| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, these are the same amendments that we saw on Report on the treatment of cases which involve bullying. They seek to allow the employer or manager to initiate an appeal against a step two decision under the standard statutory procedures for both dismissal and discipline and grievances in cases involving bullying. The current procedures only permit an employee to request an appeal.
I said on Report that I would meet my noble friends Lady Gibson and Lord Lea to discuss those concerns. We had that meeting this morning which I thought was very helpful and productive. We all agreed that bullying represents a major source of workplace stress and, in its extreme forms, can threaten the health of individuals. The solution I propose involves that point.
Most organisations are aware of this issue to some degree but a significant number have no policies to deal with it. These organisations need greater help and support. I am pleased to announce that as part of the Government's ongoing strategy to address workplace bullying, we intend to set up an advisory group to the Health and Safety Executive and the Department of Trade and Industry to advise on the establishment of a new management standard for anti-bullying policies in the workplace. It will be one of a range of management standards which the Health and Safety Executive will draw up.
We plan to invite well-known experts in the field to act as members of the advisory group. Once the management standard is set and adopted, it will be applied by the HSE when advising organisations about good practice in dealing with bullying. They have a highly respected team of officers in the field who are well placed to deal with this issue.
We believe that this is a sounder basis for progress than invoking statutory procedures for bullying. We see real difficulties in that approach. There is the problem of assigning a precise definition to bullying, which my noble friend Lady Gibson acknowledged. It is unclear what the term "manager" might mean. That term is not used anywhere else in the statutory procedures. It is intrinsically difficult to assign a right to appeal to third parties; voluntary procedures do not provide for this in general and we have based the statutory procedures on existing practices.
We recognise that managers or others accused of bullying might want to have their voice heard. I believe that the statutory procedures allow for this. Managers are also employees. They would be entitled to use the statutory procedures in exactly the same way as their junior colleagues. Aggrieved managers could raise a separate grievance with their employee about the way they have been treated by their employer's consideration of another employee's complaint about bullying.
That approach makes more sense and avoids introducing unusual steps into the procedures. I make it clear that the Government understand the point which my noble friend Lady Gibson made very effectively on Report. There is a growing awareness of bullying as a workplace issue. There is already excellent guidance and information on bullying, which is published by the HSE and ACAS. The existing ACAS code on disciplinary and grievance procedures discusses the special circumstances which may apply in cases of bullying.
My noble friends Lady Gibson and Lord Lea asked how we can increase awareness of these codes and potential remedies. They put forward a valid analogy going back to when the issues of racial and sexual harassment were first raised around 20 years ago. We shall be doing more to raise awareness of good practice and entitlements.
The DTI in close collaboration with ACAS, the Small Business Service and others, intends to launch a major initiative to publicise the Bill, giving full
advance notice and guidance to interested parties before the various provisions, especially the statutory procedures, come into effect.ACAS will need to revise its code and guidance to reflect changes brought about in the Bill with the introduction of statutory minimum procedures. The HSE would need to publicise the existence of the proposed management standard when adopted.
I hope I have assured my noble friends that awareness of the Bill and its implications for bullying will be effectively made public and advertised. I hope that on the basis of what I have said, the amendment will be withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that answer, which I am pleased with. Although I would have liked the word "bullying" in the Bill or the regulations, I am happy to know about the future work of the Health and Safety Commission and I look forward to it. I am aware of the good practice and the work of the officers in the field from my former time as a commissioner in the Health and Safety Commission. They are experts in that area. I am happy that they are to be involved.
I place on record my sincere thanks to my noble friend the Minister for his understanding approach to the amendments. It is good to debate when an employer and I mostly agree. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Tribunal jurisdictions to which section 32 applies]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 19:
- Page 68, leave out lines 31 to 34.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment tidies up the wording in Schedule 4, which lists the jurisdictions to which the admissibility regime will apply. It removes two jurisdictions from the list—the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order and the corresponding order for Scotland. These two orders ensure that tribunals can consider certain breach of contract cases in which the employment relationship has already ended. In other words, former employees can bring claims of breach of contract to tribunals. Current employees must use the courts to resolve contractual disputes with their employer.
Our stated policy is that the admissibility regime will not apply to former employees except when constructive dismissal is claimed, so there is no need to include these jurisdictions in Schedule 4 because they apply to ex-employees only. The amendment therefore removes unnecessary wording from the schedule.
I am about to commend the amendment to the House, but as it is the last amendment on Third Reading and we have applied the excellent tradition of not making speeches on the Motion that the Bill do
now pass, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury and myself I express my appreciation to all Members of the House who have taken part in proceedings on the Bill. I thank the Opposition and Liberal Democrat Front Benches, but also those on the Government Back Benches who subjected us to intensive interrogation. We had 10 very difficult sessions in Grand Committee. I shall not conceal from my noble friend Lady Turner that she and her friends caused us a great deal of grief.Changes have been made to the Bill. My noble friends clearly felt passionately about the issues that they were raising. I hope that my noble friend Lady Turner agrees that the Government's attitude has not been set in stone, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, described it at the outset. We have made changes that my noble friends Lady Turner and Lord Lea and other friends with trade union experience have welcomed. We even made a recent change that was inspired by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. All of that has meant that the consideration of the Bill has been proper, in parliamentary terms.
I also pay tribute to the Bill team from the employment relations division of the Department of Trade and Industry. They have worked long and hard to great effect to ensure that the arguments for the Bill were put as well as feeble Ministers could put them and that the importance of debate in your Lordships' House was recognised. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Interception of Communications: Code of Practice) Order 2002
5.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th May be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order has been made in exercise of the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by Section 71 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which I shall refer to from now on as RIPA. Section 71(1) of RIPA requires the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice relating to the exercise and performance of powers and duties under RIPA. This code of practice relates particularly to the interception of communications, as set out in Part I, Chapter I of the Act, and not to access to communications data, which is covered separately in Part I, Chapter II of RIPA.
The interception of communications code of practice relates to the exercise and performance of the powers and duties set out in Chapter I of Part I of RIPA in respect of the interception of communications. The code supports the Act by providing clear and unambiguous guidance on the lawful interception of communications in the United Kingdom. The code was welcomed in another place as providing helpful guidelines and more clarity about the interception provisions in the Act. I hope that it will receive similar support in your Lordships' House.
Section 72 of RIPA provides that any person exercising such powers or duties shall have regard to the provisions in such codes of practice. Section 71(3) requires all draft codes of practice issued under RIPA to be published and requires the Secretary of State to consider any representations made to him about the draft. Public consultation on the interception of communications code of practice lasted from 25th September 2000 to 17th November 2000. The results of the consultation have been made available on the Home Office website.
I shall say a few words about the policy background. The provisions in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 relating to the interception of communications replace those in the Interception of Communications Act 1985 to take account of two issues: first, the movement and development of new technologies, and secondly, Human Rights Act obligations. Importantly, they also provide for the first time for a statutory code of practice to be approved by Parliament.
The interception code of practice sets out how the provisions contained in Chapter I of Part I of RIPA regulate the interception of communications. It remains the case that the Secretary of State is required to issue a warrant authorising interception only for the purposes set out in the Act. Secondly, warrants may be applied for only by the security and intelligence services, the police, Customs and Excise or the Chief of Defence Intelligence.
The code sets out the procedures to be followed by agencies when applying for an interception warrant from the Secretary of State, as well as giving guidance to agencies and others on giving effect to warrants and the disclosure, copying and retention of material obtained through warranted interception. The code also sets out how, under RIPA, interception can lawfully take place without a warrant in specific circumstances, such as when there are reasonable grounds to believe that all parties have consented to an interception. Importantly, it provides guidance on the necessity and proportionality considerations that must be taken into account to ensure consistency with ECHR and Human Rights Act obligations. The code has the support of the law enforcement and intelligence and security services and, importantly, of the Interception of Communications Commissioner, who provides independent oversight of the process. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th May be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page