HL Deb 29 October 1998 vol 593 c2095

15 Clause 7, page 5, line 9, at end insert— ("() Proceedings under subsection (1)(a) must be brought before the end of—

  1. (a) the period of one year beginning with the date on which the act complained of took place; or
  2. (b) such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances,
but that is subject to any rule imposing a stricter time limit in relation to the procedure in question.").

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.

At present, the Bill makes no provision regarding the period in which proceedings can be brought under Clause 7(1)(a); that is, on convention grounds alone as distinct from any pre-existing course of action. We believe that it is desirable to set a limitation period and that is the purpose of this amendment. It will provide that proceedings must be brought within one year beginning with the date upon which the act complained of took place or within such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances. The time limit is subject to any stricter time limit in relation to the procedure in question; for example, the most obvious case being judicial review.

There is a balance between, on the one hand, the interests of the individual bringing the case and, on the other, those of the public authority alleged to have acted unlawfully. We think it is right that those who believe a public authority has acted unlawfully under the Human Rights Act and are bringing proceedings on that ground alone should do so within a reasonably short time. To allow for a longer period—for example, six years, which is the standard period in tort—would cause uncertainty for such authorities and make effective administration very difficult, if not virtually impossible.

We do look to flexibility. There may be occasions when there is a good reason for delay. Therefore, to cater for those circumstances the amendment gives the court a discretion to extend the one-year period. We know at present that the period for applications on judicial review is three months. It is true that it is notionally flexible, but I believe that it is rare for the three-month period to be extended. I think that I have given a fair summary of the balance that we have sought to achieve. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has tabled an amendment to this Commons amendment. Therefore, it will probably be more convenient if I defer my remarks in that respect until he has developed his theme.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)