I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1F to Commons amendment 1C.

I can barely believe that, despite the House of Commons reaching a strong view on so many occasions and so frequently expressing its opinion, we are still being told by the Conservative and Liberal majority in the House of Lords that it knows better than the House of Commons when it comes to elections policy. In its latest amendment, the other place suggests that we should not proceed with all-postal voting in four regions, which the Government announced on 21 January. On this occasion, the other place wants to leave out the north-west of England for a variety of inexplicable reasons, and I urge the House to reject that suggestion and to stand firm with our decided view that we want four regions in those pilots.

Will the Minister confirm that a decision to conduct three rather than four pilots would be welcomed by the Electoral Commission, which has made it plain over the past few days that perhaps Yorkshire and Humber should be conceded, but not the north-west?

The hon. Gentleman has moved his position from previous occasions. He should know that, in our democracy, it is this House, acting on the advice of Ministers, that makes final decisions when it comes to elections policy. We take advice from the Electoral Commission and hear what it has to say, but at the end of the day—that day ended some time ago—Parliament has the right to take a firm decision.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the potential for fraud is the major reason why Liberal peers oppose the north-west being involved in the postal ballot? Can he explain why Liberal Democrat peers are happy to have a postal vote in a referendum, but are not happy to have one for local and European elections?

My hon. Friend looks for logic in the Opposition parties' thinking, but their rationale is not apparent. Hon. Members will be astonished by the history of how we are here today. The Government decided to go with four regions on 21 January, and the House of Commons ratified that decision on 8 March. The House of Commons reconfirmed that decision on 16 March, and reiterated it only last week on 24 March, but here we are again.

All the time that we still have a second chamber—I believe that it is still Government policy to allow us a second chamber—its views should be taken seriously and there should be give and take. The second chamber has given up its insistence on two pilots; why can the Minister not give up his insistence on four pilots and reach a sensible compromise?

It is true that the other place has powers to revise and amend legislation, and, as we heard last week, noble Lords are experienced and often speak with authority. In this case, however, the other place's powers are being abused by the Opposition parties in their pursuit of overturning the will of the Government and the House of Commons. There comes a point when revision and amendment become obstructive and vexatious. This is not real scrutiny, but a brazen attempt by the Conservatives and the Liberals actively to prevent people in the north-west from having convenient voting mechanisms in the European and local elections.

Does the Minister recognise that his case is fatally undermined by the fact that, as recently as 16 December, he said in this House—not once, twice or three times, but about six times—that the Government intended to have three pilots? The other place has reluctantly conceded three pilots. The Government, under huge pressure from the Deputy Prime Minister, have changed their mind and are seeking to insist on four. His own colleagues have fatally undermined the Minister.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have been discussing this since 21 January, when the Government made it absolutely clear that we wanted four regions: the east midlands, the north-east, the north-west, and Yorkshire and Humber. It is important that we proceed with all-postal voting in four regions, and I shall tell him why. We already know about the difficulties with turnout, not least in local and European elections, and it is important to ensure that we can respond with modern electoral mechanisms. We also know that all-postal voting is popular and convenient among the public, which is proved by the fact that it usually results in a rise in turnout of at least 10 per cent. We know that the resources are there for pilots in four regions, and if we can afford to go ahead, there is no reason why we should not do so.

Most importantly, we know that regional returning officers in all four regions are keen that all-postal voting should proceed; indeed, they perceive several risks in not proceeding. In correspondence with me and my Department, they have expressed worry that the delays and uncertainty created by the other place have cast a blight on their planning and preparations, because they find it difficult to proceed while there is no legislative clarity.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that over the past few weeks the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been taking evidence on all-postal vote elections. When returning officers from Yorkshire gave evidence, they made it clear that any attempt to reverse the all-postal ballot proposals would make it virtually impossible for them to reorganise their arrangements. If that is true for Yorkshire, it must be true for the north-west as well.

My hon. Friend makes a salient point. I have heard that many of the suppliers and contractors who normally engage with returning officers are worried that, if this uncertainty continues, via the obstruction by Opposition parties, they may not be able to proceed.

New ward boundaries have been introduced in many metropolitan areas following boundary reviews, and returning officers may well find it difficult to locate local polling stations within them. That could prove particularly difficult if the north-west is forced by the amendment to go back to conventional systems. Those returning officers would have to find the staff to ensure that the polling stations could run efficiently. There are all sorts of reasons why effectively forcing the north-west to go back on what was planned and return to the conventional system would create difficulties. It would be irresponsible for Opposition parties to force that situation.

Should not returning officers have to wait until the legislation is on the statute book? If they are behaving as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) suggests, they are mistaken. They should wait until the legislation is in its final form, not jump the gun because they are under pressure from party political views expressed by Government Members.

The hon. Gentleman knows that we have been trying to resolve the matter for far longer than he suggests. If we had been able to resolve it far sooner, returning officers would not be asking questions about uncertainty. We have always been keen to ensure swift enactment of the measure but the Opposition parties' abuse of the powers of the other place has caused uncertainty. I hope that they will stop using the other place improperly to obstruct the Bill, allow its passage to continue and permit resolution so that four regions can be selected.

Does my hon. Friend believe it reasonable for returning officers in the north-west to assume that, once the House of Commons has said that the region should be one of the postal vote pilots, they can plan on that basis, rather than assuming that the House of Lords will kibosh the whole thing?

As my hon. Friend says, an almost unprecedented constitutional situation is developing. There has been a significant amount of ping-pong between the two Houses on previous legislation, but the House of Lords rarely stands in the way of the will of the House of Commons, especially on elections policy. The root cause is clear: Conservative and Liberal peers have been instructed by their respective Front Benchers to use the revising powers of the other place to try to scupper legislation whenever the bandwagon appears and the opportunity arises. That could be their motivation for standing in the way of the north-west, especially, having more convenient voting mechanisms.

May I take my hon. Friend back to the letter that Sam Younger sent him on 4 March? The nub of the matter appears to be that the Electoral Commission said:

"the rollout of all postal elections needs to be underpinned by a more robust statutory framework."

What can my hon. Friend say to reassure me and others that that robust framework exists so that people who ask about fraud are satisfied that it will not happen under the new system?

My hon. Friend is right that we support piloting all-postal arrangements and that, as the Electoral Commission suggested, before we have a wider roll-out for local government elections nationwide, there may need to be changes to individual registration and so on. However, in the interim, it is important to begin to scale up the piloting of all-postal arrangements. There has been considerable piloting of all-postal arrangements in previous local elections. If we were not allowed to proceed with four regions, fewer people would vote on an all-postal basis than in 2003. That would not be scaling up, but scaling back and it would be perceived as a backward step.

I fear that, in the course of a short speech, the Minister has already contradicted himself. He said that the other place was guilty of a procedural impropriety but went on to refer to its use of revising powers. He knows perfectly well that the other place has those powers and it has simply had the temerity, in his view, to use them. Why does not he admit that the real sin of the other place is to disagree with him?

The shadow Secretary of State for International Development is wrong on that point. As I said earlier, it is not simply a matter of a disagreement between the two Houses. The House of Commons made its view known on 8 March, reiterated it on 16 March, did so again on 24 March and here we are again. I hope that my hon. Friends will support the motion to disagree and that we will again reiterate the strong view of the elected House of Commons. If the hon. Gentleman is willing to say that there is no Conservative Whip—and no Liberal Democrat Whip—in the other place to thwart the will of the House of Commons in our democratic decision about elections policy, I shall be happy to give way to him. However, I suspect that there is a Whip because the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties are pursuing a partisan motivation, on which I shall expand shortly. Will he say, on behalf of the shadow Secretaries of States, that there is no Whip?

The Minister elevates me beyond all reasonable heights of my ambition. He ought to know that whipping is not a matter for me; I am just a humble shadow Secretary of State for International Development.

I agree that the hon. Gentleman is indeed a humble shadow Secretary of State. What are the true reasons behind the Conservative and Liberal opposition, particularly to the north-west? As I have said, their motivation could well be simply scuppering legislation opportunistically. They may well not want a higher turnout in the local and European elections in the north-west of England. There is certainly no evidence that all-postal elections are any more prone to fraud than conventional elections, not least because there have been no convictions for fraud in all-postal elections in the north-west. I know that some noble Lords have referred to certain anecdotes, but they related particularly to the conventional system of election, which suggests that other problems, not associated with all-postal voting, might well be at the root of the issue.

The Minister does a disservice to the other place, given the Electoral Commission's advice to the Government. Some of us have just come from Committee Room 11, where we have been considering the draft European Parliament orders. In that context, the Government have accepted in full the Electoral Commission's advice on constituency sizes. In one sphere, the Government accept that the commission's judgment is right and proper, but they reject it when it relates to the best way to conduct pilots.

If the hon. Gentleman's policy is always to adhere to the advice of the Electoral Commission, why did his colleague agree in an earlier debate to reinstitute the declaration of identity provision—the witness signature provision—against the advice of the commission? That was the subject of a Liberal Democrat amendment in the other place. It suits the Liberal Democrats to adhere to the commission's advice when they want to, but not when they do not. We have to consider the motivation of the Opposition parties for using the powers of the other place to thwart the decisions of the House of Commons.

Is not the real impropriety the fact that the House of Lords is engaged in these actions on a time-limited piece of legislation? This is not a Bill that could come in next year or the year after; it is specifically time limited. That means that the Lords are abusing the convention of the House that they will deal with their business in a timely fashion. This could only have been considered timely if it had already been dealt with by now, because returning officers have to make decisions.

My hon. Friend could well be right. There are significant risks and dangers involved in the games being played by the Opposition parties. The returning officers in the north-west could face difficulties if those parties force them to go back on what they are already planning, and to return to conventional elections. We know for a fact that returning officers now want to proceed with all-postal voting. I hope that the Opposition parties will not leave the north-west in the lurch by forcing it to go back on its plans. There are significant dangers in going down that route. We know that there are significant benefits associated with all-postal voting, and that there are dangers associated with preventing such voting, particularly in the north-west. It is right for us to proceed with all-postal voting in those four regions, and I urge the House to disagree with the Lords in their amendment.

Every time the Minister gets to his feet and speaks in a polite and moderate tone of voice, as he always does, I become more and more convinced that he believes in the elected dictatorship of a one-party state. He speaks about the House of Commons as though there were cross-party agreement here on this issue, but we and the Liberal Democrats in both Houses have always opposed the Government's proposals. Moreover, the Government have changed their mind. Until 16 December last year, they made it clear that they intended to have only three all-postal pilots. They could have three all-postal pilots—reluctantly conceded recently by the other place—if they wanted them now, but we see in this the heavy hand of the Deputy Prime Minister, who was bellowing at us from the Treasury Bench when we debated these measures the time before last and who is obsessed with having all-postal pilots in all the Labour heartlands for party political advantage to fit in with what he wants for the referendums later in the year.

The game was given away just before what I might describe as round 7 of this heavyweight contest by a written answer in last Thursday'sHansard from the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), at the same time as the other place was about to debate the matter for the umpteenth time. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) asked:

"To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he last met members or officials of the Electoral Commission; what the purpose of that meeting was; and what the outcome was."

The junior Minister, who was on the Treasury Bench a little earlier, gave this answer, which I can describe only as containing terminological inexactitude:

"My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister met with members of the Electoral Commission on 3 March to discuss issues relating to the piloting of all-postal voting at the European Parliamentary and combined local elections in June, including how many regions should be involved."

This is where it becomes rather more serious, because it continues:

"Both parties agreed that the regions that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced should use all-postal voting this year are each capable of running a successful pilot."—[Official Report, 24 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 909W.]

Since that meeting on 3 March, to which that answer refers, we have had not one but two letters to the Government. Despite my challenges last time we debated these measures and the time before, we have not seen the letters from Ministers to the Electoral Commission. I again challenge the Minister to put those letters, as well as minutes of all meetings that he, other Ministers or the Deputy Prime Minister have had with the Electoral Commission, in the Library of the House. Three times at the Dispatch Box I have asked him to do so, but each time his response has been silence.

We know from both the Electoral Commission's replies that that answer from the hon. Member for Corby does not reflect what the Electoral Commission says. As we debated last week, and as has been set out in this place and the other place, the Electoral Commission, as recently as 23 March, said:

"The considerations as set out in our December Report regarding the North West have not changed".

The Electoral Commission sets out in detail in its report why it regards the north-west as unsuitable, and it has not changed its mind. In addition, the Electoral Commission goes on in that letter to say:

"For the reasons set out in my letter of 4 March"

that is, the letter sent after that meeting—

"we are not persuaded of the merits of piloting in 4 regions."

The Electoral Commission is still saying three regions and not the north-west. It has put compelling reasons why, and noble lords and baronesses in another place have set out convincing reasons why the north-west should not be chosen.

The Government are obsessed with adding the north-west, which they originally intended not to do, and this Minister said not once or twice but about six times that the Government wanted three pilot regions. They want to add the north-west for their party political advantage and because the Deputy Prime Minister is obsessed by it.

I fear that the hon. Gentleman has misrepresented the Electoral Commission's position. It said in its report that the north-west was potentially suitable. May I challenge him on this? Two weeks ago at the Dispatch Box, he made allegations of wholesale fraud—that is the phrase that he used—in the north-west. He referred specifically to the remarks of Lord Greaves and asked us to look them up, which I did. Is he aware that a report by Lancashire constabulary on those allegations found no evidence whatever of wrongdoing and that the file is closed? Does not his case against the north-west collapse due to that revelation?

No, it does not. I heard Lord Greaves giving an interview on national radio after our debates last week, as I was driving back to my constituency. He has not changed his mind at all, and he was debating the issues with the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). The Electoral Commission is saying that it has not changed its reasons, which were given on 23 March. It has not changed its view on the north-west; the views of the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) are undermined by the Electoral Commission, which his Government set up.

My hon. Friend may already be aware as a result of the revelation from the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) that a statutory instrument has recently been discussed Upstairs that would reduce the number of MEPs in this country. The Government accepted in its entirety the Electoral Commission's recommendation on that. When we asked the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), who is currently on the Treasury Bench, why the Government accepted its recommendation in that respect but not in this one, he said that the two were different. Would my hon. Friend like to speculate on what the difference is?

My hon. Friend is right, and I suspect that the difference is accounted for by the obsessions of the Deputy Prime Minister and the party political advantage of the Government party.

The whole tenor of the hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be that the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to make sure that there is a postal ballot in Labour heartlands, because that will give party advantage to the Labour party. The strongest Labour heartland is Wales, which has not a single Tory representative in this House. If the hon. Gentleman's argument were true, surely Wales would be included in the pilot.

The hon. Gentleman has not played much of a part in our many earlier deliberations on the Bill. Had he done so, he would have known that we debated extensively Wales and Scotland, and many of his hon. Friends from Scotland were—and, I imagine, still are—outraged that Scotland has not been included. They were not included because the Electoral Commission specifically recommended against them, in even stronger terms than it did against the north-west.

Labour Members have this problem: they set up the Electoral Commission, and they are now picking and choosing only those recommendations that suit them. The biggest weakness in the Government's case is that the Government said originally—not once, not twice, but many times, through this Minister—that they intended only three electoral pilots. They were put out because the Electoral Commission originally recommended only two. They said that they would go ahead with a third. Only recently have they started to become obsessed with a fourth.

The Minister has also been trying to rewrite the history of the battles between the two Chambers of this bicameral legislature. He sought to suggest that there is something unusual about ping-pong, as it is called, between the two Houses. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I are well aware, that has happened towards the end of a legislative period pretty well every year since this Government came to power. Only last year, we were debating the Criminal Justice Bill, which was going backwards and forwards between the two Houses until the Government were forced to give way at the last minute, with ill grace, on the last day of the Session. I suspect that that will happen in this case. Just as we come to the Easter recess, the Government will be forced to go back to what the Electoral Commission recommends, and accept that the other place and the Electoral Commission are right. That is why we will stick to our guns, and the other place should stick to its guns.

It is a few weeks since I spoke in any debate in relation to this Bill, although I listened to the last such debate. The last time that I spoke was on 8 March. The Opposition's arguments against including the north-west are those that they used against Yorkshire and Humber. We also found out, of course, that Yorkshire and Humber was included in the Opposition amendment in the other place last week. There is a lot of hypocritical talk in this Chamber about what the intentions of the other place are. I told the House on 8 March why I support the Bill and why all-postal ballots are good for democracy. They increase participation and I doubt whether they affect the result. They did not affect the result in my constituency last year, but 53 per cent. of people turning out is a lot better than 23 per cent. That example came from my constituency.

Looking at the debate in the other place last week, there can be no doubt that the whole issue relates to party politics. My hon. Friend the Minister passed some comment about the official Opposition. Reading the debate, I do not put a lot of the problem down to the major Opposition party, because it does not seem to know what is taking place most of the time. All that it knows is when to support the amendments tabled by a minor Opposition party, the Liberal Democrats. That is when they all pile into the Division Lobbies, and that is why we have ended up in this position on—I think—three occasions.

No one reading reports of debates on the Bill, especially debates in the other place, could doubt that this is about Liberal Democrat party politics relating not to Yorkshire and Humberside, the east midlands or the north-east, but to the north-west. I said that on 8 March, and it has been reaffirmed at least twice since then, when Members of the other place have sought to table amendments opposing the Bill.

I have looked at some of the figures and tried to draw conclusions from them. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) spoke of parliamentary ping-pong, and that is what we have seen since the Government came to power in 1997 on, to the best of my knowledge, 13 occasions, involving 13 Bills that this Labour Government have tried to pass. Between 1979 and 1997, the other place tried to frustrate this House on three occasions. That tells its own story. Nor should my hon. Friend forget the role of the Cross Benchers, who have supported the Tories in 80 per cent. of cases.

Perhaps my hon. Friend feels that Cross Benchers in the other place are not so independent of party politics in that respect. I shall keep my view of the other place out of the debate.

This is all about Liberal Democrats and the north-west. I shall now address myself to the only two Liberal Democrats in the Chamber, the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith). I have said this repeatedly. I said it on 8 March, and it has been said before. Last week Lord Rennard said that the issue was,

"I think, a very principled one—that no one party should choose different voting mechanisms for different places according to its own interest, based in this case on fears that the electorate will not turn out to support it."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. 851.]

Let me tell both Liberal Democrats that I would think that disgraceful if it came from anyone involved in elective politics, but I can accept such views from people next door who have never been involved in elective politics, or have been involved only in elective politics that have failed. I do not think that they understand the issue: I do not think they understand what our democracy is about. I am not a mechanistic democrat, but I think that those who deny—knowingly—that they would prefer a 20 per cent. turnout to one of 40 or 50 per cent. do a disservice to local government and the European electorate, and to democracy. I believe that they are doing it on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in the north-west, and that they should be ashamed of themselves.

It is true that postal ballots increase turnout, so why have the Government not proposed universal postal ballots for this election?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are talking about a pilot. We have had this debate time and again. On 8 March he intervened on me to say that he was not so sure about postal ballots. He said:

"such a widespread experiment cannot proceed until the real issues of impersonation, pressure and fraud are dealt with."—[Official Report, 8 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1308.]

As I said then, most of the arguments against an all-postal ballot for any one, three or four regions could be used to oppose postal ballots in general.

I have seen this in action in a small way. I think that participation is good and healthy, and I do not think that one political party will be affected more than another. In our last debate, I said that if the tide was against a political party, it would drown more quickly. That is especially true if the tide is stronger than usual.

All the ping-pong is wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) said that the other place had challenged this House three times between 1979 and 1997. When I was elected in 1983, it was felt that a big majority was unhealthy and bad for democracy. I cannot remember the other place challenging that Government. It was all about party politics then, and we heard about not frustrating the will of the people. It seems to me that in considering this Bill. we could frustrate the will of the people.

I do not know whether Ministers agree with my analysis, but my answer to the questions "Why today?" and "Why the north-west?" would be this. It is simple and logical to involve the north-west in June, because we all know that in October the north-west will vote in an all-postal ballot on whether to have a regional assembly. One thing that can be said of the logic is that it is consistent with what the Electoral Commission has said many times. Playing the hokey-cokey by having all-postal votes and then returning to the old system will denigrate electoral politics in this country, and be bad for turnouts. That is what Opposition Members and those in the other place propose, and they are wrong.

Welcome to Groundhog Day, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are going through all the same arguments in the same way, with no more clarity or logic than before.

The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) may find this odd, but I agreed with a great deal of what he said. He suggested that encouraging more people to vote was a good thing; I agree. He said that all-postal ballots appeared, on the basis of the evidence so far, to increase the number of votes; I agree. He said that it was right to organise pilot schemes so that we could assess how we might expand the process; I agree. He said that he did not believe that the democratic outcome of the elections would be affected; I agree, on the basis of the evidence that we have seen so far. He said that it was wrong for areas that had already had all-postal ballots to be prevented from having them this year. That is exactly the position in which my constituents will find themselves as a result of the Bill, which he supports. It will make it illegal for them to have an all-postal ballot in the European elections and the local authority elections in June. They had one last time because my Liberal Democrat-controlled authority allowed the Government's interests to be met.

There is much on which the right hon. Gentleman and I agree; where we disagree is on the fundamental issue of who makes the recommendations on which we reach our decisions. We have said all along that we should use the Electoral Commission as an independent arbiter because that is safest in a democratic society.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Not yet; the hon. Gentleman can intervene when he has listened to my argument.

The safest option is for us to use the independent arbiter established by the Government, unless there are strong reasons for ignoring its advice. It would have to involve a consensus extending beyond any single party in this House. Our position has been consistent. When the Electoral Commission said that it could positively recommend only two regions, we said, "Fair enough—two regions will be involved." When it reviewed the situation and said that it could accept a third region, Yorkshire and Humberside, we went along with that and, in another place, tabled an amendment to extend the range of the scheme.

My simple question is whether, if the Electoral Commission said that the electoral returning officer in the north-west should go ahead with a pilot there, the hon. Gentleman would believe that there should be a pilot in the north-west. That is the opposite argument to that used by his noble Friends in the other place.

That is precisely not the case. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that when we last debated this issue the question was that the pilot areas should comprise those that the Electoral Commission could positively recommend, with no stipulation about how many there should be. The Government rejected that option and he voted against it, as he was not prepared to accept it.

Does the fact that the Electoral Commission made a firm recommendation on two regions and said that others were potentially suitable not suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it was inviting the Government to make recommendations on which further regions should be included?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman has by now read the most recent letter from the Electoral Commission, which makes it quite clear that that is not what it said. The commission said that it could not positively recommend the other regions, and it placed in third position, as runner up, Scotland, whose merits the Government have not for one moment appeared to consider. Instead, they have chosen two other regions.

rose—

I shall not give way, because I should like to make a little more progress.

An important constitutional matter is involved in this debate. Much play has been made of the fact that this is an example of the unelected House acting as a block on the settled will of the elected House. Setting aside for the moment the fact that some of us strongly believe that the other place should not be an unelected House and are waiting rather impatiently for the Government to do something about that rather than simply wringing their hands because the Prime Minister will not agree with his party on the subject, do we not have to consider the basic constitutional issue that the almost paramount duty of the other place in a bicameral system is to protect our constitutional arrangements if they are under threat of abuse? If a future Government decided, on their own majority and without the support of any Opposition parties, that they wished to abolish or postpone elections or change the voting system off their own bat, I hope that every single Labour Member would expect the Lords to take an interest in that and to protect the constitution of this country, unwritten though it is.

Will the hon. Gentleman think carefully about the problem facing all those who will have to administer the election in the north-west? If his proposals went through, they would have to have a traditional election in which a large number of people would apply for postal votes because they were angry—leading to an exceptionally high number of postal votes. To run the two systems together is particularly difficult for electoral officers, so would it not be sensible to accept one system? It will be implemented at the very last minute, and it should be a postal system.

We should not be in this position. The Government let the Bill lie on the Table for two months and did nothing with it. They then decided that everything had to be done in a hurry, and their position has become absurd. They jeopardised all the arrangements that returning officers have to make, including the printing of ballot papers. I am concerned about the Government's conduct.

May I return the hon. Gentleman to the point that he made a few moments ago? He asked what would happen if a Government proposed to suspend elections indefinitely or for a considerable period, but I am sure that he knows, because it is a piece of Liberal legislation, that the Parliament Act 1911 specifically recommends which systems arise if a Government want to change the date of a general election. That is clear. Surely, the point is that we need a new Parliament Act to legislate properly on arrangements between the other place and this Chamber. This ping-pong, which completely flouts the Salisbury convention, brings the whole parliamentary system into disrepute.

Order. For an intervention, that was an extremely long speech, and it took us further and further away from the narrower point that is at the heart of this matter.

I take your advice on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The other place has not only a perfect right but a duty to lay a constraining hand on this House if a single party in it chooses to ignore the advice of the Electoral Commission and other parties represented in this Chamber. That is an important constitutional issue to which we must return at another stage.

What is so bizarre about the whole situation is that, as the Bill stands, the Government have what they asked for. It is like a toddler in a supermarket who says, "I want three lollies. I want three lollies". The sensible mother says, "No, you can have two lollies the third would make you sick." The child throws all its toys out the pram and has an almighty tantrum, and eventually the parent reconsiders and says, "All right, all right; you can have three." What is the response of the toddler? He throws all his toys out the pram again and says, "I want four now. I want four. Three isn't good enough."

How can we deal with a Government who behave in that way? The Under-Secretary's embarrassment is palpable, because neither he nor the Lord Chancellor is running this show. How demeaning it is for the Lord Chancellor—the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs—to have his actions constrained by the Deputy Prime Minister. It is the Deputy Prime Minister who goes along to talk to the Electoral Commission. That is nothing to do with his brief, but he chooses to do so. He is the one who writes letters to the commission—nothing to do with him, but he does so. He is the one who sits in on our debates and makes absurd comments from a sedentary position. They are nothing to do with him, but he does so.

rose

The Minister is going to say that he is not demeaned by that situation. He will have to give a pretty clear explanation of why not.

The Deputy Prime Minister has responsibility for local government. The June elections are for local government seats, so surely it is right for the Deputy Prime Minister to take an interest in them. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the Deputy Prime Minister is elected, like all other Members in this House? Does the hon. Gentleman not see any virtue in the fact that we are elected, and should have our will and the decisions that we make in this House of Commons upheld?

We are the masters now. The Minister has official responsibility for electoral arrangements, yet another Department interferes in everything that he does and says that he cannot have what he originally asked for. That is not joined-up government; it is bullying by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Labour party for their own objectives. That is what we object to so strongly.

The hon. Gentleman's characterisation of the Minister's lickspittle conduct is extremely effective. Does he agree that the historical musings of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about the Salisbury convention are wholly inapplicable in this case given the absence of a manifesto commitment? Does he recall that, on any of the three occasions during the Conservative government highlighted by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), the Labour party complained about the behaviour of the upper House? I do not recall that.

The hon. Gentleman invites me to do two things. First, he invites me to engage in a discussion with the hon. Member for Rhondda that Mr. Deputy Speaker has said is beyond the scope of this debate, so I shall not do so. Secondly, he invites me to support the view that another place without an elected mandate ought to frustrate the will of this House when it considers matters other than the constitution and the protection of human rights and liberty, which I think are its proper province. I am not prepared to do that, because I want reform of the other place and will not defend its present arrangements.

I will, however, defend the right of another place, as constituted, to look dispassionately at legislation before it and to take a view—which is nothing to do with my arranging my troops at the other end. For heaven's sake, I could not even arrange my colleagues behind me. If more than one were here at the moment, I might try to do so.

I am not in a position to tell my colleagues in the other place how to vote; they will reach their own judgment. At the moment, their judgment is that the Government are engaged in a process of bullying and inappropriate action that is against all the tenets of our constitutional settlement, and they are right to take that view. I just wish that the Government would accept that they have the Bill that they asked for in the first place, and that they would please stop throwing their toys out of the pram, and behave like a grown-up Government.

I did not intend to speak in this debate, but I am moved to do so by some interesting distortions of the truth. I challenge any Member who served on the Standing Committee considering the Bill that gave birth to the Electoral Commission, or who participated in any of the subsequent stages, to tell me that any Member, at any stage, moved an amendment that sought to give the commission the power to instruct. [Interruption.] Stop chuntering over there! That never happened, and it was never the intention of this House—or of the upper House, so far as I can see—that the commission be given a power to instruct. It is there to give advice, and advice it has given—to the Government and to this House.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have been present in Committee Room 11, where the Minister said that the Government were taking instructions from the commission in respect of electoral boundaries because they were required to do so by European legislation. So it has already been stated in legislation that the commission should be supreme, and that it should be obeyed when giving advice in this area. We are saying that when such advice is given, it should be taken extremely seriously.

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the subject of boundaries, but it has nothing to do with the procedural process.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that the Lords have a duty to protect the constitution. There is one fundamental and overriding constitutional point that must take precedence over all else: that only one House is elected. We have yet to have in its entirety the debate on the nature of the second Chamber, what its powers ought ultimately to be, and whether, indeed, it should even exist. A few Members present voted for its abolition—[Interruption.] I hear some cheers from behind me. At this point the second Chamber has no ability constitutionally to put aside the powers of this House.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) hinted, the Conservatives are riding on the coat-tails of the Liberal Democrats—in this Chamber, in the upper House and, indeed, in the north-west. They have no policy of their own. They are looking for convenient electoral gain, and they seek to achieve it through a mechanism that would minimise turnout.

Does my hon. Friend find it extraordinary that not a single north-west Liberal Democrat Member is in the Chamber to explain why they are preventing their constituents from voting by post in June?

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and what my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley said was spot on. At local government level, Liverpool city council seems terrified of the concept of higher turnout. In what better place could we campaign for higher turnout than in Liverpool, where, regrettably, turnout has been far too low for many years? So far as Liverpool city council is concerned, the Liberal Democrats are frightened of a higher turnout.

We are probably 10 weeks away from the elections. Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important voices now belong not to those in this Chamber or in the one down the Corridor, or to those in the Electoral Commission, but to the returning officers in the north-west and the regional returning officer? According to my information, they are all in favour of postal voting going ahead.

My hon. Friend makes a very strong point and any right-thinking person will agree with him, but that does not mean that he will get unanimous support in this Chamber.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome on distancing himself last week from the outrageous statement of the Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament, Mr. Chris Davies, that people who want postal voting are lazy. Why does the hon. Gentleman not demonstrate his anger at that statement by voting with us tonight?

Before making one or two brief points, I should point out to the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) that elevating paid officials—the electoral registration officers—above Members of either House is rather strange parliamentary logic.

The other place has as much right to take the stand that it has taken on this issue as it had to throw out Mrs. Thatcher's War Crimes Bill. One should remind Labour Members that the House of Lords has behaved with a degree of vigour and robustness, no matter which party has been in government. All that it is seeking to do on this occasion is to look properly at what the Electoral Commission is recommending. No matter what sophistry Labour Members indulge in, the fact is that the commission has said that it does not believe that there should be a pilot in the north-west.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Not yet. The commission's statement is a fact, whatever arguments Labour Members might advance and whatever the Minister might say. Indeed, he has changed his mind, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) pointed out. The Minister took one line in December and is now taking a very different one although, admittedly, he has taken it for the past eight weeks. In taking that very different line, he is flying in the face of the commission's advice. This House is right to listen to that advice, and it would be far better advised to say, "Let us have three pilots," which would constitute a concession on the part of many. Frankly, I would rather have no pilots at all. I do not like the idea of compulsory postal voting, but I recognise the fact that the commission has been asked to make some recommendations, and that the figure of two pilots has been increased to three. However, I recognise—I ask the Minister to do likewise—that the commission does not believe that the north-west should have a compulsory postal ballot.

rose—

Whatever the hon. Gentleman might say, he cannot change that fact. The advice is clear and unequivocal, in letters from the chairman of the commission, Mr. Sam Younger. It is a great pity that Mr. Younger, in whom I have great confidence, has been placed in this extremely difficult and embarrassing position.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I shall certainly give way to my right hon. Friend.

Does my hon. Friend not think that the Minister should apologise to the commission and to the returning officers who have been left in muddle, owing to this Government's delay and bungling?

Not for the first time, I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend, whose reputation for incisive sagacity is exceeded by no one. Mr. Sam Younger and his colleagues, who seek to serve this country and the electoral system with objective, impartial advice, should receive an apology. We are now moving, because of the ridiculous timing—

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERput forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [8 March].

The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 172.

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—Burden of proof on employer to show reason for dismissal in trade union related cases—

Section 154 of the 1992 Act (exclusion of requirement as to qualifying period, etc) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2) insert—

"(3) On a complaint under section 152 or section 153 it shall be for the employer to show the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal.".'.

Both new clauses relate to protections provided for by section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 against dismissal on grounds of trade union membership or activities. Section 153 of the 1992 Act provides similar protections against being unfairly selected for redundancy on grounds of trade union membership or activities.

Currently, those important protections apply to all employees. In other words, the usual qualifying period of one year's service for bringing an unfair dismissal application does not apply in those cases. The usual upper age limit for unfair dismissal does not apply either. The disapplication of the qualifying period and the upper age limit is achieved by section 154 of the 1992 Act. It works by disapplying the qualifying period and the upper age limit "if it is shown" that the sole or principal reason for dismissal, or selecting the employee for redundancy, was an inadmissible reason under section 152 of the 1992 Act.

The protections against dismissal on trade union-related grounds are long-standing rights. Indeed, they were among the first "day one" employment rights ever introduced, in the mid-1970s. Perhaps as a result, the language used in section 154 to disapply the qualifying period and upper age limit is peculiar to that section. It has not been followed by later provisions that have created day-one rights against unfair dismissal on other grounds. The wording of section 154 has caused problems. It has been interpreted by the courts as placing the onus on the employee that is complaining of unfair dismissal and who has under a year's service, to show that the employer's decision in dismissing him was taken for an inadmissible trade union reason. In other words, the burden of proof is on the employee to show the employer's reason for dismissal. That is intrinsically difficult for the employee to do, given his lack of detailed knowledge of the employer's behaviours and motivations. That approach contrasts sharply with all other cases of unfair dismissal where the burden of proof is on the employer to show the reason for the dismissal.

In other words, the peculiar wording of section 154 has created an anomaly. Indeed, the burden of proof would vary where two employees—one with more than 12 months' service and the other with six months' service—complained of being dismissed for belonging to a trade union. In the first case, the burden of proof would rest on the employer and in the second it would rest on the employee. There are no justifiable reasons for such differential treatment. It is basically an accident of history.

New clause 4 will rectify the anomaly by replacing the current version of section 154 with a new one that uses different wording drawn from other day-one rights to disapply the qualifying period and upper age limit. The new wording ensures that the burden of showing what the reason for dismissal was will now rest on the employer.

New clause 15 also attempts to rectify that anomaly by inserting a new subsection into section 154 that provides that the burden of proof for the reason for the dismissal is on the employer. It does not, however, replace the "it is shown" wording that has caused difficulties for the courts. For that reason, the wording of new clause 4 is to be preferred.

The number of individuals affected by the change is small. I am glad to say that cases of alleged dismissal on trade union grounds are few, but that is no reason why we should leave the current imperfect wording of section 154 as it is.

As the Minister pointed out, the new clause reverses the burden of proof and we do not necessarily have any difficulty with that, but we are very unhappy at the complete lack of consultation on the new clause with any of the key bodies.

The Minister said that the so-called anomaly dated back to 1992, and if his legal advice has persuaded him that there is indeed an anomaly he is right to correct it. However, although there has been a lot of consultation on the Bill—it was published a long, long time ago and there have been various White Papers and endless discussions with organisations and bodies—most of the employer organisations did not see the new clauses until today. The Government tabled the new clauses only on Wednesday and did not tell those organisations, so they had only two and a bit working days to discover that the provisions had been tabled, which is not good enough. The Minister made great play of the fact that the Bill was about partnership and that there was a consensus-building process. He talked about always getting everybody on board and discussing things with all parties and when we began our consideration of the Bill the atmosphere was reasonably positive, because everyone felt that they had been consulted. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) pointed out, the Government are hanging new provisions on this measure as though it were a Christmas tree. Such provisions could do not only positive things, as the Minister claims for the new clause, but many other things. The Minister told us not to panic because the Government would do nothing that was untoward or would break the spirit of consensus built up with the various organisations, yet unfortunately that is exactly what has happened.

We are not especially enamoured of the changing of the burden of proof under new clause 4. As the Minister explains, it will be up to the employer to show that it was not trade union activity or involvement that led to either discipline or dismissal. He claims that there is an anomaly, but any change in the burden of proof is a serious matter, as it is a precious component of our legal system. Why did the Government not consult the employer organisations? Why were they left in the dark until this morning? He has created much ill will owing not to the substance of the new clause and the other proposals but to the lack of consultation.

How many tribunal cases will be affected every year by the change in the burden of proof? That is a serious matter.

Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Government make a superficially sensible proposal it is even more important to discuss it with those who have to deal with it? Although they think that they are producing something that will be very good, something might have been missed, which is why consultation is so important, even though most people might feel that the proposal seemed perfectly sensible.

My right hon. Friend is right. He brings a huge amount of experience to the discussion, having done an excellent job not only when he served in the Minister's place some years ago but in more senior positions. The key is consultation—working things out with the various organisations. It is obvious that lawyers for various trade unions have been pushing the matter, so will the Minister tell the House why he did not properly consult the Institute of Directors, the Engineering Employers Federation, the British Chambers of Commerce and the CBI?

I welcome new clause 4, which is better worded than my proposed new clause 15. In the spirit of consensus, I merely point out that, in unfair dismissal cases that are trade union related, the new clause simply maintains consistency with other cases, where the burden of proof is with employers. It is on that basis that we should move forward. Whatever lack of consultation there may have been, there is general approval for such a provision and an awareness that it was required, especially since the case of Smithv. Hayle town council. It is an improvement in the law and should be greatly welcomed.

In relation to the comments that have just been made, I merely point out that although new clause 15 includes the words, "After subsection (2) insert", section 154 of the 1992 Act does not have a subsection (2).

I am sorry that we have started off in a different vein from our time in Committee.

The point about consultation was well made. We want to hold full consultation with everybody who is affected by the Bill, but Members will be aware that we held an important debate about the Wilson and Palmer judgment and its effect in bringing about significant changes in the rights to trade union membership. That also relates to issues such as those dealt with by new clause 4. The provision is not a bauble on a Christmas tree, as the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) claimed earlier and during the debate on the programme motion last week. He ended his contribution to that debate by saying that he was not a happy camper, but I hope that we can make him a happy camper this evening by explaining that there were appropriate reasons for our proposals. A small number of tribunal cases are affected and I shall write to him with the number. In fact, we informed the CBI, the EEF and TUC that we would be tabling the provisions.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for not pressing new clause 15. It is entirely sensible to put the burden of proof on employers for reasons that have been outlined and accepted, so I ask the House to accept the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 6—Unfair practices in relation to recognition ballots.

Government new clause 7—Unfair practices in relation to derecognition ballots. Government new clause 8—Unfair practices: power to make provision about periods before notice of ballot.

New clause 2—Intimidation—

'After paragraph 51 of Schedule A 1 to the 1992 Act insert—

"Intimidation

51A If during the union recognition procedure a union uses undue force or intimidating measures to get recognition then the CAC shall have the right to investigate this at the request of the employer or any worker and if such measures are found to have been used the CAC shall terminate the recognition procedure immediately.".'.

Government amendments Nos. 4 to 6.

The intimidation of workers during recognition and derecognition ballots has been repeatedly raised with the Government, both during the review of the Employment Relations Act 1999 and during the consideration of this Bill. Both unions and employers have brought to my attention cases of alleged intimidation and have called on the Government to act to prevent such behaviour.

At the last sitting of the Standing Committee, I gave notice of our intention to move these amendments on Report. This is undoubtedly a difficult aspect, and many issues had to be considered before we could table the amendments. It has inevitably taken some time to complete the process, which explains why we could not table them sooner.

In response to my question about this matter in Committee—I think that it was on 2 March—the Minister said that he would table a new clause shortly, so can he explain why we did not see it until late last week?

I have tried to outline the difficulties involved and I hope that when the hon. Gentleman has heard what I have to say he will accept the reasons.

The word "intimidation" covers a wide range of possible conduct, and new clauses 5, 6 and 7 deal with the main behaviours that cause offence, at the time when most intimidation is likely to occur—namely, during the period of a recognition or derecognition ballot. New clause 8 allows us to deal with behaviour at other stages of the recognition or derecognition process should that be thought necessary.

Our objective, however, is not to stifle all campaigning activity. It is important that the workers concerned should hear from both the union and the employer in order to reach an informed decision on the important issue of recognition. However, that campaigning activity should be fair, and parties should not use underhand methods to influence the voting behaviours of the relevant work force.

New clause 5 and amendment No. 4, which is consequential to it, deal with intimidatory behaviour by the employer at, or concerning, access meetings between the union and workers in the bargaining unit during the ballot period. Those are meetings held to enable the employer to satisfy the duty imposed upon him to allow the union reasonable access to workers in the bargaining unit.

When an employer is informed by the Central Arbitration Committee that a ballot is to be held, he must comply with three duties, which are set out in paragraph 26 of schedule A1 to the 1992 Act, inserted by the 1999 Act. The first is to co-operate generally with the union and the qualified independent person appointed to conduct the ballot; the third is to give the CAC the names and home addresses of the workers in the bargaining unit, so that ballot papers can be sent to them; and the second is to give the union reasonable access to the workers in the bargaining unit, so that the union can inform the workers of the purpose of the ballot and seek their support and their views on the issues involved.

New clause 5 deals with the potential for problems to arise when such access is granted. Unions have alleged that employers have sought to interfere with access meetings: for example, I have received complaints that employers have offered higher rates of overtime to workers to stay at their posts rather than attend an access meeting, or an employer may give workers the option of going home early when such a meeting is scheduled. There have also been complaints that employers have monitored who attended and who said what at access meetings. It is not for me to assess the accuracy of those allegations, and I do not want to be drawn into specific cases.

Is the Minister honestly saying that if an employer allows an employee, of his own free will, to go home, that will be a breach of the legislation?

The key element is the employer's purpose—the reason the individual was allowed to go home. If the hon. Gentleman allows me to continue, he will hear our reasons, and I am sure that he will fully support our aims.

There is evidence that plainly shows that there is the potential for the sort of problem that I have described to arise. It has always been the Government's intention that access meetings should be private between the union and the workers in the bargaining unit, unless the employer or his representatives are invited to attend by the union. Likewise, at the time of the 1999 Act, we envisaged union access being free from the sorts of interference that I have just described. The statutory code of practice on access to workers during recognition and derecognition ballots, which we produced at that time, clearly sets that out, but the code merely provides guidance, which parties might take into account and which the CAC might consider when determining whether an employer has failed to allow access in accordance with the duty imposed on him. The code does not have the force of law and, in the light of experience, we feel that we need to provide explicit statutory provisions on those points.

New clause 5 inserts into paragraph 26 of the recognition schedule new provisions that make it plain that interference with union access arrangements is not permissible. The clause places on employers during the ballot period two new obligations in addition to the three existing duties. They appear in the clause as the fourth and fifth duties. The fourth duty, set out in new sub-paragraph (4ZA) of the recognition schedule, is to refrain from making offers to workers to induce them not to attend a union access meeting. We recognise, however, that there might be circumstances in which it might be reasonable for employers to make such offers; the clause therefore allows for such exceptional circumstances at new sub-paragraph (4ZA)(b). For example, if the employer wanted to send workers on a training course that was important for their career development, or if it was essential to maintain a minimum staffing of machinery during access meetings, it might well be reasonable to make offers to the workers in question to attend training or monitor the machinery. The CAC would examine all the circumstances of the case and decide whether such behaviour was reasonable. We intend to issue a new code of practice that will give more detailed guidance on these matters, which the CAC must take into account. We will, of course, consult on the code in draft.

The fifth duty is not to take action or make threats against workers for attending a union access meeting or for indicating that they plan to attend a meeting. Again, we have built in some necessary flexibility for employers by ensuring that action that was primarily taken for other reasons would not constitute a breach of the fifth duty. That would enable the employer to take action against a worker for their unacceptable behaviour—damaging the employer's property, for example—when attending a meeting.

The new clause inserts a new sub-paragraph (4ZD) into the recognition schedule to ensure some privacy for access meetings. This makes it clear that an employer is in breach of his duty to provide reasonable access if he or his representative attends a meeting without being invited. It also makes it clear that the employer is in breach if he seeks to monitor what goes on at a meeting. Again, the provisions contain some necessary flexibility to provide for cases in which such attendance or monitoring is reasonable. Let me give an example of what might constitute reasonable behaviour in these circumstances. In some workplaces, it might be impossible, or even dangerous, to switch off security cameras in the room where an access meeting is held; so, if the union was prepared to hold the meeting in such a room, it might indeed be reasonable for the event to be filmed. Subsections (6) to (10) of new clause 5 impose the same duties in respect of derecognition ballots.

The sanction for a failure to comply with either of the new duties is the same as the existing sanction for a failure to provide reasonable access. The CAC may order the employer to remedy the failure by taking whatever steps it considers appropriate. If the employer does not comply with that order, the CAC may award the union automatic recognition.

Amendment No. 4 makes a consequential change to clause 5. Access allows the workers to get both sides of the picture, so that they can make a well informed decision when they come to cast their vote. Any attempt to undermine that access is unjustifiable. The majority of employers who go through the recognition procedure already observe the duties. The amendments will make it clear beyond doubt to the minority that certain behaviour is unreasonable in those circumstances.

New clauses 6 and 7 and amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are closely linked and deal with standards of conduct during recognition and derecognition ballots. I have received complaints and evidence from both unions and employers about conduct that they believe is intended to frighten and intimidate workers into voting a particular way in the ballot. For example, I have received allegations of employers dismissing a union activist to undermine the union's campaign and to intimidate other workers; of union representatives making threatening visits to workers at their homes; of employers threatening reprisals such as the withdrawal of certain benefits if workers vote for recognition; and of both employers and unions making statements that grossly misrepresent, denigrate or even libel the other party. According to research for the TUC, US-style union-busting tactics are rare in this country; none the less, I am sure that intimidation can and does occur. I am concerned to make sure that it does not increase and to send a message that such behaviour is reprehensible and will not be tolerated.

Our policy is based on a number of general principles. First, and importantly, the provisions are double-edged—they apply to both the employer and the union. As I have said, I have received representations from all sides of the debate. I note that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk also believes that this is an important issue. I believe that it is only right and fair that the same standards of behaviour apply to both parties. Secondly, in identifying these practices, we have in part drawn upon rules of conduct for public general and local elections set out in the Representation of the People Act 1983. The unfair practices set out in new clause 6 are a reflection of conduct that is prohibited under that Act. I think the House will agree that the standards that apply in the elections that return us as Members of Parliament are an excellent starting point when setting standards of behaviour for democratic ballots in other settings.

New clause 6 deals with recognition ballots. It introduces a duty on both employers and unions to refrain from engaging in unfair practices during the ballot period. A party will have committed an unfair practice if, with the purpose of influencing the ballot, it does any of the things listed in new paragraph 27A(2)(a) to (f). These are: offering inducements or bribes to workers to vote in a particular way or to abstain from voting; coercing or attempting to coerce workers to reveal how they intend to vote or how they actually voted after the event; dismissing or threatening to dismiss a worker; taking or threatening to take disciplinary action against a worker; subjecting or threatening to subject a worker to a detriment; or using and attempting to use undue influence.

Let me make it clear that the Government support the right of all the parties—employers, unions and workers alike—to campaign for their preferred result in a recognition or derecognition ballot. We are not seeking to limit the right to engage in legitimate campaigning activity. The unfair practices that I have listed do not preclude people from legitimately trying to influence the result of the ballot, but they are designed to prevent people using conduct such as threats or deceit, rather than persuading people by the strength of their arguments. Nor are the Government suggesting that employers should not be able to dismiss or otherwise discipline workers during the ballot period if they are guilty of misconduct or poor performance. A dismissal or other disciplinary action will be an unfair practice only where it is done with a view to influencing the result of the ballot. Furthermore, for the CAC to find that a complaint is well founded, it must be satisfied that the practice in question changed—

Is the Minister saying that even if there is gross intimidation, violence or other totally unacceptable behaviour, the ballot will not be affected—that it will all be forgotten? What will happen in such circumstances?

No, I am not saying that. I have made it clear that we expect people to behave reasonably. If someone acts inappropriately or there is gross misconduct during the ballot period, the employer will be able to use his normal procedures to deal with the matter.

We are saying that it works both ways. If the employer is doing things that are not proper in terms of the ballot, the union has the right to complain to the CAC.

I welcome the clauses but I raise one point under paragraph 27B(6). Does my hon. Friend think that the provision could create an incentive for the employer to take action against the union, even where it had done nothing wrong, merely to protract the process?

7 pm

That is why we have placed great faith in the role of the CAC in determining motivation and the purpose for the actions of either the employer or the trade union. On that basis, the CAC will come to a decision. It is interesting that we have taken powers to go further in the period before the ballot if we feel that there is overwhelming evidence so to act.

The CAC must be satisfied that the practice in question changed, or was likely to change, the voting intentions or actual voting behaviour of a worker. This is intended to discourage frivolous claims. We do not want either employers or unions to be punished for very minor transgressions that are unlikely to have affected anyone's vote. The Government will issue a code of practice that will give detailed guidance to the parties on what is acceptable conduct and what is not.

Hon. Members will note that new clause 6 does not contain remedies for cases where a complaint of unfair practices is upheld by the CAC. Paragraph 27C contains instead a power for the Secretary of State to provide for sanctions and remedies by order. The Government's intention was to set out those sanctions in full in these new clauses and amendments. However, this is a complicated area. The sanctions will, among other things, allow the CAC to re-run a ballot where appropriate, and we want to consider further a number of complexities associated with that. It is my intention that, following more detailed consultation with stakeholders, the Government will propose amendments in the other place to put these sanctions in the Bill.

Is my hon. Friend able to say now whether the sanctions or remedies could include automatic recognition, which he mentioned earlier, in respect of activities before the 20-day ballot period?

That is one of the things that will be considered during consultation. I am told by Opposition Members that they want to see consultation take place. [Interruption.] However, I am hearing noises that perhaps they do not want it to take place.

New clause 7 introduces identical provisions making it an offence to use unfair practices in ballots on derecognition. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 make consequential amendments to clause 11. They insert cross-references to the powers to make sanctions in new clauses 6 and 7.

In addition, the Government have tabled new clause 8. It provides an order-making power for the Secretary of State to extend these rules of conduct to the earlier stages of the statutory recognition process.

Alleged intimidation has occurred, in the main during the ballot period. This is understandable. That period is the critical point where workers decide whether they want union recognition. We recognise that parties, perhaps as a result of the protections that we are introducing for the ballot period, may be tempted to bring forward any intimidatory conduct to an earlier stage. That is why we want to be armed with the tools to respond quickly. Let there be no doubt that if evidence emerges of this happening on any scale, we will not hesitate to introduce further measures to ensure that workers can exercise their choice freely and without fear. Of course, if and when we exercise this power, we can draw on the experiences gained from the operation of these provisions during the balloting period.

New clause 2 was tabled by Conservative Members but it has been grouped with the Government's new clauses and amendments. I am pleased that Opposition Members also recognise the importance of tackling intimidation during recognition applications. Of course, as always, their interest is one-sided. The new clause does not deal with the more prevalent form of intimidation by employers against workers and union members. As I have said, the Government believe that intimidation by any party is unacceptable. I hope that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk agrees. I urge him not to press the clause.

I have spoken for a long time and I am grateful to the House for its patience. However, these are detailed new clauses and amendments and I wished to explain them to the satisfaction of the House. The Government's new clauses are major amendments. I believe that they strengthen the Bill and safeguard the integrity of the statutory procedure. The issues that they address are of concern to everyone involved and I believe that the solutions that they present are balanced and reasonable. I am pleased to commend them to the House.

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the new clause and amendments in some detail. The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that they are extremely complicated. It is a great pity that we did not have them at an earlier stage, a view that is shared by many outside this place. Even at this stage, as the Minister said, they are not complete, as he has not finished his detailed work on some of them. As for new clause 5, as the Minister explained, there are at present three duties on the employer once the CAC has decided that there should be a ballot. The first is to co-operate with the ballot, the second is to provide access to the workers and the third is to supply names and addresses. There are two further duties. The first is to refrain from making any offer, and the second is to refrain from taking, or threatening to take, any action against a worker because he attended the meeting.

The clause then sets out various other matters regarding the conduct of employers in respect of meetings to discuss recognition and derecognition. Most of that is pretty reasonable but I shall raise a couple of points. Sub-paragraph (4ZB) refers to the threat of action on the ground that the employee "attended … any relevant meeting". Let us take a situation in a small or medium-sized company where a trade union activist may want to attend a number of meetings. In addition, there may be two or three other activists in the company who also want to attend meetings. There might be three, four or five meetings. What would happen if the company said to perhaps two of those people who were attending the meetings that that was affecting their performance at work and that only one should attend? As the law stands, the employer would not be allowed to do that, even though he took the view, in good faith, that consistent attendance at the meetings by a number of employees was affecting their performance at work? Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.

Sub-paragraph (4ZD) applies to the situation where an employer

"seeks to record or otherwise be informed of the proceedings".

What happens in a small or medium-sized company? It may be a family-owned business, where relations between management and employees are excellent. What happens if a managing director asks, en passant, "How did the meeting go last night?" Technically, he would be in breach of the new clause. What is the Minister's view on that? We are trying to stress the trust that is so often built up in small companies between management and employees. Often, in close-knit family businesses, there are no stand-offs. There is no suspicion. Unfortunately, in our judgment, the clause could make things worse. Perhaps the Minister will comment on those two points.

New clauses 6 and 7 relate to unfair practices during ballots. The Minister said that paragraph 27A(1) and (2) is based on the Representation of the People Act 1983. I am slightly concerned about sub-paragraphs (a) to (f), where "undue influence" is mentioned. What exactly is undue influence? It is difficult to define. There is huge potential for litigation. Someone making an allegation to the CAC does not do so on oath; they merely make an assertion. We are concerned that the term "undue influence" may lead to a great deal of confusion and trouble.

Apart from those comments, the two clauses may appear reasonable, but, as the Minister said, we are being asked to agree to clauses in which there is no mention of any penalties. The Minister says that he will return at a later stage to tell us what the penalties will be. It seems extraordinary that the Minister has brought the clauses forward—we are being asked to pass them—without there being any indication of what the penalties will be. For example, if the employer is at fault, presumably the penalty will be the CAC ordering immediate recognition. What happens if the employee is at fault? Will he have immediately to withdraw the application? If there has been a serious breach and there is a serious example of intimidation, would employees not be allowed to apply again for a certain period? None of that is answered.

Paragraph 27C(1) is drawn extremely widely. It is the part of the clause that will enable the Secretary of State to come up with penalties in due course. Will that be even handed? We just do not know. It is a little shabby of the Minister to ask us to accept two important new clauses when the detail is not to hand. Why cannot the Government get it right? They have had long enough.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the matter is to be resolved by means of a statutory instrument, it would be useful if the Minister gave us an undertaking to provide a draft statutory instrument so that we could debate it and possibly amend it, rather than being faced with an unamendable instrument?

The hon. Gentleman is right. This part of the clause is very widely drawn and there is no indication of the Government's intentions. It would be extremely helpful if they gave a commitment along those lines.

On new clause 8, the Minister spoke about research into intimidation. He mentioned that there was no large-scale intimidation, such as that which occurs in America. He believed there was research indicating that some firms used intimidatory practices. If he cannot tell the House what that evidence is, will he put a brief in the Library or write to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) to tell him what the evidence is?

We are discussing complicated new clauses. The Engineering Employers Federation, the CBI and many other organisations that have not been properly consulted are not yet convinced. They do not say that the new clauses are bad. They merely ask whether the provisions are a sledgehammer to crack a problem that is not nearly as serious as the Minister maintains. If the Minister wants to persuade us, will he put some research material in the Library, or at least write to me?

If the hon. Gentleman is looking for evidence of employer intimidation, I can give him tangible evidence of employers telling employees that if they wish to join the union whose representatives are standing outside handing out the leaflets, they should let the employers know and those employers will help the employees on with their jackets. Is that not intimidation?

I think the hon. Gentleman is talking about the Wilson and Palmer situation. We are discussing intimidating employees not about joining a union, but about voting in ballots. The Minister said that there was not widespread evidence, but he believed that malpractice was going on. He needs to sustain and justify his case.

I have just remembered the meeting that the hon. Gentleman had with the TUC. He was good enough to tell me that they had had an excellent debate. I am sure they told him about "Bargain or Bust? Employer responses to union organising", a discussion pamphlet published by the TUC in October 2003. That contains examples of the cases that have been outlined. No doubt the Library will get the hon. Gentleman a copy.

I am grateful to the Minister for pointing that out. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury and I will look carefully at that document. For the record, we had a positive and constructive discussion with the TUC, with Brendan Barber and some of his colleagues. There are many issues on which we fully agreed. We intend to work together. They have asked our views because they want to work with us on a positive basis, although we told them that there are obviously some issues on which we probably will not agree.

Finally, the Minister was rather scathing about new clause 2 and said that we cared only about the employer. In fact, we are trying to be even-handed. The penalty in our new clause is mild. It states that if there is intimidation by trade unions against employees or by employees against other employees,

"the CAC shall terminate the recognition procedure immediately".

We could easily have proposed a much tougher penalty. It is a mild new clause with limited scope, and it is intended to be even-handed.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I shall draw my remarks to a close, as there is much debating to do over the next couple of hours. We are not happy with Government new clauses 6 and 7, and we shall press new clause 2 to a Division, if need be.

7.15 pm

I welcome the new clauses. They deal with an important gap that the operation of the 1999 Act has thrown up in practice—serious intimidation, of which there is clear evidence in the case of a few employers.

The principal case with which most of us are familiar concerns Sky Television at Livingston where employees were intimidated to the extent that they were threatened by the employer with relocation of the factory, wage reductions and a series of unscrupulous measures. On initial CAC examination, a majority of the work force was in favour of union recognition, but that became a thumping defeat for the union when the ballot went ahead. That is unacceptable, given that the relevant provisions of the 1999 Act were intended to operate as a disputes resolution procedure, to keep such cases clean and fair and to give everyone the opportunity of a say.

I share the concerns expressed to the Minister by the TUC about how the Government have chosen to apply the intimidation processes. They have treated the trade union side and the employee side in exactly the same way as the employer side. The TUC presented a dossier to the Government, to which the Minister referred, as did the spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham). The dossier details various abuses found by the trade union side. I know that the employers have made allegations against the union, but, as far as I am aware, no specific evidence has been presented against the union side or the employee side in any particular case, simply vague allegations. Yet the same regulations are to be applied on both sides.

The union side is happy to accept that there should be a law against intimidation on both sides. The issue is how that should be applied. What the Government propose sounds fair and equitable, but it ignores the underpinning imbalance in the workplace between the employer, who owns the premises and employs the work force, and the union, which has only limited access to the work force in the case of a recognition ballot. One need only consider the Sky Television case in Livingston to see how that operates in practice. The employer was able to make threats and get information circulating round the work force that completely transformed the view of the work force.

The employer can say that union recognition will mean lower wages, and he has the power to put that into practice. The union cannot do that. A union can only speculate that union recognition will increase wages. To introduce a clause that hits both sides equally on every point will have unintended, unfair consequences. It will always be the union that suffers from any delay in the balloting process.

Surely it can be recognised that a worker approaching a fellow worker has no power other than the power of persuasion, whereas a manager has the power to promote or demote an individual worker? That is an important distinction.

That is exactly my point. All the power is with the employer, not with the union. If an employer says such things to an employee, the employee knows that the employer has the power to carry it out, which the union does not.

There is no question but that intimidation by unions is unacceptable, but different wording is needed to capture it if it happens. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider the matter and see whether a different form of words can be found to deal with that different problem when the Bill is debated in another place.

We have had a useful debate and a number of important points have been raised. It is interesting that there is some slight tension between the Minister and his hon. Friends. The Minister says the Government must be even-handed and make the provision apply to any party, but, not surprisingly, Members, particularly those with a strong union connection, are trying to shift the balance more favourably towards the unions, and they quote some fair examples where that would be justified.

Right from the start of the Bill, we have all acknowledged that the climate of industrial relations in this country has been transformed in the past 10 or 15 years, partly because of legislation that has democratised the trade union movement. Given the consultation that has taken place to bring the Bill to the House, and if the evidence was available, it is surprising and a little unfortunate that such detailed new clauses have had to be introduced so late m the process. I am not saying that that is not justified, but it puts those of us who are trying genuinely to scrutinise legislation in a slightly invidious position.

The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) referred to the example of a company in which there is no animosity and in which the natural tendency of a manager who knows that a recognition debate is going on is to say "How's it going?" The wording gives the impression that that could become an offence. The legislation has just arrived, and we have not had time to test out how it could apply and whether it could lead to slightly silly litigation that gets in the way of good employment relations.

The hon. Gentleman is drawing an important distinction. As a former trade union official who became chief executive of a small company, I remind him that the determining factor rests with the chief executive or the employer. I knew, when I spoke to an employee as an employer, as opposed to a trade union official, that I could intimidate them off the cuff. However, let me make this distinction: if the relationship between the employer and employee is good, there will never be a situation in which the employee takes the employer to task.

I agree entirely, but we are entitled as legislators to look at what the Bill says and how it might be applied. It has already gone through my mind that I doubt that anybody will want to go to law in a good business with a constructive atmosphere, although it may take only one malicious individual to cause damage. All that I am concerned about is ensuring that the measure is not sloppily drafted and that it means what it says and does not create unnecessary problems. I think that that is a perfectly fair role for us to play in the House.

I wish to repeat what I said in intervening on the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk about the orders, which the Minister said he would return to. The Minister made two points. The first was that further details would be brought before another place. I am afraid that that is a weary old comment. Even though we consult, we pass too many laws rather hurriedly at the end of the process, which is simply not a good way of making law. That is all that I am saying. Such a way of proceeding does not necessarily produce bad law, but it certainly does not help to produce good law; indeed, it is more likely to produce bad law, because proper consideration is not given. The more particular point relates to new paragraphs 27C(2) and 119C(2) to schedule Al to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which both state:

"An order under this paragraph may…

amend this Schedule;

apply any provision of this Schedule with such modifications…

confer functions on the CAC;

make provisions about the arrangement and conduct of further ballots;

include supplementary or incidental provisions;

make different provision for different cases or circumstances."

A pretty substantial statutory instrument is being envisaged. As the Government have introduced the provision at such a late stage, it is reasonable to seek assurances. I welcome the Government's practice of publishing draft statutory instruments that can be scrutinised and debated by Select Committees and hon. Members, so that when the final secondary legislation comes before the House it will have been subjected to a form of preliminary scrutiny. We all agree that the weakness of the statutory instrument as it is proposed—of course, this is the case from the point of view of the House, not the Government—is that it is not amendable and that we can only vote yes or no. Given that the provision is being introduced late in the process and that it is fairly extensive, it is reasonable for us to ask the Government to give it further consideration.

I understand the Minister's response to new clause 2, but, having considered it, I find it hard to take issue with what is proposed. In dealing with intimidation, it points to the "employer … or worker", so it contains reference to that point. One of the essential things that we are trying to do—this is a classic position for those on the Liberal Democrat Benches—is to get the balance right, as the Minister himself also said was necessary. If I may say so, that is something on which my party has a contribution to make.

Does the hon. Gentleman share the views of the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, who said that it was perfectly acceptable to tell an employee that attending a trade union meeting could affect their performance? Many of us on the Labour Benches have heard those chilling words before and then suffered the consequences.

I do not think that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk made that remark, although he has not contradicted the hon. Gentleman. I do not accept such views, but I accept the comment that an employer is, by definition, in a different situation. Let us be clear. Historically, there have also been situations in which trade unionists and trade union activists have used intimidating processes and put pressure on people in other ways. The reality is that the faults have arisen on both sides, but the situation has improved enormously.

When we finish our proceedings on the Bill—we support it and are not changing our position—we should not introduce legislation that upsets that balance, especially so late in the process. I am saying not that the measures before us upset the balance, but that they raise in my mind some legitimate and proper concerns that we should address.

My hon. Friend the Minister is to be congratulated on introducing the Government new clauses, which I think are a response to the discussion that took place in Committee. When we discussed intimidation in Committee, hon. Members in all parts of the House recognised that it was unacceptable. As the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said, the balance has to be got right. At present, the employers have all the cards and all the opportunities to intimidate people if they so wish. Only a small minority of employers need to be dealt with on that basis.

I would like to make a point about definitions and to add to the request made for an explanation of the phrase "undue influence". I, too, would like the Minister to explain that term, but I would also like the Opposition spokesman to explain something. I tried to intervene on him in respect of new clause 2, which refers to circumstances in which

"a union uses undue force or intimidating measures".

I would be interested to hear what "undue force" and "intimidating measures" are. I have found that when a union tries to win a ballot, it will do everything it possibly can to convince people. That is usually done in a sensible way and on the basis of argument. If there was intimidation by a trade union, hon. Members in all parts of the House would say that it was unacceptable.

I think that the balance must be got right, as has been said. In that respect, we must examine Government new clause 6 carefully, as there is a concern that it goes too far the other way and will create a situation in which the union will be unduly punished without having been involved in intimidation. I ask the Minister to look at that point.

Having heard the debate thus far, my opinion is that a lot more work needs to be done on the new clauses in terms of their form and purpose. That view comes from having heard contributions from all parts of the House. I hope that the Minister will take that point away when the Bill heads to the Lords and think about it further.

I wish to speak in support of new clause 2. There is more sense in the four lines of that new clause than in the four pages taken up by the Government's equivalents—new clauses 6 and 7.

If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is more sense in the four lines of new clause 2 than in the other provisions, will he explain the meaning of

"undue force or intimidating measures"?

The Minister himself gave the straightforward example of intimidatory visits to people's homes. That is a good example, and I accept it.

The point about new clause 2 is that it does not deal with all aspects of work. It is very specific about the recognition procedure, and it applies only during the period when it is under way. Rather than dealing with a range of areas and issues, it is again specific about undue force and intimidation. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) said, it is fair and concentrates on not only the company, but the workers, and is therefore balanced across the workplace.

7.30 pm

Importantly, the remedy introduced by new clause 2 is simple and does not relate to criminal or civil damages. I can see the complications for the Minister, but I still say that it is unacceptable not to introduce remedies. If new clause 2 bites, it is a declaration that the recognition procedure has ended, which is a simple, straightforward way to deal with the issue.

In Committee and during today's debate, certain hon. Members have implied that unions never use violent or intimidatory behaviour, but the behaviour of certain unions over past years has shown that, if anything, militancy is again starting to increase dramatically. There were, for example, suggestions that retained firefighters were intimidated during the miners' strike. [Interruption.] I mean the fire strike. Wildcat, unofficial strikes have occurred at, for example, British Airways and the Post Office. The climate of industrial relations has changed over the past year, but few people would say that it has changed for the better. A new generation of union leaders has come to the fore, and they are, perhaps, less conducive to the Government's way of thinking than their predecessors.

British Airways headquarters is in my constituency, as is Heathrow. The unofficial action at Heathrow was voluntary action in which employees left their workplaces without any union policy or directive. Can the hon. Gentleman provide me with any evidence of intimidation, because none has been reported?

The hon. Gentleman did not hear where I was coming from. The climate has changed dramatically, and I gave the Heathrow case as an example. It is bizarre that, despite 65 pieces of employment and union legislation, the unions are not grateful, but the more they get, the more they seem to retreat into militancy, which must create a conundrum for the Government.

On the Minister's example of union intimidation, I should be interested to hear what steps, if any, the trade unions took to sort out that business. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the question of intimidation is enshrined in most, if not all, trade union rulebooks? There is ample evidence of members or potential members of trade unions being disciplined for taking any intimidatory action whatsoever.

I have given a couple of examples, and I have some more, but they can wait—the GMB comes to mind.

I want to address the Government new clauses, and in particular new clauses 6 and 7, which are extremely complicated. My particular concern is that new clauses 6 and 7 cover not only intimidation, but the effect of intimidation. If there has been intimidation but it does not affect the ballot, it will be ignored by the new clauses, which is conceptually wrong. Indeed, there should be disincentives to intimidation, and I cannot see how disincentives can be introduced unless intimidation has negative consequences.

The second main point, which has been addressed previously, is that the Bill does not contain any remedies for intimidation, and I do not see how we can examine the effect of one without the other. Will the Minister at least clarify what the Government are thinking? Is the object to invalidate the ballot, not to allow the person or union that is doing the intimidation the chance to have a re-ballot or to punish the person who is doing the intimidation? Will the Government go down civil or criminal lines of remedy?

It is particularly unfortunate that new clauses 5 and 8 were tabled towards the end of last week, because they contain totally new concepts. The Government have at least said that they accept in principle the idea of an intimidation clause, but new clauses 5 and 8 have come out of the blue. The Minister should tell us why those new clauses have been introduced, because I can see no reason for them.

The debate has been interesting, and it clearly sets out the differences between the parties' attitudes towards employment relations and industrial relations. Intimidation, whether it is from unions or employers, will not be tolerated and we do not want to see it. As on Second Reading, my hon. Friends have exposed cases of intimidation, but Opposition Members have failed to come up with details of unions behaving badly.

The example that I gave of a union visiting workers' homes was raised with the Government by the CBI, which provided anecdotal evidence. It said that it could back up that claim, and we wait to see whether it can. The unions have given evidence to me and to the publication in the Library, which is available if hon. Members want to pick it up.

Will my hon. Friend indicate the volume of evidence from the trade union against the volume of evidence from the CBI? I would be particularly interested to know what action was taken on intimidation in someone's home, which, as far as I am concerned, is a criminal offence, and I would have thought that criminal charges would have been brought.