Duty of employer to supply information to union
Employment Relations Bill
10:00 am
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 14, in
clause 3, page 2, line 31, leave out '5' and insert '10'.
This is a simple amendment, which relates to an earlier point in the Bill. As so often happens, we are debating legislation in a logical but not strictly chronological order. The clause deals with the employer's duty to supply information to the union, and I am looking forward to discussing some important amendments to it in a moment. Amendment No. 14, however, is fairly short. Page 2, line 31, of the Bill states:
''Within 5 working days starting with the day after that on which the CAC gives the employer notice of acceptance of the application, the employer must supply the following information''.
Five days is not long enough. Consider the information that has to be produced; a list of the categories of worker in the proposed bargaining unit, a list of the workplaces and the number of workers that the employer reasonably believes to be in each category at each workplace. It will be easy for a company that operates on one site—perhaps a small manufacturing unit employing 30, 40 or 50 people—to supply that information.
However, there are many disparate industries in this country. Sectors such as haulage, which have depots around the country at which some employees are self-employed and the use of sub-contractors is prevalent, will find it much harder to pull the information together. In addition, some companies keep very good records, but others are less conscientious. I am in favour of anything that drives up business efficiency standards, but we must also have an eye on what is reasonable. Five working days is not long enough. In the circumstances that I have described, 10 working days would be more reasonable. That is why I have tabled the amendment.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon, Conservative)
After the union has applied to the CAC for recognition, the next stage of the process is for the CAC to determine the role of the bargaining unit. The clause imposes on the employer a duty to supply information, including a list of categories of worker, a list of workplaces and the numbers of workers in each category to the unions and the CAC. I support my hon. Friend; the time in which the employer must provide that information should be extended from five to 10 working days, starting with the day after that on which the CAC gives the employer notice. That obligation could put a considerable strain on the employer, depending on the size of the business in question. That touches on another issue that arises throughout the legislation. The Bill takes a one-size-fits-all approach. In other words, it does not account differently for the size of the company, so whether it is ICI—
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)
Just to help the hon. Gentleman, is he not aware that the statutory recognition procedure does not apply to companies of less than 21?
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon, Conservative)
I am, indeed, aware, and I am coming to that very point. It is still the case that a bike shop employing more than 21 people will be subject to the same regulations as will ICI. That is a fundamental flaw in the Bill.
Having said that, I come back to the Minister's point, which is key. The CAC annual report notes that 54 per cent. of bargaining units have fewer than 100 staff, but it does not give any figures lower than that. There is a deficit of information in the public arena. If the figures are available, I should be grateful if the Minister said so. I do not know whether he has the information to hand now, but it would be helpful for the Committee if he said how many bargaining units there were with 21 to 25 workers, 25 to 30, 30 to 50, 50 to 75 and 75 to 100. If we had that information, we would be better able to understand the implications of the Bill for companies of different sizes. I have a feeling that the statistics will show that smaller companies are having a tougher time than large ones.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)
Notwithstanding what the hon. Gentleman says about the figures, I shall try to get that breakdown for him. I do not know how long it will take. The amendment seems to extend from five to 10 working days the period within which the employer must supply information to the CAC and the union about the proposed bargaining units. The duty to supply this information is very important. It applies during the special 20-day period set aside in the process for the parties to try to reach a voluntary agreement between themselves on an appropriate bargaining unit. This negotiation period can be extended if necessary. The CAC steps in to decide the unit only if the parties fail to agree. That arrangement has worked very well; better, perhaps, than many people expected.
By the end of December last year, 79 bargaining units had been decided by agreement between the parties. That left only 73 cases in which the CAC had to determine the unit. We want to build on that success by easing the way for even more agreements to be reached. The clause achieves this by ensuring that all the parties share helpful information early in negotiation. The sooner a shared understanding of the shape of the work force can be achieved, the greater the chance that an appropriate bargaining unit will be agreed.
The clause introduces a duty on employers to supply the union with information on the number of workers in the union's proposed bargaining unit by category of worker and by workplace. The occupational and geographical compositions of the work force are usually key factors in determining bargaining units. The union cannot know this detail in advance of lodging its application. A level playing field is created in negotiations if the employer discloses that information. This will facilitate more constructive negotiations and more informed choices.
The amendment would allow an employer to delay negotiations by waiting until halfway through the initial 20-day negotiation period before supplying the information. That is too long. Five working days is a reasonable amount of time in which to expect the employer to supply the information. The information
required is restricted to basic employment data, and most employers should already have compiled it for other business purposes as a matter of course. Indeed, in many cases, the employer will have supplied much of the data to the CAC at the earlier admissibility stage, so the task will not be excessively time-consuming. Moreover, employers going through the process will know in advance what the procedure requires of them. This requirement will not be sprung on them suddenly. Employers will have plenty of time before they reach the bargaining unit negotiation stage to prepare the information.
The Government cannot support the amendment, as the clause does not place unreasonable demands on the employer. I have figures that I will share with members of the Committee. They are too difficult to discuss now, but I will ensure that hon. Members have the detail of the bargaining units by this afternoon's sitting. I ask the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk to withdraw the amendment.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
Will the Minister say what happens if the company cannot access information within the specified period? There will be exceptional circumstances. For example, records might be lost, or a company might have disparate business units with operations spread throughout the country. Is there any way in which we can try to help companies that genuinely cannot provide the information?
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)
As I said, the company will know what procedures are expected of it by the time it enters into negotiations. There will have been an attempt to try to reach a voluntary arrangement. The company will know that the statutory procedure will be developed and that the information will be required. The hon. Gentleman does, however, raise an interesting point about small failures or slight administrational hiccups, which we will discuss later. I am prepared to consider that question in return for a greater flexibility in the hon. Gentleman's approach to minor issues that affect the unions, which we will come to later in debate.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
I am grateful for the Minister's suggestion. There may be scope for flexibility later, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 15, in
clause 3, page 3, line 5, at end insert—
'(6) If any of the information to be supplied pursuant to sub-paragraph (2) is commercially confidential or information which may affect the security of the company or its employees, the employer shall have the right to withhold any such information.'.
Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 20, in
clause 5, page 6, line 3, at end insert—
'(5) If any of the information to be supplied pursuant to sub-paragraph (2) is commercially confidential or information which may affect the security of the company or its employees, the employer shall have the right to withhold any such information.'.
No. 30, in
clause 12, page 11, line 40, at end add—
'(7) If any of the information to be supplied pursuant to sub-paragraph (2) is commercially confidential or information which may affect the security of the company or its employees, the employer shall have the right to withhold any such information.'.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
The Clerks have grouped the amendment with amendment No. 20, which relates to clause 5, and with amendment No. 30, which relates to clause 12. They are all worded identically and have the same raison d'etre, which is why they have been grouped together.
There are a number of issues that arise from the amendment, such as commercial confidentiality and the security of the employer and employees. Although we probably feel least strongly about commercial confidentiality, it could be significant. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon has a lot of experience of corporate takeovers and corporate reconstructions from work in his previous incarnation as a partner in a firm of city solicitors. We respect his experience. He knows that there are times when commercial confidentiality is vital; in a takeover, for example, intellectual property or patents could be an issue. The company in question might be trying to register patents or intellectual property at a particularly critical time. Commercial confidentiality is vital in those circumstances.
Business today can also get pretty ruthless and determined at times, such as during a bust-up in a boardroom or a company. I am sure that members of the Committee have been following the story in the press recently about the row between the managing director of Manchester United and the senior shareholders John Magnier, J. P. McManus and Dermot Desmond. Those individuals have employed a firm called Kroll, an aggressive and ruthless security company, to delve into every aspect of Sir Alex Ferguson's business activities and private life. That is an example of the lengths to which people will go to get information when there is a serious boardroom bust-up. That is the background in business now. Tactics can be used that are different to those used in the past.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)
As a Manchester United supporter, I understand, with great pain, what is happening at Old Trafford. However, I am a little lost and do not know where the hon. Gentleman is taking us. Could he explain how the statutory recognition procedure in question applies to the Bill?
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
I will come to that. Ruthless tactics can be employed to obtain information in today's business world, so there will be times when a company wants to protect its commercial confidentiality. If companies must supply information to the CAC, there will be one more organisation with highly sensitive commercial information.
Mr Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye, Labour)
Can the hon. Gentleman give an example? The information that companies are required to supply under the provisions is pretty limited. What situation does the hon. Gentleman
envisage—within the limitations of the list—that might involve confidential information liable to cause such embarrassment?
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
It might be that the company in question is opening a new plant somewhere. The company might be working on a new patent or putting together a new group of employees to move into a plant. One could think of a number of examples. However, I would accept entirely that commercial confidentiality is probably the weaker of our two points.
We should consider the security of employees carefully. Employee security, which can involve giving up the details of home address, for instance, is usually not a critical factor. In most companies involved in manufacturing, engineering, the service industry, distribution, warehousing or logistics—we can all think of examples from our constituencies—the employees are probably quite relaxed about people knowing their home addresses and other such personal details. However, the work of other companies is much more controversial. One thinks of companies involved in the arms trade or the export of systems that could be used to repress human rights. In particular, employees of some companies that are involved in animal experimentation have been subject to the most appalling attacks. One thinks of Huntingdon Life Sciences, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon is up to speed with that.
I have been robust in trying to reduce the level of animal experimentation in this country, and I have always been keen on animal welfare, but the experiments being done by HLS will advance the world of medical knowledge. However, we have seen appalling tactics being used to intimidate, bully and frighten that company's employees. Flowing from that was the recent announcement by Cambridge university that its proposed primate research centre would not be going ahead for exactly those reasons; it was worried about the security of employees.
Although we feel strongly about the matter, it is a probing amendment to flag up the fact that, in some circumstances, the security of employees should be considered. I do not know whether the amendment is the right way to achieve it, but the Minister is the expert and he has a team of experts advising him. I am sorry that our friend on the Liberal Democrat Benches is not here, because I think he would be interested in this debate.
Mr Jim Sheridan (West Renfrewshire, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman's nostalgia seems to have taken him back to the days of GCHQ, when the Conservative Government saw the trade unions as a threat from within. Can he identify at least one example of a trade union or of individual members of a trade union having been given information that has damaged the employer?
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
I do not for one moment believe that trade unions or other organisations connected with them would want to do anything to risk the security of employees. The information has to be sent not to trade unionists but to the CAC. I am not talking
about unions; I am talking about information being forwarded to the committee. That information may be sent by e-mail or by other methods, but the employees may be uneasy about disclosing such information to another body.
It is a probing amendment; we do not say that the wording is 100 per cent. correct. However, we are living in a world of global demonstrations and of individuals and single-issue pressure groups with substantial resources and commitment. Some of their members have unfortunately moved beyond the pale; from what we believe to be acceptable demonstrations to tactics against individuals that are completely unacceptable.
We are concerned that anything that might enable others to gain information about individuals and security arrangements could be a step in the wrong direction, unless it is properly protected. That is all that we seek.
Mr Bill Tynan (Hamilton South, Labour)
I see this as a wrecking amendment. I can understand the proposition put by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, but the provisions of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are about providing information to the CAC. If we accepted the amendment, the employer would be able to refuse to give that information, and the CAC would not be able to appeal against the decision. That would wreck the whole concept of this part of the Bill.
My view is that we have to move forward. I believe that all parties should embrace consensus within the workplace, but amendments such as this would risk destroying any opportunity of employers and trade unions working together. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to look seriously at the proposition.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman said that he was concerned that the CAC would not have the right to appeal. If it did, would he support the concept?
Mr Bill Tynan (Hamilton South, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman should consider the clause and examine why a company should need to withhold such information. If he considers it on that basis, he should realise that there is no need to change the clause, or to reach an agreement on the amendment.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon, Conservative)
The amendments relate to the confidentiality of information, each under slightly different circumstances. The selection of the amendments means that we are considering amendments to clauses 3, 5, and 12. As the confidentiality provisions would be different in each clause, I will have to stray into clause 5, in particular; I hope that that will not be a problem.
Employers must be given the right to withhold information on the grounds that it is commercially confidential, or that its release may affect the security of employees or the company. In relation to clause 3, we need to appreciate that unions will not have been recognised at that stage; they will not have held a ballot or decided whether there is a viable bargaining unit. The unions' position at that point is detached from the status that many hon. Members have attributed to them during our discussions, for example that they will
be in place and part of the team. That is not the situation that is envisaged at the point at which clause 3 will apply.
I am not entirely sure why information on categories of worker and numbers of employees in each place of work needs to go to the unions at all. Perhaps the Minister can explain that. I think that it was intimated that such information does not need to go to the unions and the CAC, but clause 3 says that it does. I agree with other people's assumptions. I am not sure why it needs to go to the unions at that stage; it could go just to the CAC, which will run the process.
I return to my point about confidential information. We live in a corporate world in which information is king, not that it ever wasn't. Information is much more accessible in this age of computers. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye asked for an example in which the amendment would be relevant. The fact that companies do not need to disclose divisional strengths in their accounts is a good example; knowing the divisional strength of a company could be a competitive advantage for a competing company. Under the Bill, that information will need to be disclosed to the CAC.
Companies will be concerned about the release of such information to the CAC and the unions. I reiterate that, at that stage, the unions will not be on board, but will be outside parties with members in other companies in the same sector. Although the unions may not give information to competing companies, it may get to them through union members. I say that as an attack, not on unions, but on competing companies that would use it as a way of getting information on other companies in the same sector. I hasten to add that I am no expert on the law in this area, but I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the unions would have a legal duty to keep confidential any information that they receive under the measures. What comeback would there be if such information got out to a competing company? Is it possible, within existing law, for the unions to guarantee to companies that the information that they receive will not go any further or be used for any purpose other than that for which the Bill provides?
Mr Jim Sheridan (West Renfrewshire, Labour)
If I understand the comments made by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, the hon. Member for Huntingdon has vast experience of asset-stripping. He talks about ''the union'' in abstract terms. The union consists of the members and whether employees are members of a union or not, they can still pass on information that could be classed as highly confidential. On the principle of confidential clauses, does he accept that the Government have the right to say, whenever they feel like it, that they cannot disclose information because it is confidential? Would his party accept that?
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon, Conservative)
Ignoring the hon. Gentleman's views on my previous work experience, I will say that he makes my point. The unions are not stand-alone
entities existing in law, although they are. They are also human beings and people who talk to each other and communicate and who will want to discuss an approach and a strategy. That will involve confidential information. That is why I am so concerned that the concept of confidentiality should be recognised and why we propose the amendment.
I want to go on to clause 5. Although the request is the same—that we provide for commercial confidentiality and security—in this particular situation we are talking about giving personal details such as names and home addresses to the CAC. That is a wider remit than under clause 3. Not only is it a wider remit, it is a more personal remit because personal information, particularly about people's homes and addresses, will go through.
Why should we be so concerned to protect information about people's homes and addresses? As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk mentioned, I have a company in my constituency called Huntingdon Life Sciences. The Minister has probably heard the name of that company several times in the past—probably several times in the past week—and that company has a very significant problem.
Groups of people—I refer to them as terrorists—do everything that they can to find out the names and addresses of people who work for that company. Once they have the names and addresses they publish them on their website. That is apparently done quite legally; I hope that the Minister will address that issue and I have written to members of the Government about it. Those people then leave it to an assorted group of thugs and terrorists to go round and terrorise the homes of those whose addresses have been published. We are talking about some pretty terrible actions; from death threats, daubings and smashed windows to walking down the individual's street, knocking on every neighbour's door and telling them that a murderer lives three doors down. All that comes from the fact that the name and address of the individual escaped in to the public sector. That is why I am extremely concerned about the confidentiality of names and addresses.
We are talking about times when the union is not yet on board; times when although individuals may be members of the union, the union has not been accepted for the purposes of collective bargaining rights. However, under clause 5 the CAC will receive all such personal information. I am sure that the CAC has good confidentiality arrangements; it would be helpful if the Minister explained to the Committee what those are. That would certainly allay some of my concerns.
As clause 5 stands, the wording is not tight enough. Paragraph 19D(1) states that an employer revealing his employees' names and addresses to the CAC must do so only
''so far as it is reasonable to expect him to do so''.
The Minister might argue that that addresses the point about confidentiality. However, the idea needs to be developed. The Minister needs to explain what the reasonableness would involve. Would it be enough for a company to refuse to give the names and addresses
of its employees if, for instance, it was the focus of a known terrorist threat, as is Huntingdon Life Sciences? This is an important point, and I am happy to support the amendment.
Mr Malcolm Bruce (Shadow Secretary of State for Trade & Industry, Trade & Industry; Gordon, Liberal Democrat)
The amendment relates to two different issues that need to be treated separately. I have grave suspicions about commercial confidentiality, which is used as a catch-all excuse for not providing information. Governments also use it, and I would not want to build it into the Bill. Hon. Members have, however, raised legitimate concerns about confidentiality in relation to security. Whether that justifies an amendment is another matter. I deplore the fact that the sort of research carried out by Huntingdon Life Sciences has been driven out of this country and that many people who work in this field have been put under pressure. I also wonder how many public campaigners who oppose Huntingdon Life Sciences, even if they do not support the terrorism, would be willing to refuse treatment for their dying child if such research had produced a cure. That is the question that people must ask themselves.
The real point of the amendment is to say that we should interfere with the process of allowing unions to organise themselves legitimately because of a terrorist threat or a threat of violence against a business. It also slightly impugns trade unions to suggest that they would not be as concerned about the security of their members as the management would be. I do not dispute the points made by the hon. Gentlemen, but if they have a legitimate concern, the amendment needs to be more tightly drafted.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman very quickly moved away from the point about commercial sensitivity. His rationale, as I understood it, was that reference to commercial sensitivity could be a catch-all, and he dismissed it as a way forward. Would he be more partial to accepting the concept if the CAC could judge whether a situation was commercially sensitive?
Mr Malcolm Bruce (Shadow Secretary of State for Trade & Industry, Trade & Industry; Gordon, Liberal Democrat)
I would want to be more persuaded of the circumstances to be convinced that that was desirable. However, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the wording of the amendment does not stand up legally because it does not say who decides whether a situation is commercially sensitive, or it implies that the employer decides. There is no appeal or external reference. Conservative Members must concede that the amendment is not drafted tightly enough, even if one accepts the thrust of the argument. I maintain my suspicion of referring to commercial confidentiality in this context, and view it simply as a means of trying to block a process that would otherwise be acceptable.
The point about security may have legitimacy, but it would have to be defined much more tightly. Any of us would be appalled if we believed that information obtained in the process was misused in a way that put anyone's safety or security at risk. Huntingdon Life Sciences is a case in point, but there is no evidence to suggest that trade unions are the source of the information. There are many other ways in which people can find out who works where if they want to
get at them. In a free and open society, that is extremely difficult to prevent. Even then, I would need to be given a much more precise example of the sort of situation in which such a threat might occur. Some sort of external body might be able to judge whether reference to commercially sensitivity was appropriate, but I am not yet convinced that such cases are sufficiently frequent to matter.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)
This has been a useful debate although, unfortunately, some of the issues raised are not relevant to the Bill. On the subject of Huntingdon Life Sciences, I agree with the hon. Member for Gordon about the activities of the people involved. The Government's position has been very clear, and I acknowledge the work done by the hon. Member for Huntingdon on behalf of his constituents to try to deal with an horrendous situation. I am not sure whether he has written to me, but I will ensure that ministerial colleagues respond in due course. However, that is outside the context of the debate.
As I think the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk acknowledges, the amendments are not technically proficient. On that basis, I hope that he will not press them, but let us go through some of the issues that they raise.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon asked why the union should get the information. The reason is that it must propose the bargaining unit to the CAC, which must then determine, in discussions with the employer, whether the unit is appropriate. I do not think that that a trade union would act in a way that damaged its credibility or its membership. Furthermore, the relationship between companies and unions is covered by data protection laws and, where necessary, confidentiality arrangements.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) that the amendments could be seen as wrecking amendments in the context of the statutory recognition procedure. None the less, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk raised issues about the Government's attitude, and we take seriously our responsibility to ensure that commercial confidentiality is protected. I hope to explain the issue to him.
As has been explained, all three amendments refer to different clauses, but it is appropriate that we take them together. Amendment No. 15 seeks to protect the employer's right not to disclose to the union and the CAC information that is commercially sensitive or which might affect its security and that of its employees. That would apply where the employer had to provide information about the numbers, categories and locations of workers in the bargaining unit, and we discussed those issues in relation to amendment No. 14. I am sure that the intentions behind it are admirable, but let me reassure hon. Members that clause 3 will not require the employer to provide information that is any more sensitive than that which most companies are already perfectly content to publish in their annual reports.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon, Conservative)
That is exactly my point; the information is not required to be published in the annual report.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)
We must agree to differ on that point.
Clause 3 is not part of an underhand plot to allow unions to gain insider information about an employer. It applies only to the union's proposed bargaining unit and only once the union's application has passed the admissibility tests. Its purpose is to facilitate more constructive negotiations and more informed choices during the period of negotiations on the bargaining unit. The only information required will be the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit, with the numbers broken down by category of worker and workplace. The union could not use that information to identify individual workers, and it is implausible that it could affect a company's trading position or endanger its security or that of its work force.
Hon. Members might be worried that the categories of workers might constitute sensitive information in certain circumstances. Indeed, I think that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk raised the issue. However, we are not talking about such a detailed breakdown or about employers having to reveal how many, say, nuclear physicists or encryption experts they employ. For its application to be accepted by the CAC, the union must have given a satisfactory description of its proposed bargaining unit, and it will normally do so in terms of fairly broad occupational classifications. In virtually all cases, the employer's information will not need to go into greater detail. I should note that most employers already share such information with the union when negotiating on the bargaining unit. Our proposal will simply mean that information is shared more systematically and at the earliest appropriate point.
Amendment No. 20 applies to clause 5, which provides for union access from an earlier stage in the process than is currently the case. I hope to explain the clause in greater detail when we discuss amendments Nos. 18 and 19. The earlier union access envisaged will entail sending written material to workers' home addresses via an independent person. To facilitate the process, the CAC will need the employer's collaboration in supplying up-to-date lists of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit, together with their home addresses. That information will then be passed to the independent person who will, if asked to do so by the union, send to workers' home addresses any information with which it supplies him. Clause 5 does not give the union any right to have direct access to workers at their home addresses.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon, Conservative)
Will the Minister explain the CAC's arrangements for the security of the information that it receives?
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)
I shall come to that. Amendment No. 20 seeks to protect the right of the employer not to disclose to the appointed person commercially sensitive information or information that might affect the security of the company and its employees. There
has been some over-reaction on that issue. The information to be provided by the employer is merely the names and home addresses of the workers in the bargaining unit, whether it is that proposed by the union, agreed by the parties or decided by the CAC. I do not think that that information is likely to be commercially sensitive, or to endanger the security of the employees or the company. In any case, that is irrelevant because, as I have made clear, the information will be seen only by the CAC and the appointed person. Both are independent and respected.
The satisfaction rate on the way in which the CAC has dealt with such processes is over 80 per cent. That is high compared with that of many other organisations, and there are procedures within the CAC—
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon, Conservative)
The Minister notes that 80 per cent. are satisfied. However, I saw the figures, and would point out that only some 40 per cent. replied. Considering that 20 per cent. of those were not satisfied, I would not over-egg the point.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not attacking the CAC, an organisation that has done tremendous—
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman gave that impression. We can argue about the concept but going by experience, by the number of cases that have been dealt with and by the way in which the CAC has dealt with them, there is a great deal of confidence in the way in which it operates and in the independent people concerned, who have passed tests of credibility and of ability to do the job to be on the list of qualified independent people.
Amendment No. 30 concerns the power in clause 12 to widen the number of methods whereby the independent person can communicate the union's material direct to workers in the proposed bargaining unit. It allows the statutory procedure to keep pace with technological developments, particularly the rise of electronic communication, and their increasing use. I hope that the Committee will agree that it makes sense to allow for communications under the statutory procedure to use such systems and technologies, once they are completely established. The power can be used to require employers to disclose information—for example, e-mail addresses—to the CAC to enable the independent person to communicate with the workers via the technology in question.
I believe that the aim of amendment No. 30 is to add a similar confidentiality and security provision to the supply of workers' non-postal addresses by the employer. The considerations that I have raised in relation to amendments Nos. 15 and 20 apply equally here. There is no suggestion that the information will be divulged to unions or anybody else by the CAC or the independent person, and there is no reason to believe that any of the information will be commercially sensitive or threaten the security of a company or its staff.
The debate has been important, although it is slightly out of context in terms of the statutory recognition procedure relating to the process that we are undertaking. I hope that, in the light not only of the points that I have made but of the technical difficulties with the amendment, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk will withdraw it.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon, Conservative)
I am not entirely sure that, in the course of our helpful discussion, the Minister got round to explaining the security arrangements for the CAC or the person who deals with the information.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I will do that in writing, and circulate it to all Committee members.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
I have a couple of points to put to the Minister. The debate has been useful, and it has flagged up some important issues, to which the Committee was right to devote time. We are not talking about removing the right of any individual to be properly considered, or the rights of the trade union or the CAC to obtain details about a person and to find out whether he wants to participate in a ballot. All that we are talking about is protecting the person's home address. What happens if a particular employee does not want his home address to be revealed? He might not be in a company that is in a controversial field. It could be that he just does not want his home address to be revealed to anybody. Can that person be protected?
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)
I will double-check, but I think that the individual has to provide information about his name and address to the employer. These are issues relating to employer's insurance and other matters affecting the employee's rights. I will check on them and come back to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
The point is that some employees might want to insist that their address for all communications be that of the business. I can think of many reasons why they would not want their home address to be revealed if they have specifically requested it. For example, they may be under the witness protection scheme, or trying to escape the clutches of the Child Support Agency. However, it is important that their rights are respected if the individual has specifically requested it.
Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)
Order. There will be an opportunity to go into the matter in more detail in respect of clause 5. I have allowed the debate on the security element of the proposal to be stretched because it is important and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that into account.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
I will take it into account, Mr. Stevenson. In the light of our discussion and of some of the Minister's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.