Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in

Clause 17, page 16, line 42, leave out 'or employee' and insert ', employee, branch or section'.

Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 9, in

Clause 20, page 18, line 21, leave out 'or employee' and insert ', employee, branch or section'.

Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)

I must declare an interest, Mr. Stevenson, which is shown in the Register of Members' Interests. I was a lawyer in a previous incarnation, and I might have taken various legal cases on this subject. I have no intention of going back to the law—unless my constituents summarily dismiss me. After my experience with the Bill, however, I might be more employable than before.

Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are in my name and that of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly). Proposed new subsection (2D), in subsection (4), states:

''For the purposes of subsection (2C) information is in the possession of the union if it is held, for union purposes—

(a) in a document, whether in electronic form or any other form, and

(b) in the possession or under the control of an officer or employee of the union.''

Our understanding is that that basically means the officers or employees at a union's headquarters and not at branch level. I would like the Minister to clarify that.

If branch officers are not included, it must be an oversight. The unions should have extremely efficient book keeping systems, and employers are required to provide the equivalent information. The provision makes no exception for poor administration or poor book keeping. Some employers might be concerned about that. It is up to us as legislators to consider abnormal or extreme cases. We obviously hope that they will not happen but they could in fraught situations. The concern is that, if the clause does not include a reference to branch officials, unions might be encouraged to hide information with them.

I wonder whether the Government want to restrict the provision to officers and records at a union's headquarters. That is the purpose of the amendments.

Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)

Good morning, Mr. Stevenson, and welcome to the Committee.

The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) asked what the Government's intention is. I shall deal with both amendments as they would make the same change to clauses 17 and 20. Both clauses deal with the law on industrial action notices. Clause 17 concerns the notices that unions must provide in advance of industrial action ballots, and clause 20 deals with notices that unions must provide in advance of any subsequent industrial action.

The present law is far too complicated. It places unrealistically high demands on unions, and opens the way for legal action over relatively minor breaches of the law. Clauses 17 and 20 therefore make several important simplifications. For example, we have made it clear in our provisions that the union need supply only that information that is in the possession of, or accessible to, union employees or union officers. That formulation ensures that unions are under no obligation to assemble and present information held by their lay officials around the country—the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

The requirement is therefore confined to what the union can realistically be expected to assemble—namely, information held by, or accessible to, the main officers and staff of the union. For a larger union, the definition would cover the information held at head offices or at any of its regional or district offices from which its full-time officers operate. That will often be a large network.

Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 seek to widen considerably the information that is to be regarded as being in the possession of the union. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk proposes extending the definition to include information held by every union branch and section. He seeks to ensure that information held by shop stewards or branch officials up and down the country must be used by the union when preparing the notices if it is relevant. For large unions, we would be talking about thousands of individuals and locations.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever been an active trade union member. Perhaps he has been—after all, lawyers have one of the best trade unions. [Hon. Members: ''A closed shop.''] Yes, it is a closed shop. However, I am not sure whether he has ever been an active trade union member. If he had been, he would understand the severe limitations on most part-time secretaries and similar lay officials.

Volunteers who work in union branches and sections rarely have much, if any, office equipment. They work part-time, spending a few hours a week on union business. Their rights to paid time off to conduct that business may be limited, especially if the union is unrecognised. Not surprisingly, their ability to maintain accurate and up-to-date records is limited, as is their ability to communicate that information to a full-time official in a usable form.

That is not to condone inefficiency or sloppy working in unions, and I am sure that we shall return to that point in later discussions. Our approach is based on the reality of life in voluntary organisations. The obligations on unions should be

framed accordingly, rather than on the basis of the circumstances in which employers operate. That is why the scope of the duty on employers in clause 3 to disclose information is different.

I propose that notices should be based on information with which the union can realistically be expected to provide the employer. The definition of ''qualifying information'' is still wide and includes all the main data held by unions. The requirements will ensure that the employer's essential needs are met without placing an unnecessary burden on the unions. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon, Conservative)

Having heard the Minister describe the situation on the ground, I have more concerns than I did before he spoke. The concept of holding information is becoming increasingly important. The Data Protection Act 1998 provides that people must register the fact that they hold information. However, the Minister said that people might be able to lose information in the back office because they were part-timers or voluntary workers. That is not acceptable. Nor does it reflect data protection law. Following the Minister's remarks, I have serious concerns that the clause could be used to shuffle aside information that should be seen but which the unions do not want to be seen. Has the Minister checked whether the clause adequately reflects data protection law?

Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)

I wish the hon. Gentleman a good morning, too. I note that he consistently returns to his theme of the dark intentions behind what we want to achieve.

It might be worth putting the issue in the context of current industrial relations, although I do not want to go into the historical context and the dark days under the last Conservative Government, and you would not let me, Mr. Stevenson. Stoppages are at an all-time low, and industrial relations are better than ever before, because the partnership arrangements that the Government have put in place are working better than ever.

I was not being flippant about the serious issues raised by the Data Protection Act. The relevant information will, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk said, be required a minimal amount of times. It will involve only that information that it is reasonable to expect a union to provide on the ground. The original definition in the Employment Relations Act 1999 has been shown to be too tight. We have tried, as we said we would, reasonably to examine how the Act was working on the ground.

The proposed change is sensible. It does not prevent employers from gaining the information that they require, it meets all the legal requirements of data protection and other provisions and it is perfectly sensible, but I clearly have not convinced the hon. Member for Huntingdon.

Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon, Conservative)

I am not convinced by the Minister's argument. I think that he said that the proposals

complied with data protection law, but there is another strand to the issue. From what I can make out, there is no equivalent provision for companies. Am I correct in assuming that, if a piece of information were hidden in the corner of a part-time employee's office, the company would not have the same leeway as the Minister proposes to give the unions?

Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman should remember the context. We are talking about information relating to possible industrial action. The employer has all the information to hand in such circumstances. This is about what the union has to give the employer. The onus is therefore on the union to provide the information. The Government argue that the amount of information held by the full-time officer must be reasonable.

Mr John Lyons (Strathkelvin & Bearsden, Labour)

Have employers made any complaints about statistics provided by trade unions in this situation? I have always found the process to run smoothly. Names are supplied, whether people are manual, non-manual or clerical workers, which is usually enough for employers to feel quite comfortable and confident about the information that they are receiving. I am not aware of any complaints, but the Minister might tell us otherwise.

Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)

I assure my hon. Friend that there have been no complaints. The procedure works reasonably well, but we are taking the opportunity to improve it. Throughout our proceedings, it has been clear why the hon. Member for Huntingdon is unhappy with the Bill and the motivation behind it. I understand his arguments, although we disagree. The amendments are not appropriate, as they would take the Bill in the wrong direction. At this early point in our discussion, I ask the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)

I want to make a quick extra point. A factory closed in my constituency when the company went into receivership, and many employees were laid off. The company was bought by a Belgian company. I had many discussions with the Transport and General Workers Union branch officer and with T and G stewards in the factory. I presume that the branch officer, who is based in Cambridge or Peterborough, will be a full-time employee of the union and would be covered by the provision. The Minister appears to be saying that the stewards in the factory would not be covered. Obviously, stewards in the factory have a great deal of information, but they are employees of the company and work voluntarily for the union. Am I right that the full-time employee of the T and G, whom I met at various meetings, would be an employee of the union for the purposes of the Bill?

Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)

As I understand it, yes.

Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)

I have some important questions to ask the Minister. The Opposition tabled an amendment that the learned Clerk tells me would go to the core of the clause and change it fundamentally.

The wording of the original statute is:

''containing such information in the union's possession as would help the employer to make plans and bring information to the attention of those of his employees''.

That is to be replaced by subsection (3), which states:

''containing the lists mentioned in subsection (2A) and the figures mentioned in subsection (2B), together with an explanation of how those figures were arrived at.''

I conclude that the new wording is intended to reduce uncertainty about what information the unions are required to give employers. That obviously makes sense. However, the Opposition strongly believe that the original requirement was more conducive to harmonious employment relations and efficient management. I urge the Minister to explain exactly why he believes it to be necessary to depart from the wording of the original statute. We tabled what we believe is a perfectly reasonable amendment. The learned Clerk, to whom I defer and whom I respect enormously, took the view that the amendment went to the core of the clause. Will the Minister enlighten the Committee as to his thinking?

Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)

I shall try to do what the hon. Gentleman asks, if that is possible. The essential features of the pre-1997 law on industrial action have been retained. The industrial relations scene has improved. Those aspects have become an accepted feature of our employment relations system and the Government have no plans to remove them. However, parts of the law have become too complex and act as a tripwire for unions. Even when unions meet the main requirements of the law, they can still make technical mistakes that leave their actions open to time-consuming and costly legal challenge. That cannot be right and it does not represent good regulation.

We are therefore taking a limited number of steps in the Bill to deal with problem areas, where the law is particularly cumbersome and unnecessarily onerous. The clause deals with the law on notices that the unions must supply in advance of pre-strike ballots. The 1999 Act amended that law but, in reviewing that Act, we concluded that those changes were in fact counter-productive. Contrary to our intentions, we probably increased the burden on unions, in many cases requiring them to provide detailed matrices in notices. Moreover, the changes to the 1999 Act left unclear precisely what information should be disclosed.

In part, that conclusion flows from judgments in several high-profile legal cases, most notably London Underground Ltd. v. National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. We have therefore acted quickly to ensure that the desired simplification is achieved. The clause aims to do that in several ways. First, it clearly defines the information that the union must provide in the notices. The requirement is to provide two lists that identify the categories of workers involved and the workplaces involved. In addition, the

notices must contain figures that identify the total number of workers involved, the number of workers in each occupational category and the number of workers at each workplace. Together, those requirements remove the need to provide matrices. The proposals are based on the information that a union can realistically be expected to provide an employer. The union's duty is clear and the essential needs of the employer are met. No longer should unions be required to provide data of questionable accuracy and usefulness to employers.

Secondly, the clause deletes the reference in the law requiring the union to supply such information as would enable the employer to make plans. The original formulation left it wide open for an employer to assert that extra information was needed and meant that the union never knew with certainty whether it had met the requirements of the law. Thirdly, we have made it clear that the union need only supply information that is in the possession of, or accessible to, union employees or union officers, such as general secretaries.

Mr Jim Sheridan (West Renfrewshire, Labour)

I listened yesterday to the hon. Member for Huntingdon's speech on his ten-minute Bill on European deregulation. Not once was the question of employees mentioned, which gives an indication of exactly where his priorities lie. The clause will relieve trade unions of the current administrative burden, but can my hon. Friend the Minister clarify the meaning and likely application of the phrase ''categories of employee''?

Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I did not have the opportunity to hear the hon. Member for Huntingdon's speech on his ten-minute Bill yesterday, but I am sure that I shall read it with great delight in Hansard and see that he failed to make the references that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon, Conservative)

The last time the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) made a personal remark, I ignored it, but this time I shall put him right. I specifically mentioned the impact of gold-plating European regulations on employees. He can look in today's Hansard to confirm that.

Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

Order. That is enough of yesterday's ten-minute Bill.

Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)

I am sorry for diverting us down a path along which none of wish to go.

The category of worker is clear and refers to those who are involved in the industrial action. The union must provide that information to the employer, so that people are clear and so that no one can take advantage of it. The information that is necessary is clear. The clause gives that clarity and affords the opportunity to reduce the administrative burden. That was the original intention behind the 1999 Act, but the way we administered it meant that it did not work out. I see nothing underhand that the employer would take issue with. It is clear what information is expected. The fears expressed by Opposition Members are in line with their fears about the Bill, and I would not be able to convince them if we were to stay here until Christmas day.

Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon, Conservative)

I will not dispute what the Minister has said. However, will he clarify whether he has received any representations from employers on the issue? He has not laid out whether he has, or what their position was. Can he also clarify the meaning of clause 17(4)(2E)(b)? It reads:

''where the employees concerned are not all to be sent the same form of voting paper, a sample of each form of voting paper which is to be sent to any of them.''

Can he give an example of when that would be put into practice? Why is that provision needed?

Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)

I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman to explain the detail of that process. It is nothing underhand. It is to ensure that everyone involved has the opportunity to be involved.

The hon. Gentleman asked about representations from employers. A number of employers submitted their views throughout the review of the 1999 Act, as I mentioned at the start of discussions on Tuesday morning. There were no specific concerns about that aspect of the Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.