Home Page

Column 813

Industrial Relations

3.31 pm

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard) : With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's legislative intentions, following the consultation on the Green Paper "Industrial Relations in the 1990s", which was published in July last year.

Like all our previous trade union legislation, the proposals that I am announcing today have two main objectives--first, to safeguard the democratic rights of trade union members within their unions and, secondly, to protect employees, employers and the community at large against the abuse of industrial power. Each of the proposals is carefully designed to meet a clear deficiency in our present arrangements, that has been acknowledged by many of the organisations that have commented on the Green Paper.

The CBI says in its response that its members

"warmly welcome the Government's continued commitment to reviewing the law governing the conduct of industrial relations".

The Engineering Employers Federation says that its members "strongly support the Government's objective of providing a balanced and effective framework of trade union and industrial relations law"

and that

"the step by step approach has been seen by all to have worked successfully and it is right that it should continue."

The Institute of Personnel Management says-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask the House to settle down and listen to the statement, and I remind hon. Members that we have a busy day ahead of us.

Mr. Howard : The Green Paper, said the IPM,

"is primarily aimed at particular abuses which it is the duty of Government to address in order to protect the rights of the individual."

In all, we have had more than 100 responses to the Green Paper. These have come from employers' organisations, individual companies, trade unions and other organisations, and from individual people. The number of responses is in itself a clear indication of the interest the Green Paper has aroused and the importance of the issues it has raised. Most of the proposals it contains have been widely welcomed. I deal first with the proposals to protect the public against strikes and other forms of industrial action. The first proposal was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement on the citizens charter.

We proposed in the citizens charter to provide a new right for members of the public in relation to unlawful industrial action which affects a public service. This proposal has been widely welcomed. At present, the employer has the right to bring proceedings against a trade union which organises an unlawful strike. Members of the public, who are usually the specific target of industrial action, have no such right. If the employer does nothing, the citizen is defenceless.

We therefore intend to introduce legislation to establish a new right for members of the public to seek an injunction to halt unlawful industrial action affecting a public service if the employer concerned fails to use the remedies


Column 814

available to him. This proposal has been widely welcomed. It will enhance the protection of the public, and it will be a further deterrent to unlawful industrial action.

The consultations have also shown that there is strong support for legislation to require trade unions to give seven days' notice of strikes. Strike notice is a well established feature of the law in other countries. This requirement will help to protect the general public against lightning strikes in the public services. It will also allow employers to take steps to safeguard jobs and businesses. In addition, there has been strong support for the proposal to reduce the scope for intimidation and fraud by requiring strike ballots to be conducted by post and to be subject to independent scrutiny.

These measures will add significantly to the protection which our legislation already provides against strikes which are deliberately targeted on the life of the community. We intend to introduce legislation to implement all of them.

I turn now to the rights of individual union members. The first concerns an employee's freedom to join the union of his choice. Only last year we saw how building workers who left the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians when its leadership fell into the hands of the far left were prevented from joining the General, Municipal and Boilermakers union, even after the GMB had indicated that it would welcome them. That was clear evidence of how the operation of the Trades Union Congress's Bridlington principles can deny employees the chance to belong to the union of their choice.

Contrary to the claims of the TUC, only a minority of employers have expressed reservations about the change in the law that we propose to make. We therefore propose to introduce legislation which will give individual employees the right to join the union of their choice, free from interference from any arrangement between trade union bosses which is designed to deny them that choice.

The consultation also showed widespread support for the proposition that the law should not allow trade union dues to be deducted from an employee's salary without his or her individual consent. Since the Green Paper was published, there has been further evidence of the scope for abuse of check- off arrangements. On 8 December, for example, the Sunday Times reported that union subscriptions had been deducted from the pay of some 10,000 construction workers in London, but that these subscriptions had never reached their trade union. The case for reform of the law is clear.

Some employers have said that they believe that a requirement to review the check-off annually would be unnecessary and burdensome. I have therefore decided to accept a proposal from the Institute of Personnel Management that employers should be required to seek the consent of their employees to the check-off every three years. In addition, we propose to introduce legal safeguards which will ensure that in future no employee has union subscriptions deducted from his pay without his individual consent.

Again, no one has seriously questioned the need for further legislation to protect union members against the sort of financial mismanagement which was revealed in the Lightman report into the affairs of the National Union of Mineworkers. Nor is there any serious doubt that the law on trade union elections needs to be strengthened, in the


Column 815

light of the ballot rigging in the 1990 elections for the national executive of the Transport and General Workers Union.

I have decided to adopt a suggestion which was put to my Department in the course of the consultation that unions should be required to employ a mailing house or some other external agency to distribute and store voting papers. This proposal is, I believe, the most effective way to ensure that electoral fraud of the kind which occurred in the Transport and General Workers Union is not repeated. I have also accepted the advice of a number of organisations, including the TUC, that, for security reasons, union members should not have access to the names and addresses of other union members. Instead, I propose that the independent scrutineer should be allowed such access on behalf of any union members who are concerned that the list may not be accurate.

The consultations have reflected a wide range of views on the proposal in the Green Paper relating to the legal status of collective agreements. There was both support for and opposition to the specific proposal on which we sought views. Some employers' organisations have put forward alternative suggestions. This is an important and complex issue. We shall continue to consider the scope for amending the law in the light of the comments that we have received and, if appropriate, we shall consult further before taking a final decision.

It should be clear to everyone that this has been a genuine and productive consultation. We have modified some of our proposals in the light of the views we have received. But the consultations have shown that there is widespread majority support amongst employers for a great majority of the proposals in the Green Paper.

The legislative plans that I have announced today are designed to consolidate and build on the improvement in industrial relations which we have achieved over the last 12 years. They will increase the rights of individual members of the public, individual trade union members, individual employees and the community at large. They will ensure that we have an effective and up-to-date framework of law in order to maintain that progress in the 1990s.

The clearest evidence of the progress we have achieved so far is our record on strikes. More working days were lost because of strikes in the last 12 months of the last Labour Government than have been lost in all the last five years put together.

No one should be surprised by that stark contrast. Before 1980, the law gave trade unions a virtually unlimited licence to organise strikes and industrial action, not matter how remote from the original dispute. There was no requirement for ballots before strikes, and the law allowed flying pickets to spread the disruptive effects of industrial action far and wide.

The choice before the House and the country is clear. On the one hand, there is the threat to roll back the legislation of the last 12 years, to put the trade unions back in the driving seat and make strikes easier, longer, more frequent and more damaging than ever before. That is the policy of the Labour party. On the other hand, we can carry forward the process of reform and build on the achievements of the last 12 years.

Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Column 816

Mr. Howard : That is what the decisions which I have announced today will do, and that is why they deserve the support of the House.

Mr. Tony Blair (Sedgefield) : Let me deal with the main points of the statement item by item. On the seven-day cooling-off period, it is correct, as the Minister says, that there are similar provisions in other European countries, but will he confirm that, in those countries where there is a cooling-off period for unions, there is also a cooling-off period for employers? Is it his intention to legislate even-handedly for both?

Secondly, as for ballots before strikes, surely the important requirement is independent scrutiny of the ballot, whether it is postal or workplace. May I put it to him that the danger of his proposal of making workplace ballots illegal, which is what he is proposing, even where there is independent scrutiny, is that the participation level is lower for such ballots? Since he had the gall to suggest that employers' organisations all support the proposals, may I put it to him that this and many other parts of his provisions were vehemently opposed by employers' organisations, including the CBI, the British Association of Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Personnel Management?

Let me read to the right hon. and learned Gentleman what the Engineering Employers Federation said :

"Our experience is that provided they are properly conducted"-- the very point that I am making--

"secret workplace ballots are not subject to harassment and have additional beneficial features. EEF experience is that workplace secret ballots have a significantly higher level of return than postal ballots."

Thirdly, as for members of the public suing in respect of unlawful action in the public sector, will the Secretary of State confirm that unions have no immunity now for unlawful action in respect of public services and, that, although there may be some doubt about it, the only decided case in law held that the public already have the right to sue in respect of action that affects them?

On the fourth part, relating to Bridlington, the Minister proposes legislation. Six months ago, we put to him the problem of single-union agreements and he dismissed it. The CBI, the British Institute of Management and the Institute of Personnel Management have all put to him the same point about single-union agreements. Will the Minister comment specifically on that?

While we are on the subject of "joining the union of your choice", will he ensure that the security guards who are presently members of the Transport and General Workers Union and the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, employed by the Ministry of Defence, are allowed to continue as members of the union of their choice and are not ordered into another--

Mr. Howard : We shall allow it.

Mr. Blair : The Secretary of State can confirm that when he speaks. If, however, he believes in the right to a free and independent trade union, let him grant that right to the employees at the Government communications headquarters, who have been denied it for the past eight years. Let him also take action against the Economic League, which prevents that right from being exercised by many people.


Column 817

The Secretary of State gives a wholly misleading account of how check-off operates. Will he confirm that it operates only if there is prior written consent on the part of the employee -- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. I say to those below the Gangway that the debate takes place at this end of the Chamber.

Mr. Blair : Will the Secretary of State confirm that check-off already requires the prior written consent of employees and that, contrary to what he has just said, an employee can withdraw his consent to that at any time? Legally enforceable agreements formed the main part of the Secretary of State's original proposals. I gather that that issue has now been kicked into touch. Perhaps we shall hear no more about it.

The proposals are significant not for what they do but for what they omit. If the purpose of the statement is, as the Secretary of State says, to protect individuals against the abuse of industrial power, why does it contain scores of rights exercisable against trade unions, but not a single right to a British employee, male or female, exercisable for fair treatment by the employer at the workplace? Why is Britain the only country in Europe that does not give legal protection to our 6 million part-time employees? Why is Britain the only country in Europe with no right to a minimum holiday entitlement? Why does Britain have the worst maternity rights, the fewest equal opportunities and the least protection against poverty pay? If the purpose is to protect the individual, why do we not sign the European social charter, as every other country is prepared to do?

The Secretary of State's proposals are not for the sake of better industrial relations but, for the sake of the worst prejudices of the Tory party. Can there be a more telling difference between the day when the CBI has confirmed the depth of the recession, unemployment is rising faster than in any other European country, we have a training and skills crisis, which the Government are making worse daily, and the fact that the Conservatives are returning to the agenda of the 1970s because they have no answers to the problems of the 1990s? That may have worked in different circumstances in a different decade, but in 1992 the people of this country look for something better. They will get it under Labour.

Mr. Howard : The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has huffed and puffed, but he has not told us the Labour party's position on a single proposal contained in the Green Paper. When I announced the Green Paper last July, the hon. Gentleman said that he would examine our proposals carefully. In November, I wrote to him pointing that the formal period for consultation was ending and I asked when we might hear his response to the Green Paper. I have heard nothing. This afternoon, he has treated the House to an extraordinary collection of half-truths and inaccuracies, but he has not told us the Labour party's attitude to the proposals that I identified in the statement.

On ballots, the hon. Gentleman quoted what one of the employers' organisations said about workplace ballots and its proviso that they should be properly conducted. There is always the risk with workplace ballots that they will not be properly conducted, which is why we think that it is


Column 818

infinitely preferable to have postal ballots. The hon. Gentleman did not explain the Labour party's attitude to that.

On the protection of members of the public, the hon. Gentleman said that a case had been decided, but that there was some doubt about the position. If he agrees that the position is as we think it should be, why does he not say that he agrees with the proposals in the Green Paper, which we intend to put into legislation?

On the right of trade unionists to join a trade union of their choice, the hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that even Bill Morris, the general secretary-elect of the trade union that sponsors the hon. Gentleman, has said :

"today when we are about choice and opportunity for the individual there is no choice in this matter or opportunity within them". Ron Todd, the present general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, has said :

"All I want, quite frankly, is the right for a worker to determine the union he wishes to join".

The hon. Gentleman is behind even the leaders of the trade union that sponsors him.

I can certainly confirm on the specific point that the hon. Gentleman raised that those workers who work at the Ministry of Defence can continue to be members of the union of their choice. That is the answer to the specific question that was put.

Mr. Blair : They can carry on as members of the TGWU?

Mr. Howard : They can certainly carry on. That was never in doubt. The dispute, of which much has been made, I regret to say, by some ill- informed members of the Labour party, was about recognition, not trade union membership.

On check-off, the hon. Gentleman said that we could not have that now unless individual trade unionists gave their consent. He is wrong about that, too. There is no such provision in law, and that is one of the things on which we shall legislate.

The most extraordinary feature of the Opposition's response has been the deafening silence of their principal spokesman in relation to the proposals. There are two explanations for that. First, the hon. Gentleman is terrified of saying anything that would upset his trade union paymasters ; secondly, he is afraid to do anything that would remind the electorate of the chains that bind his party to those paymasters--the bosses of the trade unions.

When he is challenged about the Opposition's attitude to trade union legislation, the hon. Gentleman says that that is a matter of public record. It is indeed. The hon. Gentleman is on record in the House as describing ballots before strikes as

"a scandalous and undemocratic measure against the trade union movement".-- [ Official Report, 8 November 1983 ; Vol. 48, c. 210.] The shadow Chancellor has described strike ballots as an "irrelevant effrontery". The Labour party has opposed

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : Order. I have heard nothing disorderly.


Column 819

Mr. Flannery : The right hon. and learned Gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is making a second statement. He has already made a long statement, and you are letting him get away with it.

Mr. Speaker : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is answering the questions that were put to him. If I cut him short, there will be complaints about that.

Mr. Howard : The Labour party has opposed every trade union Bill that we have introduced since 1979. Opposition Members have persistently evaded questions about their plans to repeal that legislation, but they have been more forthcoming about the new powers that they have promised the trade unions, including powers to force employers to recognise and negotiate with trade unions

Several Hon. Members : On a point of order--

Mr. Speaker : Order. Allow me to deal with this, please. I do think that the Minister is going a bit beyond the statement now. He should confine himself to the questions put to him.

Mr. Howard : The lengths to which the Labour party will go to rush to the defence of its trade union paymasters whenever this issue is raised are remarkable. The truth is that it is this party and this Government who have consistently sought to defend employees and trade union members over the past 12 years, and that is what the country will bear in mind when we come to the general election.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order.

Mr. Flannery : The Secretary of State's answer took five minutes!

Mr. Speaker : Please do not shout at me.

I believe that it is desired to deal with consideration of the Prison Security Bill by 7 o'clock, and we also have a 10-minute Bill this afternoon. I shall therefore allow questions on this matter, which I understand will require legislation anyway, to go on until 4.30 pm ; then we will move on. I ask for brief questions, and I ask hon. Members to try to keep off party-political point scoring.

Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South) : Will the Secretary of State confirm that, had this legislation been in place in 1984, my constituents would have been spared all the corruption and theft in the National Union of Mineworkers and the harassment and intimidation in the strike that took place that year? Will he also confirm that we are in danger of all this excellent body of legislation being swept away should the Labour party win the general election?

Mr. Howard : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Others will have noted the way in which Labour Members stormed out while my hon. Friend was pointing out the extent to which the rights of her constituents would have been protected had this legislation been in force at the time--and the extent to which those rights would be endangered if the Labour party came to power.

Several Hon. Members : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker--


Column 820

Mr. Nichol Stephen (Kincardine and Deeside) : There are--

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : What is the point of order?

Mr. Faulds : My point of order is simple : have you, Mr. Speaker, no control at all over the misuse of the Government Front Bench that occurs when the nastiest man in Government abuses it every time he appears at the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Speaker : Unfortunately, I do not--[ Hon. Members :-- "Withdraw".] I heard an unparliamentary word, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Mr. Faulds : Of course I withdraw the word, but the fact still applies. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask the House to settle down. It would be helpful to the whole House if we could deal with this important matter of trade union legislation in a non-party-political way.

Mr. Stephen : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My colleagues and I would agree with several points in this statement--for instance, in relation to balloting of trade unions, where the Secretary of State will be aware that my party was ahead of the Government with reform proposals. However, we are worried, perhaps most about the timing of today's statement, which was purely party political--an attempt to put the heat on the Labour party, with a motivation that is entirely negative.

That is to be regretted. My party would have preferred to welcome a fundamental reform of industrial relations in a statement that introduced greater employee participation, greater encouragement of employee- management buy-outs and more profit-sharing. The statement ignores all that. [ Hon. Members :-- "What is the question?"] So my question is, does the Secretary of State agree that what is required is legislation and a statement from him to bring together the two sides of industry in this country and to encourage co-operation between employer and employee? Is not the motivation behind the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement simply party politics rather than any deep desire to see both sides of industry engage in greater co-operation?

Mr. Howard : May I allay the hon. Gentleman's anxieties about the timing of the statement? Having issued a Green Paper in July and assessed the responses to the consultation in which we engaged following the publication of that document, we have a duty to the House to report the outcome of that consultation process to it and to make clear our intentions. That is what lies behind the statement. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have taken unprecedented steps over the past 12 years to encourage employee participation and management buy-outs. Many of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred complement the proposals that I have announced.

Mr. Tim Smith (Beaconsfield) : Is it not a remarkable fact that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has now apparently conceded that the industrial relations law reforms that have been introduced by this Government have worked? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that they have been largely responsible for the huge


Column 821

increase in inward investment in this country? Is it not right that we should build on that with the proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend has announced?

Mr. Howard : In my experience, one should treat any apparent concession by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) with great caution. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's second point about inward investment. Survey after survey has shown that one of the vital advantages that attract inward investment to this country is our new atmosphere of stable industrial relations and our strike-free record. We must build upon that to take advantage of the opportunities that will be available to us in the 1990s.

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East) : Is it not all rather sad and entirely predictable that, in the run-up to a general election, the Government are indulging in an exercise of union-bashing? As there is no time for any of this stuff to be enacted, is this not a wholly transparent and competely shoddy and tacky exercise in electioneering? Instead of looking to the past, why does the Secretary of State not look to the future and note that all successful industrial countries regard the trade unions as valuable partners with whom to co-operate?

Mr. Howard : The hon. Gentleman, who is sponsored by SOGAT, again asks about the timing of the statement

Mr. Leighton : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Howard : I answered a previous question about the timing of the statement--


Next Section

  Home Page