Standing Committee E
Thursday 4 March 1999
[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]
2.30 pm
Mr. Greg Pope (Hyndburn): It may for the convenience of the Committee if I say now that we will sit next Tuesday from 10.30 a.m. to 1 p.m. and in the evening from 6 p.m. to allow members of the Committee to attend the Budget debate in the Chamber.
The Chairman: The Committee will have noted that. If there is a Division in the House during our proceedings, I shall adjourn the Committee for 15 minutes. If there are likely to be two Divisions, I shall adjourn the Committee for 30 minutes. That will give hon. Members the opportunity to get some tea.
Clause 22
CAC: members
Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry): I beg to move amendment No. 129, in page 13, line 29, after `members', insert `nominated by ACAS'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 123, in page 13, line 31, leave out `Secretary of State', and insert `Central Arbitration Committee'.
No. 124, in page 13, line 36, leave out `and'.
No. 125, in page 13, line 37, at end insert—
`and some who are independent.'.
No. 130, in page 13, line 39, at end add
`seeming to him to represent the interests of small employers'.
Mr. Boswell: We shall now consider the Central Arbitration Committee. I wish to say two things: first, as I said on Second Reading, the CAC is perhaps one of the most self-effacing public bodies in the land. I have no problem with that. I forget who said, ``Happy is the nation who has no history''. The CAC has no form and has never excited a complaint from any side of industry or featured in any correspondence that I have received. I welcome that; it suggests that it is doing a pretty good job.
Its chairman has been in place since its inception in 1976, which suggests a stability that is welcome to a Conservative and, I hope, to all members of the Committee. I have no problem with the Central Arbitration Committee.
Secondly, in general and conceptual terms, the amendments are not about subverting the work of the CAC nor are they about subverting the Government's intentions—there may be other occasions when the position will be different. They are probing amendments and aim to ensure that the committee's new and enhanced duties work effectively as possible. We want to tease out its relationships with bodies, such as the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. It would be inappropriate to speak at length about ACAS when debating the amendments, and I do not intend to do so. There will be an opportunity for that later. Indeed, amendments have been tabled for that precise purpose.
Given that the CAC has a relatively low profile and that the explanatory notes, although perfectly clear, do not explain the Government's thinking about why the clause is so structured, it is important that the Minister clarifies the committee's relationships with other bodies, the appropriateness of its procedure for appointments and so on, so that the Committee has a clear understanding.
It is self-evident and explicit both in the Bill and the original Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 from which the Bill is derived that those involved with the CAC should know their onions in relation to industrial relations matters. That is fine, but the extent to which legal input is important is not clear, although it is clear from his curriculum vitae that the chairman is a legal person.
The Minister of State will remember from our deliberations on the National Minimum Wage Bill that I have some experience of tribunal work. I am most familiar with a panel that has a lay chairperson and two members who broadly represent the two sides. The relationship between the members on the tribunal on which I worked was sufficiently good that I could never quite remember whether I was meant to be a farmer or a landowner. In other words, there is a legal input, but the law is not predominant. It is clear that trade union officials and representatives of employers' organisations know as much about that narrow area of the law as most qualified legal persons, but it would be useful if the Minister would tell us something about what might be termed the legal input to the CAC.
I shall come to the amendments in a moment, Mr. Atkinson, but my comments on the CAC are germane to amendment No. 129. Perhaps the Minister will think aloud and help us on this matter. The CAC's independence is explicit in the 1992 Act, and it derives from the Employment Protection Act 1975 but it has always functioned as what might loosely be termed an arbitration sub-committee of ACAS. It is not ACAS, but its members are nominated or recommended for nomination by ACAS. Its servicing has traditionally been in the hands of ACAS; certainly, it was so prescribed in the legislation.
It may be that the Government want the CAC to be at least a little more distanced from ACAS. I have no ideological view on the matter, but I would like the Minister to comment on the fact that that change will give CAC a rather different structure when considering matters of statutory recognition from that which already applies to its traditional functions of arbitration, the provision of information and so on. We need to pause to work out why the structure should be changed, because it will create a slight problem for the organisation.
Amendment No. 129 is intended to allow ACAS to nominate the members of the CAC rather than them being appointed by the Secretary of State. As I recall it, the 1992 Act provides that ACAS should appoint the members of the CAC, which should include representatives of both sides of industry and independent persons; that is the substance of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). The Bill appears to take the job closer to the Secretary of State and further from ACAS. ACAS would, of course, be involved and able to give advice, but it would not be in the driving seat. It would help if the Minister were to tell us his rationale for making that change.
Clause 22 provides that the Secretary of State should appoint the chairman of CAC. I shall leave the hon. Member for Eastleigh to speak to amendment No. 123, but I have some sympathy with him wanting to probe the Minister's thinking on that point. The hon. Gentleman has tabled other amendments consequential to that.
Mr. John Healey: (Wentworth): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the current position is exactly the same? At present, the chairman of the CAC is appointed by the Secretary of State, after consultation with ACAS.
Mr. Boswell: That may be so, and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise the point. The exigencies of time have forced us to put our amendments together rather quickly; it is not always easy to compare texts and I may well have slipped up. It seems that the wording of the formulation is a little different, but the result may be exactly the same, which would be satisfactory. However, we need to tease that out, not least because there have been beneficial changes in the past few years, such as the development of the Nolan principles in the appointment of members of public bodies and the openness with which such bodies declare their interests. I shall return to that later. I hasten to say that I am not casting aspersions on members who were appointed before Nolan. To my knowledge, there has never been a problem.
The last amendment in the group refers to the interests of small employers. I have a feeling—possibly because of my writing—that a word may have been dropped out of the text. It was not my intention to suggest that the other person should be co-extensive with those representing the interests of small employers. I wanted to put down a marker saying, in effect, that it is easy when consulting both sides of industry at the macro-level—the large firm and the national office of a trade union—to have an understanding. However, down on the shop-floor, possibly with smaller employers and at some distance, or if there is a particular local employment practice, it may not work out so easily. The interests of small firms are part of the Minister's remit, so he should be able to explain how he will involve representatives of small businesses as well as of large businesses.
We have been discussing the rights of individuals to date, but collective rights and statutory recognition may apply at the level of smaller businesses. For example, family businesses, which may have traditionally resented and resisted registration or recognition of trade unions will be subject to a process that will consider them.
Our amendments are not intended to subvert the Government's proposals. The purpose is to tease out the nature of the relationship and how it will be conducted, especially in relation to new appointments. We are interested in how independent and small business inputs can be included alongside those of the traditional two sides of industry, or social partners, to use the modern phrase.
If the Minister will respond to my concerns and those that the hon. Member for Eastleigh will no doubt express, we shall leave the CAC in peace—not for the next 25 years, but long enough to let it get on, and with the minimum of interference from this place.
Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh): I shall begin by commenting on an earlier exchange. I understand that the chairman of the CAC is appointed by the Secretary of State. The role of the CAC is important; it has been successful, as its deliberations have not been the cause of great public controversy.
The purpose of amendments nos 1234 and 125, which deal primarily with the independence of the CAC, is to recognise that its role will change. They are also probing amendments because I am anxious to ensure that the system works effectively, that it helps the process of trade union recognition and derecognition, and that it is conducted in a way that is acceptable to all parties.
My amendments were tabled in that spirit.
2.45 pm
The CAC was established under the Employment Protection Act 1975 as an independent public body. I am therefore interested to know why Ministers do not feel that they can reinforce its independence by allowing it to appoint its chairmen rather than the Secretary of State of the time doing so. It is important that the CAC is seen to be as distant from the Government as possible. I do not think that Ministers would disagree with my saying that its role is sensitive.
| 
