HL Deb 09 July 1982 vol 432 cc1034-8

1.27 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th June be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This draft order was before your Lordships yesterday on a similar Motion. The Motion was withdrawn, by leave, after the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn, pressed certain objections to and sought clarification of the draft order and the draft amending regulations which the Secretary of State intends to make subsequently, to come into operation on 1st September this year.

My Lords, I explained yesterday the origins and purpose of the draft order. Let it be sufficient for me to say today that it amends Section 1 of the Employment Act 1980 so that funds for the holding of secret ballots by trades unions will be available to cover votes on wage offers in addition to the other purposes set out in that section. I should make it clear that the Motion before your Lordships is concerned with the draft order. The draft amending regulations—the Funds for Trade Union Ballots (Amendment) Regulations1982—to which reference has been made, have not yet been laid. They are in the nature of a first draft and subject to further amendments before being laid. Once laid, they are subject to the negative resolution procedure, and are not the subject of this Motion before your Lordships. Nevertheless, it was for the assistance of the House in explaining the full import of the draft order that these amending regulations, which the Secretary of State intends to make later, were referred to in my remarks yesterday.

My Lords, in yesterday's debate, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, asked a number of questions about both the draft order and the draft amending regulations. If I may, I will turn first to the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. His first point concerned the meaning of the expression, incidents of the relationship". These words are there simply to ensure that all benefits given by employers to employees or workers, whether under a contract of employment or not, and other matters affecting the relationship between them, such as the structure of negotiating arrangements, are within the scope of the order we are discussing. I hope this explanation will do something to allay the suspicions which were aroused in noble Lords yesterday.

The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, described the words, obtaining a decision or ascertaining the views of members as a very funny phrase. I must, however, point out to him that these words are the same as those used by the parliamentary draftsman in Section 1(3) of the 1980 Act. Their purpose is to make it clear that where, under a union's rules, a ballot has been held but the final decision rests with the union's executive committee—so that, arguably, no decision is reached on the ballot—the ballot is still covered.

The noble Lord asked if the phrase, whether in money or otherwise in the draft amending regulations was linked to the words, incidents of the relationship in the draft order. It is not, my Lords. I have just explained what is meant by the second expression: the words "money or otherwise" are simply intended to ensure that what are known broadly as "benefits in kind" are covered. Perhaps I should say in relation to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, on those words that, while I am unconvinced that the expression "money or money's worth" would bear any different meaning from the words used, I am content to meet him on this matter and have the wording changed to that which he prefers.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, suggested that it was absurd to ballot on whether luncheon vouchers should be given. As this scheme does not compel the holding of any ballots such a matter is one entirely for the union to decide; the Government does not wish to take such decisions for any union. It expects, however, that most ballots covered by the extension to the scheme will concern wage offers and major terms and conditions of employment; and, my Lords, I find it difficult to imagine that the noble Lord really thought otherwise.

Turning now to the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn—and I hope he will forgive me if I do not repeat myself on the points he made which overlapped with those made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy—he suggested first that the new regulation was designed to cover some new privatised postal service. The noble Lord—and I am sorry that he is not in his place and also that his noble friend Lord McCarthy is not here—may now have had the opportunity to examine the new definition of "the post" more closely. If he has, I hope he will agree with me that this is the very opposite of what the new definition achieves. Its effect is to put it beyond doubt that "the post" means a postal service provided by the Post Office and that it can only include a postal service provided by others where the Secretary of State for Industry has by licence permitted some other person to carry letters without breaking the Post Office privilege of carrying letters, or has suspended that privilege by order. Those powers of the Secretary of State for Industry are not new ones.

The noble Lord went on to say that the proposed regulations did not deal adequately with the position where an employer made an offer consisting of a package containing a number of different elements some of which might fall within the new Regulation 4(f) and some of which might not. As I have already indicated, it must be remembered that the draft regulations which were deposited in the Library of another place, which, as we discussed yesterday, should have been deposited in your Lordships' Library, and which were given to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to help towards a proper understanding of the Government's proposals, are an initial draft. The regulations have not yet been laid and, until they are, they may of course be changed by the department. Indeed, new Regulation 4(f) has already been reconsidered and, in the hope that it will help the noble Lord, the new version is as follows: obtaining a decision or ascertaining the views of members of a trade union as to the acceptance or rejection of a proposal made by an employer"— so far it is the same— which relates in whole or in part to remuneration (whether in money or otherwise), hours of work, level of performance holidays or pensions". It is now therefore clear, even if it was not before, that a union will not have to ask its members to vote separately on each element of a package offer in order to qualify for a refund under the scheme.

It is, of course, true that an offer may affect members of different unions and non-members in different ways: equally, it may well affect different groups of members in the same union in different ways. I am not sure that I have fully understood the objection made by he noble Lord, but it is certainly the intention of the Government that a union shall be able to obtain a refund if it ballots any group of members who are genuinely affected by the whole of, or any lement contained in, an offer. On the other hand, we see no reason why a union should be able to claim a refund if it ballots those who are not affected by the offer who are not members of a trade union.

I hope that the revised version of Regulation 4(f)will persuade the noble Lord that the certification officer will not have to vet the form in which a package of proposals is put forward or the way ballot questions are framed. It is not the intention of the Government that separate ballots should be needed for each item of a package proposal. Such a requirement would indeed be absurd, since people may well like one element in a package and dislike another; yet the only question before them is whether they accept the package as a whole. I need hardly add that we do not believe the proposed regulations achieve that strange result.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, considered it odd that the regulations should be narrower in scope than the purpose specified in the order. However, sections 1(1) and 1(2) of the 1980 Act specifically permit the Secretary of State not only to pick and choose between the various purposes mentioned in subsection (3), but also to specify a purpose which is worded differently from a purpose in the subsection but nevertheless falls within it. This was in fact done in Regulation 4(b) of the main regulations. The reason why the purpose in the draft regulations is narrower than that in the order is simply that it seemed sensible to cover everything that would fall within the employment relationship in the order, rather than adopt a piecemeal approach which might call for later amendment. It was, however, always the Government's intention that initially the extension of the scheme would cover only ballots which related partly to one of the major matters specified in the draft regulations.

I trust that the noble Lords are now content with these explanations, but, if they still find them insufficient, perhaps I can write to them. I now invite your Lordships to approve the draft order, and I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th June be approved.—(Lord Glenarthur.)

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am in the unfortunate position of being a most inadequate shadow for my noble friends Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn, but I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister, in particular, for two things. The first is the very courteous way in which, yesterday evening, he agreed to withdraw these orders for 24 hours following the request which I made. It is a very complicated business, and I am certain that many noble Lords will still feel it is as complicated now, even though we are most grateful for the very detailed explanation by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has given to the various points raised by my noble friends. I am certainly very grateful for the information he has given, and I am also grateful to my noble friends for the astute investigations which they made at the very last moment in order to raise these points and to get the explanations we have had. I believe that this is part of the essential parliamentary scrutiny of legislation and orders which come before this House.

It may indicate the need for the most careful preparation of memorandums in respect of instruments which come before the House, so that we can have a good idea, in some detail, of what the whole question is about. As I have said, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister. I hope that his replies will satisfy my noble friends, but I am certain they will be grateful for the offer he as made; that if there are any questions outstanding they can approach him and he will write to them.

There is one point that did not seem clear to me. One detailed point was raised, by I think, my noble friend Lord Wedderburn, who had doubts as to whether the certification officer had the authority to make the type of payments for the purposes laid down in this instrument. That is the one outstanding point that I can see and, if the noble Lord does not have the infor- mation now, perhaps he could let us have it in in due course. But I am grateful to the noble Lord for the deferment, and for the answers which he has now given to the points raised by my noble friends.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on that specific point.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, from these Benches, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for the clear way in which he has explained this order. I am ashamed to say that I was not even aware of the background which led to the postponement and to the movement of the order today. Perhaps, like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in this somewhat complex situation, I do not feel as well briefed as I should be on this subject. But like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I am grateful for the clear explanation which the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has given about some of the questions raised yesterday. On the face of it, what he said appears to clear up any misunderstandings there may have been and, subject to anything further that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, may have to say in response to the outstanding question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I think I may say that my noble friends and I are content with the order that has been placed before the House.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, perhaps I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, now. The certification officer will have the authority, once the amending regulations have been introduced. I hope that that answers his question.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, on this matter the point to bear in mind is that, when the trade unions look a gift horse in the mouth, they examine its teeth very carefully. The moral of it all is: never offer the trade unions anything that they have not asked for. They will view it with suspicion and deep resentment, and when you introduce draft regulations to administer the gift you will find that they will try to read between the lines and examine the motives of Her Majesty's Government. I do not know why Governments do not learn all this from practical experience, but they do not. They go on making the same mistakes all the time and the trade unions go on exhibiting the same attitudes all the time. However, it is part of the initiation of the noble Lord on the Front Bench, who had the difficult task of explaining what sounded to me to be almost inexplicable—certainly it was extremely difficult to understand. However, we shall probably know more about these regulations when we read Hansard tomorrow morning.

On Question, Motion agreed to.