Employment Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 15: 15: Clause 4, page 4, line 18, at end insert— ““(3AB) No regulations shall be made under this section which allow for the determination of proceedings without a hearing in respect of any claim of which the ground, or one of the grounds, is— (a) specified under any of the jurisdictions referred to in section 3(3), or (b) such other grounds as the Secretary of State shall prescribe by order following consultation with ACAS, and in respect of which the respondent denies liability.”””” The noble Lord said: The amendment was allocated to me, and is rather important. As I understood it, my noble friend the Minister said that tribunal hearings held by the legal chairman alone, as I still wish to call him—as I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, would agree—will apply only where there is a straightforward monetary dispute. A straightforward monetary dispute is what I understood my noble friend to say—I will have to look in Hansard to see. First, I cannot find that anywhere in the Bill. That is an important point. The amendment is an attempt to limit Clause 4—one’s memory is made redolent with the words ““Clause 4”” on this side of the Committee. The amendment attempts to say that where there is an issue under one of the jurisdictions in Section 3(3), or, "““such other grounds as the Secretary of State shall prescribe””," which we naturally put in in case we had forgotten something, in respect of which the respondent denies liability, no regulations should bring Clause 4 into effect. That would limit hearings heard by the legal chairman alone to cases where the only issue was not liability but compensation. I took it that that was what my noble friend wanted in the Bill. So this is a helpful amendment for the Government to say what they want to the Bill to prescribe: cases where the regulations must not be made to bring Clause 4 into effect in respect of which the respondent denies liability. It is not perhaps the best drafting, but we do not have to worry too much about the semantics of exact drafting in Grand Committee. I wonder whether my noble friend would extend his gracious move on Amendment No. 11 to Amendment No. 15 and consider it. It seems to be what the Government want. I may have that all wrong, and, if so, the Minister will explain why that is so. I beg to move.