---

Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, may I withdraw the word "susceptible" for fear of misinterpretation and substitute for it another word which will come to me in a moment, and say it is subject to pressure from outside?

Lord Henley: My Lords, I am only sorry that we do not have the benefit of the expert advice of the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, who might be able to advise us on the appropriate use of language. I take the point of what the noble Lord has to say. The various words he has used can remain on the record.

I hope I may illustrate what I believe is the success of the tribunal in meeting children's needs. It has, since September 1994, registered something in the region of 3,500 appeals. Only 72 of its decisions have been appealed to the High Court on a point of law and in only 10 of those 72 were the tribunal's decisions remitted for rehearing or conceded. If that does not demonstrate that the tribunal is doing a good job, I do not know what does. I believe--I say this with some care, and I do not wish in any way to offend my noble friend--this Bill would have the danger of making the tribunal more litigious and more formal. I and many others, both inside and outside government, do not want that to happen.

I address one further matter that has not been raised this evening, but I think would be of interest to my noble friend, relating to the question of legal representation at hearings. My noble friend will no doubt be aware of the president of the tribunal's statement on 16th December about representation at tribunal hearings, which is directly relevant to Clause 4(1) of this Bill. I said at Second Reading I would not want to press further on this without knowing the outcome of the president's consultation. The president has now written to me in the department about the conclusions arising from his consultation. He confirms that the regulations are clear in their intention that the parties should be represented in the main by one person. He does not want to compromise the informal approach of tribunals by giving legally represented parties the right to have both counsel and a solicitor, but he will consider the merits of each case.

Alternatively, where parents would like their solicitor to attend a hearing--for example, where they have established a good relationship with him and do not know counsel--he may attend a hearing as a befriender. That seems to me to be a perfectly good solution and strikes the right balance between maintaining informality at hearings while allowing additional support for parents. I hope my noble friend does not mind my putting that message from the president of the tribunal on the record because I think it is an important

20 Jan 1997 : Column 452

matter of concern to the House. Having repeated my views on the Bill, I say to my noble friend that I, of course, understand very much the motives behind his moving the Bill, but I have to say yet again that the Government cannot offer their support to it.

7.45 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I must not take too much time. One ought to pay tribute to the procedures of the House. They enable a Private Member's Bill to be debated fully and with expedition. However, if this Bill be but a means to an end, so be it. Already, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, has mentioned, it has had some beneficial effect in certain quarters. Some day, in some form, the substance of this Bill will reach the statute book; of that, there is no question.

I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln for coming to speak on the moral entitlement, the core principle of this Bill, and the reason why it shall reach the statute book, and to speak for the Church, which is of crucial and cardinal importance. So your Lordships have not toiled in vain. Some Cabinet decision will have to be taken some time under some government which overrides the resistance of Sanctuary Buildings whence come the instructions of my noble friend the Minister.

I thank my noble friend the Minister for what he had to say. I do not agree with any of it, as he knows. I understand that he has to restate the Government position. I am not at all happy about the way the tribunal is working. I do not want to enter into an argument--for the sake of the record, a counter argument--at this time of night on this occasion; but I do not accept that all is as well as my noble friend the Minister would suggest. However, I thank him for the good humour and patience with which he has conducted this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who spoke tonight and who has spoken cogently throughout this Bill on behalf of the Liberal Party. I also thank my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) who has spoken from the Cross Benches.

The interest in this Bill is such that it has gone far beyond this House. It is interesting that the majority of noble Lords who have spoken on this Bill are hereditary Peers. In particular the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield and of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, at Second Reading were veritable beacons of inspiration and enlightenment and are worthy of the attention of any government and of another place at any time. Another place in due course may well wish to know why Dean's Yard and Sanctuary Buildings, so close to one another, are yet so many miles apart. It may wish to know why representations of the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Lichfield, the Bishop of Ripon and the Bishop of Carlisle and those of Mencap have been rejected out of hand. Another place may wish to know that. It may also wish to know why, in our predominantly Christian, multi-religious society no "theist", atheist or agnostic objection has been raised to this Bill or to the core principle of it.

20 Jan 1997 : Column 453

Although my noble friend would not agree, this Bill, in effect, in all its aspects reflects the consensus of basic sociological moral values. I thank all noble Lords again for all the trouble that they have taken. I commend the Bill to the House.

Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Dignity at Work Bill [H.L.]

7.50 p.m.

Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.--(Lord Monkswell.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The VISCOUNT ALLENBY OF MEGIDDO in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Right to dignity at work]:

Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (2) and insert--
("(2) Subject to section 5 of this Act, an employer commits a breach of the right to dignity at work of an employee if that employee suffers during his employment with the employer harassment or bullying or any act, omission or conduct which causes him to be alarmed or distressed including but not limited to any of the following--
(a) behaviour on more than one occasion which is offensive, abusive, malicious, insulting or intimidating;
(b) unjustified criticism on more than one occasion;
(c) punishment imposed without reasonable justification; or
(d) changes in the duties or responsibilities of the employee to the employee's detriment without reasonable justification.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. This amendment is to leave out Clause 1(2) and insert the redrafted subsection (2).

During the Second Reading debate a number of comments were made which suggested that there was some lack of clarity about this subsection. I am grateful to my advisers, and in particular to the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn, for their instructive advice in drafting this amendment.

The new subsection (2) identifies that harassment and bullying would constitute a breach of the right to dignity at work, and also gives some examples, which are not exclusive, that could be construed as conduct breaching the right to dignity at work. This right pertains during the employee's employment rather than in the course of his employment. I am advised that this will prevent legal difficulties.

Subparagraph (a) lists some aspects of behaviour which should have no place in a work context, which, if repeated, would constitute harassment or bullying. Subparagraph (b) identifies criticism which, if justified, would be acceptable in a work context, but if unjustified and repeated would breach the right to dignity at work.

20 Jan 1997 : Column 454

Because these things can happen accidentally, it is felt that they should have to occur on more than one occasion to fall foul of this legislation. However, subparagraphs (c) and (d), which identify discrete situations with specific consequences--in fact, punishment without reasonable justification or changes in duties or responsibilities to the employee's detriment without reasonable justification--do not have to be repeated to be construed as breaches of the right to dignity at work.

Lord McCarthy: I am sure the Committee can agree to pass this stage of the Bill. At Second Reading the Government did not seek to deny, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said positively, that it was a real and growing problem with which the Bill seeks to deal. He did not think that we should have this Bill, indeed perhaps any Bill, but it was accepted in the House at Second Reading that the Bill is attempting to deal with a real and growing problem. The only criticisms which were of any substance at that time did relate to the clause which is now amended. I am bound to say that those criticisms have now been effectively met by the amendment which has been put forward by the noble Lord.

We were worried that the list of examples might be thought to be all inclusive, or even additive, so that somebody might argue that you had to offend against more than one of them. That is made quite clear on the face of the clause now and it cannot be objected to on those grounds.

On this side of the Committee it was also thought that some forms of unlawful bullying were described in rather different ways. Some had to be done persistently, and some could be justified and some could not be justified, and we could not see quite why the noble Lord had put it in this way. Now he has clarified that so we can see quite clearly why he thinks that some examples require persistence, more than one incidence, whereas others are capable of justification.

The noble Lord also said--in some ways this was the most important point to make--that there was a great deal to be said for an effective general definition, of what a breach of dignity was to be in terms of the Bill, and we now have an excellent definition, a general definition, of what a breach of dignity is.

Therefore, I think that the Committee could agree, and I hope that we shall see the Bill passed through its remaining stages in this House as soon as possible, and it may even get into the other place during the dying days of this discredited government.

---