ARBITRATION BILL [Lords] (Hansard, 2 April 1979)

§ Mr. Percival
There is an agreement between the two Front Benches and the usual channels. There is no other way of arriving at such agreements.
In this case, the whole purpose is to facilitate progress on legislation in the remaining days of this Parliament. If the hon. Member for Handsworth thinks again he will realise that when legislation is going through in the normal way, we all have suggestions that we should like to be included in the Bill. If we are lucky enough to have an amendment or new clause called for discussion, our suggestions can be debated. However, in present circumstances, if we are to get business through in a short time, the arrangements that have been made are the only way of doing it.
It is not a one-sided affair. Many hon. Members would like to make changes and we have to give them up in exchange for having a Bill for which there would otherwise not be time. The Opposition cannot accept the new clause because what I have said applies across the board. Every hon. Member who has a particular interest would like to be an exception, but, having said that we would forgo the changes that we should like to make in exchange for others doing the same, we must stick to it. The House and the country get a good bargain from the arrangement by receiving a Bill which will be useful.

§ The Solicitor-General
I cannot echo the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) about the brochure shown to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward), since I do not believe that it is likely to be inviting anyone to take his holidays in Warley, West. As I said in my maiden speech, the beauties of that area lie less in its landscape than in the hearts of its people.
I am aware of the chain of events that transpired during the course of our debates on the Unfair Contract Terms Bill. An amendment in identical terms to my hon. Friend's new clause was moved in another place by the Lord Chancellor. 1076 That should suffice to make clear the Government's attitude. Despite reservations expressed by some noble Lords, particularly Lord Hailsham, the amendment was approved in another place, but the motion "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment" was defeated in the circumstances to which my hon. Friend alluded.
I understand that, in essence, the argument on the merits of the proposal related to the question whether a party to a consumer contract who agrees at the time of the contract that disputes should be referred to arbitration should be held to that agreement. The Government took the view that since those who sign contracts of the sort which my hon. Friend has in mind do not always read them, and in any event, as he indicated, I doubt whether they spend all their waking hours reflecting on the implications of an arbitration clause, they should not be excluded from access to the courts by such a clause.
I am not sure that the amendment had general support in each House. The answer is that we do not know. It was not fully debated in either House. The reservations expressed in another place by Lords Hailsham and Denning were based largely on the thesis that at a time when, in most countries, an increasing use was being made of arbitration it would be a retrograde step if Britain were to discourage it.
The reservations in this place expressed by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) were on a rather different ground. He said—I hope that I am paraphrasing the hon. Gentleman accurately—that those who sign contracts should in general be held to the terms of the contract.
I am bound to say that on the merits I prefer the argument of my hon. Friend. I am not sure that there is any agreement between the Front Benches. I have not put that to the test. My present inclination is to say that if and when the merits fall to be discussed I shall endeavour to support my hon. Friend. Whatever may be the view of other hon. Members, I do not think that there is anything between us on the merits.
But I echo what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Southport on the reasons why I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his clause. There 1077 has not, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) suggested, been some discreditable deal between the Front Benches to exclude the possibility of amendment. We are merely recognising the realities. The choice that confronts the Committee is the Bill in its unamended form or no Bill.

§ Mr. Lee
I was not accusing anybody of anything discreditable. I was merely saying that the new clause is so meritorious and uncontroversial that I could not imagine that in the aftermath of last Wednesday something in a sense so mundane and non-political could have been in contemplation when the Front Benches evolved their pact.

§ The Solicitor-General
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a meritorious new clause. I am not sure that I can agree that it is uncontroversial. It appears from what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Southport that it is controversial in the present context. It appears that it would not get through the House without much greater discussion than will be possible this evening.

§ Mr. Ward
Where is the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival)?

§ The Solicitor-General
I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman had reasons for leaving the Chamber. I gather that he is returning.
There is a second reason, which I hope my hon. Friend will accept. It is a reason which is less immediately pragmatic but one to which I attach some importance. Many of us have directed our minds for some time to the problem of how we can make our legislation more intelligible to those who have to apply it. One guideline that seems to me important is that we should deal with one subject in one Bill and not insert provisions on a different subject merely because the opportunity presents itself in the House. Those who need to consult the statute book should find the appropriate provision in the Act where it naturally belongs.
My hon. Friend said that the Law Commission had recommended that provisions of the effect to be found in the new clause should be inserted in an arbitration Bill. I am bound to say that he has 1078 defeated me. It may be that I am being more than usually thick this evening. I looked for that recommendation in the second report on exemption clauses and I could not find it. I found the paragraph in which the Law Commission dealt with the proposal, but it did not appear to me that it was saying that it should be inserted in an arbitration Bill.
I do not know which of us read the paragraph more accurately—I know that my hon. Friend is probably more familiar with the report than I am—but I do not think that the Law Commission had in mind an arbitration Bill of the sort that is now before us. The Bill deals with the subject matter of what is coming to be called the Donaldson report, the report of the Commercial Court committee about rights of appeal from arbitrators in commercial cases. I do not think that it is a natural Bill for a provision relating to consumer protection, however meritorious it may be.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that I approve of his intention. I am sure that he will accept that I cannot bind any future Government. Speaking purely for myself, if and when I have any influence in the matter I hope that he will find me sympathetic. But I hope that his attachment to one worthy cause will not lead him to destroy another. I hope that he will accept that this Bill is worthy to get on to the statute book at the earliest possible moment.

§ Mr. Ward
In view of the observations of my right hon. and learned Friend on the position of himself as a legal officer, and the support which the policy on this clause has already received from the Lord Chancellor and the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, we have sufficient agreement to expect that something of this kind will pass into law in the next Parliament.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.