Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to my noble friend for that invitation. When we have all read Hansard I am sure that we will see that it is necessary.

I wish to raise two points; one concerns the past and one the future. I am amazed that my noble friend should suggest that in the Heaton's case the Transport and General Workers' Union had not been sufficiently careful in its selection of officials or shop stewards. It is nothing to do with how careful it had been. It was simply that the Court of Appeal saw the authority test one way--three to nothing--and the House of Lords reversed that decision.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not say that the Transport and General Workers' Union was insufficiently careful. In that case it was held on the facts and having regard to the union's rules that the union was responsible for the acts of lay officials in inducing industrial action. It was nothing to do with whether or not it was careful.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I misunderstood my noble friend. He talked about the way in which unions would not be confronted with this problem if, as I understood him, they were careful in their selection. But we can look at Hansard. I withdraw my comments, of course, if it was not said and they must be stricken out in some way.

The point in relation to the future is more important. The Minister says that we will not have a case like this in the same way; there are no examples outside the Heaton's case type of industrial action and there are no problems. Of course we have not had examples of paragraph 27(6) and its effect in law. Our complaint is that we have not had an example from the Government as to what would happen, except that the common law would apply, which is what we all assumed in the Heaton's case. That is the problem. Let my noble friend look again at the reason why there is not such a problem and why paragraph 27(6) might give rise to one in the future, and therefore why it would be undesirable to leave the Bill blank when some people will be only too happy to apply Section 20 of the 1992 Act. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7 Jun 1999 : Column 1242

[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 59 to 71 en bloc:

Page 26, line 33, leave out ("to the CAC under this Part of this Schedule") and insert ("under paragraph 10 or 11")
Page 26, line 42, leave out ("that a union is already") and insert ("there is already in force a collective agreement under which a union is (or unions are)")
Page 26, line 43, at end insert--
("(1A) An agreement for or declaration of recognition which is the subject of a declaration under paragraph 64(3) must for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) be treated as ceasing to have effect on the making of the declaration under paragraph 64(3).")
Page 26, line 46, after ("have") insert ("(or none of the unions has)")
Page 27, line 40, leave out ("for decision an application under paragraph 10 or 11") and insert ("a relevant application")
Page 27, line 42, after ("19(2),") insert ("23(2),")
Page 27, line 44, leave out ("application under paragraph 10 or 11") and insert ("relevant application")
Page 27, line 48, at end insert--
("(2A) A relevant application is an application under paragraph 10 or 11.")
Page 28, line 2, leave out ("for decision an application under paragraph 10 or 11") and insert ("a relevant application")
Page 28, line 4, leave out ("application under paragraph 10 or 11") and insert ("relevant application")
Page 28, line 5, leave out ("date") and insert ("day after that on which the CAC gave notice of acceptance")
Page 28, line 10, at end insert--
("(2A) A relevant application is an application under paragraph 10 or 11.")
Page 28, line 20, leave out ("date of the declaration,") and insert ("day after that on which the declaration was issued,")

The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments earlier when dealing with Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 9, 12, and 18. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee, I should like to move them en bloc. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 72 to 75A not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 76:

Page 30, line 16, at end insert--
("(9) An order made under paragraph 6(6) may also--
(a) provide that sub-paragraphs (2)(a), (3) and (5) to (8) of this paragraph are not to apply, or are not to apply in specified circumstances, or
(b) vary the number of workers for the time being specified in sub-paragraph (3).")

[Amendment No. 76A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 76, not moved.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 77:

Page 30, line 18, after ("made") insert ("in writing")

The noble Baroness said: In moving the above amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 78 and 186. These amendments are intended to rectify small administrative omissions from the wording of the Bill. I do not find it surprising that we have

7 Jun 1999 : Column 1243

detected such omissions. After no fewer than 14 sessions in Committee in the other place, the Government are still tabling amendments in this Chamber. Indeed, we have had well over 100 amendments on this first day of Committee and, as we heard earlier, there are many more to come. Therefore, as I said, it is not surprising that we have found one or two omissions of an entirely minor nature.

My amendments are simple and self-explanatory. However, I shall take just a few moments to go through them. Amendment No. 77 requires applications to the CAC to be in writing. It might be said that, obviously, they will be. But I believe that nothing is obvious and I should like to see it stated. The amendment would avoid any dispute as to the contents of an application or indeed as to whether it was made at all; and, as there are time limits involved, as to when it was made. That would be important.

Amendment No. 78 requires that the grounds of the application must be stated, unless the CAC has already provided for this in the form it prescribes under paragraph 41(1)(a). As a copy of the application will have to be provided to the other party under paragraph 42(5), it is only right that he should not only know the nature of the application but also the grounds for it.

It is an elementary rule of common justice that a person shall know the case that he has to meet. Perhaps the CAC would be ensuring that this happens under its own new procedures, but the proposed wording is to ensure that it does happen. Following the new procedures in the civil courts which came into effect on 26th April, perhaps the evidence should be detailed as well. But that is a matter for the CAC.

Amendment No. 186 is a reciprocal provision which requires that the employer should give specific reasons when he applies to end the bargaining arrangements with the union. I have tabled it to demonstrate an even-handed approach over this aspect. I feel certain that Members opposite will appreciate that I am being very even-handed in everything that I am doing this evening. I beg to move.

Lord McCarthy: I believe that the noble Baroness has spoken to Amendment No. 78. I should like to know what she means by the inclusion of the word "grounds". What would the noble Baroness regard as adequate grounds in this respect? One might say, "We want recognition because the members want it". Should they decide at this stage whether or not they are going to go forward by saying that they have the support of a majority of members? Alternatively, are they to go in and say, "We are not saying that we have a majority of members, we are saying that we can get the support from the majority in the bargaining unit"? Are they to go in and say, "We are underpaid"? What does the noble Baroness mean by the use of the words "grounds"?

Baroness Miller of Hendon: Earlier I believe that I used the word "reasons" in connection with a different amendment. What I seek in this group of amendments is clarification; people should understand exactly what

7 Jun 1999 : Column 1244

we are saying. The rules of the CAC may refer to provisions being given in writing. However, if there are extra reasons, they should be stated.

Lord McCarthy: Is the noble Baroness saying that there must be reasons and there must be grounds, but she does not know what they are?

9.15 p.m.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: I do not wish to enter a debate about what will happen in a ballot. Perhaps I am not making myself sufficiently clear to the noble Lord. I believe that my amendment would clarify the procedures that are necessary for these applications that we are discussing. That is all I am saying. If the noble Lord does not like the word "grounds" he may be able to suggest another word. However, I do not think he need worry too much about this as I have not yet received any sympathy from the Minister on this matter in terms of meeting me half way or inviting me to discuss the matter further or in terms of initiating any of the provisions he has suggested to other people. That would have been nice.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page