| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hacking: My Lords, then I shall continue, if I may, and make my comments in relation to other amendments that my noble friend has brought before the House from the other place.
While I do not intend to object to the amendments that my noble friend brings before the House, I do not think that Amendment No. 3 is going in the right direction. My noble friend is quite correct in saying that the present position is that awards under the New York Convention (of as long ago as 1958!) can currently be made only by leave of the High Court. It seemed to me when the Bill was before this House that it was a step in the right direction to have New York Convention awards enforced either by the High Court or by the county court. The effect therefore of this amendment is to take that power away from the county court and leave it under a future statutory instrument which the Lord Chancellor can put before the House for that extension of jurisdiction to be given to the county court. We are moving from primary legislation contained in the Bill to secondary legislation by way of statutory instrument. I do not see that as walking in the right direction.
In dealing with Amendments Nos. 1 to 6, I should also comment that the New York Convention--which, I repeat, was as long ago as 1958--is also not being enforced in relation to domestic arbitrations. That matter was discussed at some length when the Bill was before this House. The hope was that the Government would complete consultations, and the further hope was that the division between the law applicable to domestic arbitrations and the law applicable to all other arbitrations would be changed so that there would be one arbitration law consistent with the New York Convention applicable to both domestic and international arbitrations. So, many years afterwards, we are still not properly in line with the New York Convention of 1958, and that is to be regretted.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I am very much inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, in his observations on Amendment No. 3. However, I do not feel that that is a matter on which we ought to disagree with the Commons.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Minister may welcome the fact that it is not our intention to oppose any of the amendments, as they seem to us to be fairly minor and technical, in spite of what was just said. We welcome the Bill as an important contribution to the speedy resolution of conflicts and as an encouragement to international business to use Britain for settling disputes.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, is right in that I welcome his intervention. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. The amendment allows what my noble friend wants. We feel that it would be wrong to disturb the present position without further consideration. Allocation of business between courts is frequently dealt with as secondary legislation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2. Clause 83, page 33, line 4, leave out 'section 82(1)' and insert 'section (Meaning of "the court": jurisdiction of High Court and county court)'.
3. Clause 101, page 38, line 13, leave out 'High Court or a county'.
4. Page 38, line 14, leave out 'that' and insert 'the'.
5. Page 38, line 15, at end insert--
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 en bloc. I spoke to these with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 5.--(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
Lord Hacking: My Lords, before this matter passes from your Lordships, I have considerable difficulty in understanding parts of the new Clause 105, particularly when one goes over the page to subsection (3) when there is a reference which reads:
I do not know whether my noble friend can help the House with regard to this matter. It never seems to me to be helpful in legislation to introduce words which are mysterious in their meaning.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
'As to the meaning of "the court" see section (Meaning of "the court": jurisdiction of High Court and county court).'.
"The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision requiring proceedings of any specified description under this Act".
6. Before Clause 105, insert the following clause--
'.--(1) In this Act "the court" means the High Court or a county court, subject to the following provisions.
(2) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision--
(a) allocating proceedings under this Act to the High Court or to county courts; or
(b) specifying proceedings under this Act which may be commenced or taken only in the High Court or in a county court.
(3) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision requiring proceedings of any specified description under this Act in relation to which a county court has jurisdiction to be commenced or taken in one or more specified county courts.
Any jurisdiction so exercisable by a specified county court is exercisable throughout England and Wales or, as the case may be, Northern Ireland.
(4) An order under this section--
(a) may differentiate between categories of proceedings by reference to such criteria as the Lord Chancellor sees fit to specify, and
(b) may make such incidental or transitional provision as the Lord Chancellor considers necessary or expedient.
(5) An order under this section for England and Wales shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) An order under this section for Northern Ireland shall be a statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in like manner as a statutory instrument and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 shall apply accordingly.'.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.--(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I have made my observations in relation to Amendment No. 6. If my noble friend is able to help the House about the mysterious words in subsection (3) and the more mysterious words in subsection (4), it would be of great assistance. If she cannot help us from the Dispatch Box, I would be grateful if she would write not only to me, but to all noble Lords who have been concerned with the Arbitration Bill in its passage through your Lordships' House.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I hope that I can help my noble friend. The order would specify the description; for example, patents.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
7. Schedule 3, page 49, leave out lines 5 to 10.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 8. These are tidying-up amendments. The provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 which deal with industrial tribunals will be replaced by the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996, and we need to update Schedule 3. This amendment is consequential.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.--(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
8. Schedule 3, page 54, line 30, at end insert--
. In section 6(2) of the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996 (procedure of industrial tribunals), for "The Arbitration Act 1950" substitute "Part I of the Arbitration Act 1996".'.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 7.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.--(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
9. Schedule 4, page 57, line 38, at end insert--
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. Schedule 4 deals with repeals of existing legislation. It is necessary to add Section 3 of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 to the list of repeals. This section of the Act prospectively amends the Arbitration Act 1950 as regards interest on arbitral awards. The purpose of the amendment was to deal with foreign currency awards. Assuming this Bill is enacted, interest will be dealt with by Clause 49 of the Bill, and Section 3 of the 1995 Act will become spent.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.--(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
'1995 c. 42. Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995. Section 3.'.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page