| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Meston: My Lords, I am grateful for the response I have had and I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, for his assistance, although I cannot help feeling that he may have handed me a somewhat two edged sword. However, he is right in suggesting elegantly that what I sought to do was evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
I do not for a moment accept that the proposal in the amendment would impose a serious burden on employers. Nor do I accept that it would in any way discourage the use of internal appeals. It is designed, if it is designed to do anything, to encourage employers to provide internal appeals and to make sure that everyone gets on with it. It is certainly not intended to impose, and I do not accept for a moment that it has the effect of imposing, a statutory time limit on internal procedures or a major revision of the substantive time limit in the principal Act. All it says is that, if the employer is to have the benefit of seeking a reduction of the compensatory award as provided under the Bill, he can have that benefit only if he has ensured that the internal appeal is completed within a reasonable time limit of two months. I do not accept that it is in any way impossible or difficult to have the appeal dealt with within that time limit, particularly if the employee himself is required to make his application to the tribunal within three months.
I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that the whole question of effective date of termination can be complicated. But if one is looking at this in its context of the award of compensation at the end of the hearing, surely by then at least one would hope that it would be perfectly clear when the effective date of termination was. If it was not clear by then, I would suggest that the tribunal or arbitrator had failed to focus on the factual issues in the case.
I am grateful for the indications given by the Government and would not dream of pressing the amendment at this late stage. However, I do hope that further thought can be given to the point before the Bill completes its parliamentary passage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 13:
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment it may be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 14 to 20, 22 and 23. It would certainly be in the interests of expedition.
These are technical amendments but they are significant nonetheless. They are necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Bill relating to the definition of qualified lawyers are consistent with the definition in other statutes. Your Lordships will recollect that advice from a qualified lawyer is a necessary condition for
This has not mattered in practice until recently because the only bodies authorised to grant such rights to their members have been the Bar Council and the Law Society. The only authorised advocates or litigators have been barristers or solicitors. But I understand that several weeks ago my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and senior judges approved an application from the Institute of Legal Executives (ILEX) to become an authorised body for the purpose of granting their members rights of audience before certain courts and tribunals. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this new class of authorised advocates should be able to provide advice on compromise agreements. It is therefore necessary for the provisions relating to compromise agreements in the Bill to be amended accordingly. My amendment provides that authorised advocates or authorised litigators, for the purpose of the Courts and Legal Services Act, will qualify as independent advisers. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendments Nos. 14 to 20:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 21:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendments Nos. 22 and 23:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 24:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 25:
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to change the Long Title of the Bill to reflect changes made to the Bill at Report stage. I am available if your Lordships wish to press me further on the reasons. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
There is much to be said in some circumstances for introducing a Bill in your Lordships' House. The other place has much to occupy its time and attention. Its debates frequently concern broad issues of policy and while they can certainly on occasions address matters of detail with a formidable degree of expertise, there are some proposals which, if they have to await the attention of a committee in another place, may suffer some delay before they reach the statute book.
A Bill that does not aspire to change the course of history but simply to oil the existing wheels may come first before your Lordships' House and be assured of a careful scrutiny by those whose experience and expertise should enable the other place to feel confidence. Little is likely to have slipped through the net by oversight.
Even before it was presented, this Bill was the outcome of extensive consultation. In your Lordships' House it received a general welcome, but it did not escape controversy over some of the detail and indeed that happened tonight. The controversy arose because in this world it is not always possible in any decision to achieve a balance which affords all the advantages and none of the price tags.
Inevitably, we are dealing with a proper balance between conflicting objectives, both within your Lordships' House and among those outside with interests to promote and views to express. There were those who placed a greater value on some objectives
I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lord Haskel for his patience with all of us who might have made his life easier had we been less insistent on our own views. My noble friend mediated between us and the Government. He conveyed our concerns to his fellow Ministers and, where he could not satisfy everyone, I believe that no one was left with a feeling that my noble friend had failed to address his mind to their arguments or failed to explain why the Government were taking the position which was adopted. Perhaps I may add my personal thanks to my noble friend's officials who spent long periods with me, explaining what options were open and mediating between the various groups who were writing to us.
I hope that the many associations outside Parliament which wrote to me will forgive me that I was not able to avail myself of all of their suggestions. That does not reduce my gratitude for the considered advice which they tendered.
Employment law is never static. There may well be future changes to meet some of the points raised in our debates which we were not able to incorporate in the Bill. I am in the privileged position of being consulted in advance about changes in procedural regulations affecting tribunals. I shall await with interest some of the regulations following the powers which we have been discussing in this Bill.
We have not resolved every question which exercises practitioners in this area, but I believe that our efforts were worth while and that they may benefit not only practitioners, not only those who administer tribunals, but many employers and employees who may never even learn of our debates. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.--(Lord Archer of Sandwell.)
Page 13, line 42, leave out second ("or").
10.15 p.m.
Page 13, line 43, after ("certificate") insert ("or a person other than a barrister or solicitor who is an authorised advocate or authorised litigator (within the meaning of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)").
Page 14, line 40, leave out second ("or").
Page 14, line 41, after ("certificate") insert ("or a person other than a barrister or solicitor who is an authorised advocate or authorised litigator (within the meaning of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)").
Page 16, line 17, leave out second ("or").
Page 16, line 18, after ("certificate") insert ("or a person other than a barrister or solicitor who is an authorised advocate or authorised litigator (within the meaning of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)").
Page 17, line 11, leave out second ("or").
Page 17, line 12, after ("certificate") insert ("or a person other than a barrister or solicitor who is an authorised advocate or authorised litigator (within the meaning of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)").
Page 17, line 37, leave out from ("alone),") to end of line 38 and insert ("for the words from ", in such circumstances" to "tribunal may" substitute "any act which is required or authorised by the regulations to be done by an employment tribunal and is of a description specified by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection may".").
Page 19, line 42, leave out second ("or").
Page 19, line 43, after ("certificate") insert ("or a person other than a barrister or solicitor who is an authorised advocate or authorised litigator (within the meaning of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)").
Page 20, line 20, column 3, at end insert--
("Section 4(3)(f), apart from the word "and".")
Line 7, leave out ("avoiding double recovery in") and insert ("about").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page