CODES OF PRACTICE (Hansard, 30 July 1975)

§ Mr. Booth
I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 22, after 'matters', insert: 'in relation to the application of the following provisions of this Act,'. The effect of this amendment, coupled with Nos. 5 and 6, is to make it clear that matters on which the ACAS has to produce codes of practice are only those within the scope defined by later clauses and which the code will support; that is to say, those of disclosure and on time off for trade union duties and activities. The amendment meets the concern expressed in Committee about the scope of the codes laid down in Clause 6, and I hope that it will, therefore, be acceptable to the House.

§ Mr. Madel
I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 36, after 'shall', insert: 'consult, as appropriate, with the TUC and the CBI and taking into account any advice given by them'

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this amendment we are also taking Government Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 10, after 'above', insert: 'or, if either House requires one or more amendments to the draft'. and Amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 11, leave out 'and the Code' and insert: 'incorporating such amendments (if any), as the Code, amended Code, as the case may be'

§ Mr. Madel
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) expressed some anxiety about the need for the TUC and 1962 the CBI to be consulted before a code of practice was issued. That is reported in column 292 of Hansard. The Minister of State answered that, but we should like an extra assurance that there will be full consultation with those affected by the codes of practice before they are made.
We are grateful to the Government for having met us by Amendment No. 9. In Committee, at column 294 of Hansard, the Under-Secretary said that all that was wrong with one of our amendments was a point of drafting, and he agreed to meet us on Report, as he has done by Amendment No. 9.
We have suggested Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 because the Government said in Committee that they would try to meet us on this matter. The Minister said that he was prepared to "look at this"—column 299 of Hansard. He said that he could not give an absolute assurance, but that he would look at the matter again. When the Government hint that a matter will be looked at again, it is the duty of the Opposition to see whether the "looking at the matter" has been taken any further. That is the purpose of Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. We should be grateful for some comment on our original anxieties expressed by Amendment No. 7.

§ Mr. Booth
I have given careful consideration to the points involved in Amendment No. 7. I hope that those who have tabled that amendment will accept that it is not necessary to pursue this matter, basically because both the TUC and the CBI will be represented on the ACAS but that that will not in itself prevent them from making separate representations on any proposals of the Service.
Therefore, we feel that to leave this point in no way inhibits them but does avoid the difficulty that we would have of meeting the representations which would undoubtedly follow from putting in the names of those bodies to have the names of a number of other bodies added. We would also not like to create any false impression that by naming these two bodies we were intending them to have any prior claim to consideration of representations on a matter which was proposed by the service. Important as the TUC and CBI are—and who are we in this House to deny it?—there are a 1963 number of other bodies representing employers and employees whose views should be considered by the ACAS.
As regards Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, I gave a hint in Committee because it was my intention that we should explore to the limit possibilities of using delegated legislation procedure to give the House control, as far as possible, over all the matters which are developed from this legislation. It has not proved possible to work out a way of dealing with the draft codes because there is no way under the procedure of the House for having amendments to pieces of delegated legislation. If we were to change the procedures of the House in that way, we would not want to do it in the first instance for changing the drafting of codes, which is a job we have laid upon another body. But, of course, it would be possible, if the House raised serious objections to a draft code before it, for that to be withdrawn and for the views of the House to be considered by the service.
As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, we have met the requirements of the Committee in the way in which we have tabled Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. If these amendments are passed, the Secretary of State will be required, if he does not approve a draft code of practice, to publish details and his reasons for withholding approval.

§ Mr. Madel
I beg to ask leave to wthdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Booth
I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 5, line 12, leave out from 'may' to end of subsection and insert 'by order appoint'.
The amendment is to remove unnecessary words and to redraft a point in the Bill.

Mr. Model
I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 5, line 20, after 'section', insert: 1964 'or taking effect under Part I of Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act'. In Committee the Minister said that he would answer the point involved on Report. It relates to the amendment moved in Committee, Amendment No. 67, by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), as reported at column 306 of the Committee proceedings. Will the Minister comment briefly on this matter?

§ Mr. Booth
The Bill as drafted provides for the service to issue codes of practice containing such practical guidance as the service thinks fit for promoting the improvement of industrial relations. The ACAS code or codes would supersede the Industrial Relations Act code under the provisions of Schedule 16, paragraph 4.
The amendment would give the alternative to the ACAS of revising part of the Industrial Relations Act code. Without in any way casting reflections upon the authors of that code or any of its provisions, we would say that, having considered this, we do not consider it an appropriate alternative. We think that the service can and should, where it considers it appropriate, take parts of the Industrial Relations Act code and embody them in its own.
11.45 p.m.
On those other points, where the industrial relations code was specifically tied to provisions of the Industrial Relations Act which are no longer with us, it is better that they should lapse as soon as the service is able to develop its own code. There will be no temporary vacuum. The tribunals will still have the advice and the old code will remain until it is replaced. We urge that the House should accept that this would be the better of the two procedures.

§ Mr. Madel
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Madel
I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 5, line 27, after 'Committee', insert: 'or the Employment Appeal Tribunal'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we can also discuss Amendment No. 15, in page 5, line 30, after 'Committee', insert' or the Appeal Tribunal'.

§ Mr. Madel
At column 312 of our Committee proceedings the Minister of State referred to amendments which we had moved and said that he would reexamine the matter and, if there was any reasonable doubt, would be prepared to return on Report with an amendment or at least write to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) before Report. I have not checked with my hon. Friend whether he has received a letter. He may have done. Perhaps the Minister of State can deal with the point.

§ Mr. Booth
I have carefully checked this point and am convinced, on the advice of parliamentary counsel and others, that there is no doubt whatever that the Employment Appeal Tribunal would have to have regard to the code of practice as admissible evidence. I hope that, since I can give that assurance, it will be acceptable.

§ Mr. Madel
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.