ISSUE BY SECRETARY OF STATE OF CODES OF PRACTICE

HC Deb 22 April 1980 vol 983 cc395-9

Mr. Harold Walker

I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 3, leave out lines 29 to 39.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we may take amendment No. 92, in page 3, line 32, leave out from "section" to "he" in line 34.

Mr. Walker

Clause 2 enables the Secretary of State to make codes of practice, subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I have no objection to codes of practice in industrial relations. Indeed, specific provision was made for them in the Employment Protection Act 1975 and the Industrial Relations Act 1971. We never quarrelled with the provision then, and we do not quarrel with it now.

The question that concerns us more specifically is who should make the codes of practice. Consistent with the philosophy that underlies the creation of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, we have repeatedly said that rather than the Government interfering in the day-today management of industrial relations, which has become overdeveloped in recent years, they should withdraw from the scene and leave it to those directly involved and with experience—those in the ACAS council and the interests they represent, and the staff of ACAS. We thought it right that codes of practice, subject to the approval of Parliament, should be drafted and submitted to the House by those directly involved in ACAS. In addition, this clause proposes that the Secretary of State should be empowered to make codes of practice. Frankly, we think that it is daft to have both the Government and ACAS making codes of practice. Our amendment also tilts at the even dafter provision which enables the Secretary of State to override an existing ACAS code. We have been over this ground in Standing Committee and we thought it sufficiently important to argue it again on the Floor of the House.

The provision is daft in several ways. First, ACAS has given invaluable service to industrial relations since it was created in 1975. It must be feeling rather demoralised now by a series of events that have weakened its status, role and prestige. This is yet another step along that road.

Secondly, we thought it right that codes of practice should be produced by ACAS, because it is representative, in its council, of both sides of industry and commerce. For that reason, industry and commerce will feel a sense of commitment towards any decisions or proposals that emerge from that body. In taking over that part of ACAS's role, the Secretary of State will remove the sense of commitment.

Further, we believe that ACAS should draw up the codes of practice because it is the body with expertise and experience in industrial relations. Its staff are better equipped and more authoritative to produce practical, feasible codes of practice. What resources would be available to the Secretary of State? The overwhelming majority of skilled people in this area in his Department have transferred to ACAS and are not now available, because of the statutory independence of ACAS, to guide and advise the Secretary of State.

For these reasons, we believe it is right that ACAS should produce the codes of practice, and that it is wrong for the Secretary of State to be given the power embodied in subsection (7) of clause 2 to override the ACAS codes of practice. That is tantamount to a vote of no confidence in ACAS in respect of its duties relating to production of a code of practice.

We sought in Standing Committee to require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of ACAS. That is an area on which he might have reflected. I hope that he can inform the House that he has seen the good sense of our proposal. We do not like the idea of the Secretary of State having power to produce codes of practice, but that is not the issue before the House. The right hon. Gentleman has the power under the clause, but we hope that it will be exercised only after ACAS has agreed in discussion that the Secretary of State had seen some point that the service had overlooked.

ACAS might accept that there was some action that the right hon. Gentleman could take that it was unable to carry out. It might agree, although still wishing to express views, that the Government needed to act for political reasons, perhaps because they were committed by their manifesto. That would provide some consolation. As matters stand, the Bill is a retrograde step. It weakens the status of ACAS and conflicts with our view of the manner in which codes of practice should be produced. We do not quarrel with the use of codes of practice in industrial relations. They are more likely to be beneficial than anything written into a statute.

I hope that the Secretary of State will say that he has reflected on the matter and that he is prepared to give the House some assurances.

12.15 am

Mr. Mayhew

There are two reasons why the Government believe that it would be wrong for these amendments to be accepted. Both amendments place what we regard as unreasonable and unnecessary restrictions on the powers of the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice. These restrictions are not placed upon ACAS. There could result conflict- ing advice in different codes, continuing to exist concurrently with the result that employers, unions and tribunals would be confused.

Amendment No. 91 makes nonsense of the power conferred on the Secretary of State by clause 2(6) to revise the whole or any part of a code of practice issued by him. Nothing in the proposals in the Bill is intended to imply any lack of support or lack of confidence in ACAS. I echo and endorse the remarks of the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) about the contribution of the service to industrial relations since its formation. On the other hand, there are areas in which it may be appropriate for the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice. We propose, for example, that he shall issue codes of practice, after consultation, in relation to the closed shop and in relation to picketing. It is because matters of public policy, as distinct from industrial relations questions, will be involved that it may not be appropriate for ACAS to issue them.

ACAS has a parallel power under schedule 1, paragraph 4, of the Bill to override or supersede, in a code that it produces, the provisions of a code of practice issued by the Secretary of State. The power to supersede a code issued by ACAS that the Bill confers upon the Secretary of State is only the mirror image of that conferred by schedule 1 on ACAS itself. I hope that this illustrates the good faith in this context of the Government.

The Secretary of State is given power by clause 2(6) to revise his codes issued under this clause. This power is given in recognition that industrial relations circumstances are likely to change, for example, because of technological or other developments. However, this power is void if a revised code cannot supersede a previous code. It is important that amendment No. 92 should be resisted. Although he has no current plans, it may be necessary, where circumstances have changed, for the Secretary of State to issue a code that will supersede in whole, or in part, an ACAS code if ACAS is unable or unwilling because of timing, expediency or for any other reason to issue a revised code. There is no suggestion that the Secretary of State will use his power automatically to supersede ACAS codes. It is important that he is required by clause 2 to consult ACAS both when he issues a code and when he revises it. It is important to remember that in general the Government will be happy for ACAS to fulfil the main code-making role and that they do not intend to produce new or revised codes unless they are convinced that that is necessary and that it cannot be done by ACAS.

The fears prove to be without foundation. The Secretary of State should not have to obtain the consent of ACAS before issuing or revising a code. That would be inappropriate. The ultimate responsibility must be with the Secretary of State. We believe that there are no grounds for anxieties. I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist the amendment.

Amendment negatived.