Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)

I want to raise a point that is more of a question. On page 10 of the Bill, new paragraph 165A(3) reads:

''An appeal under this paragraph lies to an employment tribunal.''

I know that the Minister is an expert on employment tribunals, so I should like to ask him about how the system is getting over-loaded. I understand that, last calendar year, there were more than 130,000 employment tribunal cases. Recent legislation, such as the right to flexible contracts, will burden them further. It appears that we are moving further towards a conversation culture, in which people jump at any turn to make appeals to tribunals.

Does the Minister feel that the employment tribunal is the right forum in which to hear appeals against demands for costs? Presumably, the Government's logic is that using such tribunals is tidier, more focused and more expeditive than using the county court system or another tribunal. Will he elaborate on that?

Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. Through dispute resolution and the legislation that we have introduced to deal with problems in the workplace rather than a tribunal, the number of tribunals has decreased. Long may that continue because people resolving their differences around a table is the best remedy.

When a ballot is held under the statutory procedure, a qualified independent person, as described earlier, is appointed by the CAC to conduct the ballot. Those same appointed persons send information to workers on behalf of the union during balloting. Clause 5 seeks to extend that role to earlier parts of the process. The costs of the QIP's services in holding the ballot are paid for equally by the union and the employer. When the QIP distributes information on behalf of the union, the costs are borne solely by the union.

The evidence so far is that the arrangement works well. However, the law provides for the QIP to recover the costs by court order if one or more of the parties fail to pay their share. As the law stands, there is no formal means of appealing against a QIP's demand for costs. Unions and employers should have the right to put their case before a court if they believe that they have been wrongly charged. Indeed, it is not clear whether the current situation complies with the European convention on human rights, and we are anxious to remove any uncertainty.

The clause establishes a right for unions and/or employers to appeal against the cost of the services of a QIP or appointed person. Such appeals would be heard by an employment tribunal, which provides a cheap and accessible means of remedying breaches of employment law.

We expect the clause to be used infrequently, and hope that parties would be able to resolve any disagreements without recourse to an employment tribunal. We are not aware of any cases in which a QIP has had to seek a court order for the recovery of costs. However, the Government take seriously their commitment to human rights and we therefore wish to ensure that any party that believes that they have been incorrectly billed should be able to seek a court verdict before being required to pay.

Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.