COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 14 June 1996)

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 2 to 6.
No substantive change is being proposed to the thrust of the Bill. The purpose of the amendments is simply to give order-making powers to the Lord Chancellor to allocate arbitration matters which come before the courts, as provided for in the Bill, as he thinks fit between the High Court and the county courts. Where appropriate he may decide that only certain county courts should have jurisdiction.
1974 We have come to the conclusion that rather than relying on existing arrangements for allocating business to the courts, there would be distinct merit in having specific provisions in the Bill. Hence the new clause. This will give us the flexibility which we need and which may not be possible under the existing arrangements.
At the same time we would like to amend Clause 101. This clause provides for the recognition and enforcement of New York Convention awards by our courts. At the moment the clause provides that a New York Convention award may, by leave of the High Court or a county court be enforced in the same manner as a judgment or order of that court. In fact the present situation is that foreign arbitral awards are enforced only in the High Court and it would be preferable for the Bill to reflect this. There are no plans at present to involve other courts, although we would not wish to rule out that possibility for the future. Amending the clause to provide that New York Convention awards may be enforced by leave of the court enables us to continue with the current practice of High Court enforcement, while giving us the flexibility to change matters in the future. The detail will be spelt out in rules of court.
The other amendments remove the existing definition of "the court" and signpost the reader in the direction of the new definition. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, perhaps my noble friend the Minister will explain what lines 16 and 17 actually do.

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
My Lords, is my noble friend referring to lines 16 and 17 of Clause 82 on page 32 of the Bill?

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
I refer to the first amendment.

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
They define "the court".

§ Lord Hacking
My Lords, I do not know whether this is an appropriate moment to intervene. I wish to pass comment on Amendments Nos. 1 to 6, on which my noble friend the Minister is addressing the House at the moment, although she has moved only Amendment No. 1. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has any further intervention to make. I do not know whether he was satisfied with the answer he received to his question.

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
My Lords, the answer to my noble friend's question was that the lines contain the present definition of the word "court".

§ Lord Hacking
My Lords, then I shall continue, if I may, and make my comments in relation to other amendments that my noble friend has brought before the House from the other place.
1975 While I do not intend to object to the amendments that my noble friend brings before the House, I do not think that Amendment No. 3 is going in the right direction. My noble friend is quite correct in saying that the present position is that awards under the New York Convention (of as long ago as 1958!) can currently be made only by leave of the High Court. It seemed to me when the Bill was before this House that it was a step in the right direction to have New York Convention awards enforced either by the High Court or by the county court. The effect therefore of this amendment is to take that power away from the county court and leave it under a future statutory instrument which the Lord Chancellor can put before the House for that extension of jurisdiction to be given to the county court. We are moving from primary legislation contained in the Bill to secondary legislation by way of statutory instrument. I do not see that as walking in the right direction.
In dealing with Amendments Nos. 1 to 6, I should also comment that the New York Convention—which, I repeat, was as long ago as 1958—is also not being enforced in relation to domestic arbitrations. That matter was discussed at some length when the Bill was before this House. The hope was that the Government would complete consultations, and the further hope was that the division between the law applicable to domestic arbitrations and the law applicable to all other arbitrations would be changed so that there would be one arbitration law consistent with the New York Convention applicable to both domestic and international arbitrations. So, many years afterwards, we are still not properly in line with the New York Convention of 1958, and that is to be regretted.

§ Lord Wilberforce
My Lords, I am very much inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, in his observations on Amendment No. 3. However, I do not feel that that is a matter on which we ought to disagree with the Commons.

§ Lord Haskel
My Lords, the Minister may welcome the fact that it is not our intention to oppose any of the amendments, as they seem to us to be fairly minor and technical, in spite of what was just said. We welcome the Bill as an important contribution to the speedy resolution of conflicts and as an encouragement to international business to use Britain for settling disputes.

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, is right in that I welcome his intervention. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. The amendment allows what my noble friend wants. We feel that it would be wrong to disturb the present position without further consideration. Allocation of business between courts is frequently dealt with as secondary legislation.