| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: With great respect, it is rather unworthy of the noble Baroness to impute such a state of mind to solicitors generally. I appreciate that she did not like it when in a particular case—the details of which I have no knowledge—a charity seemed to suffer because it had to pay for proceedings. I do not know the circumstances of that case. If the noble Baroness wishes to send me a full account of it, I shall view it. People are hard done by in life and I am trying to stop other people being hard done by. The proposal involves having an arbitrary set of rules imposed on people as to preparation time. In a later amendment, we shall deal with the question of whose preparation time is involved. The noble Baroness must not sweep aside the Law Society's views—they are put forward as the views of the body that represents solicitors in this land. It had adopted a legal view and a view of a practical nature about how the provision will impact. It makes it clear that, for example, the respondent's claim will, in many cases—I hope that the Minister realises that this is what it says—include compensation for the time of several, or many, people. The applicant's claim for costs will be limited, at best, to the value of his or her time. That is a summary of what it says. A very serious matter is involved.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Will the noble Lord tell us why the applicant would be limited to only himself? Would he not have friends or other people?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The noble Baroness should read the clause. It is necessary to read the clause in order to debate it. It states:
- "Employment tribunal procedure regulations may include provision for authorising an employment tribunal to order a party to proceedings before it to make a payment to any other party"—
- "in respect of the time spent by that other party in preparing his case".
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Or any other person.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: It does not say that. The noble Baroness really must not make up a Bill to discuss in Grand Committee as if it says something different from what it does say. The Bill says—and I shall come to this on a later amendment, so perhaps we could discuss it then—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The noble Lord just read out to me that it could be the party or any other party, and he stressed "any other party". My question is: why could not the any other party be someone who was helping the applicant just as much as helping anyone else?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Because the word "party" means party to the proceedings. It is not just a vague word dreamed up by some layman; it is a legal term. If you are a party to the proceedings—the noble Baroness said she does not agree. I would be happy to meet her in a case and be confident of winning in a dispute about the meaning of the clause. Let me read it again.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Read it again.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The noble Baroness says, "Read it again". I hesitate to weary Members of the Committee, but the noble Baroness demands that I read it again. It states,
- "to order a party to proceedings before it to make a payment to any other party"—
- "in respect of the time spent by that other party in preparing his case".
That is why the Law Society, in analysing the meaning of the clause, says quite rightly that it will impact disproportionately on applicants. And why it also says that this is something which is quite outside the normal civil proceedings that we know.
Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to complete the point. If the noble Baroness knows of an authority, either in the rules of the Supreme Court or in the county court rules, or in the rules relating to any court or tribunal, no doubt she will cite it to me as the basis on which this proposal could be made.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: When the noble Lord says that the matter concerns only the two parties, I do not understand his argument at all. He is saying that the party on the one side could represent many people working on that case on behalf of that party. I heard him say that and I will read Hansard to check it. Then he went on to say that any other party can mean only the second party to the proceedings. In that case, why does the word "any" appear if it is any other party? If they are both parties to the proceedings, why are there not just simply two parties, the respondent and the applicant?
I cannot understand how he can in one case have brought forward a number of people, all of whom would be claiming this payment, and in the other case saying only one person is concerned. That is the point I am trying to make and I do not understand the distinction he has made.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Perhaps the noble Baroness and I are not really in disagreement because the jurisdiction will be—if the noble Baroness could imagine herself as a party to proceedings rather than sitting on the tribunal—to make a payment to any other party. That means either the other party to the proceedings direct, the applicant or respondent, or it could mean a third party who is joined to the
proceedings. There are third-party proceedings which can be initiated in the tribunals, and if the noble Baroness has experience of looking at the cases she will know that there are sometimes many parties joined. That is why it says "any other party". Those are the people to whom the payments can be made.Now we come to the question: in respect of what? If the noble Baroness will look at line 34—I do not think she has line 34—she will see that it states:
- "in respect of the time spent by that other party".
- "in preparing his case".
That is absolutely clear; there is no problem about that. I know what the clause says and so does the noble Baroness. It is quite unjustifiable to tell me that that should be put on the statute book of the United Kingdom when it means not payment but costs; that it is only intended to operate as costs because this is all part of the campaign to make people pay more, especially, as the Law Society says, disproportionately applicants.
It is all part of the pressure to make people pay more—in this case, not even judged by what somebody else has lost. It is just a payment from some scale of amounts drawn up in the offices of the Department of Trade and Industry which my good friend, the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, has said he suspects of becoming the provisional wing of the CBI. This really will not do. The Government have made a deal with the CBI to put forward preparation time, and say that they will limit it to costs, but regulations limiting it to costs could, with a future Secretary of State next year, be struck out and got rid of.
Nothing can be done in a Grand Committee. One wonders what a Grand Committee is for anyway, with such a controversial Bill. We cannot do anything in a Grand Committee, but we can do something on Report. All I am left with, in regard to Amendments Nos. 73 and 74, is to beg leave to withdraw them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: May I say something before the noble Baroness talks to Amendment No. 75? My understanding was that in Grand Committee we have the opportunity to stop the proceedings at some time between 7 p.m. and 7.30 p.m., at a convenient time and at a convenient place in the proceedings. I passed a note to the Chairman of Committees some time ago, at a time when I thought it would be suitable to adjourn after Schedule 3 stand part. It would have meant that we would indeed have reached Amendment No. 75. That was what was suggested to me.
The next amendment on the Marshalled List is Amendment No. 75. If we assume that the amendment will take vaguely as long as the all the others have taken, we would be talking about 8 p.m. or 8.15 p.m. My understanding is that that is not normally the procedure in Grand Committee. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, looks somewhat surprised, but I would like some guidance on this. I was told that that was usual in Grand Committee. The noble Lord, the Chief Whip, it shaking his head.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This is about timing?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Yes, that is all it is about.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I know that the noble Baroness is saying that we should stop now. The rule for a Grand Committee is that we should stop at a convenient time between 7.30 p.m. and 8 p.m., not between 7 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. What I proposed, and
what happened yesterday, was that we should stop at the conclusion of debate on the amendment which is being debated at 7.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I suggest that we get on with Amendment No. 75 therefore, but I certainly intend to speak to our Chief Whip. This is not my understanding at all.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page