I am grateful for, but humbled by, Francis Miller’s recollections of my interventions during the consultation process leading up to the Arbitration Bill and, earlier, at the King’s College Consultative Conference in July 1995.

Whilst Francis’ memories are correct, I feel that it would be helpful to your contributors and readers if I explain the reason for my endeavours to influence the outcome of the consideration of arbitration reform (which had been the subject of my Chairman’s address in June 1998 ¹ and the subsequent executive survey conducted by the Chartered Institute which was so ably analysed and annotated by Francis Miller) and to influence the drafting and amendment of the clauses of the Arbitration Bill and, subsequently, sections of the Act. Indeed, Francis and I were (almost) the only practising arbitrators who regularly attended debates in both Houses of Parliament over the Bill.

I persisted in my endeavours to achieve adequate powers for an arbitrator because my long experience had taught me that the arbitration process can be high-jacked or frustrated by the parties and/or their advisors to the dismay of the arbitrator. (It is no good blaming an arbitrator for delay or to allege incompetence if he/she does not have the power to control the proceedings.)

Although the amendment to Clause 34 of the Arbitration Bill transposed the wording over the responsibility for making decisions on procedure by referring firstly to the tribunal as a ‘sop’ to my representations), the real power still rests with the parties. That is the reality, but some parties and those, who for the diverse reasons or ignorance, criticise the tribunal ought to understand that the powers of an arbitrator to act in an efficient and speedy manner are impeded by statute.