UK Parliament / Open data

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

What the noble Baroness has just said makes me realise that with our customary moderation we have gone much too far with our amendments. I shall make two points, first on Amendment No. 13 and then on Amendment No. 12. Amendment No. 13 should probably be couched in terms that an employee’s consent is valid only when he or she has taken independent advice of someone with suitable qualifications. That appears elsewhere in employment law, but the thing has got so complicated these days that I could not find it in the Butterworth guide. Somewhere we have a definition of qualified advice for similar purposes, I am sure, and no doubt the Minister can tell me where it is. At any rate, Amendment No. 13 is much too modest and timid. An employee’s consent should not be valid when he or she has just been leant on or advised by someone who is not at all competent to give the advice. Consent should be backed up by qualified independent advice—and I am sure that we will look at that very carefully before Report. Amendment No. 12 is much more suitable to Committee. I just do not understand why lines 17 and 18 are in the Bill; the amendment suggests that they should be omitted. I refer to new subsection (3AA)(b), which tells us that, "““employment tribunal procedure regulations… may only authorise the determination of proceedings without any hearing… where—""(a) all the parties to the proceedings consent””—" and we have just said that it must be real consent and properly advised; and, "““(b) each party to the proceedings has the right to request a hearing.””" I do not understand what that adds. When a party consents to the determination without a hearing, if properly couched, the paragraph would take effect; or each party has the right to request a hearing. It is always useful to turn it into a negative: when would the party not have the right to request a hearing? That is a very simple question, and there must be a simple answer which, in my present rather tired state, I have been unable to see. If there is no answer, the paragraph should be omitted because it does not add anything.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c1046 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Notes
Due to an error in the production process, this contribution was omitted from the Daily Part. Correction printed on 5 February 2008 at 698 c1045-6.
Back to top