I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It is with great pleasure that I present the Bill to the House. Its purpose is self-evident in its title. If it is successful, it will address an imbalance between England, Wales and Northern Ireland and Scotland. The Scottish Parliament has recognised that failure to provide assistance to victims of employment discrimination contravenes article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which establishes the right to a fair hearing. In Scotland the problem was tackled by extending legal aid, but I believe that there is a viable alternative, which I propose in my Bill.

Citizens Advice gets to the heart of the issue in a simple statement:

"Citizenship requires that rights granted by Parliament must be enforceable. Erecting ever-tighter barriers to justice through legal aid eligibility tests and rationed supply of subsidised services undermines citizenship."

I stand for social justice above all else. There can be no principled justification for failing victims of discrimination. We cannot continue to confer rights and not provide the wherewithal to exercise them: access to justice should be—must be—a fundamental right.

A veritable mountain of evidence demonstrates the need for my Bill. Despite 30 Acts, 38 statutory instruments, 11 codes of practice and 12 European directives and recommendations, widespread employment discrimination persists. That the legislation is so complex and inaccessible is one of the strongest points in favour of the Bill.

One way of dealing with the problem would be for the Government to review the law of discrimination to make it much simpler. Discrimination law has grown piecemeal, which has led to a large and complex body of law. Would it not be better to review the whole area?

I would not oppose such a review, but in its absence we need to do something to ensure that the victims of discrimination have some way of exercising their rights and challenging that discrimination. That is what the Bill is intended to do.

Unfair dismissal accounts for just over a quarter of all employment claims in recent years—a proportion that has remained fairly constant. Such cases are the most successful, whether they reach the tribunal or are settled by conciliation: almost 60 per cent. are successful, of which 47 per cent. are settled by conciliation. Discrimination claims are increasing, however, from just over 11 per cent. of claims in 2002–03 to more than 13 per cent. in 2004–05, with the largest increases occurring in equal pay and sex discrimination claims. More than 10,000 claims went to tribunal in 2004–05. In 2001, there were more than 1,434 pregnancy claims alone.

It has been well documented that women continue to earn significantly less than men—18 per cent. less in 2003—and they are concentrated in lower-paid jobs, but that is far from their only disadvantage in the workplace. New research published by the Equal Opportunities Commission in February this year illustrated the shocking fact that, each year, approximately 30,000 women lose their job as a result of pregnancy; this includes being sacked, forced to leave or made redundant. Only a quarter of women surveyed did not experience any problems.

That is only the tip of the iceberg. The EOC research indicates that the majority of women do not pursue a claim because it is so difficult and costly and, in some cases, because they are not fully aware of their rights. Two BBC website readers described what happened when they told their employer they were pregnant. Clare, 29, from Bristol, had been working for an internet company as a project manager for six months when she became pregnant. Off sick because of morning sickness, she phoned work. She says:

"I was told that I would have to see the manager on Monday but on the Sunday I was called at home by the managing director who said I didn't have a job to go back to . . . . They said that as I had only been with them for six months, I had no rights",

and

"if I tried to sue them they would say that I had been sacked because I didn't fit in."

Does my hon. Friend have further information on that case? Was the woman represented by a union, and was she able to pursue it through that means?

I am sorry, I do not have those details, but I can try and get them. If my hon. Friend will be patient, I shall come to trade unions later in my speech.

Sarah, aged 28, from London had worked in public relations for eight years and for her current employer for eight months when she became pregnant. Within a fortnight she was called to a disciplinary meeting and given a list of grievances. She reported:

"I was told that they would decide over the next fortnight whether I would be able to stay."

Two weeks later she was sacked. Her solicitor advised her that she had a good case for sexual discrimination but would need to find between £7,000 and £10,000 to fight it.

Similarly, the Birmingham Evening Mail reported in April 2003 the case of Carol Bonehill, who received a card from work congratulating her on the birth of her baby, only to find that her P45 and a dismissal letter were enclosed. The northern complainants aid fund took up her case.

I used to practise regularly in industrial tribunals. My hon. Friend mentioned someone who was told that the case would cost £7,000. Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with industrial tribunals is that lawyers have turned them into a feeding frenzy for themselves, not for claimants?

I entirely agree. One aspect of the Bill, to which I shall return, is that it does not put matters back into the hands of lawyers, but introduces a different system of advice and support.

Although my hon. Friend said that he did not have all the information about the representation in those cases, one of the main issues is trade union representations. Unions have made great strides, but does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should consider improving the competence of trade union representatives? Does he recognise that a major issue is representation in non-unionised work forces, which are increasingly common?

I agree. I wish more people were union members. As I shall show, large parts of the work force, especially the most vulnerable workers, are not unionised. We have a duty and a responsibility to protect those workers as well.

On the case taken up by the northern complainants aid fund, although the employers denied dismissing the woman for being pregnant, she won her case at tribunal. The case was instrumental in prompting the equal opportunities investigation that I mentioned.

Citizens Advice told me about the case of Jean, a nursery worker who was eight months pregnant and a single mother-to-be when she sought advice from her local citizens advice bureau. Her employer of two years had been paying her less than the national minimum wage, had been making illegal deductions from her wages in respect of her attendance at antenatal clinics, and had never provided her with a written statement of her terms and conditions. Shortly before Jean was due to start her maternity leave, she had been summarily and unfairly dismissed—at a time when the Government are promoting the new deal to enable single mothers to go to work, instead of relying on state benefits. Here was a woman who had a job and lost it on spurious grounds.

The treatment of that young woman highlights other issues. It is not just about losing one's job. Unfair treatment can take other forms. A young pregnant woman who sought advice from a citizens advice bureau in London was working for a cleaning company. After she fell ill because of her pregnancy, her employer had suggested a reduction in her hours. She asked whether that would affect her maternity leave or pay, and her employer stated that it would not. However, shortly before the expected date of birth, her employer told her that she no longer qualified for statutory maternity pay as her earnings were now below the qualifying level. Clearly, the woman had been atrociously misled. We can only imagine the impact that the loss of pay would have at a time when a new baby is due.

Both the last two cases highlight important issues for wider social policy. We have made huge advances in ensuring access to antenatal care. Research has proved time and again that that is essential to the well-being of mother and child. If women suffer loss of wages by attending hospital appointments, we risk that progress being set back decades. We are committed to ending child poverty. Maternity pay is a crucial element in that quest, yet we see women being manipulated into losing that right.

Discrimination continues after maternity leave is over. The employer of a woman who approached a citizens advice bureau in Dorset in May 2000 had refused her request to work part-time on her return from maternity leave, on the grounds that there was no part-time culture in the firm. A citizens advice bureau in Wales reports the case of a woman working as a mechanical draughtsperson, whose employer had refused her request to return to work from maternity leave on a part-time, job-share or reduced hours basis. She felt pressurised into resigning and wrote to the company to say so, but received no reply. When she telephoned to try and discuss the matter, she was told that her employers were too busy to talk to her.

Bringing a case is costly and beyond the resources of most complainants. A three-day tribunal in London costs between £15,000 and £40,000.

My hon. Friend is making a good argument for workers joining a trade union. One of the most significant benefits of being a trade union member are the excellent legal services that unions provide. I defy anyone to get the same level of legal protection from a firm of lawyers for the same amount of money as they pay for trade union membership. We should encourage people to join and make access to properly recognised unions easier.

I entirely agree, but what do we do in the meantime? What do we do about people who do not want to join a union? Should they not have access to justice?

If workers choose not to join a trade union and not to avail themselves of the services that it provides, they clearly will not get them. I do not see why we should pass legislation to give them services that are available but which they have chosen not to take up. If members of a work force want those services, they should take the advice of Labour Members and join a union or some other organisation.

The hon. Gentleman clearly does not support access to justice for all. I do, and I hope many of my colleagues agree with me. We will find out later.

Tribunals in London cost between £15,000 and £40,000. Evidence of intimidation and unjustified threats has also been revealed by Citizens Advice.

I am interested in the figures that my hon. Friend quotes. In complex equal pay cases where barristers are employed and legal opinion must be obtained, such figures may pertain, but in my experience in some cases the tribunal will find in favour of the applicant because they are by definition unfair. Is it not possible that the Bill will be welcomed by lawyers in anticipation of higher fees for themselves?

One of the main selling points of the Bill is that it will do precisely the opposite, by setting up a system of advice and representation in which lay people and specialists in the subject who are not lawyers will also be involved.

Revised procedural rules introduced in 2001 increase the costs that can be awarded from £500 to a massive £10,000. Although there is little evidence that high awards are being made, this is not deterring employers from using the threat to intimidate complainants. Northampton citizens advice bureau was acting for a woman who had been dismissed two days after informing her employers that she was pregnant. She received a letter warning her that they could seek costs against her. Despite her strong case, she withdrew her claim. We can only speculate why more than half the sex discrimination claims were withdrawn in 2004–05.

I worked for a trade union for 15 years and was involved in several tribunals. In my experience, it is rare that they even threaten to award costs. I am not aware of a case where that happened.

With his experience in the union, my hon. Friend has probably dealt only with a unionised work force. I am speaking about the huge number of people who are non-unionised. Perhaps my hon. Friend does not know about their experiences out there, but they are what I am describing.

I accept that many employers use such an approach as a threat against the applicant, but the applicant can always ask for a pre-hearing, or the tribunal chairman can have a pre-hearing to assess whether the case is frivolous and vexatious. During my long experience, I dealt with just one case during which a chairman applied a costs warning. Such a course of action is open to an applicant whether they are legally represented or they go themselves before a chairman.

My hon. Friend makes an important point, but some of the people I am discussing here number among the most vulnerable groups in society. They have the least support available to them, and they are also probably among the least well informed about their rights.

Perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on the role of community law centres in giving advice and in providing representation in employment tribunals. Such advice can often put people's minds at rest about pursuing an employment tribunal case and the associated potential costs.

Community law centres play a very important role, but the problem is that many of them rely on funding from local councils or other bodies, and such funding is not always secure. In fact, because of the funding situation my own law centre in Bradford no longer has an employment lawyer. The case for this Bill is that we need a solid system throughout the country that enables people to get advice and help, without having to rely on law centres obtaining funding from local councils or the Law Centres Federation. That said, law centres do play an important role.

I have a genuine question that I should like to put both to my hon. Friend and to the Government, and perhaps I can expand on it later if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. How many cases actually fall beyond the scope of the unionised work force and of legal aid? As it stands, I have no idea whether we are talking about a tidal wave of such cases, or just a few individual ones that are slipping through the net. If there is not a mass of such evidence, how relevant is this Bill?

I know that my hon. Friend is a very patient Member, and if he will bear with me I will deal with that point in due course.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Does my hon. Friend wish to monopolise these opening exchanges?

I want to make just one further point, concerning the community legal service. I have compared the terms of reference of the body that my hon. Friend seeks to create with those of the CLS, and there appears to be a lot of overlap. Does he accept that in effect, he will be duplicating the CLS's role, and if so, what, in his opinion, is the future of the CLS?

The CLS's role will not be duplicated. The fact is that there is no nationwide system that provides assistance to victims of discrimination. We need such a system because the help available is very patchy; indeed, in many areas it is often non-existent. In Bradford, for example, employment advice, assistance and representation are now non-existent. My Bill will not lead to duplication; rather, it will set up a new system that will enable people to get proper access to justice, wherever they happen to live.

As I said, we can only conjecture as to why more than half of sex discrimination cases were withdrawn in 2004–05. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) asked for some figures, which I can provide. The Equal Opportunities Commission estimates that 1 million women will experience discrimination in the next five years. The snapshots that I have outlined today conceal the vast amount of discrimination and misery that is experienced at what should be a happy time for such women. Moreover, there is also a loss to the economy. Replacing these women costs industry £126 million, so such practices are not only in many cases illegal and immoral, but uneconomic.

It may surprise the House to learn that such evidence is not entirely partisan; it comes from many unexpected and independent sources, such as the Industrial Society and the Policy Studies Institute. Even the CBI has acknowledged that a problem exists. On 1 October, amendments to sex discrimination legislation came into force, and employment experts believe that that could lead to an increase in the number of tribunal cases, as more women will be aware of their rights. But as I said at the beginning of my speech, rights are only part of the picture; they are meaningless without the means to assert them.

Of course, it is not only women who suffer employment discrimination. Disabled people are nearly nine times more likely than non-disabled people to be out of work and claiming benefits. Unemployment rates for ethnic minorities are 10 to 15 per cent. higher than for the white population; in some regions, they are more than 20 per cent. higher. Racial discrimination still features extensively.

I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for his lucid presentation of his Bill. He mentions discrimination against disabled people—a problem that has long since been recognised. Does he know the views of the Disability Rights Commission on this matter, and has it expressed an opinion about his Bill?

No, I do not know its views, but to be frank, in general, equal opportunities bodies are not in favour of the Bill. Funding for such a system would come from their existing budgets, and they are not going to support a Bill that would reduce their budgets.

That was a very helpful question and reply but I remain a little confused. As I hope later to discuss, quite a lot of taxpayer-funded organisations can already provide advice for those who need to go to employment tribunals. What on earth is the point in setting up this new organisation, cannibalising funding for the existing organisations and shifting it to another layer of bureaucracy, just so that the new organisation can provide advice that is already being provided? That seems a bizarre idea.

It is very new Labour.

As I said earlier, the advice available for people who have suffered employment discrimination is very patchy. The equal opportunities bodies are not providing a national system of access to justice, and it is not a question of cannibalising funding for them. The point that this House must address, and which I shall deal with later, is that such bodies have not been spending enough of their budgets on helping those at the chalk-face who are suffering from employment discrimination. We need to ensure that complainants have the access to justice that they currently lack, despite the existence of equal opportunities bodies.

If the existing bodies, which receive a lot of money from the taxpayer, are performing as poorly as the hon. Gentleman suggests, what are they doing with their time?

I am sure that those bodies do a lot of important work in raising awareness of such issues, and so on, but I am not here to speak about what they do or do not do, except in the context of providing representation for discrimination complainants. Those bodies could doubtless answer the hon. Gentleman's questions perfectly adequately, were he to approach them.

The Bill's supporters cite the fact that a very small percentage of the current commissions' budgets—about 2 per cent. for the Commission for Racial Equality, just over 3 per cent. for the Equal Opportunities Commission, and 5.5 per cent. for the Disability Rights Commission—goes towards directly funding discrimination cases. But is it not true that the commissions also give a lot of money directly to bodies such as racial equality councils and local community groups, so that they can fund and support those involved in discrimination cases? Do they not also spend a significant part of their budgets on carrying out formal investigations, such as the recent inquiry into discrimination in the Prison Service? As in the case of the investigation into the death of Zahid Mubarek, we can sometimes be talking about loss of life rather than discrimination, so if 25 per cent. of the budget were taken away, would it not amount to a real hit on that sort of work?

In response to my hon. Friend, the funding of racial equality councils can be quite precarious: it is supplied on an annual basis and can be taken away at any time. If the leadership complexion of the Commission for Racial Equality changes, so can its priorities. I do not believe that taking some funding away to establish the proposed board would affect the organisation's major investigations. I would argue that there is room within the budgets to accommodate my proposals as well other work in the field.

Clause 3(3) effectively says that the Lord Chancellor must pay however much money is demanded by the board that the hon. Gentleman wants to establish. The money thus comes from the budgets of other organisations that we have mentioned, yet the hon. Gentleman claims to be worried about the precariousness of their finances. Could not the provision have the effect of destroying such organisations?

I do not accept that argument at all. The important investigative work of these organisations will continue. I would like to make some progress with my speech.

I should like to provide a couple of examples to illustrate my argument. The first case relates to my own constituency and underlines two important points. First, it not only demonstrates a vivid picture of discrimination, but was directed against young Muslim women, one of whom was in her first job. Younger workers are particularly vulnerable. Secondly, it illustrates how the specialist help provided by the citizens advice bureau—the body contacted in the first instance—gave the workers the necessary confidence to take the case forward.

Four Asian young women were awarded nearly £50,000 in July 1998 in what was described as one of the most serious cases of racial discrimination against young women ever to come before an industrial tribunal in Britain. The tribunal heard an appalling catalogue of racial discrimination. The girls' wages were reduced, while white workers were moved to other jobs. Their terms and conditions were different from those of the white employees and they were systematically bullied and threatened by their white supervisor to the extent that one of them was called a "black bitch". One had been employed as a supervisor and had assumed the duties of the head supervisor, when the latter was absent, yet when the position became vacant, a white woman from another area of the company was given the job.

Asian workers in this company were instructed to undertake additional menial tasks, from which white workers doing the same job were excused. They were forbidden to speak to each other in their own language. It had been custom and practice to allow Muslim workers to carry holidays over, but that was abruptly changed, leaving the Asian women in a lottery in which only two of them could take holidays.

As the situation escalated and two of the young women were sacked, they sought the advice of the citizens advice bureau and were referred to the northern complainants aid fund. Although the company had a staff handbook, it was not readily available to the work force. White staff had time to read it, but Asian staff had to lose piece-rate pay to do so. The managing director was unaware of the CRE code of practice and staff had no training or understanding of their own equal opportunities policy. The judgment entered on their cases stated:

"Rarely have we seen a case where there has been so much evasion and contradiction. It is clear the respondent set out to smear the applicants."

The second case relates to a national company. In April 2003, a south London employment tribunal found that the UK's largest rental company, Hertz, racially discriminated against Howard Morant, a black supervisor at its Victoria branch in London. For 15 months after he was employed, he was kept on a lower wage than white workers doing the same job, and less experienced workers were promoted while he and other black employees were passed over. During the course of the hearing, it emerged that, although the company claimed to be an equal opportunities employer, it had failed to train its managers in race equality. As part of the tribunal's decision, Hertz was required to provide training in race equality for its managers in Victoria and other London branches within three months. It applied particularly to managers responsible for recruitment, selection and staff appraisals.

The provision of such training is one of the main recommendations in the CRE code of practice for the elimination of racial discrimination and the promotion of equality of opportunity in employment, which was first published in 1983. Between 1983 and 2003, the CRE spent vast amounts of public funds encouraging employers such as Hertz to comply with the code and the law. Yet in the Hertz example, a single case brought by an employee—I emphasise, a single case—achieved greater compliance than the CRE managed in 20 years.

Those two cases are appalling and absolutely indefensible, but they also illustrate the fact that both were brought before an industrial tribunal, were successfully prosecuted through it and with successful outcomes. I cannot quite grasp—I would be grateful if my hon. Friend elaborated—the significance of the fact that both these cases were successful without the Bill being in place.

I am happy to respond to my hon. Friend. Both cases were taken up by the northern complainants aid fund, about which I shall say more later. That organisation no longer exists because its funding was cut. That is why I want to establish on a statutory footing a right to representation, support and advice, which will not be subject to whims of funding bodies that can pull the rug out from under one's feet at a moment's notice.

My hon. Friend's ambition for the Bill is entirely laudable and I recall speaking in the House several years ago about deserts of advice in parts of mid-Wales, but the issue is how best to achieve the objective without sacrificing other sectors. Could it not be argued that there should be a role for the Legal Services Commission and that the Government should seek means of filling in the gaps in the desert rather than fitting a superstructure on top, which might jeopardise other organisations? I do not want mid-Wales to have a wonderful oasis of legal advice at the risk of what is going to happen in Cardiff, Central. That is my fear.

The point of the Bill is not to have deserts and oases, but to establish a constant pattern of support across the country, which does not exist at the moment. If we leave it to existing bodies, I do not believe that we will see much further action taken: it has not happened so far. If the Scottish Parliament has addressed the issue by extending legal aid, is it not incumbent on our Parliament to extend similar rights of access to justice to complainants of discrimination in this country?

But would my hon. Friend accept that, as he said in his opening remarks, Scotland has dealt with the matter by increasing funding and legal aid? There may well be a case for filling in the gaps in the deserts of legal advice, but that is quite different from what is being presented here today.

My hon. Friend will realise that in a private Member's Bill we cannot ask for new money, so that avenue was not open to me. The two cases I cited would not have been brought without the northern complainants aid fund, which highlights why we need help and advice in a statutory framework for the whole country.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what lessons he has drawn from the Scottish experience and put into his Bill?

An extension of legal aid in Scotland has put money into lawyers' pockets, but my Bill is a not for profit measure that will involve lay people and not simply lawyers, who would be involved only in certain circumstances at the very end of the process. That is the difference between what I am proposing and what happened due to the extension of legal aid in Scotland.

But surely to qualify in Scotland the case has to be complex, which is not the same as the provisions of my hon. Friend's Bill.

I am not entirely sure about that, but if that is so my approach is better than the Scottish approach because it will give direct help, advice and representation to people who need it and who have a viable case.

I have been listening carefully to the case that the hon. Gentleman is putting to the House. We need to consider what he is saying in context and it seems to me that he is being a little careless about the question of costs in his Bill. Costs will be involved in setting up the board and whoever the board appoints. Even worse, in the wider context of paragraph (v), subsection (f), clause 13, the costs of those attending the tribunal would also be met, irrespective of whether they had a proper case. The case might be vexatious or the complainants might be liars but their costs would still be paid. Can the hon. Gentleman give the House some idea of what he expects his Bill to cost the Exchequer?

No. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that information, but codes of practice would be drawn up by the board so that the type of case he cites would not go through. The system would be accountable and, to be part of it, bodies would have to prove that they were efficient and effective in mounting cases.

Age discrimination is on the increase. By 2006, there will be more people aged between 55 and 64 than 16 to 24, and 45 to 59-year-olds will form the largest group in the labour force. However, discrimination affects both older and younger workers. The young are least likely to have access to representation, especially when they are entering the job market for the first time.

Other forms of discrimination include homophobia and religion. All result in lost output to the economy, which is impossible to quantify and an unacceptable blight on social cohesion and human rights. Indeed, fighting discrimination is so difficult, as we have seen, that almost half all discrimination cases are withdrawn compared with a quarter of unfair dismissal claims. Behind those figures lies a picture of misery and lost potential. If even a small percentage of those cases were withdrawn due to lack of representation, it is tantamount to a national disgrace.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way twice so generously and I shall not trouble him again.

My previous intervention was a little careless in that I said that the costs were Exchequer costs. They are not. They are directly attributable to the Lord Chancellor because a private Member's Bill cannot include increased costs to the Exchequer; ipso facto, all the costs that the hon. Gentleman cannot quantify will come from the budget of the Lord Chancellor and the Department for Constitutional Affairs. What does he think should be cut from that budget at present to pay the costs of his Bill?

The Bill is about principles; it is about access to justice and whether we believe in that. If we followed the hon. Gentleman's argument on costs, we would not be providing access to justice for many groups of people. The principle of the Bill is not finance; it is about providing access to justice for some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

My hon. Friend read a brief but appropriate list of groups of people who suffer discrimination. A fortnight ago, I visited a group in my constituency, the Yellow project, which deals with young, single, homeless males who are liable to suffer particular forms of discrimination in the work force. Although my hon. Friend's Bill has entirely appropriate aims and principles behind it, I am not clear how it would reach such people in a way that current provisions do not.

The group in my hon. Friend's constituency may have support, but support for various groups of people is patchy across the country; for example, it does not exist in my constituency, in Bradford. The whole point of the Bill is to set up a national framework of help and support that is consistent throughout the country.

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time, but his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) was totally unsatisfactory. There is a given pot in the Lord Chancellor's Department to deliver justice, yet, for example, in paragraph 10 of schedule 1 we see that the board will pay the chairman and any other appropriate staff. What analysis has the hon. Gentleman made of the real cost of that and what impact will it have on other aspects of justice? How do we know that other people who want legal services will not be prejudiced by that quango, the financing of which seem to be open-ended?

The financing of the board will come from existing equal opportunities bodies. As those bodies will be merged under the Equality Bill, the board could be part and parcel of that reconstruction.

rose—

rose—

I think I have been more than generous in accepting interventions and I would like to make some progress.

I want to turn to some of the specific principles that underpin the Bill. Recent legislation and policy guidance have demonstrated a trend toward discouraging litigation in favour of dispute resolution. We have seen that in the revised employment tribunals regulations and the Employment Act 2002. I am in favour of that, provided that it genuinely works to resolve discrimination rather than simply pushing complainants into withdrawing genuine claims. It must not be an excuse to conceal or bury discrimination. My Bill will ensure that that does not happen.

The Bill's provisions will provide the best possible support for complainants; they are not about lining the pockets of the legal profession. The Bill explicitly does not provide for lawyers and barristers as the first recourse, but for specialist help that is properly accredited and monitored. Many claims are settled without a tribunal—as many as 46 per cent. for unfair dismissal, 49 per cent. for disability discrimination and almost 40 per cent. of equal pay claims.

An employment lawyer, quoted in The Guardian in July 2004, estimated that 85 per cent. of employment claims are settled out of court—a strong indication that the majority of complainants would prefer a conciliated settlement. Few actually want their day in court; they want to exercise their human right to access to justice and to redress discrimination and unfair employment practices. There will of course be a few cases where lawyers are necessary, but the process will ensure that it is only when they are really justified.

Since the 1990s, we have seen an emphasis on fostering development in the voluntary and not-for-profit sector. While this confers a valuable and desirable degree of independence, it is vital to ensure that the service delivered is to a high standard. The Bill aims to do just that.

We are all well aware of the sterling work carried out by many voluntary bodies, such as Citizens Advice and law centres, which undertake a range of advice services and are frequently constrained by lack of adequate funding. A quote from Citizens Advice illustrates this. Citizens advice bureaux place great emphasis on mediation, negotiation and settlements, use of tribunals, ombudsman schemes and other alternative dispute resolution procedures where these are effective. But, as I mentioned, they are constrained, not only by the total amount of funding they have overall, but restrictions on how it can be used, and

"there are no incentives or rewards for publicly funded practitioners to pursue these avenues for clients. For example Citizen's Advice Bureaux are currently limited in the amount of contract time they can claim for dealing with correspondence on behalf of clients, which may be essential to negotiate a resolution, and can prevent the client being taken to court in debt cases".

Citizens Advice goes on to suggest:

"Incentives to negotiate effectively in complex cases should be structured into the contractual regime and into the funding code".

I also draw attention to an example from my constituency. The northern complainants aid fund was founded in 1991 by a group of former complainants in Bradford. Between 1992 and 2003, the NCAF represented complainants in 110 successful discrimination cases at employment tribunals and negotiated settlements in hundreds more cases. It also provided training for union staff and others working on discrimination and in 1993 was described by the CRE as a best practice model. The landmark Birmingham pregnancy discrimination case that I mentioned earlier, which stimulated the Equal Opportunities Commission research, was brought by the NCAF. Yet, because of cuts in funding for complainant aid, in 2003 it was forced to suspend direct assistance.

That picture is repeated again and again. Bradford law centre has had its local authority grant cut and has had to reduce considerably the time that it can allocate to employment cases.

The hon. Gentleman is regularly referring to the absence of funding for the CRE, citizens advice bureaux and like. But those bodies are not there to act as adjudicators and lawyers themselves; part of their function is to refer to lawyers who do have access to the necessary funds, through legal aid. He is therefore proposing a duplication of something that already exists.

Yes, but I did not refer to a lack of funding of the CRE. Part of my Bill addresses the complaint that the equal opportunities bodies are not doing what they should be doing—giving support to people with discrimination claims. The problem with going to lawyers is that there is no funding available to unfair dismissal or discrimination complainants. No legal aid is available to them.

Legal aid is available to anyone who has a just and valid cause.

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. No financial assistance is available to complainants in such cases.

The picture is repeated again and again. I have no doubt that the pattern of cuts that I mentioned can be found right across the country and in very many constituencies represented here.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me yet again. The Legal Services Commission website—community legal services, the legal aid scheme—says clearly that it funds cases relating to employment and provides help ranging from information leaflets to other services, to specialist advice and taking cases to court where necessary. I should be grateful for my hon. Friend's comments on that.

I am grateful for that intervention. Whatever is stated on that website, the reality is that for the majority of people no assistance is available, and I am on my feet today to try and redress that. [Interruption.] With the leave of the House, I shall continue.

Some hon. Members may say that this work should be covered by the existing equality bodies. That is clearly not happening. Between 2002 and 2005 there was a systematic reduction in the already small amount of money available for representation. In June 2004, the Government released figures that revealed that for 2004–05 the CRE had earmarked 2 per cent. of its annual budget for discrimination cases, the EOC 3.1 per cent. and the Disability Rights Commission 5.5 per cent. That does not amount to significant support. The Equal Opportunities Commission, for example, tends to take up cases of "strategic importance", which to some extent applies to the CRE and the DRC. That is, it will support a claimant in bringing a case that will assist in setting a precedent for other cases. That is of little value unless those that follow have the resources to pursue their own complaint.

Hon. Members may also argue, as they have, that such support is a job for trade unions. I do not dispute that. My concern, however, is that union membership is not as high as many of us would like, and some groups of workers are especially vulnerable. Department of Trade and Industry figures for 2004 show that fewer than a third—28.8 per cent.—of workers are union members, and in the private sector fewer than a fifth—17.2 per cent. Union membership is even lower for the 16 to 24 age group, at 8.9 per cent.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there must be a balance and we have to be careful that while giving the appropriate rights we do not legislate unions out of existence? In countries such as France, where perhaps the terms of such legislation would go much further, trade union membership is very low indeed, apart from in a few sections of the public sector.

The reality is how I portrayed it, and I am trying to achieve a balance between those people who do get support because they are in unions—I would encourage more people to join a trade union—and the vast majority of people who are not in trade unions, who cannot access the support that they need in such cases. Young people are especially vulnerable. They are unlikely to be unionised and may face discrimination at the point of finding a job. In July 2005, Radio Five Live carried out a survey that exposed discrimination between job applicants. It sent dummy CVs to 60 companies. It found that 23 per cent. of those with "white" sounding names were offered interviews, while only 9 per cent. of applicants with Muslim names and 13 per cent. of those with African names were offered interviews. Nine years before, a young Bradford jobseeker, Tahir Hussain, had tested that himself with the same result, which resulted in 11 successful tribunal cases. In the 1980s, the charity Scope conducted a survey on similar principles in relation to disability—and yes, the results were the same.

In relation to the young man from Bradford who tested the system and as a result brought 11 tribunal cases, does that not back up the fact that representation is available or that people can bring successful cases without the need for the Bill?

That was possible when support was available for that young man. That support is no longer available in Bradford or in many other parts of the country. Either we work on the desert and oases principle that was propounded before—that we have a service in many areas of the country and we are not bothered if there is no service in others—or we have a national system that gives all complainants of discrimination in employment equal access to justice. There is no such system at the moment.

Some might suggest that no win, no fee arrangements are available to complainants. Such arrangements have received a bad press of late. There is no doubt that such agreements do not favour early conciliated resolution. Indeed, they are specifically geared to litigation. As well as often leading claimants into debt, they lead to gridlock in the courts. The complex financial and legal processes involved are often misunderstood by complainants. There is widespread mis-selling of legal insurance products. Complainants are subjected to high-pressure sales tactics by unqualified salesmen. Inappropriate marketing and sales practices are used—for example, with salesmen approaching accident victims in hospital.

Few complainants seem to understand the risks and liabilities that they are exposing themselves to when they are misled into thinking the system will be genuinely conducted on a no win, no fee arrangement. They often find that there are hidden and unpredictable costs. Loan-financed insurance premiums, in addition to other legal costs, can often wipe out claimants' compensation. In some cases, complainants even owe money at the end of the process. So we can see that discrimination in employment is widespread and begins at the point of application. The existing equality bodies allocate a pitifully small portion of their budgets to casework support, and the number of cases is accordingly small.

Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on the interaction of clauses 4 and 5? Clause 4 seems to suggest that the board's main work—

Clause IV?

It is clause 4, but not that one. Clause 4 suggests that the board shall accredit bodies to tender for the work of providing assistance. Clause 5(5) suggests that, if the board is not satisfied that it is appropriate to select accredited bodies, it can select a non-accredited body. What is the point of all the accreditation work if the board can choose whoever it wants?

The board cannot quite choose whoever it wants. The accredited body in a certain area may have failed some of the monitoring tests, so to provide a service, the board would need to invite other tenders.

In summary, the Bill provides for an independent, adequately funded not-for-profit service to give specialist support on employment discrimination cases. That can be achieved without necessarily allocating new money, but rather by transferring funds from existing sources, which would be timely given that those bodies are being restructured. Integral to the Bill are provisions to ensure that that support is properly monitored, accredited and regulated.

Citizens Advice has commented:

"In a mixed economy of services, access to justice is best promoted through a diversity of pathways to legal redress. Tribunals are often described as a cheaper more accessible and user-friendly forum of adjudication; the various tribunals handle over a million cases a year. However, there is no public funding available for legal representation at tribunals and users often find themselves dealing with complex legal issues and procedures unassisted. Across all the advice areas that come within the scope of the Community Legal Service, CABs frequently report cases, which demonstrate a clear need for public funding to be made available for representation at tribunals, and additional benefits to helping clients resolve issues through tribunal processes rather than allowing legal problems to escalate further. Given the principles imposed by the Human Rights Act, it is increasingly difficult to justify the exclusion of tribunal representation from the scope of the funding code."

Citizens Advice has also reported more generally on access to justice. In its report on community legal services, it found that 27 per cent. of citizens advice bureaux had difficulty in finding solicitors to deal with employment cases. Employment tribunals are intended to ensure that both parties are on a level footing. It is widely acknowledged that the law on this issue has become increasingly complex and frequently places the complainant at a disadvantage where employers have access to lawyers and barristers.

I quote Citizens Advice:

"Employment law also grows ever more complex, with the addition of new employment rights, and there is also a growing trend, first highlighted in Citizens Advice's 1995 report "Barriers to Justice", for employers at industrial tribunals to be represented by barristers or solicitors, again putting unrepresented applicants at a severe disadvantage."

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I should like to make progress.

Research shows that representation can make a real difference to the outcomes of tribunals. It has long been the view of the CABs that their clients would benefit from funded representation at tribunals, that in many cases achieving a positive resolution at tribunal stage saves further expense at a later stage and that tribunal representation should be treated in the funding code on a similar basis to legal representation.

Equalities work is set to become yet more complex. It is an expanding area, with new strands being incorporated—for example, age discrimination and transgender issues. Legislative provisions for age discrimination are due in 2006. Legislation passed in 2003 addressed religion and sexual orientation, and transgender discrimination regulations were introduced in 1999.

I am conscious that some may fear that Britain is developing a compensation culture, but that is outside the scope of my Bill, as it largely relates to injury claims, rather than discrimination claims. However, a closer examination of news reports finds that that assertion originated with the CBI in August 2001. The Better Regulation Task Force has exploded that myth, which is largely a matter of perception rather than substance. The cost associated with legal cases in this country as a proportion of gross domestic product is among the lowest in the world at 0.6 per cent.

As I said earlier, most complainants do not want their day in court but the means to exercise their statutory rights. Therefore, there are three main strands to my Bill. While providing long overdue support to victims of discrimination in employment, it will promote conciliation and arbitration. That will reduce, not increase, litigation. It will be not-for-profit, while ensuring the standard of services, and it will create parity for both parties.

As Lord Irvine said as far back as 1996:

"There is no greater unfairness than the legally unrepresented applicant against the legally represented employer in industrial tribunal cases".

He also said:

"Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights establishes the principle of 'equality of arms' in the context of criminal law, but arguably the principle extends to all proceedings involving the determination of civil rights and obligations. As a result of lobbying by human rights lawyers, Immigration Adjudicator and Immigration Appeal Tribunals have now been brought into the scope of Community Legal Service funding."

Writing in 1998, in the foreword to the white paper, "Modernising Justice", he also said:

"People need to have ways to uphold their rights and defend their interests in their dealings with others including employers, retailers, service providers and the state. It is not enough for people to have rights; they must be confident they can enforce those rights if need be. This was the purpose behind the Human Rights Act 1998, which enables citizens to enforce their fundamental rights through the British Courts."

Now is the time to ensure that victims of employment discrimination have the same equality of arms, so that they, too, have the necessary resources available to them to exercise and realise their human rights. We are talking about the most vulnerable people in the workplace: young people, ethnic minorities and people who have been discriminated against because of religion or gender. At election time or during the meetings that we attend, we can wear our hearts on our sleeves and say how much we oppose discrimination and how much we support equal opportunities and a multicultural society, but discrimination is still prevalent. Unless the vulnerable groups facing discrimination have access to justice, all our protestations about equality sound rather hollow. It is time to change that situation. Discrimination has no place in our society; it has no place in a civilised society.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) on his success in the ballot and on presenting a Bill that highlights an important issue: public funding for employment discrimination cases. However, although he has raised a important issue, I do not believe that his Bill is the correct way to rectify the present situation. The Bill would create yet another quango: the tribunal representation and assistance board. We have far too many quangos already, and we should be getting rid of some of them, not creating yet another one. He raised the important issue of legal aid not being available for representation in employment tribunal cases in England and Wales, although it is available under certain circumstances in Scotland, but there is no need to create yet another quango to address the matter.

I fully support what the hon. Gentleman says about quangos in general, so will he support the moves by the Welsh Assembly Government to try to get rid of some of the superfluity of quangos? At the moment, those moves are being opposed by his colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government.

Order. I am afraid that that is not a point that can be answered in this debate.

I believe in devolution. It is for Wales to sort out the matter for itself; I do not propose to interfere.

The functions that the Bill proposes to give to the new board could just as well be carried out by existing quangos—by the Legal Services Commission or the Scottish Legal Aid Board. In most cases, legal aid is not appropriate for employment tribunals. There is, however, one exception, which I will come to later. Employment tribunal hearings were not intended to be as formal as a court of law. They were designed so that the parties could represent themselves or be represented by lay representatives. Indeed, two of the three members of the tribunal are usually lay members.

Appeals on a point of law can be made to employment appeal tribunals where parties are entitled to apply for legal aid, and parties may also be entitled to legal aid to help prepare them for employment tribunals. As employment tribunals are meant to be accessible to people who are representing themselves, I support the general principle that public funding should not be available for legal aid in most cases.

There is, however, one exception. That is on those rare occasions when the tribunal hearing will involve complex legal issues so that detailed and effective presentation are required for a case to have any hope of success. In such complex cases, the lack of legal representation could well amount to non-compliance with article 6.1 of the European convention on human rights, which is the right to a fair trial.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the vast majority of tribunal cases are covered by just two or three pieces of case law? The cases to which he refers are few in number, if not unique.

I certainly agree that the complex cases to which I am referring are very rare, but they will undoubtedly occur from time to time.

Is that not the point? We should be concentrating on the very complex cases and not opening everything up. We should try to ensure that people do not get to that point and, through the work of trade union representatives and discussions with employers, we should try to resolve the issues before they reach the tribunal stage. That should not be the first port of call.

I entirely agree; that should be the approach. However, a very small number of complex cases will arise, and that was recognised in Scotland, as the hon. Gentleman said in an earlier intervention.

In Scotland, legal aid is available only for a very small number of complex cases. The Scottish Executive introduced the Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Regulations 2003. They give the Scottish Legal Aid Board powers to award legal aid for proceedings before an employment tribunal in cases where the board is satisfied that, first, the case is arguable; that, secondly, it is reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case that assistance by way of representation be made available; and, thirdly, that the case is too complex to allow the applicant to present it to a minimum standard of effectiveness in person. In reaching its decision, the board has also to take into account the fact that the applicant may be unable to understand the proceedings or to state his own case because of age, inadequate knowledge of English, mental illness or other mental or physical disability.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept my contention that although in this important debate a very powerful case has been made on the extent of discrimination that remains in the work force, we still have not got to the nub of the issue? How many are disfranchised from being able to bring such cases? He talks about exceptional cases, but I am still not convinced. Given the mass of discrimination that there may be, how many cases are being stopped? What is his perception of the scale of the problem?

My perception is that the legal situation becomes complex only in a small number of cases. That was recognised in Scotland.

Whereas employment tribunals are a reserved matter under the Scotland Act 1998, legal aid rules have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. One of the advantages of devolution is that the various Administrations can learn from each other. This is an example of where the Government here could learn from the Scottish Executive and adopt similar rules to those introduced by the Scottish Executive to make legal aid available for a small number of complex cases.

May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we already go further than the Scottish Executive? With the exceptional funding arrangements that we have here, cases that have a significant wider public interest could also receive legal aid. That is not the case in Scotland.

I thank the Minister for her intervention.

To conclude, I shall not be supporting the Bill today. I do not believe that this new quango is necessary. The hon. Member for Bradford, West has raised an important issue, but I do not believe that the Bill and a new quango are the right way forward.

The arguments for the establishment of the tribunal representation and assistance board, as proposed in the Bill, appear in many cases and on an initial consideration to have some merit in ensuring that applicants in discrimination cases brought before the employment tribunals and appeal tribunals have access to legal advice and representation. Some of the arguments that we have heard and that we will hear in the debate are valuable.

The Bill would provide for legal advice and representation whereas the Legal Services Commission generally only provides for advice and not representation. Indeed, the LSC provides its assistance only after testing for eligibility, and representation can be made only in exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances applied to only six cases between 2000 and today. The fact that legal aid is, as we have heard, available only for employment tribunal appeals and not at the tribunal appears to draw one towards the arguments for the Bill. Experienced representatives could arguably make it easier to present the applicant's case and the Bill's point about the ability to charge for representation is, if taken at face value, a useful proposition. It argues that it could create a revenue stream.

Labour Members also support the argument that this Government have introduced more rights since 1997, and we are very proud of that. We applaud the House for taking that opportunity. As a consequence of that, there must be a necessary growth in the number of tribunals.

I have outlined the face-value merits of the Bill, but we must also consider the arguments against it in evaluating the proposals. As we have heard, many cases do not require legal representation and, in those instances, the advice offered will duplicate the services already provided by the Legal Services Commission. It is that body's responsibility to ensure that not just legal advice but "quality assured legal advice" is delivered. We must also be aware of the fact that the equality commissions can fund legal representation, but I reiterate that, in most cases, legal help and advice is sufficient. Legal representation is not a necessary service. We must also consider the fact that such duplication would create an extra layer of bureaucracy and lead to additional expenditure.

It is argued that the proposed tribunal representation and assistance board could be a revenue earner, but what evidence do we have that clients who were liable for costs incurred would use the service instead of alternative legal specialists? What would be the attraction of receiving a bill from the board instead of one from somewhere else?

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that people must at the moment go through many hoops to get to an employment tribunal tends to suggest that such people feel strongly that they have a good case? However, only 29 per cent. of discrimination cases that reach a tribunal succeed, only 28 per cent. of such sex discrimination cases succeed, and only 15 per cent. of such race discrimination cases succeed. How does he respond to the argument that by setting up this new quango we would be encouraging a plethora of new tribunal cases that might be much weaker than those that are brought forward at the moment?

I am not arguing for that.

The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) says that there are loads of hoops to go through, but there is nothing to stop anyone from going to a tribunal with any sort of case under any circumstances, although that does not necessarily mean that they will get anywhere with such cases. In my previous job, I was involved in a lot of tribunals in which the case reached the first stage before being thrown out, but there was nothing to stop someone from taking a case to that stage.

No eligibility criteria are set out in the Bill, which would mean that claimants who could clearly fund their own cases would often be supported, which would not be a good use of public funds. On examination, I am not convinced by the promises of additional revenue delivery that are made of the Bill.

There are already well-established bodies and mechanisms that offer people valuable and indispensable advice, such as trade unions and citizens advice bureaux. Indeed, friends and colleagues can give people advice. Additionally, as a plank of their delivery in this area, the Government have attempted to ensure that more disputes are resolved before they need to reach a tribunal. However, the Bill might increase the number of legal representations made and reduce the number of outcomes reached through negotiation.

The Bill would give the proposed new board the power to set its budget and force the Lord Chancellor to meet that. It could be argued that unmeritorious claims would be funded as well as justifiable ones, so we must ask whether that would be a good use of the public purse.

I support both our aim of improving advice and assistance given at an early stage to reduce the number of cases that progress to the courts, and alternative ways to settle disputes in the workplace. The English and Welsh civil and social justice survey showed an increase in the proportion of cases that were resolved in such a way at a time when the actual number of cases for which advice was received was falling. We certainly seem to be getting the advice and support argument right and more focused.

The Government are launching a new tribunals service in 2006 and employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal will come under the agency at that time. That will increase our opportunity of having an even-handed and responsive service that delivers to people reliability, consistency and dependability, yet is also properly resourced, accountable and transparent.

A problem with the Bill is the fact that it limits itself to cases of discrimination. Are not cases of unfair dismissal, unauthorised deduction, breach of contract and redundancy pay equally meritorious, given that they and other associated non-discriminatory cases accounted for nearly 82 per cent. of all employment tribunal claims in 2004–05?

We need to go further on enforcing settlements made at tribunals by removing the legal onus on complainants to pursue their awards, if they are not forthcoming in the agreed time, and by introducing a system that empowers the tribunal service or another body to instigate action automatically on behalf of a complainant at the appropriate time. However, I realise that that debate is not for today—hopefully, it is for another time in the Chamber.

Given that I represent a Scottish constituency, I should comment about the comparison that has been drawn today with the situation in Scotland. Although the Scottish Parliament has increased funding and legal aid, which addresses some of the problems raised today, there are few similarities between the functionality of the system and the Bill's proposals. I reiterate a point that I attempted to make during an intervention. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) is arguing the need for justice, he is failing to argue appropriately for efficient and transparent spending from the public purse. Indeed, I believe that he showed in some depth today the success, rather than failure, of the present system and methods. I remain to be convinced that the Bill's proposals would deliver value for money and the transparency that is demanded today, or help those most in need in the most appropriate manner.

I am somewhat loth to make a speech opposing the Bill because Labour Members seem to be doing a perfectly good job of that without my having to intervene on their private grief.

The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) is my neighbouring MP. He is a good man and people in Bradford respect him enormously, but his Bill is completely misguided, both in principle and practice. He believes that current arrangements breach the Human Rights Act 1998, but some Conservative Members do not care too much about that because we were not big fans of the Act in the first place.

The Bill would be likely only to add to this country's compensation culture. People are sick and tired of frivolous claims being taken to court just to line the pockets of lawyers. The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill would result in the exact opposite of a feeding frenzy for employment lawyers, but I do not understand how it could lead to anything but that.

Will the hon. Gentleman give some evidence that a compensation culture exists in this country? The number of industrial tribunals is reducing, yet the number of personal injury cases is going up. Does he think that someone who is attacked and suffers, for example, a cracked rib should be able to bring a case against their assailant?

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman, but that person should take the case to a court of law. People should not only be able to do that, but be pressed to do it so that the truth can come out—

Order. The Bill is actually about employment tribunals and representation.

Thank you for keeping me on track, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Despite what the hon. Gentleman said, we do have a compensation culture in this country: time after time, people take the most frivolous claims to tribunals and courts. I am afraid that the Bill will only add to the number of frivolous claims being taken to tribunals.

I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman does not understand employment tribunals. A frivolous or vexatious case will not get to the tribunal, because the chairman will strike it out before it gets through the door.

As my hon. Friends have explained, many tribunal cases are shown to be quite frivolous, and are turned down. A minority of cases are accepted, so I do not accept the idea that no frivolous claims go to tribunals.

I am sorry, but that is the case. Is the hon. Gentleman questioning the ability of tribunal chairmen and panels? In my experience, frivolous and vexatious cases are struck out. Moreover, under the Employment Act 2002 there is an onus on both employers and applicants to ensure that they have gone down all the avenues to try to resolve disputes before they get to a tribunal, and that has reduced the number of tribunals over the past two years.

I do not accept that no frivolous cases go to employment tribunals. The hon. Gentleman clearly has much more faith in such things than I do.

More knowledge and experience.

All that this Bill would do is to lead to even more frivolous claims. People would be able to take a claim to a tribunal knowing that it would cost them nothing, and that they had nothing to lose. It does not matter what they say, because someone else—taxpayers, such as me and the people in my constituency—picks up the tab for the most ridiculous, frivolous and stupid complaints. Why should decent, honest, law-abiding, tax-paying people in this country pick up the tab for people who make frivolous claims?

The hon. Gentleman may not be able to give the number, but can he at least give us a few examples? He is obviously sure of his ground, because he is saying that he knows of loads of cases from his area, so can he name just one?

My hon. Friends have made the point perfectly well about the number of cases that end up with a successful prosecution of the company concerned. Very few do, so the facts are perfectly clear: most of these cases are not grounded in any basis of fact, and there is no case to answer. The Bill will simply lead to even more of these frivolous cases going to tribunals, because people will know that they will not have to pay any money themselves, and the good old taxpayer will have to dig his hand into his pocket one more time to pay for another politically correct pet project from new Labour.

I fear that I must intervene, because the hon. Gentleman's words call into question the whole structure of our present system, and the ability of employment tribunal chairmen to make relevant, precise value judgments on cases. What we are hearing from Conservative Members today is quite shocking, and questions the structure of our whole employment tribunal system—

And our legal system.

I stand corrected; they are questioning our legal system too. The employment tribunal system is extremely valuable, and what Conservatives have said is stunning. I would like the hon. Gentleman to withdraw and consider his remarks, which do his argument no good at all.

The Bill is about whether we give people free legal representation at employment tribunals no matter how good or bad their case, and whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing. It would lead to more frivolous claims being taken, or attempted to be taken, to employment tribunals by people who have no good reason or case, because they know that the taxpayer will pick up the tab and they will not have to.

I might go and get a hammer and chisel in a minute, to see whether I can get my point across to the hon. Gentleman. If someone applies to take what he describes as a frivolous case to an industrial tribunal, it will not even get there, because it will be struck out beforehand. I have grave reservations about the Bill, but the idea that it would lead to open-ended access for frivolous and vexatious cases is wrong. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman does not understand how the tribunal system works.

The hon. Gentleman would be very naive to think that the Bill would not lead to people trying their luck if they thought that they had a case, even if there was no good case to answer.

This is not just a question of what happens at the tribunal, but of what happens before the case gets there, and before it is thrown out. What happens to a business when someone puts in a discrimination claim? Does the business not have to spend time looking into the case?

Has the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to consider the range of measures that have been introduced to try to tease out the details before a case gets to a tribunal—further and better particulars, questions and requests for further details, the exchange of witness statements seven days before the hearing and so on—so that employers can decide whether they wish to settle the case? My experience is that if someone has a strong case, an employer who is properly advised—by lawyers, usually—will offer a settlement that an employee will want to consider seriously.

The hon. Lady does not feel that the Bill will cause more time to be spent in tribunals—but what it will do, which she seems to find acceptable, is waste as much time as possible for businesses in going backwards and forwards to see whether the person has a case to answer.

Does my hon. Friend agree that well over half the cases are either withdrawn or dismissed? Against that background, is not his concern the possibility of an increased surge in cases, putting even further burdens on business?

That is the very point that I was trying to make, and I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying the matter. Labour Members clearly do not understand, perhaps because most of them have no experience of running a business, and have no idea of the time and effort that businesses have to waste dealing with ridiculous cases.

The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service figures for 2003–04 show that about 72 per cent. of cases are either settled or withdrawn beforehand, and only 24 per cent. go to a tribunal. May I press the hon. Gentleman on one point? Does he suggest that his constituents in Shipley should not have access to an industrial tribunal? Is he against those tribunals? I am sure that his constituents who value and use them will be interested to hear that.

What I am against is people taking frivolous cases to tribunals, and making frivolous complaints against businesses, so that they have to spend time, effort and money investigating cases and corresponding about them when all they want to do is get on with running the business, looking after their customers and looking after their other employees, to ensure that they still have jobs.

What sort of case would meet the hon. Gentleman's criteria? He obviously does not accept the current criteria, and wants to go further, so what cases would he allow to be taken to a tribunal?

What I would not allow to be taken are the cases to which the hon. Gentleman has referred—the ones that get thrown out very quickly. [Hon. Members: "Give some examples!"] There are dozens of examples.

Give one example.

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that some cases are thrown out, that some businesses have to investigate—

Give an example.

Does the hon. Gentleman say that—

I wholly admire my hon. Friend for sticking to his guns against Labour Members' comments. After all, this is a debate—but perhaps it would help him to look at the annual report and accounts of the Employment Tribunals Service for 1999–2000 to 2004–05, which show that, in total contradiction of what the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) says, there are already many weak claims for sex, race and disability discrimination. The success rates are only 28 per cent., 15 per cent. and 29 per cent. That makes my hon. Friend's case.

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Labour Members do not want to face the facts of what goes on under their Government and want to impose even more costs on businesses, despite their claims for better regulation and deregulation. They think it is funny that many small businesses have to face unnecessary, complicated cases that are a waste of time and a burden. The politically correct people in their party find that amusing.

rose—

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman finds it funny.

No, I do not. I have run a successful small business in Scotland since 1986. The hon. Gentleman preaches about the legislation introduced by this Government since 1997. As a small business man, the rights and values for which the Government stand, and which they have incorporated into legislation, are a useful tool in my workplace to protect my employees. I do not find them a drawback. It is a shame that he does.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that many businesses in my constituency are appalled by the red tape and regulation that they face. The Bill would only increase costs and the time that they waste in dealing with unnecessary things when they just want to get on with looking after their customers, keeping people in employment and doing something worth while.

The hon. Gentleman is demonstrably out of his depth. I offer him some assistance. Although he has drunk deep of the well of cliché, will he withdraw the statement that he made twice about discrimination cases being simply to do with political correctness? He must realise what a serious and damaging statement that is and how it is the total opposite of the official policy of the Conservative party. Will he admit that there are such things as entirely legitimate cases of discrimination that should be supported, or is every one of them an example of what he refers to wittily as political correctness?

The hon. Gentleman has not been here for much of the debate and has not heard what has been said. I am not opposed to all claims. What I oppose are frivolous claims. The Bill can only—I am sure Labour Members would have to admit this—increase the number of people who decide to have a pot-luck claim for compensation when they have no real basis for that. Every right-minded person would acknowledge that it could only have that one effect and would do nothing to further genuine claims of discrimination, which, as Labour Members have made clear, is covered by other legislation. There are plenty of avenues for people to go down if they want to pursue a claim. The Bill will be successful only if it leads to more people pursuing more frivolous claims. That is its only purpose.

The old adage is, "When you're in a hole, stop digging." My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) cited the case of someone who was dismissed because she was pregnant. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such a case needs to go to an industrial tribunal and should be supported by a decent and fair-minded society? Will he give an example of what he considers a frivolous case?

There is plenty of opportunity for people who have experienced serious discrimination to take their case to a tribunal, whether it be through a legal company or a trade union. If they have a serious claim, there is no barrier to their taking it to an industrial tribunal, but the only purpose of the Bill is to encourage people who have no good basis for a claim to make a case. Other people would be more than happy to take up their case if it was a good one. The Bill would encourage them to have a go.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is perhaps the compensation culture that is the problem? What we have are a Government who, by legislation and the establishment of quangos, are encouraging something that seriously undermines our society in a number of different ways. By encouraging people to think that blame can be attached to every circumstance and that compensation is available in every circumstance, they cause many of the difficulties that the Bill would exacerbate.

My right hon. Friend is right and emphasises the point that I have made from the outset.

Labour Members want me to give examples of frivolous claims. A prime example is of people from, for example, an ethnic minority who do not get a job because their qualifications do not match the job for which they applied. They then take a claim against a business saying that they were discriminated against because of their race, religion or whatever. The reason they were turned down was likely to be because they were not qualified for the job, yet they still make a claim. The Bill would allow them, without incurring costs, to make a claim for racial discrimination and hope that it wins, when there is no case to answer.

I am well aware of businesses that have turned down people with disabilities. They were not rejected because of their disability—the businesses that I have in mind have a good track record in recruiting people with disabilities. However, those people said, "Well, I'm going to take a claim to a tribunal." The Bill would allow them to have free legal representation even though their disability had nothing to do with why they did not get the job.

Where the hon. Gentleman has evidence of what he describes as frivolous cases, I urge him to put it to the Government so that they can be properly investigated. It is easy to speak in generalities. I also urge him to consider that when he is up against the ropes to put his head down in defence and to stop throwing punches.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that friendly advice. I assure him that, from my past employment, I know of cases—[Interruption.] If Labour Members do not want to listen to the examples that they have asked for—

What examples?

I have just given them.—[Interruption.]

Order. Mr. Davies will now continue.

The company for which I worked had an excellent track record, as acknowledged by the Labour party, of helping people with disabilities into employment and of helping its customers, yet it still faced complaints from people who said that they were not given a job because of their disability, when nothing could have been further from the truth. That company was a large multinational and, in many respects, could deal with those complaints. My concern is for the many thousands of small businesses that have neither the personnel nor the time to deal with people who try their luck, hoping that they will get a few quid out of someone. Those cases are not acceptable. The Bill would only encourage such people to take their cases as far as they could possibly go.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman used to work for Asda, which is owned by Walmart. Does not Walmart—a very anti-trade union firm—face a huge number of sex discrimination cases, and even race discrimination cases, throughout the United States? He says that his former employer is a shining example of good practice, but the evidence does not support his case.

The hon. Gentleman clearly has no idea what he is talking about. Asda was my former employer. Can he give an example of it discriminating against anybody with a disability, or on the grounds of race or sex? Asda still faces complaints, despite its excellent track record. Does he accept that companies with excellent track records still face frivolous complaints?

I used to negotiate with Asda and with the former Member, Mr. Archie Norman, who represented Tunbridge Wells. Asda has a clear policy of discouraging people from joining trade unions. It has a way of trying to bypass independent legal advice that people can get.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that Asda does not encourage people to take independent advice. It has an excellent track record, yet it still faces frivolous complaints.

My main concern is for small companies, not for Asda.—[Interruption.] Perhaps Labour Members should calm down.

Many small companies in the Bradford, West constituency will have to face cases involving discrimination. They do not have the staff to deal with them. I am disappointed that Labour Members seem not to care about small businesses that face the challenges and waste of time that we are discussing.

rose—

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will just settle down.

Small companies will have to deal with frivolous cases. The cases might not get to an employment tribunal, but do not tell me that time will not be taken up dealing with them and that there will be no slur on those companies. Decent companies should not have to face more frivolous claims.

I do not follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he saying that all small businesses should be outside employment law? That is what he seems to be saying.

The hon. Gentleman will know that that is not what I said. I said that the Bill will lead to many small businesses facing many more frivolous complaints by people who think that they may as well have a go because they have nothing to lose. They will take the view that, if they lose, the taxpayer will pick up the tab, that that will be all right and no one else will worry. As I have said, many small companies will not be able to afford to deal with such matters. Small businesses should not have to waste their time dealing with frivolous cases when they have far better things to do.

I declare an interest. I am a small business man who employs about 10 people. It is the smaller businesses—one-man or two-men businesses that employ one or two people—that face problems. There is the time factor and the costs that such companies will incur, when they should be concentrating on running their businesses. Does my hon. Friend agree that emphasis must be placed on assisting smaller businesses? That does not mean that they will be outside the law. That would be ridiculous. However, there must be some understanding of how we can assist smaller businesses.

My hon. Friend is right. He makes extremely well the case that I have been making.

Many small businesses cannot afford to have the Bill enacted and placed on the statute book.

Is the hon. Gentleman saying to his constituents that if someone faces discrimination or feels that he does, "Don't come knocking on my door. Don't go to your local Member of Parliament. I do not believe that discrimination exists." If that is his position, I would be grateful if he issued a press release.

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have not said that. I have said that if you have a case that has no good grounding—for example, someone feels aggrieved because they do not have a job or because something has happened that does not relate to their race, sex or a disability, for example—do not think that you can take taxpayers' money to pursue a frivolous case.

I think that the House has heard your message to those who are presumably bringing vexatious and frivolous cases. What message do you have for those people who suffer genuine discrimination? Have you any message of support for them?

I would say, "Take your case to a tribunal. Take it through your trade union or law club, of which they might be a member."

Order. I remind hon. Members that they should use correct parliamentary language and talk in the third person.

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I do not want to turn away people who have legitimate claims of discrimination. There are plenty of avenues for those people to pursue their case. I am concerned about people who pursue cases with no real reason for doing so. The Bill will give such people a free hand to take the case as far as they can, knowing that that will be at the taxpayers' expense and that they will have nothing to lose by making a frivolous case.

I say to the hon. Gentleman, following the intervention of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), that I have never been a small business owner, but I have been a fully liable director of a voluntary sector trust that employed many people and I have been through employment tribunals. What stood us in good stead was that we had good grievance and disciplinary procedures, along with good training. Any small organisation, be it a private sector employer or a voluntary body, should have nothing to fear from the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley has good procedures in place for his business. Such employers need have no fear of frivolous or flippant claims if they have done the right thing by their work force.

I disagree. The Bill gives them something to fear. The claim may not ultimately be successful. The point that I have been trying to make is that frivolous complaints will still have to be investigated. Time will still have to be taken. People who own a small shop do not have time to wade through a great deal of legal paperwork.

What about the time, the cost and the heartache for the individual who may be suffering discrimination? The Government are trying to develop a culture that encourages people who feel that they are victims of discrimination to come forward and have the matter dealt with at the appropriate level. That may not mean a tribunal. It could mean arbitration or mediation. The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's message is that we should turn that culture on its head and say, "Don't bring the case unless you are genuinely convinced that you will win."

I say, "Don't bring your case unless you have a good case to be answered."

The Bill will undoubtedly lead to many people making claims that have no good grounding and no real chance of success. The company may not face prosecution or a fine, but the hon. Gentleman must accept that any complaint leads to increased costs and increased time pressures on a company. The Bill encourages—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall not give way because we have covered this ground several times. The point is that small businesses will face more costs and more time will be taken up by frivolous claims. I do not accept the principle of the Bill because it will make a bad situation worse.

The Bill will open up the possibility of endless costs to the taxpayer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) highlighted in trying to probe the hon. Member for Bradford, West, there is no limit to the cost that could be incurred by the taxpayer and the Lord Chancellor's Department. However many cases are brought, however good or however bad, they will have to be funded by the Lord Chancellor's Department.The hon. Gentleman could give no indication of the likely cost to the taxpayer. He could not even say whether we are talking about millions, tens of millions, billions or tens of billions of pounds.

The hon. Gentleman has just told the House that he does not agree with the principle of the Bill. When I started out this morning I had serious reservations about it, but his speech is making me and, I think, some of my colleagues, likely to vote for it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West said that the principle of the Bill concerns discrimination. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he thinks that discrimination is acceptable in our society or even that he would welcome that if it were true?

The principle of the Bill that I object to is the fact that anybody, however good or bad their case, will get taxpayers' money to pursue it as far as they can. I do not accept that that is a good principle.

I remind my hon. Friend, although I am sure there is no need, that the Bill is about

"representation of and assistance to complainants".

That is the whole point of the Bill, and I can well see the point with which my hon. Friend has difficulty, as indeed do I, as I hope to explain later, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not want my hon. Friend to move away too quickly from the subject of costs. He must have noticed in the Bill, as I have—this has already been raised in the debate—something that I have never before in my life seen in a Bill. It says, in clause 3, that

"the Board shall prepare and send to the Lord Chancellor an estimate of its funding needs".

It goes on, incredibly, to say:

"It shall be the duty of the Lord Chancellor to secure that there is paid to the Board out of money provided by Parliament . . . an amount that is equal to or greater than the total funding needs of the Board".

Does not that suggest, and is it not unprecedented in this place, that here we have a quango that is, by statute, allowed to ask for any amount of money, which the taxpayer, through the Lord Chancellor, is then obliged to provide?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the cost of the Bill is unlimited. The whole principle that the hon. Member for Bradford, West is expounding is that anybody can pursue a claim, however trivial, as far as they can. Obviously, the result will be an unlimited cost. I find the idea of an unlimited cost to the taxpayer completely bizarre, unacceptable and unworkable, and that is why the principle of the Bill cannot be right.

The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has in five seconds made a far more comprehensive critique of the Bill than we have heard in half an hour from the hon. Gentleman. May I bring him back to the core point? I realise that he once achieved great things as customer services manager for Asda. I am not sure how he served the customers, but his comments have caused me to have doubts. Will he, once and for all, without equivocation, state for the House whether his thesis is that all complainants to tribunals are frivolous and vexatious and that the burden on small business is such that the entire system, which has served us so well under Governments of both complexions, should be swept away? Yes or no?

I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that when in future he asks questions, he listens to the answer. He has now asked the same question twice, and he will get the same answer twice.—the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, requires the taxpayer to pay out however much is demanded.[Interruption.] The question that the hon. Gentleman asked earlier was exactly the same as the one he has just asked, and my answer is that I have nothing against people who make a genuine claim of discrimination; my concern about the Bill is that it will lead to more people making frivolous claims because they will be able do so at no cost to themselves. They will know that the taxpayer will pick up the tab, however much it is, because the Bill, as my right hon. Friend

It is clear that the employment tribunal service annual report and accounts 1999–2000 to 2004–05 were not on the holiday reading list of the hon. Members for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) and for North Durham (Mr. Jones). The facts help my hon. Friend's case. The total number of discrimination claims has increased from 8,272 in 1999–2000 to 27,907 in 2004–05, and they have increased from 9.9 to 19 per cent. of the total number of claims.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am very sad that Labour Members do not accept that there is a problem and that the Bill could only make it worse. I am sorry that they do not see the costs that will be incurred and the damage done to small businesses, which are major wealth creators in our economy, not just in Shipley but in their constituencies.

Will the hon. Gentleman answer a simple question? Is he against the whole principle of legal aid? That seems to be the case that he is making.

As I have stated time and again, I am against people having access to taxpayers' money to pursue totally frivolous and unrealistic claims as far as they can.

Order. We have heard the argument about frivolous cases, and we are now in the realms of repetition. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could move on.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can only say in mitigation that if Labour Members keep asking the same question, I can only keep giving them the same answer, so I hope that you will forgive me.

The cost of the Bill is completely unacceptable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold revealed by his question, no provision has been made for the possible cost. It will be a waste of money for businesses; it will be a waste of money for taxpayers. This is not about employment tribunals; it is more about employment creation for politically correct people, so that they can sit in judgment and feather their own nests, taking in taxpayers' money to do something that is completely unnecessary. I urge hon. Members to stop this Bill making any further progress. It will make the compensation culture of this country even worse than it is today and add even more to the costs faced by small businesses, which are already being dragged down by the burden of regulation imposed by this new Labour Government.

I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and his argument about frivolous and vexatious claims. I want to talk about my experience as a lawyer, and I say that with some trepidation because of the comments that have been made about lawyers.

I spent my legal career in community law centres, where we acted for the most disadvantaged members of our community. Where we could, we would help them under the legal aid scheme, but we would also represent people at tribunals. As a lawyer, I took very seriously my responsibility to advise my clients whether their claim had any chance of success. I would make it clear to them if I thought that their claim had no chance of success, because I certainly did not want to get in front of a tribunal and find myself in trouble with the chair, possibly with cost orders made against me and the law centre.

I want to give an example of a case that demonstrates the importance of representation being available in employment tribunals. I had a client with a history of mental health problems. She had managed, with a loving and supportive family, to maintain a job as a cleaner for many years, but she had an episode of her mental health problem reoccurring and ended up having to go into a psychiatric hospital. Her employer wrote to her at the hospital, wishing her all the best in getting better but saying that she was dismissed forthwith. Her husband came to see me to say that that did not seem quite fair. The family did not have English as their first language, but they had a feeling that things were not quite as they should be.

As a lawyer in a law centre, I was lucky to be in a position to take that case forward. The employer denied any form of discrimination, although in the end we issued disability discrimination proceedings, and claimed unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and unpaid wages. It was a powerful claim. The employer would not have settled that claim if he did not know that a lawyer was willing to go all the way to a tribunal and represent that person.

I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Lady for sharing that direct experience with us, but is she making a case for the Bill, or is she reinforcing the argument that many Conservative Members have advanced, that most of the mechanisms in place already are pretty adequate and we should be careful not to try add to their number unnecessarily? That seems to be the thrust of what she has just said.

There are cases where it is vital that people have access to legal representation, or representation through a trade union. This Government have been sensible in bringing forward alternative dispute resolution as a powerful means of trying to settle claims between employers and employees, but some cases will go to tribunal and it is vital that those most disadvantaged in our society—they are the people whom we are talking about—have the opportunity to have legal representation.

It is nice to hear from an individual who understands the subject more than the previous hon. Member to make a speech did. Is it correct that, if the case that she described had been a frivolous case, it would not even have got through the tribunal's doors?

That is right. My hon. Friend has already talked about the measures and proceedings that are in place. A case can be brought before the tribunal in a preliminary hearing. The tribunal chair has the opportunity to ask for a deposit from a claimant. There are measures in place to deal with frivolous and vexatious cases. CABs, law centres and trade union representatives will be clear with people taking claims to the tribunal that it is stressful and that they can get themselves into hot water if they reach the tribunal with a frivolous claim. There are lots of steps along the way to stop that happening.

The hon. Lady powerfully explains her approach to these matters in her previous profession, but the Employment Tribunals Service's annual report and accounts give the success rate for claims that reach the tribunal: in sex, race or disability discrimination cases, it is 28, 15 and 29 per cent. respectively. That implies that, when giving advice, not all her fellow practitioners are as robust in suggesting to claimants that they have a weak case. She is right. Those giving professional advice should advise clients when their claim is weak, but the evidence seems to be that many are not giving robust advice and too many weak claims are proceeding to tribunal; otherwise, the success rates would be higher.

Any person who has represented someone in a tribunal will know that a case may not always go as well as one thought it would in the tribunal. Witnesses may not always come up to proof, although they have perhaps in a witness statement beforehand. All sorts of issues happen, but my experience and that of employment lawyers whom I have dealt with has been that there is every attempt to try to settle cases without the stress and anxiety of the client having to go through a tribunal case and sit through what can be often quite vigorous cross-examination by an employer's representative. Most employers will have a barrister or solicitor present to represent them at the tribunal. That is where I support the principle of legal representation in tribunals: we have to be aware that at the moment there are cases that go to tribunal where people do not have the opportunity of legal representation.

We have talked a lot about trade unions and the important role they play. I am passionate about ensuring that as many people as possible understand why it is important to be a member of a trade union, to give them that protection if they get into difficulty in their employment.

From my experience in tribunals, many companies employ barristers for cases that do not need it. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a danger in the argument that she has just advanced, in that one may have to ratchet a case up when, for example, a company brings a lawyer and then a barrister in? That would then have to be paid for by the taxpayer. Nine times out of 10 in the cases I have experienced, no barrister or solicitor is needed.

Some of the most effective representatives whom I have come across in employment tribunals are not lawyers but people who have a lot of experience working in citizens advice bureaux or law centres. Often they will have a more common-sense approach, too.

Again, I agree with the principle of representation in employment tribunals for some cases. I do not believe that we need the extent and range of representation that perhaps this Bill is putting forward. Agreeing in principle but looking at the practicalities of my own experience, I would say a better way forward was to charge the Legal Services Commission with looking again at how best legal advice and representation can be provided where it is needed in tribunals. There is a wider issue about community law centres and the valuable role they can play in educating local communities about the rights they have, taking forward claims of discrimination and other employment matters when necessary, and using all the alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. I found ACAS vital in the claims I took forward.

I do not know whether my hon. Friend has had a chance to see the community legal service website, but it gives a lot of excellent information that is quite readable and helps people, particularly at the initial stages, when they may be worried about whether they have a case or not.

That is right. I am pleased that the Government have introduced a range of measures. We have the commitment to the community legal service. We have funding of some community law centres. We also have investment in citizens advice bureaux. All those measures are positive and we should support them, but there is a need in certain cases for legal representation.

I want to say something about the problems applicants have in employment tribunals if they have to represent themselves. When I started practising employment law, the procedures in the employment tribunal—it was then called the industrial tribunal—were far simpler. It was almost as if one could turn up on the day and present one's case. Now a range of procedures have to be adopted. We have to disclose evidence before a tribunal hearing, provide witness statements and further and better particulars when requested by the other side. Applicants find those things difficult to do. It is getting technical and legalistic. That is why it is vital to have input from a law centre or a trade union rep. They can deal with those things.

I know from being involved in tribunals that, when the person turns up and sees that there is a barrister on the other side, that can be frightening. They link it to a court situation and feel vulnerable.

My hon. Friend is correct. Tribunal chairs are often very good about assisting applicants to put their case, but I have encountered chairs who are less helpful and supportive of applicants who are acting on their own, and if the other side has a barrister it can cause real problems in terms of justice being seen to be done.

I agree with the hon. Lady's basic argument that building on what we have is preferable to a new quango. She talks about barristers, companies being represented at tribunals and the over-formality of the process. Does she accept that, with only about 5 per cent. of discrimination cases succeeding in the tribunal, she is talking about a massive burden on British business? Anything that encourages a surge in claims will make that huge burden even worse.

I have tried to stress the range of alternatives that are now available to deal with employment problems and claims; we are not telling people simply to go to the tribunal. The alternatives include ACAS, which is an extremely important body: it plays a strong role in bringing claimants and employers together and securing some good settlements, without businesses having to spend time going to the tribunal.

Sensible employers recognise when things have not gone as they should in their business. If acts of discrimination or problems with other employees for whom they are responsible have occurred, good businesses will respond to a claim by saying, "Let's settle this. We don't want the bad publicity associated with going to the tribunal." However, there are also bad employers who will not acknowledge when they have got things wrong and discriminated against people. In my example of the cleaner, her employer refused for a long time to accept that it had done anything wrong.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if an employer is the subject of a raft of tribunal cases, that is a sign that something is fundamentally wrong within the company, whether in its management or its grievance procedures? We must also deal with companies not having appropriate procedures in place, which can result in people feeling that they have to bypass what the rest of us would regard as the normal process and go straight to tribunal.

That is correct. Good employers have robust grievance and disciplinary procedures that enable cases to be dealt with within the company. That is the ideal, but things do not always go according to plan.

Does my hon. Friend accept that poor employers are bad for good businesses? Good businesses suffer because they are at a competitive disadvantage when a bad employer undercuts them or uses sharp practice.

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Another case that I dealt with involved a women who had been diagnosed with breast cancer and who was going through a TUPE employment transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. Both her existing employer and the new one denied that she was their responsibility. Both were large, well known companies and I was taken aback by their response. We had reached the door of the tribunal when I heard through the wall a barrister shouting to both employers that one of them had to take responsibility, and that if the claim reached the tribunal both would get massive bad publicity. We should focus on the useful role that lawyers can play, but stress to employers—good ones—that it is much better for them to deal with claims sensibly and reasonably, lest they get themselves into difficulty in a tribunal.

There are other bodies of which we should be aware. The Free Representation Unit provides advice and representation to people who are not able to access legal representation through the legal aid scheme. The unit comprises young barristers and solicitors who are willing to give their free time to represent people, and they do a sterling job. In addition, barristers give their time for free through the Bar Pro Bono Unit. I commend both organisations, but I do not think that we as a society should rely on people giving up their time for free.

My hon. Friend is making clear what is available, but does she accept that the vast majority of the public are unaware that such services are available to them?

That may well be true. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) mentioned advice and assistance deserts. One of the good things that the Legal Services Commission has done is provide a framework for community legal services within local authority areas. Bodies that provide advice and assistance can come together and pool their resources to ensure that local communities are aware of what is available in terms of advice and representation.

I am interested in the hon. Lady's comments. What are her thoughts on the merits of Citizens Advice, which has a national network of bureaux and provides a free service?

I commend the work that Citizens Advice does. The problem in my constituency, Hull, North, is that often at 8 o'clock in the morning the citizens advice bureau has a queue of people wanting to get in to obtain advice. There is still a great deal of unmet need. The CABs and law centres have an important role to play. I hope that in future debates I may be able to put the case for more funding being made available to them. At present, as other hon. Members said, funding may depend on the political complexion of the local authorities in the area.

In Hull we had a very good law centre that was funded not only by Hull city council, but by some of the surrounding local authorities. Hull city council recognised the important role that Humberside law centre played. The other local authorities around Hull, which were Tory-controlled, unfortunately decided not to continue to contribute to the work of the law centre, so they withdrew their funding. That resource for local people in east Yorkshire has disappeared. From looking back at cases, we know that Humberside law centre led the way in a number of disability discrimination cases, and in compensation cases involving trawlermen in Hull who had missed out on compensation that they were due when the fishing industry—

On that point, does my hon. Friend recognise that if—I am not making any assumptions—the Bill were not to proceed, we would need to consider how to ensure that the diverse providers of advice, legal assistance, mediation and arbitration continued to operate effectively? We have made great progress, but I am not yet convinced that the situation is completely coherent across the whole UK.

My hon. Friend is correct in that assessment. There is more work to do.