Employment Bill [HL]

Perhaps I may intervene between the speeches of those who have tabled the amendment. I have not put my name on the Marshalled List and had not until this afternoon considered the question in the depth that it has been discussed. There is a great deal of substance in what my noble friend Lord Wedderburn has said about the value of the tripartite system and the concerns of those he mentioned that somewhere along the line there might be a threat to the system. Indeed, the Government are open about consultation nowadays. His substantive point was about the value of the tripartite system—the lawyer chairman, and the two wing men comprising an employer and a trade union member or worker. I avoid using the word ““representative”” because, as mentioned, they do not represent anyone. However, they have experience that is relevant and different. I would add to what my noble friend has said by pointing out that the idea goes back much further than Donovan and employment or industrial tribunals, whatever they are called. It goes back to the days of Lloyd George, when he first introduced forms of national insurance. It was thought that the best way to have them determined was by tribunals of this sort. At least, eventually it got around to that and in the post-World War 2 national insurance and social security legislation of 1946 and 1947, the system of a lawyer chairman with two wing men was introduced. It has been tremendously successful not only in the area of employment but in other related areas. It would distress me considerably if that were readily overturned or undermined. If my noble friend the Minister can give some reassurance on this score, that would be of great value.