House of Commons Hansard Debates for 22 Jul 1991

Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield) : No, he did not.

Column 960

Mr. Nicholls : It is interesting that although only four Labour Members have come here to defend their position on the trades union membership, they already know I want to draw to the attention of the House. What does the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, the hero of the lunchtime offensive, think about trades union ballots? Does he think that they are a useful extension of trades unions' members' rights? Is he pleased that it strikes a libertarian blow? No. He describes it as "an irrelevant effrontery". He went on to say that statutory requirements for ballots were "intellectually disreputable" and that for unions, they would

"gravely undermine the effective pursuit of their members' interests."-- [ Official Report, 8 November 1983 ; Vol. 48, c. 170.] That is from someone who is a leading light in a party which would have us believe that trades union reform is now safe in its hands. That is from a person who, when Labour suffers its next election defeat, will be well poised to take over leadership of the Labour party.

Let us look to the younger generation and put the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East to one side for the moment. Let us go for the young Lochinvar and look at the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) when he was trying to describe how he felt about trades union ballots. What did he say about the Bill that made them a reality? He described the ballots as a "shabby, partisan strategy" and as "a disgrace". Just in case he had not made his position abundantly clear at that stage, he said that he saw a ballot as "a scandalous and undemocratic measure against the trade union movement".--[ Official Report, 8 November 1983 ; Vol. 48, c. 210.] That is the reality of the way in which leading lights in the new, revisionist, squeaky-clean Labour party feel about trades union matters.

Every single trades union reform that the Government have introduced since 1979, which the Labour party says is now safe in its hands, was opposed root and branch by the Labour party, often in the most lurid terms. There is not a single major strike that members of the Labour party have opposed in recent times. If one needed to consider for one moment whether it was likely that the Labour party, or the Labour party as it is likely to be constituted in the foreseeable future, could be anything other than a tool and pawn of the trades union movement, one would not have to listen to my words--good idea though that may be. All one has to do is to look at what the Labour party says about itself-- [Interruption.] This is one of the occasions on which my innate fairness can bubble to the surface, because in making my point, I have only to quote those who now seek to deny it from sedentary positions.

The answer to the first question--whether it is likely that the Labour party would now change its spots--is that it would not. Even if it is not likely, is it true? It is worth considering four areas in which the Labour party will say, superficially, that it has changed its position. Let us consider the publication "Opportunity Britain". Let us ignore for the moment that a noun has been used as an adjective. In one area of the publication, while proclaiming itself to be squeaky clean, revisionist and modern, the Labour party has managed to pledge itself to go further down a left-wing, trades union road than it has ever done. It now makes it clear in "Opportunity Britain"--on page 39 for those who wish to have a look at its latest policy on these matters--that it would for the first time be impossible for employers to be able to dismiss strikers. It

Column 961

is a bizarre proposition that, after all possible safeguards, an employer should employ people to work in his concern, yet not be allowed to dismiss them when they decide that their idea of a contract of employment is merely an opportunity to strike. That proposition and that move towards making it impossible to dismiss strikers are so extreme that they were not even adopted by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) when he was in government. That proposition was even too extreme for that right hon. Gentleman. It is a bizarre proposition from the Labour party and far more extreme than anything that a Labour Government have adopted. It is interesting to discover the position of certain leading lights in the Labour party on ballots. We are led to believe by the hon. Member for Sedgefield that the tiger has changed its spots and that the Labour party has been in favour of pre-strike ballots all along. Those who pay the piper call the tune and it is interesting to consider what the trade unions say about--

Mrs. Llin Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme) : Tigers do not have spots.

Mr. Nicholls : It is interesting that I am now being heckled. Opposition Members are upset because if they stand in favour of some of the reforms it means that they will go against those who pay the funds of the Labour party.

It is worth considering those who pay the piper, for example, Ron Todd, the recent relatively moderate leader of the Transport and General Workers Union and what he says about ballots. It appears that he is now in favour of ballots for strikes, but he made it clear in an article in The Independent that he does not mind if those ballots are not held until after the strike has been called. It is a odd commitment to pre-strike ballots and ballots generally if one believes that one can have a strike first and perhaps a ballot later. That is what lies behind the Labour party's being in favour of ballots.

What about secondary picketing and sympathy action? It is clear that the public are thoroughly fed up with such action. There are still many people who can remember the chaos to which the country was reduced in the winter of discontent specifically because secondary picketing and sympathy action were allowed. We are now told by the Labour party that slight secondary picketing and slight sympathy action will be allowed. If one considers what the trades union apparatchiks say about that, one sees that it is slightly different from what Labour party spokesmen say.

That great luminary of the trade union movement, and to be fair, its greatest paymaster, Mr. Todd, has made it absolutely clear to those whom he seeks to fund what his position would be. Presumably the Opposition would want to hear about Mr. Todd and the TGWU. After all, many members of the shadow Cabinet are sponsored by that union. The Leader of the Opposition is sponsored by that union. They all know where their marching orders come from. When Mr. Todd was asked about how he felt about secondary picketing he said :

"We need fair rules on picketing. We need the right to enforce our own rule book"

He was speaking to that well-known moderate journal, The Morning Star. That paper said that he went on to stress that his definition of secondary action included the

Column 962

right to strike in support of those "in unorganised workplaces". Just in case anyone might miss what Mr. Todd thought was a necessary right of secondary picketing and sympathy action, he said : "if you want the bottom line that is it and we'll consider any means of getting there."

That is the true reaction of the Labour party to the restoration of rights on secondary picketing and sympathy action.

One need only consider the tortuous definition that is proposed by the Labour party. It says that it would allow secondary picketing and sympathy action, but that there would have to be mutuality of interest to justify such action. What does that mean in practice? On the BBC programme "On the Record" the hon. Member for Sedgefield admitted that that connection would be there for National Union of Mineworkers' pickets--if there is anyone left in the NUM these days. He said that NUM pickets would be entitled to go out and picket in support of electricity workers. The hon. Member was also able to confirm again that that would mean that National Union of Seamen pickets would have been entitled to bring cross-channels ferries to a halt. It would mean that the TGWU would have been entitled to carry out its threats against Ford, even though those threats prevented substantial investment at Ford at Dundee. Although the headline is that the Labour party now has a responsible attitude on those matters, the small print turns out to mean something else.

When one is trying to form a view on the matter and work out what the situation might be, it is worth looking at what some of the more honest members of the Labour party are prepared to say. The hon. Member who springs to mind is a member of the shadow Cabinet who, whatever his other attributes and characteristics, fiercely speaks his mind, such as it is. He is the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is much maligned. We all think of the skit that we often see of the hon. Gentleman on "Spitting Image", which has been unfair to him because, in reality, he is much worse than he is portrayed. It is interesting that when he was asked recently to reflect on the position of the trade union movement in relation to the Labour party he said :

"There is no way the Labour party can be distanced from the trade unions"--

[Hon. Members :-- "Hear, hear."]

I am pleased that Opposition Members realise, as all good puppets should, their position in this matter. He continued :

"I don't think there's any doubt in anybody's mind about our alliance with the trade unions. We sit down and discuss our policies and come to agreements before we go to conference. Nobody will be able to break that link."

So the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has made it absolutely clear that there is no question of breaking that link. Ultimately, the Labour party realises that its position on trades union reform has been a vote loser. Because it is moving into new times, it now goes in for realpolitik. It has suddenly discovered that it is even more in favour of trades union reform than we are. But its structure and funding and the trades unions' say in the framing of its policies show that it is unreal to think that, if it were in office, the Labour party could ever be anything other than it was created to be : the mouthpiece, for better or worse, of the trades union movement. There is nothing wrong or dishonourable with that position. In a sense, it has now

Column 963

become part of British tradition and is very praiseworthy. However, it becomes less than praiseworthy, and becomes intellectually and historically dishonest, when such a party denies its history and pretends that it will abandon it in the future. There is no evidence whatever for that proposition. This debate gives us an opportunity to reflect on that fact.

6.3 am

Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stretford) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) on deciding to debate this subject, although I am at a loss about what he wanted to say. I had been concerned that two good speeches would be spoilt by the hour of the night and the lack of an audience, but events have proved me wrong because two not-so-good speeches have not been spoilt.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth) : We are about to hear another

Mr. Lloyd : The Minister must follow me in whatever form he chooses.

There is little that I can say to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) except that he is right in at least one accusation, because the Labour party has no intention of turning its back on its history. Why should we? Our history makes the party what it is and I do not seek to justify our position, because it has been justified many times before. If the charge is simply that we recognise that we hold certain values in common with different sectors of society, the Labour party is and will continue to be committed to the pursuit of those values through the political mechanisms of this place. As for the subject of this debate on industrial relations in Britain and the need for trade union reforms, may I say to the hon. Member for Nuneaton that there may be a need for a seven- day cooling-off period between Conservative Members coming up with ideas and the publication of Green Papers by the Secretary of State which say, essentially, what is in the hon. Gentleman's speech. That is because the only possible justification for the speech of the hon. Member for Nuneaton is that the Minister and the Secretary of State for Employment felt that they might be lucky enough in the ballot to obtain some prime time. Instead, the poor old Minister had to turn up at 5.30 am to justify and possibly throw some light on the debate. The sad reality is that Conservative Members felt, and still feel, that trade union bashing will give them an electoral bonus. They normally start on the process before a general election. For those who do not already know it, it is a good indication of the fact that a general election is on the way. The unfortunate news for Conservative Members is that the British public do not give trade union legislation a high priority.

A recent opinion poll convincingly showed that 93 per cent. of the public support an employee's legal right, not only to trade union membership but to trade union representation when in dispute with an employer. The public even allow for the concept of an employee being in dispute with his or her employer because they recognise that such things occur.

Some 85 per cent. of the public support the legal right to a minimum wage-- something that is advocated by the Labour party and most of the rest of Europe, but scorned by the Government. Some 66 per cent. of Conservative

Column 964

voters are strongly against the idea of any further legislation to limit trade union rights, which means that 66 per cent. of the supporters of Conservative Members do not believe them when they say that there is a need for further step-by-step, lemming-like moves over the cliff to which the Government would take the country in terms of trade union legislation.

The simple reality is that the British public recognise, as does the Labour party, that industrial relations--far from being one of the Government's successes--contain many sectors in which the Government's policies have totally and abysmally failed. That failure is meted out to the detriment of some of the most vulnerable people in society. The Government have for many years been in dispute with many international organisations, including the European Community and the International Labour Organisation because of their total failure to provide an industrial relations regime that is seen to be fair on all sides of industry. We know that the International Labour Organisation--the United Nations trade union agency--has condemned the Government roundly and soundly for their abuse of trade unions and trade unionists. It contrasts the Government's concern to prevent what they would describe as the abuse of industrial power with their "lesser concern for the rights of trade unions".

That is absolutely right, because the Government have run away from the concept that employees should have any rights in the workplace. One of the ILO's most ringing condemnations, from which the Government have constantly run away, is of their decision to ban employees at GCHQ from being trade union members. That issue is still unresolved and we do not hear Conservative Members raise it when they speak of the abuse of the ordinary people of this country. When Conservatives abuse the most vulnerable people, Parliament should draw its own conclusions about the unkind and unpleasant nature of the modern Conservative party.

There has been a denial of the negotiating rights of teachers, which was condemned by the ILO. The Government have refused to take action on the blacklisting of people-- [Interruption.] That, as the hon. Member for Teignbridge should know, is common in many parts of British industry. People, simply because of a history of trade union activity--or sometimes not even that--are prevented from obtaining any further employment in those parts of industry because they are deemed to be unacceptable to employers. We saw that in relation to work on the channel tunnel, where active trade unionists were unable to obtain employment. It is a disgrace.

Mr. Nicholls : Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not believe that an employer should have the right to take into account that a trade unionist may have a history of industrial disruption? Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that an employer should be obliged to employ such a person? The answer that the hon. Gentleman is groping for is yes, but it would be interesting to hear it from the hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. Lloyd : We have said consistently that blacklisting is an outrageous principle, by which an employer can use his so-called right of hire and fire for narrow and sectarian political and industrial ends.

Mr. Nicholls : The hour is late, but I am not sure that I heard the hon. Gentleman answer my question.

Column 965

Mr. Lloyd : Does the hon. Gentleman seek to intervene again? I will give way to him, if he asks politely. The hon. Gentleman's behaviour is not something to which one is normally accustomed in the House, or elsewhere.

Mr. Nicholls : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lloyd : In a moment. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to learn some of the customs and traditions of the House, and I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can only approve of that.

Blacklisting has been condemned by international bodies such as the ILO. If the hon. Member for Teignbridge wants to tell the House that he believes that the ILO and others are wrong to say that blacklisting is an outrageous abuse of human rights, I will listen with considerable interest.

Mr. Nicholls : Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question that I put to him a few moments ago? Does he accept that an employer should have the right to refuse to employ a trade unionist who has a history of industrial disruption? The answer is either yes or no.

Mr. Lloyd : The hon. Gentleman chooses to phrase his question in that way, but I repeat that an employer does not have the right to blacklist a person when, in some instances, he or she has not even been an active member of a trade union, and organisations such as the Economic League have got it wrong. The Labour party has already sought, in previous Employment Bills, to make blacklisting illegal.

Mr. Nicholls : Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

Mr. Lloyd : Not on the same issue, no. I have made it clear where Labour stands. We do not accept the abuse of individual human rights by blacklisting.

The hon. Member for Teignbridge might want to leap up and down in the same hysterical fashion in respect of sympathy action. Again, the ILO condemned the Government for making the concept of sympathy action illegal-- particularly where it is associated, as was the case with the notorious Wapping dispute, with a move by the company artificially to split its work force by using the law as a direct weapon against its employees. The hon. Member for Teignbridge has already made it clear that he supports the sacking of workers who strike. He is clearly out of step with international opinion in that respect as well. The Government and their supporters are far from the norms of conventional and decent opinion throughout Europe and the world.

It is claimed that Britain has a successful record in terms of stoppages in industry. Let us be realistic and compare the numbers of days lost through industrial dispute, and the number lost through death and injuries at work.

Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield) : Does the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) accept that the citizens charter should allow the public to know of the secret and often spurious information on their private lives that is held by organisations such as the Economic League, and to correct it where it is wrong? Every individual has an inalienable right to be employed in commerce or industry. Does the hon. Member for Teignbridge share that view--yes or no?

Column 966

Mr. Lloyd : The reality is that the Government do not agree with that proposition. They have made it clear on numerous occasions that they do not agree with the concept of individual basic human rights at the workplace. They believe that an employer has a right to do what he feels is right in his own interests. The Government's attitude is that if that means trampling down the rights of employees, so be it. That should be evident to anyone who believes in human rights in a free society. The idea that an organisation can store information covertly is a dubious one ; the notion that that information should be uncheckable is so outrageous that there is an overwhelming case for banning the activity.

Mr. McCartney : If we accept from the Prime Minister that the citizens charter relates to the public sector rather than the private sector, we must recognise that within British Telecom and British Coal there is a tendency to use organisations such as the Economic League. If someone is employed in the public sector, he will have the rights that are set out in the citizens charter. Surely he should be able to seek out and challenge the information that may be held on him, which might be fallacious. At present there is no right of challenge. An individual's career might be blighted irrespective of whether he agrees with trade unionism. His views on trade unionism could be described as irrelevant in the circumstances.

Mr. Lloyd : My hon. Friend is right. I ask the Minister to confirm that part of the citizen's rights will be an entitlement for those who work in the public sector to challenge both the use and abuse by public sector employers of blacklists of the sort that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has described.

Mr. Nicholls : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lloyd : With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I suspect that he is no longer in a position to answer authoritatively for the Government or the Prime Minister, to tell us what will be introduced in the citizens charter. Being ever interested in his views, however, I shall give way to him, but perhaps for the last time in this debate.

Mr. Nicholls : The hon. Gentleman and I have been round this course before. In the context of the debate, perhaps he will remind the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) that the Government introduced the right of an employee not to be denied employment because of trade union membership. We are talking about an entirely different proposition, and one that obviously escapes the hon. Member for Makerfield. The proposition is not that someone should be denied work because of trade union membership. As I said, the Government have made that an impossibility. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), with his usual cheap remarks and jibes, chooses not to recognise that. He will not give a straight answer to my question, which is whether an employer should be entitled to refuse employment to someone with a history of industrial disruption--not someone who is merely a member of a trade union. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Government introduced the right that a person should not be refused work merely because of trade union membership.

Mr. Lloyd : I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman still practises law, but he suggested in his little diatribe that

Column 967

if a law is passed that gives rights to trade unionists, that makes it impossible to discriminate against trade unionists. He merely demonstrates--

Mr. Nicholls : I did not say that.

Mr. Lloyd : Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should read Hansard when this exchange appears within it. I think that he will find that my quotation is accurate.

The simple reality is that in Britain there are many who are denied employment only because they are members--not active ones--of trade unions. That is the position in the construction industry, for example, and in other parts of other industries. The Government can pass any law that they like, but unless they are prepared actively to prevent the use of blacklists they merely provide themselves with a fig leaf of respectability --I think that the Minister know this--while failing to give people legal protection. People's lives have been blighted by the actions of vicious employers. Actions have been taken that were designed to maintain a degree of control in certain industries which should not be tolerated in a society such as ours. The hon. Member for Nuneaton talked about Britain's great success in terms of the present industrial climate. There is a contrast to be drawn between the number of days lost through industrial stoppages and the ever-increasing number of days lost through deaths and injuries at the workplace. That is one of the scandals of our time, and it falls directly on the doorstep of the Government. During recent years, the number of deaths has once again increased. The latest figures available show that some 200,000 people each year are injured in the workplace in Britain. That is a frighteningly high figure. A phenomenal number of people are suffering because of the incompetence and indifference of Conservative Members and the Government whom they seek to support.

The Government have systematically underfunded the Health and Safety Executive and have systematically attempted to drive a wedge between the people at the workplace and the protections that they should be entitled to enjoy in any society that claims to be civilised. If we are serious about a proper industrial climate in a modern economy, a right to healthy and safe working practices is not simply something to be afforded when the economy is put to rights, but something fundamental to our sort of society. It is a fundamental right for our fellow citizens at the workplace.

I draw the Minister's attention to the case of Jan Leadbitter, who died at work recently and whose employer, Bovis Construction, was taken to court. The family contacted me because they were devastated that the company, which has a poor industrial safety record, was fined a mere £1,000 by the court. It is an outrage that a company that allowed one of its employees to die, through its

negligence--there is no doubt that it was negligence by the company--was fined only £1,000 by the court, which deemed that to be sufficient penalty. Conservative Members may think that that is a reasonable response by the courts, but we do not. Companies that are irresponsible to the point of allowing their employees to die should suffer penalties considerably greater than that.

Mr. McCartney : A year and a half ago, an 18-year-old constituent of mine was electrocuted and died after a fall. His employer was found guilty in the magistrates court of four offences, for which the highest fine was £400. His

Column 968

mother and father are devastated and his fiance e's life has been destroyed. Despite its negligence, the employer walked away with a minimum fine.

Because my constituent was killed three weeks after his 18th birthday, his family has no claim in law for compensation. He was deemed to be an adult with no wife or children, yet in reality he lived in a family and looked after his parents. The company offered to pay for the lad's funeral, which cost about £1,500, and then walked away. Had that lad been killed in the street by, for example, a nightclub bouncer, that person would have rightly served 15 years. Because the gentleman concerned calls himself a managing director, he walked away from the court with a £400 fine for negligently killing a person.

Mr. Lloyd : My hon. Friend draws attention to an important point. Obviously, compensation can never be enough in such cases. What we should be determined upon--but the Government are not--is to make such events so rare as to be exceptional. The sad reality is that there are 623 deaths and 200,000 injuries a year, with probably another 2, 000 people dying through work-induced health disorders and about 80, 000 people joining the list of those whose health has been ruined in the workplace. For this Government, the health and safety elements are not a priority. While that charge is real and fitting, I say to Conservative Members that every time that they speak about industrial relations, they speak with--

Mrs. Golding Forked tongues.

Mr. Lloyd : Not only with forked tongues, but with gross hypocrisy.

The Government of law and order are faced with the problem of the 100,000 firms since 1979 that have been found to be illegally underpaying their workers. If the data that I have are accurate, about 1 million people who are covered by the wages councils do not receive the wages to which they are entitled.

The Conservative party, which claims to have respect for the law, has never been strong in defence of those 1 million people or in pursuing employers who are prepared to flout the law. The Government unashamedly do not pretend to support that law. When we know that about 10.4 million people at work are paid below the level of the Council of Europe's decency threshold, we know that Britain has a crisis of poverty wages. The problem will not be resolved by pious aspirations about driving people back into work. That has not happened. Once again, unemployment is increasing massively. That explains why the hon. Member for Nuneaton said that there were fewer industrial stoppages this year than previously.

Low pay is holding back our economy and our fellow citizens. It stops our employers investing in training and in deriving the maximum potential from those at the workplace. The Conservative Government do not aim to crack down on the illegal underpayers. A Labour Government will introduce a minimum wage, as Labour Members have said publicly, and we will ensure that it is used to the advantage of people in the workplace.

Wherever we look, the Government's record on industrial relations bears no comparison to that of the rest of western Europe. The Government are blocking European Community directives dealing with the burden of proof in cases involving sexual discrimination at work, parental leave and working hours.

Column 969

I shall quote the case of Robert George, a practising Christian, who works for Plant Breeding International in Cambridge, a subsidiary of the multinational firm, Unilever--a name known to every hon. Member here.

Mr. McCartney : That company is a big contributor to the Tory party.

Mr. Lloyd : As my hon. Friend said, that firm is a big contributor to the Tory party. Mr. Robert George has been working for the company for many years. During the harvest, lasting from July to October, he is expected to work 12 hours a day, seven days a week--an 84-hour week. [Interruption.] The Minister sniffs--I am not sure whether in commiseration with Mr. George or in indifference. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will respond to my point. [Interruption.] It is interesting to note that the Minister has revealed that he will not respond.

The Government unashamedly blocked the directive on working hours, which would have meant that, for the first time, Britain would come into line with every other country in Europe, bar one, in defining a maximum working week. The Government are not prepared to comment on the case of Mr. Robert George, who is not even able to exercise his right as a practising Christian to take Sunday off. It is a disgrace that that should happen and that the Government are not prepared to investigate the problems faced by that individual and many others because of abuses by big, respectable employers. It is a disgrace that the Government stand alone in Europe in blocking the working hours directive. It is about time that we had a Government who were prepared to put the interests of working people to the fore and to accept directives on working hours that affect the liberty of our fellow citizens.

The Government are out of touch on leave entitlement and the right of workers to be represented at the workplace. Britain is virtually alone, other than Ireland, in having no system whereby the British worker has a right to representation on health and safety issues. On a minimum wage, maternity leave and parental leave Britain is again out of touch. In addition, Britain is blocking a directive which would give rights to part- time workers and it stands virtually alone in Europe in having laws which discriminate against part-time workers.

When the hon. Member for Nuneaton tells us that Britain's industrial relations record is a success he is far from the truth. I accept that he was put up to this debate tonight by a Government who want to maintain their trade union-bashing approach. But millions of people in Britain are suffering under the lousy industrial relations climate that the Government have created. The next Labour Government will be committed to introducing a climate at the workplace which embodies the values of civilisation and which protects those who are abused. The Government want industrial conflict, so beloved of Conservative Members who thrive on it. A Labour Government will ensure that conflict at work is rare and that the British worker will be able to operate in the workplace with dignity.

The Labour party is unashamedly close to the trade unions. It is because we value the role of trade unions in protecting people at the workplace that I stand here

Column 970

tonight to say that there is a better way than that put forward by the Government. That better way is coming soon.

6.32 am

Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield) rose --

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken. I take it that he has the leave of the House to speak again.

Hon. Members : Yes.

Mr. McCartney : I thank hon. Members for giving me the opportunity to speak again. I do not wish to repeat the arguments that have been made tonight on a party-political basis. At the end of the day we can agree or disagree. But in practical terms, industry today provides a clear, unequivocal picture of the modern industrial management structures of companies, whether private or public, that have a real interest in developing a meaningful relationship with the work force.

My constituency is the home of Heinz, the largest food production company in the world. It has the largest food production plant in the world for baby food, soups and other household items which are mainly sold to the largest supermarket chains in Britain.

Some eight years ago it was clear that for Heinz to survive in the marketplace in the United Kingdom and Europe it had to enter into a massive research and development programme. That meant a massive change for the work force and management structures.

The company took the view from the outset that it considered the work force and the trade unions not to be against investment and reorganisation but to be a catalyst for change. During the past eight years there has been a massive change in attitudes in the company to the point where Heinz has not only maintained its market leadership in the food industry but has led the way in showing how trade unions and management can work together to develop, restructure and win new markets at home and in the EC.

Before Ministers start attacking trade unions, they should consider what happens in companies such as Heinz where the management uses the skill of the unions and involves them in a meaningful dialogue about the changes that are necessary. The management also allows the unions to put forward practical solutions to the problems of the marketplace.

After millions of pounds of investment, Heinz recognises that were it not for the role played by the unions in the changes in the company, the advantages that the company has gained in the marketplace would never have happened.

In London and Wigan the shop stewards are principal partners in the changes in the company. [Interruption.] The Minister seems rather fed up with this debate--

Mr. Forth : I have been up all night.

Mr. McCartney : So have we all.

Mr. Nicholls : Give the Minister a chance to reply then.

Mr. McCartney : The hon. Gentleman spoke for hours and hours, making party-political points.

If the Minister is serious about his interest in industrial relations and in trade unions, I invite him to come to my constituency between now and the autumn and meet the

Column 971

management and trade unions at Heinz. He could look over the factory, where working relations have been transformed. The management realises that it has to take the unions with it when effecting such multi-million pound transformations. That in turn leads to a better company and to better products. It enables the company to win hands down against European competition.

Heinz has proved that taking the trade unions with the management means a better company and product in the long run. I hope that in the next debate on employment policy we shall not hear from Conservative Members the sort of petty-minded attitudes which we have heard tonight. They are 20 years out of date, and they have no place in the sort of modern industrial society that we have in Britain today.

6.36 am

Next Section

Home Page