| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I fully take the noble Baroness's point. The next debate is one in which I personally have an interest, although I do not propose to participate. I have been mindful of the time factor. I do not think that it has been entirely within the control of any of us. I can set the noble Baroness's mind at rest. This is the last debate on the Bill which is likely to take up very much of the time of the House. The noble Lord,
Lord Meston, can assist us. He is the only other noble Lord who is likely to know how much time the rest of the Bill will take. I suspect that it will be very quick indeed.
Lord Meston: My Lords, since the noble and learned Lord asks me, I am painfully conscious of the time and of the inconvenience caused to others who are waiting to take part in the next debate. For my part, I shall not move my amendment, even if it causes me some difficulty in bringing it back at Third Reading.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I hope that that sets the noble Baroness's mind at rest. The other amendments are mine, and I propose to be extremely brief.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sure that that will come as an enormous relief to all those around the Chamber. I apologise for my intervention. However, given the concern that I see expressed on the faces of at least three noble Lords, this particular amendment will run for a good deal of time yet.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I do not believe that it will. However, may we see how matters go? I suspect that we are coming fairly close to the end of the debate.
The section that my noble friend Lord Wedderburn wishes me to read out is from subsection (4), not subsection (3)--
Lord Carter: My Lords, time might be saved if my noble friends realise that they cannot speak after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer--except for the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, who I hope will be brief so that we can get on with the Bill. I do not believe that we are able to adjourn the Bill and return to it afterwards. I am sure that my noble friends understand the situation. If we could now proceed in reasonable time, I am sure that that is the wish of the House.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. We should be very insensitive had we not grasped the time factor.
My noble friend is asking me to read out, not subsection (3), but subsection (4):
- "The leave of the court is required for any appeal from a decision of the court under this section".
He is absolutely right. That is precisely what it says. I am sure that he can put the matter right later.
Some of these provisions may need tailoring to the scheme that finally emerges, as my noble friend Lord Haskel said. We probably all agree that it would be unwise to apply the provision in toto, with no adjustments. That is why I hope that my noble friend will be content in the light of those assurances to leave the Bill unamended and to leave the Secretary of State to deal with the matter in the way I suggested.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I shall be very brief in replying to a somewhat complicated
debate. First, on the European Court of Justice, I thought I said in moving the amendment that we have no difficulty about delay on that matter and the noble Lord the Minister made it clear why there should be some delay.However, to say that judicial review is not suited to these matters because they are private agreements, with great respect, misses the whole point. We are not setting out merely a scheme of private agreements. We are setting up a statute based system of consensual arbitration. Where there is a statutory base, the courts do intervene, and often have intervened by way of judicial review. With great respect to him, the Minister has to verge on being wrong, or indeed come closer than that, when he says that judicial review is not suitable. I can see that the provision may need some amendment; but it is much better to start with that than with the Arbitration Act 1996.
I have some knowledge of that statute, and of the three sets of discussions under the noble and learned Lords, Lords Saville, Steyn and Mustill, that preceded it. Anyone who thinks that Section 68, or indeed any other section, can be made into a suitable base for what my noble friend Lord McCarthy called parallel justice, is crying for the moon. There is one clear indication that that is so; namely, no one since 1994 has suggested anything of that sort to deal with the problem. It has arisen at the last minute in your Lordships' discussions. I hope that the Government will go away, re-examine the provision and see how judicial review could be a method--unless we are to go back, which I am not allowed to do, to the system we suggested, using the EAT as an appellate body; because then the two streams of jurisdiction would, as it were, merge in the EAT and the employment appeal tribunal could give judgments which brought the two streams together--those of the arbitrators and those of the tribunals. Nothing could be simpler than to draft regulations for that.
However, I can see that the Government are obdurate, and no doubt they will not come back on Third Reading with anything other than the Arbitration Act, modified as they want. We look forward to that and all I can do with this amendment is beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Internal appeal procedures and unfair dismissal awards]:
Clause 14 [Acts which are both unfair dismissal and disability discrimination]:
Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 5:
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment it may be convenient to take Amendment No. 12. I can move it briefly. The purpose is to correct
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government fully support this technical amendment which will ensure that those employees who have been discriminated against on the grounds of their disability will be treated in the same way as those who are discriminated against on the grounds of sex or race.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 6:
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment it may be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. I believe that I can abbreviate what I was proposing to say in this way. There was an oversight following from an amendment moved in Committee in relation to the jurisdiction of the employment appeal tribunal. We also seized the opportunity to correct what was previously an oversight in legislation. The amendments are in order to tidy the jurisdiction of the employment appeal tribunal. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government fully support the initiative of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer in tabling these amendments. Although they are minor and technical, they will ensure that the complete jurisdiction of the EAT is accurately described in the legislation by including the original jurisdictions along with appeals. They will make it expressly clear that jurisdictions other than appeals can be conferred on the EAT by other legislation.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, both he and I, in our haste to conclude the proceedings, have overlooked one matter. The jurisdiction in Scotland is slightly different from the jurisdiction in England and we propose to rectify it by an amendment at Third Reading.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendments Nos. 7 and 8:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendments Nos. 9 and 10:
Page 11, line 18, leave out ("Section 126 of the Employment Rights Act 1996") and insert ("In section 117(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (which provides for a higher additional award for an unfairly dismissed employee who is not reinstated or re-engaged as ordered in a case where the dismissal is sex or race discrimination), at the end insert "and
(c) a dismissal which is an act of discrimination within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which is unlawful by virtue of that Act."
( ) Section 126 of that Act").
Page 12, line 14, leave out ("17") and insert ("17(2)").
Page 12, line 20, leave out ("17") and insert ("17(2)").
Page 12, line 21, at end insert--
("( ) If an appeal of the sort which lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal by virtue of the provision made by paragraph 17(2) of Schedule 1 has been brought before the High Court or the Court of Session not later than the day on which this Act is passed, the appeal may nevertheless be brought before the Employment Appeal Tribunal within the period of 42 days beginning with that day or such longer period as that Tribunal may by order specify.").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page