|
Mr. Sutcliffe: I will do my best, but clearly the hon. Gentleman has a perverse view on the services that trade unions offer in the context of the spirit of the Bill and the ways in which we are trying to improve relationships in employment, so as to benefit
Column Number: 124
companies, individuals and the trade unions that represent them. He said that we had gold-plated the European Court's judgment, but that is not true. As I have said, we listened to the arguments put to us in the consultations and have tried to ensure that we remain within the framework of article 11. Through the spirit that we have tried to engender in the Bill, we feel that we have made the responsibilities clear, although that is open to interpretation and there are arguments from all sides about where the Government have finished up.
The scope of trade union services includes those things that trade unions offer to their members in the world of employment and other things. The definition is clear but we must consider it in the context of what we are trying to achieve in the clause, which has to be set against that judgment.
Mr. Djanogly: The Minister's explanatory notes say that the Government have applied the Wilson and Palmer case in a broader context than the Court. I should be interested to hear what explanation the Minister can offer for that decision and what representations he received.
Mr. Sutcliffe: Whatever I say, the hon. Gentleman will not agree, so I would probably be wasting both my time and the Committee's time by explaining our position. The consultation focused on the details of the judgment, in the context of the Bill and in the spirit of our attempt to meet the requirements of all parties relating to that judgment. The consultation was conducted in the spirit of employment relations today. That spirit was different in the days of the Wilson and Palmer case, when the hon. Gentleman's party, which has a different philosophy of dealing with industrial relations, was in power. We have tried to ensure that we support the position as fairly and clearly as possible, so that employers, unions and individuals know where they are. As I said earlier, however, I hope that the provisions will not apply in too many cases, because the spirit that we are trying to engender is different from that which prevailed when the problem first arose.
3.15 pm
Mr. Djanogly: The Minister has still not answered either of my questions, but let us put our discussion about the European Court of Human Rights to one side for the moment, because we have reached a dead end. Will he confirm that the clause would not apply if the company induced the employee to take up a holiday travel package that it was offering and to reject the union's travel package?
Mr. Sutcliffe: That would not be in the spirit of what we are trying to achieve. The definition of trade union services is fair, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that I have answered his points. As I said at the start, nothing that I could say would answer them, and I cannot take the matter any further.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 125
Clause 26
Dismissal for use of union services or
refusal of inducement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Bellingham: I am sorry that the Minister has a pessimistic view of his ability to convince my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon. My hon. Friend has entrenched views on trade unions, but I want to make it clear that he is not anti-union. None of the Opposition is at all anti-union. We simply want the law to operate fairly, to be improved, and to be as sensible as possible.
The clause amends section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in order to add to the reasons that make the dismissal of an employee automatically unfair. The 1992 Act was important legislation. You may remember it, Mr. Forth. You may even have been the Minister who laid it before Parliament. It extends to 300 clauses, which is very neat; I presume that the then Minister used a little common sense to round it off in that way. For the purposes of part 5 of the Employment Protection Act 1978, section 152 of the 1992 Act states:
''the dismissal of an employee shall be regarded as unfair if the reason for it . . . was that the employee . . . (a) was, or proposed to become, a member of an independent trade union, or (b) had taken part, or proposed to take part, in the activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time, or (c) was not a member of any trade union, or of a particular trade union, or of one of a number of particular trade unions, or had refused, or proposed to refuse, to become or remain a member.''
That is focused. It is a neat piece of legislation. Subsection (2) of the 1992 Act talks about appropriate times and again makes things clear. The section is fairly short.
The 1999 Act made changes to the 1992 Act. As far as I know, however, there was no feedback or commentary during consultation on the 1999 Act on that particular section of the 1992 Act. Will the Minister say why he wants to add to the reasons that make the dismissal of an employee automatically unfair? Why does he want to extend the meaning of ''an appropriate time'' under subsection (3), which amends section 152(2) of the 1992 Act? Section 152(2) clearly defines an appropriate time in a satisfactory and sufficiently wide-ranging way.
New subsection (2A)(a) defines ''trade union services''. Again, is there a need for that definition to be widened? Section 152 is being substantially widened. I carefully read the review of the 1999 Act. I do not want to repeat what we discussed on Second Reading, but there was obviously a degree of consensus that changes were needed to the law in the light of the Friction Dynamics case, the Wilson and Palmer case and the EU directive on information and consultation. We all agree that a small piece of legislation was needed, but the Opposition are not happy about the Bill being used to extend the remit and meaning of sections of the 1992 Act. The Act was well thought out and has been tested over several years, although some parts obviously needed updating, and that was discussed in the consultation.
Column Number: 126
We want to improve employment relations, as the Minister said, and to have a harmonious situation. To some extent, that has been achieved over the past 15 years or so. Every hon. Member would acknowledge that, and I would certainly argue that we now have a fair balance between management and trade unions; indeed, we probably have the best industrial relations of any country in Europe. Is there any need, therefore, unnecessarily to extend the law? I am concerned that the clause does just that.
We are not going to get into a big argument about the details of the clause, because it does not warrant that, but it makes small additions to section 152. Can the Minister fully explain why he wants to extend the meaning of ''an appropriate time'' and ''trade union services'' in the way proposed in the clause?
Mr. Sutcliffe: The hon. Gentleman outlines his opposition to the Government's position on the judgment. He welcomed our attempts to resolve the situation that arose in the light of it but then says that the Opposition cannot accept what we have done. I tried to explain that the context was that of an employer offering an inducement to an employee or worker and that we wanted to ensure that we met the requirements of article 11. We had an exchange earlier about whether the Government had gold-plated the judgment. I believe that, following the consultation, we sincerely tried to come up with the right way forward. This issue forms only a small part of present employment relations, which, I am pleased to say, the hon. Gentleman accepted had improved and continue to improve. When he makes his outrageous attacks on the Government's industrial relations policy, I will remind him that he accepted that things had improved.
Clause 26 reflects our view of what we need to achieve. The judgment requires us to establish new rights to use union services and not to be offered inducements to relinquish key union rights. We need to extend the protections in section 152 to ensure that it covers the dismissal of an employee for using union services or refusing to accept such inducements.
Clause 26 makes the changes to section 152 necessary to achieve that outcome. It rounds off our response to the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the Wilson and Palmer case. They are workable proposals. We do not believe that they distort the balance more than necessary. We think it the right and proper thing to do in light of that judgment.
We have a difficulty, however, because we clearly do not agree about the response. The definition of union services is clear and in the spirit of what we are trying to achieve, and ''appropriate time'' is dealt with, so that people thoroughly understand what it means. I realise that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk does not accept that and that he will return to the matter. However, I have done my best to explain why the Government are in the present position. I know that the hon. Gentleman is not happy about it, but the judgment was clear. We have responded to the consultation, and we think that the best part of the process has been adopted in the clause. I hope that the Committee will support it.
Column Number: 127
Mr. Bellingham: Before we leave the clause, I have two questions for the Minister. Although my face may look long and drawn, I am not that unhappy about clause 26. Did the Wilson and Palmer judgment really require the Government to extend the meaning of appropriate time? Did it really require them to extend the definition of trade union services? I ask those questions because in my opinion it does not.
Mr. Sutcliffe: It was not just the judgment. We wanted also to resolve the question of inducement in the context of employment relations, given the consultation and discussion that took place. As a
Column Number: 128
result of the judgment, the Government realised the need to create a fair balance. I can add nothing more.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Three o'clock till Tuesday 10 February at half-past Nine o'clock.
The following Members attended the Committee:
Forth, Mr. Eric (Chairman)
Atkins, Charlotte
Bellingham, Mr.
Bruce, Malcolm
Cruddas, Jon
Djanogly, Mr.
Foster, Mr. Michael Jabez
Lyons, Mr.
Owen, Albert
Sheridan, Jim
Stewart, Ian
Sutcliffe, Mr.
| 
