Employment Bill [HL]

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall—which sometimes makes me wonder—that it is a joy to be able to sit at the feet of someone like the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. Many years ago, when I was doing my bar exams, I sat at the feet of a number of eminent lawyers, but none as eminent in the employment field as the noble Lord. I listened very carefully to the explanation that he put forward for his amendments but, like my noble friend Lord Campbell—who, despite what he said on the previous amendment, I usually agree with—I ended up somewhat confused about the purpose behind the amendments. Amendment No. 5 clearly states: "““Nothing in this Act, or in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 … shall affect the relationship between the chairman””," and what the noble Lord describes as the ““wing members”” of the tribunal. I do not think anything in the Act does that, and therefore is the amendment even necessary, or is it, as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and my noble friend put it, otiose? I appreciate that the noble Lord went on to give his explanation, and he was right to quote at some length from, I think, the 2008 document of the Council of Employment Tribunal Members’ Associations. It is worried that the equal status of the three members of the tribunal might be being undermined. He might just be seeking government reassurance on this matter; I hope that he is not seeking to amend the Bill, because I am not sure that it is necessary—I might be a bear of little brain on this—to add this to the Bill. Doing so might complicate things in other ways, and if we emphasise that, other things might be by implication not emphasised. Perhaps the noble Lord can deal with that when he responds after the Government have responded to his amendment.