Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)

I have just a couple of points on clause 18. The Minister mentioned the Midland Mainline case. I understand that the raison d'être of clause 18 is to put it beyond doubt that the union does not have to give an entitlement to vote to members who might take part, even though they are not induced to do so by the union. I am not quite clear what happened in the Midland Mainline case. It involved the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, but I am not quite clear who the workers were who felt that they should have been entitled to vote even though they were not induced to do so by the union. Can the Minister clarify that? I can see the purpose of clauses 18 and 19, but if the Minister could shed some extra light on that I would be grateful.

Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon, Conservative)

Existing legislation already provides that the ballot will stand even though the union committed minor errors in determining who was eligible to vote or failed to send ballot papers to all those required to be given entitlement to vote. I believe that the clause clarifies that the right extends to situations where a union accidentally fails to ballot an insignificant number of those who it intends to induce to take part in industrial action.

I am not entirely sure what ''small accidental failures'' means. I appreciate that there has been a case, but one case does not immediately translate into statute. What does ''small accidental failures'' mean, and when does a small accidental failure become a large accidental failure? At what point does it cross the line?

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

There were in fact three cases: London Underground Ltd. v. RMT, Midland

Mainline Ltd. v. RMT and Westminster city council v. Unison. Those cases raised issues that reflect why we are in this position. In the case of Midland Mainline v. RMT, the union sent out notices stating that all RMT members employed in the grades of operational train crews were involved, when in fact only some of the members in those grades were balloted. It was clearly about the reasonableness of the information provided.

We are trying to clarify the meaning of section 227 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 227 defines those individuals to whom the union must accord an entitlement to vote in an industrial action ballot. It requires the union to ballot those members

''who it is reasonable at the time of the ballot for the union to believe will be induced to take part . . . in the industrial action in question.''

The phrase ''will be induced'' is unclear. That was brought to light in the case of Midland Mainline v. RMT. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal stated that the phrase related to any union member who might take part in the action even though they had not been induced to do so by the union. In other words, the union had to predict how members whom it had no intention of inducing to take industrial action might act if there were a strike, and had to ballot them if it had reason to believe that calling the action could prompt them to take part. It is difficult, if not impossible, for unions accurately to forecast the reactions of the members whom it does not induce.

This clause makes it clear that the entitlement to vote applies to those who are likely to be induced ''by the union'', which was the accepted interpretation of section 227 before the judgment in Midland Mainline v. RMT. The clause removes ambiguity from section 227, and improves the way that the law reads. It does that by ensuring that the requirement placed on the union is reasonable.

I move now to the point made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon about the definitions of small and major lapses. If there were an issue outside the clearly defined rules that the clause introduces, it would be up to the courts to decide the gravity of the position. In light of the three relevant cases, we think that minor infringements need to be considered. That is the basis of the reasonableness of the clause. If there were an extensive breach, the employer would have the right to appeal to the courts.

Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon, Conservative)

I understand what the Minister says, but I want to come at this from a slightly different angle. The clause also deals with the union inducing non-balloted people to strike. Should not the legislation provide for the number of people who have not been balloted but who could then be induced? It all seems pretty woolly.

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

It is not intended to be woolly. It should be taken in context with the pattern of the Bill and the relations that exist. We are clearly defining what information the union must give to the employer about categories of workers, but we do not want the union to get into a situation in which it must predict what might happen.

Mr Jon Cruddas (Dagenham, Labour)

Is not it quite simple? The union should ballot those whom it seeks

to induce to breach their contracts of employment. It should not ballot those whom it does not seek to induce, or those whom, by consequence, are not induced by the union, which has tortious liability in law for inducing breach of a contract of employment. Is not it as simple as that? This is an exercise to ensure that certain ambiguities are clarified.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has explained the situation clearly and more eloquently than I seem able to explain it this morning. He has outlined the reason why the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.