Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): I welcome Mr Brian Campfield, president of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU), and Mr Kevin Doherty, education officer of the Northern Ireland Committee, Irish Congress of Trade Unions (NICICTU). Good morning, Brian and Kevin. You are very welcome. Over to you, gentlemen. We have your response in front of us.

Mr Brian Campfield (Irish Congress of Trade Unions): The Irish Congress of Trade Unions made a submission. I suppose that we find ourselves in a bit of an odd position in that, normally, when we are at a Committee, we are seeking specific amendments or opposing legislation, but, to be fair, we are broadly content with what is in the Bill. It is not perfect, and there will be issues that will be required to be addressed further down the road, but we take the view that it is important that the Bill is introduced.

As stated by the departmental representatives, there has been a fair bit of consultation on the content of the Bill over the past three years. I suppose, to some extent, we are happier in respect of some of the proposals that have been omitted from the Bill, particularly in relation to unfair dismissal and collective redundancies. Those are two of the big issues that we have major concerns about, so we are pleased that the Minister has taken our concerns on board. I know that he has presented it as him not moving forward on those issues because there was no consensus, but I think it is important for workers' basic rights that those elements have been excluded from the Bill.

We give a cautious welcome to the Bill. As I say, there are issues, which my colleague Kevin Doherty will pick up on, just to give you an indication of what our concerns are. In respect of the last question from Phil Flanagan in the previous session, in our response I think we said that, for instance, we were opposed to deposits for different parts of claims, but I assume that that will be the subject of further consultation if the Minister decides to go down that road.

The exclusion of the fees for pursuing tribunal cases is very important. I think that shows that Northern Ireland stands apart in a much better way than the position in Great Britain. That is a very positive development because the introduction of tribunal fees in Great Britain has had a very negative impact on the ability of workers who, if they are made redundant or are sacked, do not have the wherewithal to pursue what they consider to be justice, yet they have to pay in a situation where they may have been made unemployed as a result of a decision by an employer. That is the time when they can least afford to pay to pursue a case at a tribunal.

There are a few issues that I want to refer to. We were working on the basis that zero-hours contracts were the subject of a separate consultation. It is unfinished business and it is going to have to be addressed. Some of you will know that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions has published a 'Charter for Fair Conditions at Work'. Some of you may well have signed it. I will leave some copies with you. That deals with a living wage and fair hours of work. It covers zero-hours contracts, the right to representation and collective bargaining, respect, equality and ethics at work, and fair public procurement. We are of the view that the issue of zero-hours contracts is unfinished business that will have to be returned to. The quicker that is done, the better, but we are not saying that this legislation should not proceed until that is actually in place.

I think that my colleague Mr Doherty will cover early conciliation and issues like public-interest disclosure. We broadly welcome the Bill but recognise that there are issues which, if they arise as a result of regulations, will require, as far as we are concerned, detailed consultation with the stakeholders and certainly with the trade union movement. We also think that zero-hours contracts have to be addressed in a real way and not just by tinkering around the edges.

I want to take this opportunity to welcome the fact that the Minister and, ultimately, the Executive will not proceed to introduce similar changes to those that have been introduced in Britain in the Trade Union Bill, because it will have a big impact on the rights of workers when their elected representatives and trade unions have their ability to represent their interests restricted in the way that is outlined in that Bill. That will have a direct impact on individual workers' rights, even though it does not fall under the heading of employment rights but is more about industrial relations. The industrial relations arrangements and the scope that the trade unions have to effectively represent their members has an impact on the employment rights of workers, and the more the trade unions are restricted in a negative way, the more it undermines the rights of workers.

The Trade Union Bill is very draconian legislation that will put Great Britain in the position of being one of the countries with the worst and most draconian anti-trade union legislation in the whole of Europe and beyond. We are pleased that the provisions of the Trade Union Bill in Great Britain are not being introduced here. That said, there is still quite a lot of industrial relations and trade union legislation that was introduced in the early 1980s by Mrs Thatcher's Government that is highly restrictive and undermines the ability of trade unions to conduct their own affairs. That legislation puts what we would call severe administrative burdens on trade unions in trying to look after the interests of ordinary workers. Hopefully, we will come back to that issue with whoever is the Minister after the next election, and we will be pressing for an unravelling of some of the worst anti-trade union legislation on the statute book. I will leave it at that by way of introduction, Chair, and ask my colleague Mr Doherty to pick up on some of the specific points, after which are happy to try to answer any questions that the Committee has.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): Thanks, Brian. Over to you, Kevin.

Mr Kevin Doherty (Northern Ireland Committee, Irish Congress of Trade Unions): Thank you, Chair and Committee. I would also like to put on record our thanks to the Committee for the work that it and the Minister has done on this issue. This has been running since 2012. It has been the subject of a pre-consultation and a consultation and has gone through various hurdles.

It is important that we recognise the origins of the review of employment law. It came from the Beecroft report and was a result of the coalition Government's attempts to further weaken employment protection law for workers, which, as history shows us, is the first thing that the Conservatives do when they get into power. They also tend to blame trade unions for being responsible for all the economic woes of the country. As Brian mentioned, the Trade Union Bill is coming forward, and a blind man on a galloping horse can see that the trade unions have nothing to do with the economic crisis that has enveloped the world.

The review was stimulated by the changes in GB under Beecroft — a watered-down version of it — but we approached it on an evidence basis because, although Beecroft carried out a report as a result of David Cameron's direct engagement, there was absolutely no evidence in his report to justify his claims that relaxing employment legislation would create jobs or economic growth. It was totally barren in that respect. That subject has been covered over the past 20 years by a lot of organisations in economics across the world, in Europe and even in local academic areas like the London School of Economics.

There is no linkage between the reduction in employment protection legislation and an increase in jobs and productivity; there is no evidence for it. We welcome the recognition of that in this process, which means that we are now in a different position — a more positive one — from workers in GB. As I said, a lot of time has been spent on this, but some positive things have come out of it. We have seen the introduction of the Labour Relations Agency (LRA) round table, where employers and trade unions sit down together to look at issues of common interest. Instead of attacking employment legislation, it is the view of the trade unions that we should be looking at the issues that encourage productivity growth, skills and the motivation of the workforce. Attacking employment legislation does not help any of that. That is a positive thing that has come out of this. It needs to be stated that employment protection legislation is not a burden on good employers; it is basically a minimum standard to prevent the abuse of workers by bad employers. That is how it needs to be viewed.

As Brian mentioned, we broadly welcome the Bill. We have some small concerns, but they are regulation issues around the early conciliation process. We raised, in our two written submissions to the Department, some concerns that, hopefully, will be taken on board. We have some concerns that it may become just another bureaucratic and administrative hurdle for unrepresented claimants as they try to get access when an employer has infringed their rights and broken the law. We hope that, in the regulation, there will be some leniency towards unrepresented claimants who come in at the last minute, thinking that there is only a tribunal process, and find that they have an LRA process and this process to go through. We also know from our colleagues across the water that a similar system introduced through the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) has caused quite some difficulties, including legal cases. I am sure that the LRA will look at it and that it will be put to the LRA round table to ensure that we can make this thing work. The ICTU shares the concerns of the employers: we want to make sure that disputes do not end up in tribunals. That is the last resort, but we know that the tribunal process needs to be there.

The LRA needs to be adequately resourced to carry out the early conciliation process. At the moment, it has something like 15 conciliation officers, who, as I understand it, work on a nine-to-five basis. That is not going to meet the requirements. You will find that a lot of workers will be in a difficult situation where they cannot use their telephone during ordinary working hours, so they cannot really get involved in the conciliation process. Things like that need to be looked at.

How do we make this thing work to achieve the aim of reducing cases going to the tribunals? As I said, we will be happy to look into that. There should also be a review of this model to make sure that it is functioning. We proposed a consultation within a year, but, having listened to the evidence from the Department, we could maybe extend that beyond a year. It needs to be looked at to make sure that it is not just becoming a barrier to people accessing their rights.

The only other area that we have a slight concern about is the public interest disclosure legislation, which is a very complex area of law and very difficult for workers to access. I think that it is agreed by everybody that if a disclosure is made in the public interest, it is something that we should encourage. It is for the good of everyone, so we need to make sure that people who make such disclosures are protected. There are two specific points that we have slight concerns about. We welcome the removal of the requirement for public interest disclosures to be made in good faith, but we have slight concerns that it will be down to the tribunal to decide whether a public interest disclosure was made in bad faith, whether it was made by somebody motivated by money or whether they were wanting to get their own back on an employer that had dismissed them or whatever. The point is that, if it is in the public interest that that disclosure is made, why are we concerned about whether it is made in good faith or bad? I see that tribunals will be given the power to make a reduction of up to 25% in the compensatory award if they deem such a disclosure to have been made in bad faith. We will have to look at how that actually works out in practice. We are not opposed to it, but we would like to see how it will work out.

We are also concerned that the six categories defining what is in the public interest may be too tight. We notice that, in GB, they have excluded "financial irregularities" which, if we are talking about public funds, is a matter of public interest and should be part of the categories. Maybe another way to do that would be through some sort of catch-all statement that allows for the tribunal to decide whether the disclosure is made in the public interest.

I stress that we welcome this. The whole public interest disclosure legislation needs to be properly reviewed at some stage. That was not the basis of this review, but I think that there is clearly a need for it because, I say again, if it is a public interest disclosure, it should be a matter that we all support.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): Brian and Kevin, thank you very much. With the extension to the definition of a worker, are you content that it now encapsulates everybody by including nurses and nursing students? Do you feel that any other groups are missed in that definition?

Mr Doherty: We are not aware of any being missed at this stage, and we note that the list can be expanded. I think that that mechanism works, and we are content with it.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): You mentioned the LRA, its ability and resources. Have you any assessment of what you think the LRA needs? You mentioned the ability to provide out-of-hours coverage or service.

Mr Campfield: We do not have detailed information about the LRA's current resources. Kevin has made some reference to them. The LRA would be better placed to say what it anticipates will be its additional requirements.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): From the point of view of the ICTU, it would be an out-of-hours —

Mr Campfield: Well, that depends. It is something that would have to be the subject of some consideration. Kevin has mentioned the fact that for a lot of workers, or some at least, who do not have a great relationship with their employer, their ability to conduct business privately with a conciliation officer or an LRA person, if they have lodged a case, may be difficult during working hours. That is something that would have to be looked at. In broader terms, there is clearly a resource issue with this new system coming into play.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): Kevin, you mentioned a number of times that you found the LRA round table beneficial. With regard to learning from GB and the changes to legislation that this Employment Bill will bring in, do you think that you will get a positive hearing around that table?

Mr Doherty: I think so. I do not know whether the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) will address the Committee, but certainly our discussions included the issue of protected conversations, which was a part of the Beecroft report and which was introduced in GB. When we looked at it collectively here, we came to the conclusion that it was not an appropriate model to introduce to Northern Ireland. It is interesting that the ACAS guidance on this legislation is meant to be short and to the point to help employers but it turned out to be an 88-page document, one of the biggest. It actually advises employers to seek legal advice before they use it. So, it helps that we were sitting round a table and discussing these sorts of things, looking at it and asking: "Is that really what we need here? Is that of benefit?" That process helped us to reach a consensus that that piece of legislation was inappropriate here.

Mr Campfield: I think, Chair, one of the benefits was this. Take the example of the cost to employers of tribunal cases. There was a general consensus that a system needed to be introduced to ensure that workers' rights were protected but cases should be filtered to some extent, or better information given to applicants or claimants about the types of cases that they had. In general, applicants who are trade union members and are represented by their unions have access to fairly detailed advice and, on some occasions, legal advice, whereas unrepresented claimants have not got a clue. If they do not have the wherewithal to go to a solicitor and get legal advice, they do this on their own. Some of the proposed processes, although not finalised, are designed to provide information and some assessment to unrepresented claimants in particular, to enable them to make better decisions about if and how they should proceed with their claims.

There was consensus among employers, trade unions and some other parties, including the Employment Lawyers Group, which was also represented on the Labour Relations Agency round table, on the aims and where we should be trying to get to. There was a difference of opinion on other matters, but the experience of the round table is that we can identify where there is consensus and try to work through that.

Mr Flanagan: Thanks for the presentation. I declare an interest as a member of ICTU through my SIPTU (Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union) membership. What are the positive aspects of the Bill for workers' rights?

Mr Campfield: You have to look at it in the context of the broader environment, where you had negative, anti-trade union and anti-workers' rights legislation coming our way in Britain. The issue arose, as happens regularly, of Departments and Ministers looking to see whether those were applicable in Northern Ireland.

If you compare what they have in Great Britain with what is in this Bill, it would be fair to say that there really is not anything in this Bill that undermines workers' rights. Most of the aspects of the GB legislation that undermines workers' rights have been removed. Tribunal fees, the employment qualification period for taking a claim, and reduction in the consultation period for collective redundancies were the big things. So, the big, damaging issues from a trade union point of view that apply in Britain are not in this Bill, and we welcome that.

On the other side of it, there is a recognition on the part of the trade unions and employers that improvements could be made to industrial litigation and employment rights in respect of the processes. We will have to see how those work out, and that is why we are asking for a review of the neutral assessment and early conciliation. Those have the potential to be positive and benefit workers, but we need to see how that works out in practice. That is why we have asked for a review after a year but would be happy with slightly more.

According to my reading of the legislation, any changes to the regulations, certainly in relation to unfair dismissal and collective redundancies, would require Assembly approval, whereas, at the moment, I think that a Minister could do it by regulation, which would be a much more difficult process from the point of view of stakeholders and us in trying to defend their position. There is a provision in the Bill that means that a future Minister cannot just do what he wants by way of regulation. Therefore, any future changes to employment rights or protection would be subject to a process that we would have much more input into, as would the Assembly as the democratically elected institution.

That may sound like a cynical response, but the fact that there is a requirement in the legislation for future matters to be put before the Assembly and through the normal process is a big benefit.

Mr Flanagan: Would you accept that that should also happen with issues pertaining to tribunals? At the minute, that is done by negative resolution, and the Assembly has to overturn it. The proposal is that if a Minister decides to introduce multiple deposits, it will follow that route rather than go through the Assembly to be voted on by a majority of MLAs.

Mr Campfield: We have not seen any proposals. I know that the facility is there in relation to regulations for the introduction of multiple deposits. We are opposed to multiple deposits, but I think that we would want to have some engagement with the Department.

Mr Flanagan: On how those regulations would be enacted, I presume that you would be much more comfortable with those taking the affirmative resolution action, where it has to go through the Chamber as opposed to coming to the Committee. MLAs can then overturn it if they wish.

Mr Campfield: I think that, generally, on most issues, we favour that more open approach. There may be some regulations that are fairly straightforward and will not require that, so we will not be taking an absolute position. We do have concerns, and that is something that we would want to have a further look at to see whether there is consensus. Clearly, we do not want to get into a position where we throw out the baby with the bathwater. As has been mentioned, a range of issues, such as zero-hours contracts, are not in the Bill. We have major issues about that, but we are not saying that the Bill should not proceed because that issue is not in it. That issue will have to be addressed in the near future, and we will do that separately.

Mr Flanagan: Have you any concerns that the early conciliation process might be used to circumvent the right of employees by denying them access to a tribunal?

Mr Doherty: No, I do not think that it will deny them the right. There have been some problems with the model in England under the ACAS system. I think that this is an issue for regulation in itself and for trade unions to sit down with the Labour Relations Agency at a round table, discussing the concerns that we have with it. I am sure that the LRA has considered all of the concerns that we have previously put to it. Our concerns include things like the bedding-in process, for example where someone comes late with a tribunal application and finds out that they have to go to the LRA. There will be unrepresented claimants, and claimants who are bringing a case that does not need to go through the early conciliation process. There are wee technical things that we need to sort out, but I do not think that there is going to be a block. We will support anything that prevents people from having to go to a tribunal if a dispute can be resolved amicably.

Mr Campfield: The one issue that is in the Bill is the compulsory nature of going to the Labour Relations Agency. You have to go, but you do not have to continue with the process. That is a benefit because it means that people are not penalised if they decide that they want to go down the tribunal route and not use the more substantive conciliation process. There is a protection there in that, even though it will be filtered through the Labour Relations Agency in the first place and it will be in contact with them and the facility will be provided, if they say that they do not want to use that facility because of the nature of their case, which they think is very strong, or because the employer is not going to do business or they do not trust the employer in any shape or form, they are not penalised as a result of deciding that they just want to go straight to a tribunal. That is an element of protection.

Mr Flanagan: Aside from the threatened introduction of fees and the issue of multiple deposits, do you accept that taking an employer to an employment tribunal can be a costly affair when you generally now have to get an expert employment solicitor to advise you? Nearly every employer lands with solicitors to advise them. If parties were in agreement, would you support a move away from the tribunals moving to a very elaborate, court-based system and moving more towards what it was introduced to be, which is more like the small claims court?

Mr Campfield: As you said, the tribunal system was established as a non-legalistic approach to resolving matters that were in dispute between employer and employee. All of the trappings of courts were to be removed to make it easier for an ordinary worker to go in and make their case. Even though the chairs have always been from a legal background, in the early days, individuals either represented themselves or their trade unions represented them. I suppose that, because of the development of legal precedents set in Northern Ireland and elsewhere and the appeals systems — if an employer or an employee is not content with a decision of a tribunal, they can go to a higher court — employers have tended to involve legal representatives from the very beginning, even at the preparation stage. It has become much more legalistic than is conducive to workers being comfortable —

Mr Flanagan: Would you support moves to go back to what it was originally intended to be?

Mr Campfield: Yes, but there would have to be detailed discussion about how to give effect to that. We would prefer that.

Mr Flanagan: Would you be willing to engage with the LRA and employers in a round-table discussion?

Mr Campfield: Of course, yes.

Mr Flanagan: Has that matter come up for discussion yet?

Mr Doherty: In our original response to the consultation on the Employment Bill, we said that we preferred a root-and-branch review of dispute resolution. Some suggestions have been put forward; indeed, we had put forward a version of the rights commissioner model that exists in the South. The Law Centre put forward an interesting model based on a fast-track approach in tribunals, which would be less formal. We have not had any serious discussions, but we would welcome the opportunity to look at other ways of resolving simpler cases as quickly as possible. I understand that the tribunals themselves were looking at some sort of early conciliation approach, but we have seen no details of that and we do not know what they are considering.

Mr Flanagan: Is changing the title of the chair of a tribunal to "judge" going in the wrong direction, or is it merely a name change?

Mr Campfield: It would be going in the wrong direction if, by doing it, it means that it is going in that direction. Obviously, we would have some residual concerns about that. Clearly, we want to retain the three-person tribunal. By its very nature, a tribunal comprises three people — I studied only basic Latin. That system has to be maintained, and we would not countenance any development towards a system where a single legal person — call him a judge or whatever else — makes decisions on these types of matters.

Mr Flanagan: My final question is around the consultation on collective redundancies. Setting aside the fact that it is bad for workers, do you accept that reducing the consultation period and the cost of collective redundancies would put jobs at risk here? Where multinational companies are looking to downsize, they will say that it will cost x number of pounds to lay off x number of staff here, whereas in Germany it will cost them two, three or four times as much, so they will cut the jobs here.

Mr Campfield: Any attempt to cut the period for consultation on collective redundancies reduces the ability to make alternative arrangements in a company. It reduces the scope for employers and trade unions, especially when the trade unions are involved, to come up with alternative arrangements that protect workers and also, maybe, jobs in a company. Therefore, not only would it not lead to the creation of jobs, in our view it could well lead to a further reduction in jobs, not just because it may be cheaper or more straightforward for employers to make job reductions in other countries where they operate transnationally. In the scale of things, however, it is likely to be the profit levels that will influence a multinational's decision to cut in a particular area and not just the immediate cost relating to the consultation. They obviously have a longer-term view of these things.

In the scale of things, multinational companies, but particularly big corporations, have more power than even elected representatives and sovereign governments in making decisions that affect ordinary people's lives. Having a proper consultation period when those types of companies are planning to make redundancies is a minimum reasonable position.

Mr Doherty: The GB legislation changed in 2012-13, making it easier for an employer to make a redundancy over 100, should they try to do it. It is interesting that in Northern Ireland, where the period stayed at 90 days, outside of London we are still the best region in the UK for attracting inward investment. We have a better employment law protection system than they have in England, but we are still drawing inward investment; that answers any questions. It is not an issue for multinational companies, really.

In this particular consultation — it is a point that we raised in the document — there was an attempt to compare our consultation period with those in other European countries, and that was not a proper comparison. In other European countries, particularly those with successful economies, such as Germany, the Netherlands and France, there are a lot of hurdles for an employer before it considers making redundancies, and the consultation period kicks in through works councils. There is also state involvement, particularly in the Netherlands. Employers have to justify the redundancy. We do not have that here; employers can say, "We're making a redundancy" and come up with business reasons. The protections that we have in law here are very weak. It is not just about the length of time that you have for the consultation period; it is about being able to engage with the employer and getting the information from the employer so that they can prove that there is a requirement for a redundancy. We in the trade union have been involved in many instances where an employer has declared a redundancy, and we have been able to use the consultation period to engage with them and put alternatives on the table that have avoided compulsory redundancy and have kept companies functioning. Although it is not a trade union company, I think that Fivemiletown Creamery was kept open. That was going to close. It is about creating the maximum room you can to save jobs. That is why it is so important. We are calling for an increase in not the consultation period but the powers around putting pressure on employers to reveal information about whether a redundancy is genuine and looking at ways to minimise compulsory redundancies.

Ms McGahan: I have picked up concerns about the move from a chairperson to a judge. Potentially, you are moving away from the aims and objectives of a tribunal, which is that it is a people's court, to it being a more legalistic setting. I am not sure what your views are on that. I would be interested to hear them. My understanding is that there is also a review of tribunals going on. I do not know whether you intend to make a submission to that. There are concerns out there.

The Department recognised that there are issues, particularly if you are dealing with people who have disabilities. Just before Christmas, I attended a disability living allowance (DLA) tribunal — my first — at Dungannon courthouse. I was representing a person, and he said to me that he felt like a criminal. We went to a family court setting, and it had the trappings of a court; there was that hierarchy, where they were sitting up and were looking down on us. Even the workers who attended that setting felt uncomfortable because there was quite a serious court case on that day and there was a lot of media. People felt very uncomfortable. The person who I was representing was going through the metal detector, and it kept going off. That fella had very serious mobility problems; he found it difficult to even reach up to the top pocket of his coat. I said to the people overseeing the process, "This fella has very serious disability and mobility problems". They said, "Well, there's really nothing we can do about it". There was a very unsympathetic approach to that person with disabilities. It is something that we need to keep a very watchful eye on. It has the very real potential to put people off.

Mr Campfield: I relate to what you are saying. In relation to the title, it might be useful for the Department or whoever to make it clear that, with the change of the title from "chairman" to "judge", there is no issue about moving away from the three-person panel and tribunal arrangements and that they will have no more power than they have at present. That will be on the record in case, at any stage in the future, there is an attempt, by stealth or otherwise, to move towards a more formal, legalistic arrangement where there is a single judge hearing a case. There is a range of preliminary-type cases that chairpersons of tribunals can hear, but they normally do not hear a full tribunal case. It would be helpful if the Department were to put on record or give an assurance that the title change is nothing other than that and assure us that it is not the start of a process towards a more formal and legalistic approach involving only a judge as opposed to a tribunal.

Ms McGahan: Perception is key, so we need to give a lot of reassurance to the public who find themselves in this position.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): Thanks, Bronwyn.

Brian and Kevin, thank you very much. I will summarise your key points. You are concerned about the review. If we can put a review of early conciliation and neutral assessment into the legislation, with the Department having to come back, within at least two years, with a review of both those systems, would you see that as a benefit?

Mr Campfield: It would be a review of the operation of the Act in order to provide a handle for the different parties to analyse and look at it critically to see whether it is working and what needs to be changed.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): Do you mean a legal assessment? If that were put into the legislation, would you be content?

Mr Campfield: If a commitment were given, I am not sure that it would need to go into the legislation. You can put a range of things into the legislation. If there is consensus among the Minister, the Committee and everybody else that it can go into the legislation, that is fine and there is not a problem. We deal with that sort of thing as day-to-day business. If there is broad consensus that everybody is happy to make such a review a legislative requirement, that is fine, but not if it is going to be the subject of a row that distracts from moving the legislation forward.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): Are assurances sufficient on Bronwyn's point about the definition of judges?

Mr Campfield: You should ask the departmental officials about that when they are here later.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): I am rehearsing the point. If the officials are listening, they will know exactly what your concerns are.

Mr Campfield: If you want, I will rehearse their answer, but I do not think that they would appreciate that.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): With regard to good faith and bad faith, Kevin, will reassurances be sufficient, or do you want clarity on those points?

Mr Doherty: Public interest disclosure legislation is complex and requires review, at some stage, to remove that complexity. Those are our concerns, but we are content for it to go through at the moment and see how it pans out. As a point of information, tribunals currently use the title "judge", and this just puts it into the legislation. We opposed it and said that we should go for the gender-neutral term of chairperson, but it is not an issue, given that we can get assurances.

Mr F McCann: We raised the issue of the use of the words judge or chairperson, and the whole question of tribunals came up. In all these cases, we are trying to make it as easy as possible for people to go in front of tribunals, and the word "judge" does not help. As Bronwyn said, all people going in front of a tribunal are terrified, and that change in title makes it a little worse. I will certainly raise that point this afternoon, but we have already raised concerns about the change in title.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): Thank you, gentlemen.