result of the failure of the computer program, we do not have complete data sets for some of the answers, but not all of them. We have used parts of the report where we have full data sets. As regards the statistic to which the noble Lord referred, that is based on robust data. Indeed, when we publish the survey—as I said, it will be published before the Committee stage of the Employment Bill—we shall at the same time deposit a full and sound data set in the ESRC data archive so that people can see how that statistic is derived.

§ Lord Razzall
My Lords, does the Minister accept that—if I ask a slightly more precise question to help him—many of the people who these days go to employment tribunals do so because of cases of racial discrimination or sexual harassment? If the Government in Clauses 22 and 23 of the new Bill bring in cost measures that are likely to deter those complainants, if this House is to pass that legislation we shall need more information than we have currently.

§ Lord Sainsbury of Turville
My Lords, two minor changes have been proposed in terms of costs. Those relate to the fact that the general principle of the Bill is a fair one which already exists; that is, that respondents or applicants who waste time making or defending hopeless cases should face the consequences of their actions. That applies both to applicants and to respondents. We propose that where there are additional costs other than legal costs they should be 1004 taken into account and that that can apply to representatives, although not to non-profit-making bodies.

§ Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, is it not true —

§ Lord Wedderburn of Charlton
My Lords—

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, I believe it is the turn of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain.

§ Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, is it not true that the excuse of computer programs not functioning is getting as much credence now as that of "the cheque is in the post"? Is the Minister responsible for computer programs and IT generally in the Government and, if not, will he pass on to whoever is the suggestion that perhaps it might be a good idea to have a root and branch look at all our computers as this excuse has come up on so many occasions?

§ Lord Sainsbury of Turville
My Lords, I think that there is much evidence over many years under many governments that when governments say there has been a computer problem there almost certainly has been a computer problem. There was in this case. I believe that the survey was carried out by agents for the government. I can only say that what happened was regrettable and we seek constantly to make certain that these incidents do not occur.

§ Lord Wedderburn of Charlton
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that it is not just regrettable but also not particularly funny if workers are not to be allowed to enforce their rights through tribunals? Does he further accept that the research produced for his own department published this year by Burgess, Cropper and Wilson, shows that the increase in the number of tribunal cases has nothing whatever to do with some fever for litigation by British workers, it has to do with changes in the labour force industrial structure and the tribunals' jurisdiction, as stated in the headline to their conclusions? Does he also accept, especially in view of what he said about the competence or incompetence of what has been done with the survey, that this "Mickey Mouse" telephone survey does not invalidate the Burgess research and does nothing—especially when the Government have themselves misrepresented the conclusions in their consultative document—to show that workers have engaged upon some fever of reckless litigation which any trade unionist knows perfectly well is not the case?

§ Lord Sainsbury of Turville
My Lords, I do not think that either I or the Government have implied that we are talking about a fever of litigation. There are a number of good reasons why the number of applications to employment tribunals has trebled since 1990. I refer to new employment rights; the effect of specific decisions of the European Court of Justice and certain case-law decisions. However, I do not think that they totally explain the rise. But that is not the issue that we are addressing in this case. We think it is 1005 in the interests of all parties, employees, employers and taxpayers, that there should be a proper dialogue in the workplace and that claims, if possible, should be dealt with there rather than be taken to a tribunal. It is not in the interests of anyone—employees, employers or taxpayers—that cases should be taken to tribunals which almost always results in a breakdown of the employment relationship. Through the Bill we seek to remedy what is clearly the situation; namely, that a substantial amount of these claims never go through a grievance procedure. That is the case as regards employers on many occasions and sometimes as regards employees.