Employment Bill [HL]

I am very grateful for what the Minister has said. My noble friend has given reassurance about the Government’s support for the role of all members of the tribunal, the key role of lay members and—I have waited for this—towards the end, the equal status of the members of the tripartite tribunals. Had he not said that, I would have done justice to my case, which I did not in opening, and spoken to Members of the Committee for some time on the various areas of history that lie behind the Donovan Commission and the comparative law and practice of tribunals in France and Germany, which were not adopted here, although they are suitable for their industrial relations. Our industrial tribunals came rather late in the game, but they occupy a very important position. I am very glad that the Minister said what he said. However, the consultation that he quoted is the one from the DTI which is now, by bequest, the problem of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. He did not mention the consultation from the Ministry of Justice called Transforming Tribunals. I do not want to make any trouble between my noble friend and the new lay Lord Chancellor, but it is a fact that if you read that consultative document, which I suspect very few people have done, and read the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007—in which perhaps we should have intervened at the time, but did not see it coming—there is a very different character and view lying behind that face of government. If this afternoon’s assurance can do away with that, no one would be more pleased than my noble friends and I. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 1 [Statutory dispute resolution procedures]: