---

Mr. Tom King: The Secretary of State bravely makes his case, but he should reflect on what he has just said, because it is an extraordinary argument. It is an argument against having commissioners in all these areas. The Intelligence Services Act 1994 states:

"The Commissioner shall make an annual report on the discharge of his functions to the Prime Minister and may at any time report to him on any matter relating to his discharge of those functions."

21 Jul 1999 : Column 1259

The Secretary of State has said that no remedy is available to the commissioner. We have argued that the Bill will leave the plaintiff with no remedy, except to go on his own to the courts. If he is reasonably well paid--as he may well be--and has a little capital, he will not get legal aid.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman puts me at a disadvantage. I know that these are important matters, but he is making an intervention. It would help me if he would wind up.

Mr. King: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this is an exceptional situation. The Committee set up by the Prime Minister to advise on these matters is having to deal with an issue that has been incorporated in an inappropriate Bill on which we were not consulted. This measure has been introduced at the last minute. It was brought up in the other place, and this is the first time that it has been discussed in this House. I crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I think that the Secretary of State would accept from me that his argument will not wash. He is not prepared, in this legislation, to give people in the position that we have discussed a remedy. Our amendment would provide the most limited protection, but it would mean that, if he became Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary, before his officials put a proposal to him that someone should not be allowed to attend part of his own industrial tribunal hearing, they would know that his decision would be reviewed. They could not plead national security and total secrecy so that the matter could not be sustained.

If the Secretary of State were on the Opposition Benches, he would make a much better argument than I have, and he would murder the idea that the commissioner has no remedy. I beg him to reconsider, even at this late hour--that was not of our making. This is the last hour, because this legislation will soon become an Act. At the last gasp, the legislation will lack this vital ingredient. Our proposal would do the Government great credit.

8 pm

Mr. Byers: I understand the power of the arguments that are being put. In the end, the House will have to make a judgment. I believe that the procedure that is available to challenge a direction by judicial review is the appropriate remedy in the circumstances.

I know that members of the Committee would like the commissioner to have the power to intervene directly, but I feel that they should reflect on the role that the commissioner will play. That role will not involve the reviewing of individual cases; the commissioner will not operate in the way in which employment tribunals operate. It will involve the reviewing, in a more strategic way, of the workings of specific sectors. That is the right role for the commissioner, and that is why the House has not given the commissioner the power to intervene directly.

This was never seen as being the appropriate role for a commissioner. The commissioner has a distinct role: he is to report to and, no doubt, to put pressure on Parliament by means of the avenues open to him. I believe that that role, and the commissioner's responsibilities, will be subject to confusion if he is told that he should be involved in individual cases that are before an employment tribunal.

Mr. Beith: I realise that the right hon. Gentleman's Department does not normally deal with these matters,

21 Jul 1999 : Column 1260

but he must recognise that the commissioner's remit is to examine the way in which powers have been exercised in individual cases, and thereby to judge whether those powers have been abused. That relates directly to what the Committee seeks. It wants the commissioner to examine the way in which the Minister is using his power--not the substance of the issue before the tribunal--given that he possesses information that no one else has. That is what gives the function its value.

Mr. Byers: I think that I understand the position. The commissioner has not the power to intervene in relation to an individual's case, and he has no such power in relation to an employment tribunal. That is preciselythe issue that is addressed in the amendment. The commissioner has the power to challenge decisions made by Ministers, and to review those decisions, but he has no such powers in relation to individuals before employment tribunals.

Opposition Members may disagree, but I believe that we have provided a suitable method for decisions to be made by Ministers of the Crown, by way of judicial review. It is well established, and I consider it wholly appropriate. I do not think that amendments (d) and (e), which would extend the commissioner's responsibility, will provide an effective remedy for the individual. I hear what the right hon. Member for Bridgwater says, but, in the circumstances that we are discussing, the individual will clearly want a way of remedying what he or she sees as a wrong.

Yvette Cooper: Amendments (d) and (e) would not prevent an individual from using the judicial review system as a remedy. Moreover, the proposed extension of the commissioner's powers would allow for an additional review of the Minister's decisions. That could take place in exactly the same way as the commissioner's review of other ministerial decisions on grounds of national security that infringe individual rights.

Mr. Byers: A range of opportunities can be provided, if that is what the House wants. My point is that a remedy is clearly available to an individual who feels aggrieved, in the form of a judicial review. I consider that to be an appropriate remedy, in that it provides the opportunities that the individual may seek. I feel that the opportunities offered by recourse to a commissioner are rather fictional in terms of the support that they can give the individual.

Mr. Tom King: I much appreciate the Secretary of State's courtesy in giving way again.

I fear that we are getting into a bit of a muddle. The right hon. Gentleman's concept of the commissioner's role does not conform to the way in which he will work: it is not a question of a chap having a right to go to the commissioner, as was suggested.

If the Committee that is appointed by the Prime Minister to report to him and advise him makes such recommendations, if the commissioner agrees that action is needed and is content to go along with it and if, as we understand to be the case, the agencies have no objection to the programme, why are the Government not willing to accept the amendments?

Mr. Byers: For the simple reason that we believe that the individual already has recourse to an appropriate

21 Jul 1999 : Column 1261

remedy. I know that the Committee feels strongly, has made representations and has reported to the Prime Minister; no doubt it will continue to do so, under procedures established by the House. However, I consider the existing procedures to be appropriate, and I do not think that they need to be added to it in the way suggested by amendments (d) and (e). I ask the House to resist the amendments if they are put to a vote.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the House in relation to Lords amendment No. 323, and amendments (a) and (b). I ask the House to support amendment (c), which discharges the undertakings that we gave in the House of Lords. I am sorry that I cannot accommodate members of the Intelligence and Security Committee in regard to amendments (d) and (e), but I believe that existing procedures in relation to judicial review are appropriate, and I do not think that the individual would be helped by the additional powers that those amendments appear to confer. For those reasons, if they are put to a vote, I shall invite the House to oppose amendments (d) and (e).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I put the Question, let me remind the House that amendments to Lords amendment No. 323 must be dealt with later. What we are now considering is Lords amendment No. 15.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 15

Collective agreements: detriment and dismissal

Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 8, line 8, leave out ("subject") and insert ("subjected")

Mr. Byers: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 17 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19, 26, 327 and 328.

Mr. Byers: I intend to concentrate on Lords amendment No. 17, which I shall ask the House to resist.

Lords amendment No. 16 is a relatively minor technical amendment. It proposes that the word "subject" should be changed to "subjected", simply to ensure consistency with wording elsewhere in the legislation. I hope that it will not detain the House for too long.

As I have said, I shall ask the House to disagree with Lords amendment No. 17. We believe that employers and employees should continue to have the opportunity that they have now to conclude individual contracts which differ from collective agreements that would otherwise apply to individual employees. Nothing in the Bill will affect that. However, we also believe that individuals in the workplace who refuse such contracts and choose to remain covered by collective agreements should be protected against being subjected to dismissal or detriment as a result of the refusal. There should be no obligation, and there should be no incentive, for individuals to break out of collective agreements. We do not think that someone who wishes to remain within a collective agreement should suffer detriment as a result.

21 Jul 1999 : Column 1262

We therefore propose to draft regulations to achieve that policy objective. We will, of course, consult on the regulations in draft before presenting them to the House for approval under the affirmative procedure.

We cannot accept the amendments tabled by the Opposition in the House of Lords. We have two main problems with Lords amendment No. 17. First, it contains a fundamental weakness, in that it confuses two separate issues: the bargaining arrangements, and action to prevent or deter trade union membership. Those are clearly two distinct issues.

The amendment seeks to require section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992--the section that guarantees the right to join or not to join a trade union, and to take part in trade union activities--to be interpreted in accordance with the amendment, which has nothing to do with such matters. That is the confusion at the heart of amendment No. 17. It is concerned only with individual contracts and collective agreements. Therefore, that attempt to affect section 146 is dangerously imprecise and illogical.

Although we may understand the basic thrust of the amendment, it is unhelpful in that it is extremely detailed and restrictive, and will create difficulties when we introduce our regulations. For our regulations to be effective, they need to be drawn up in a way that is not constrained by the provisions that would be introduced as a result of amendment No. 17.

Therefore, I invite the House to disagree with amendment No. 17. We will introduce our own regulations. The House will have an opportunity to debate and to vote on them after we introduce them. We believe that that is an appropriate way in which to deal with the matter.

We feel that amendment No. 17 creates difficulties. It does not allow the individual to have freedom. The danger is that individuals will feel, effectively, that there is a deterrent to remaining within a collective agreement. We feel that there should be freedom to make a decision, not a method by which an individual may be punished.

That will be the principle of the regulations that we intend to introduce. For these to be effective, we will need the House to disagree with amendment No. 17, which was carried in the House of Lords.

---