| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Newton: The answer to that is yes. It again illustrates the advantages of providing for a debate on the Adjournment, which would enable all those issues to be embraced.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice (Lewisham, East): May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 768?
[That this House is alarmed by the growth of trafficking in Khat, a drug illegal in America, Canada, Sweden, Norway and Ireland amongst others; recognises that the discrepancy in British law with that of other countries has led to the conviction and imprisonment of British subjects abroad for importation and possession of Khat; is concerned about the health problems associated with Khat, notably paranoid psychosis and hypomania and about the increasing social problems caused by this substance in some communities; and therefore calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make Khat a controlled substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.]
I remind the Leader of the House that khat is legal in this country but illegal elsewhere in the world, and that a constituent of mine has now been imprisoned in Ireland as a result of carrying it. Several social and health problems are associated with it. Will he ask the appropriate Minister in the Home Office to make a statement at the Dispatch Box about the control of drugs or about the possibility of a debate on the misuse of drugs?
Mr. Newton:
The hon. Lady is probably aware that the background is that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which I believe is widely respected, advised in 1988 that in the United Kingdom there was insufficient evidence of misuse to justify bringing that plant under the controls of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We do, however, continue to monitor the position, and I will ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has his attention drawn to the concerns that the hon. Lady expressed.
Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South):
When will we have the annual summer economic debate? Many of us would like to point out that unemployment in Britain is well below that in Germany, France, Spain and Italy, that industrial relations have been transformed since 1979 and that privatisation has been good for the consumer and the
Mr. Newton:
In view of the quality of my hon. Friend's rhetoric, I am tempted to change the business and announce such a debate for next week. I cannot quite go that far, but I will try to satisfy the hon. Gentleman and, I hope, also to please the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), by making a reasonably early announcement of when I expect the summer economic debate to be
Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton):
May I point out the tragic suicide of a young constituent of mine, Angela Bollan, aged 19, in Cornton Vale women's prison in Stirling last Friday, in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Scotland? I point out to the Leader of the House that that is the fourth suicide of young women in that prison in the past 10 months, so this is a very serious situation. I sat with the family of young Angela in their home last Friday, and they asked me to make urgent inquiries into the position in Cornton Vale. Will the Leader of the House pass on my comments to the Secretary of State for Scotland? May we have a statement in the House on the situation in prisons and any future policies designed to avoid such tragic consequences?
Mr. Newton:
The House will understand and respect the hon. Gentleman's reasons for raising the matter in the way that he has. In a similar spirit, I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland sees what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. David Nicholson (Taunton):
My right hon. Friend may have noticed that, following an agreement through the usual channels on Tuesday night, the homeless clauses of the Housing Bill were galloped through with hardly any Back-Bench contributions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the issue of homelessness is complex and raises a number of questions that go beyond the sensible reforms in the Bill? They include the rough sleepers initiative, which is being extended from London to the provinces. May we have a debate on that complex, but important subject?
Mr. Newton:
One of my predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Biffen), once observed that many of the questions asked during business questions were speeches that had been frustrated during the week. We have just heard a classic case and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on releasing his frustration in that way.
Mr. Corbyn:
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have heard the answer that the Leader of the House gave to my request for a debate next week on the safety of asylum seekers. You will also have heard me tell the House that the Minister had refused to meet me or any other hon. Member to discuss the safety of Ade Onibiyo. Are there any means by which the Minister of State or any other Minister from the Home Office can be brought to the House to explain their continuing behaviour--they essentially show contempt for hon. Members who legitimately try to raise issues of concern about people who are wrongly held in custody and wrongly deported from this country, often to places of danger?
Madam Speaker:
The hon. Gentleman may wish to raise that matter with his Front-Bench team and through the usual channels. On the general issue, there is a convention that hon. Members have the right to make representations to Ministers; I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about that and I expect that right to be recognised. Equally, Ministers are required to take decisions and it is for them to determine how to respond to hon. Members' representations. If a Minister took the view that he was prepared to take account only of representations that contained new material or new arguments, I could well understand that attitude. I make that point because I know that the hon. Gentleman is deeply concerned about such matters.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
Order for Second Reading read.
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor):
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill's purpose is to improve the law of arbitration as it applies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Arbitration law has evolved over three centuries, with the development of commerce and industry. We are looking to refine the system of arbitration rather than to make any radical new departures.
At first sight, the Bill may appear to be no more than lawyers' law, but the Bill's benefits, both to business and to other users of arbitration, as well as what might be called the arbitration industry, will be substantial. The Bill is founded on the proposition that arbitration is a valid--and perhaps the preferred--alternative to litigation as a system for resolving disputes that inevitably arise in business and commerce. It certainly does not need excessive controls or to be made like litigation--what are needed are provisions that are primarily enabling and facilitative.
The Bill seeks to improve the current law in two main ways--it proposes certain changes to the substance of the law and introduces major improvements in the way the law is presented. Hon. Members may find it helpful if I say a little more about each aspect.
I start from the premise that commercial disputes are bound to arise from time to time. They are an inevitable part of business life. When such disputes occur, they need to be resolved as speedily as possible and without great expense if they are not to frustrate further transactions and divert time and resources from more productive activity.
Prompt dispute resolution, therefore, should contribute to competitiveness. At the same time, business looks to a system that is fair and delivers a final result. It is the responsibility of government to provide a framework that enables the parties to a dispute to settle it in a way that meets those needs.
The parties may decide that their dispute can best be dealt with through the courts. Last June, Lord Woolf presented an interim report to the Lord Chancellor on ways of improving access to justice in the context of the civil courts. He made a number of recommendations to reduce delays in litigation and tackle the complexity and cost of using the courts. The Bill has been framed with the same concerns in mind as they relate to arbitration.
We started from the principle that, if parties choose arbitration to resolve their dispute, their decision must be respected. We propose to curtail the ability of the court to intervene in that private arbitral process except where the assistance of the court is clearly necessary to move the arbitration forward. At the same time, we must uphold the integrity of the arbitral process by allowing access to courts where there has been or is likely to be a case of manifest injustice.
The concept of an arm's length relationship with the courts is certainly not new and has been refined and developed over the year. It reinforces the finality of arbitration. The involvement of the courts slows down the
process and has the inevitable result of adding to costs. Freeing the process from unwanted interference by the courts is, therefore, positively deregulatory.
To this end, we have strengthened the powers available to the arbitral tribunal. For example, unless the parties agree otherwise, the tribunal has the power to order security for costs. Under current law, that power is exercisable only by the courts. We have given primary responsibility to the parties and, in the absence of such agreement, to the tribunal to decide all procedural or evidential matters and powers exercisable by the tribunal in support of the arbitration. The court can act in support of the arbitration only where the tribunal has no power or is temporarily unable to act effectively.
Of course it is necessary to provide checks in the Bill to ensure that the tribunal acts fairly and impartially in the exercise of its powers. Principles of fairness and impartiality are included in the general principles on which the Bill is based. They appear right at the start of the text so that users are left in no doubt about their importance. The duty of the tribunal to act fairly and impartially is restated at clause 33. The Bill provides that arbitrators who fail to live up to their responsibilities can be removed from office.
Another key principle that is central to the Bill, and is mentioned in clause 1, is party autonomy. That means, with a few exceptions for reasons of public policy, that the parties in dispute can decide how the arbitration should be conducted. That gives the parties control over such issues as how many arbitrators there should be and any arrangements for discovery. In that way, the Bill gives the parties the maximum possible freedom to keep the costs of the arbitration in check.
There is also a specific provision in the Bill whereby, with the parties' agreement, the tribunal can cap the recoverable costs of the arbitration. Where the parties have not taken the opportunity to devise their own arrangements, the Bill sets out default provisions so that the arbitration can proceed without delay. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the improvements that I have outlined so far will assist business to resolve disputes more speedily and cost effectively while not compromising fairness. As I have said, that should contribute to enhanced competitiveness as it will enable companies to settle disputes with the minimum of fuss and distraction from their main business activities.
At first sight, presentation might seem of minor importance, but I suggest that it is a key ingredient of an improved arbitration Bill. Law is not just for lawyers. If users are to be attracted to arbitration, they must be able to establish with the minimum of effort what the law entails. Those hon. Members who are familiar with the current statutes will know that that is far from easy at the moment. The fact that the law is spread over three statutes--the Arbitration Act 1950, the Arbitration Act 1975 and the Arbitration Act 1979--is not helpful, and the language used is far from accessible to the layman.
However, the problem goes deeper. The statutes do not represent a coherent picture. To a large extent, they represent legislative reaction to particular issues as they have arisen from time to time. In the new Bill, we have tried to give a comprehensive and a coherent statement of the principles and practice of arbitration in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Bill combines a restatement of the current statute law, modified as I
outlined previously, with codification of the more important principles of arbitration law developed through the courts. The layout of the Bill follows a logical sequence and the language used is as clear and as simple as possible. The draftsman should be congratulated.
I am sure that the improved presentation will find favour with business both here and overseas. Without the Bill, there might have been a question mark over the future of the City of London as a world centre for the arbitration of international commercial disputes. When international companies are negotiating contracts and have to decide--often at the end of a long, tough session--where any disputes will be arbitrated, they need to know quickly and easily what rights and obligations they have under the arbitration law of any given country.
The business of arbitration is highly internationally mobile. A number of other jurisdictions have been trying to make their legislation more accessible, and we cannot afford to be left behind. The fact that companies choose to arbitrate in London, despite the current muddled law, is a testimony to the high regard in which the arbitral community is held. However, we cannot afford to be complacent. The Bill will do much to enhance the competitiveness of the arbitration industry.
Hon. Members have had to wait a long time for the Bill to be placed before them, but I am sure that they will agree that the wait has been worth while. My Department has been responsible for its development since 1992, but work was progressing in the private sector for some time before then. As far back as 1989, Lord Mustill, in his capacity as chairman of the Department's advisory committee on arbitration law, first recommended that our arbitration law needed a serious overhaul. The work begun by Lord Mustill was carried forward first by Lord Steyn and it then fell to the current chairman of the advisory committee, Lord Justice Saville, to complete the task.
That the draft Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 1st April, be approved.--[Mr. Wood.]
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 12503/95, relating to a study of alternative strategies for the development of relations in the field of agriculture between the EU and the associated countries with a view to the future accession of those countries; and supports the Government's intention to press for a Common Agricultural Policy which is affordable, in which support distorts neither prices nor production and is targeted on environmental and other specific objectives, which contains fair common rules and which facilitates the accession of these countries.
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10380/95, a Commission report on Employment in Europe 1995; 11417/95, relating to the impact of currency fluctuations on the internal market; 11478/95, the Communication, The Future of Social Protection: a framework for a European debate; 11987/95, a report by the European Monetary Institute on Progress towards convergence; and 12633/95, relating to exchange rate relations between participating and non-participating countries in Stage 3 of Economic and Monetary Union; and agrees with the Government that Protocol (No. 11) annexed to the EC Treaty, which means that the United Kingdom is not committed to move to Stage 3 of Economic and Monetary Union, and can decide whether to join on the basis of the United Kingdom's national interest given the circumstances at the time, is to be welcomed.--[Mr. Wood.]
3.57 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |