Employment Bill [HL]

I come to the amendment as very much a new boy and as someone who is learning every day. I say what I am about to say with huge respect to noble Lords, but I believe that I have heard a considerable amount of alarmism over the past few moments. In my considerable ignorance, I crave a look at this with a degree of perspective. The Government are very supportive of codes for ACAS. It is highly regarded by both employers and employees, and it certainly prevents many more cases coming before tribunals. But there has been no pressure on ACAS to produce the sort of code that is mentioned in the amendment, and ACAS is not aware that there is any need for such a code. We already have a comprehensive code that has been issued by the Information Commissioner. This is what people have to deal with every day; every employer has to have that and look at it. That deals with employee monitoring and includes electronic surveillance, so there is already something in place to deal with the exact point raised by my noble friend. The amendment is not necessary for a new code of practice, because ACAS already has the power to issue a code of practice whenever it thinks fit, which is in Section 199 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. If we need one, it can go and produce one in the morning, as it is for the purpose of promoting ““the improvement in industrial relations””. As an aside, at UK Trade and Investment, I have worked very hard to remove the words ““industry”” or ““industrial”” from most things that we do, because industry conjures up so many ideas of smoke stacks and old factories, and it is not what modern Britain—modern business Britain and modern brand Britain—is about. If we go to some of those fabulous manufacturing facilities all over Britain that still make more things than people ever give credit for, we see that they do not associate with the word ““industry”” but with words such as ““manufacturing””. The statute uses the word ““industrial””. ACAS has a remit for the public sector as well, for good quality, hardworking people in the public sector who again—I think—do not associate with ““industrial””. They might associate with ““labour relations””, ““workplace relations”” or ““employer-employee relations””. I suggest that one day we look at the use of ““industrial””. There is an existing general power. It is not necessary to introduce further legislation providing ACAS with a specific duty to produce a code on resolving disputes arising out of employee surveillance or monitoring. If ACAS wants to produce the code, then let it do so. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that the last two words in BERR’s title are ““regulatory reform””. If he wants another one of those to add in duplication and more red tape, which I presume is where he is leading, I say, ““Forget it””.