| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Sutcliffe: I welcome hon. Members' contributions to the debate, which show that the union recognition procedure generally works, which is why the Bill does not change it substantially.
On unfair practices, the CAC has proved that it is capable of examining such issues in great detail and coming up with the right result. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) fears that the CAC may overstep the mark. However, if unfair practices exist, the injured party does not have to go for a re-ballot. The CAC will have powers to examine all the evidence, and its judgment will be held to account by employment tribunals, which is a clear safeguard.
I welcome the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) and apologise for the
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1476
e-mail being sent to the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). No attempt was made to take him out of the process.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 17 agreed to.
Clause 21
Lords amendment No. 18.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 19 to 32 and 57.
Mr. Sutcliffe: Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 21 amend clauses 21 and 24. Those clauses simplify and clarify the provisions requiring unions to provide notices to employers in advance of an industrial action ballot and any subsequent industrial action. Unions and employers have generally welcomed both clauses and no serious objections have been raised about them. However, it was brought to our attention that they could be improved on in an important respect if we made allowances for notices to refer to information given by reference to the established practice of deducting union subscriptions at source. That system, known colloquially as "check off" remains widespread in this country and covers many millions of workers. It is a common way of paying union subscriptions in large organisations and in the public sector.
It has been established through case law that unions will often be able to meet their current legal obligations by referring to their members paying by this system in notices. That arrangement has provided unions with a ready means of referring accurately to their members. It has also allowed employers easily to identify individuals through their payroll systems. As currently worded, the clause provided less scope to unions to refer to check-off information as a shortcut to meeting their legal obligations. That was regrettable, and both employers and unions would have lost out as a result.
Our intention in this group of amendments is to ensure that unions can draw on their check-off information to meet their obligations in whole or in part. Lords amendments Nos. 18, 20 and 21 make the necessary changes to clause 21. Amendment No. 23, together with amendments Nos. 25 to 28, makes the corresponding changes to clause 24.
Lords Amendments Nos. 19, 22, 24, 29, 30 and 31 are technical amendments to the notice provisions. They will ensure that consistent wording is used throughout trade union law when describing the workplaces of employees. Earlier this afternoon we agreed a similar technical amendment—Lords amendment No.1 to part I of the Bill. I believe that the amendments improve the Bill, providing flexibility and lightening the regulatory burden. It should therefore be easy to comply with the law, especially in complicated situations where many thousands of employees are involved.
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1477
The effect will be achieved without in any way reducing the quality of the information that the employers receive. Indeed, as I have explained, the option of providing check-off information will often give the employer more complete information than he would otherwise receive. He can access that information very easily with minimal cost through an examination of his pay records, which will normally be computerised.
Lords amendments Nos. 32 and 57 amend the landmark protections against unfair dismissal for employees taking protected industrial action, which were introduced in the Employment Relations Act 1999. Our review of the 1999 Act noted that industrial action has remained relatively low in the UK since the eight-week period of protection was introduced. In fact, the number of stoppages is at an all-time low. On several occasions during the Bill's passage, we have debated the adequacy of the eight-week period. Trade unions have called for indefinite protection for workers taking part in lawful industrial action. However, the Government have always taken the view that it is necessary to place a time limit on the period for which it is automatically unfair to dismiss someone taking protected industrial action. We need to balance the legitimate interests of all concerned.
In the other place, amendments were repeatedly tabled on that topic and we noted the strong views of unions and others. We therefore think that a modest extension of the protected period should be made. I should add that the extension affects only a small number of stoppages each year. This group of amendments extends the protections against unfair dismissal for employees taking lawfully organised official industrial action from eight weeks to 12 weeks. I am confident that the extension to 12 weeks will not adversely affect the amount of strike activity or the climate of industrial relations. Again, I strongly urge the House to agree to the Lords amendments.
Mr. Bellingham: As the Minister pointed out, the amendments are once again the result of considerable discussion in the other place. I have discussed them with my noble Friend, Baroness Miller of Hendon, and reflected on the debates in the other place. I agree that the amendments improve the system of industrial action ballots and ballot notices.
1.45 pm
Will the Minister clarify one particular point? For those individuals who do not pay subscriptions via the check-off system, the requirements in the clauses still apply, but how will the two different groups of employees be treated under the balloting system? The Minister mentioned that, but I would be grateful for some further clarification. Otherwise, we have no difficulty with the amendments, which go a small way towards improving the Bill.
Sir Robert Smith:
At this late stage, just one matter occurs to me. In using the check-off system, is there absolutely no risk of conflict with data protection
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1478
provisions? Has the legislation been drafted in such a way that no one could suddenly upset the system by careful use of data protection? That is my only concern.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I am grateful for Opposition Members' inquiries. The check-off procedure operates in large workplaces in the public sector where there is a large union membership. It is an effective and efficient way of collecting subscriptions without impeding productivity. It is different in smaller workplaces. The Bill does not affect either method of collection. We checked the possibilities relating to data protection and I am happy to say that it is not a problem.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 19 to 32 agreed to.
Clause 28
Lords amendment No. 33.
Mr. Sutcliffe: 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 amendments Nos. 34 to 43 and 58.
Mr. Sutcliffe: This group of amendments makes two sets of changes to the clauses of the Bill that implement the European Court's judgment in the cases of Wilson and Palmer. Let me start with amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 38. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has drawn attention to the fact that new section 145B, which would be inserted by clause 28, provides rights to the members of recognised unions only. It considers that, in cases where a union is seeking recognition, new section 145B needs to provide comparable protections to ensure that members have the right not to be offered inducements by the employer for the purpose of securing that their terms will not be determined by collective agreement in the future.
Having looked at the arguments put forward and having consulted the stakeholders, we concluded that the Joint Committee's analysis is correct. So to ensure our compliance with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, we believe that the scope of new section 145B should be extended. Lords amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 38 make the necessary changes to clause 28.
Let me now describe the second set of amendments, which cover the other nine in the group. In combination, the amendments change the definition of a "worker" for the purposes of new sections 145A to 145E, and for the purposes of the existing sections 146 to 150 of the 1992 Act. The current definition of worker for those purposes is provided in section 296 of the 1992 Act. The Bill covers people "seeking work" and is not limited solely to those in employment. It was never our intention that the protections should extend to those seeking work. Their trade union rights are contained in section 137 of the 1992 Act.
These amendments therefore adjust the definition of worker to ensure that it does not cover those seeking work, thereby ensuring that the rights are confined to
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1479
the target group and that overlapping rights for workers seeking employment are not created. The first set of amendments implements a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the second makes necessary technical changes to the Bill. I urge the House again to agree to the amendments.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |