| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 261
representatives to look after their interests, and that employers must constantly ensure that employees are properly consulted--that they must talk to them, listen to them and try to secure the best possible deal for individual employees.9.11 pm
Mr. Ken Eastham (Manchester, Blackley) : I disagreed with most of what the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) said, but I agreed with one of his comments. He said that it would be a good thing for hon. Members to declare some of their interests before making their speeches. It seems to me that it is often the Opposition Members who declare their interests ; I for one would appreciate it if Conservative Members declared theirs, and told the House who they work for.
Let me place on record my industrial background. I used to be a planning engineer : I worked with turbines, gas engines and machine tools, and in other parts of the engineering industry, and I am proud of that. I mention my background because the Secretary of State intimated earlier--sneering and wagging his finger--that no Opposition Member had ever got his fingers dirty. In my experience, it is often Opposition Members who understand the workers, because they have had to earn a living and therefore appreciate some of the problems. In my view, today's debate is a complete sham. It is just a little window-dressing job before a general election. I think that Conservative Members are reading the situation wrongly ; I do not believe that they will get any mileage out of the debate. The Government have entitled it "Industrial Relations". What does "Industrial Relations" mean? The present Government do not believe in relationships, and, as a consequence, there are no industrial relations. I, with my industrial background, see industrial relations as a two-way process--the process of getting a relationship going. Because the Government have never experienced that process, they are going down and down in the esteem of the people.
Let me remind Ministers that there are 8 million trade union members in this country, and possibly 8 million families attached to them. Those people are highly representative. The Conservatives seem to hate workers and trade unionists, but, as I have said, I believe that they are reading the situation wrongly--especially in view of the approaching general election.
Mr. Ian Bruce rose --
Mr. Eastham : I should like to give way, but I will not.
Mr. Bruce : He cannot take it.
Mr. Eastham : All right ; I will give way.
Mr. Bruce : I take exception to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. I worked on the shop floor for five years as I was working my way through college. I was a student apprentice in engineering. I was a work study officer for five years, and I had charge of negotiating with trade unions. No trade union ever called a strike after those negotiations. They felt that I was a professional manager. Then I managed a factory for five years. I take exception to the hon. Gentleman's suggestions about Conservative Members, who were generally selected by their constituents because of their success in business or whatever they had done in their lives.
Column 262
Mr. Eastham : I am sorry that I gave way. The hon. Gentleman was boasting about being one of the true workers. He is probably one of only about 10 of the 350-odd Conservative Members. I do not think that he did any good in trying to advocate his great sympathy and support for workers.
In debates on industry, reference is often made to other countries such as Germany. The Government often refer to the better relations between management and workers in Germany. It is interesting to note that the trade union structure which Germany has enjoyed for the past 40-odd years was introduced by the post-war British Labour Government. Therefore, it could not have been so bad.
Tory Members always want to go back to the last century, like Luddites. They think that those were the good old days when the way to manage men was to "hire 'em and fire 'em". We are the only country that seems to want to go along those lines.
Let us get back to basics. Why were trade unions formed? The answer is simple. It was not that trade unions were suddenly an act of God. Trade unions were forced on workers because of greedy, brutal employers who did not care about the workers. During the last century the workers were compelled to form themselves into trade unions because of the brutality and complete indifference of some bosses. During the past 12 to 13 years, the Tories have been busy trying to turn the clock back by reducing the rights of workers. There are no rights to holidays for part-time workers. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) is tittering ; he thinks that it is all a big joke. Let his name go on record so that his constituents may see how he is sneering about the rights of part-time workers.
As to minimum pay, time after time we have listened to Tory Members saying that employers could not afford to pay a minimum wage. If it was left to some employers, they would not be satisfied if they had to pay 50p an hour, never mind £3.40. Some of the most progressive, successful countries pay a minimum wage. The people of Germany, who have produced the great miracle, believe in a minimum wage, and they put their belief into practice.
Some nights ago, I was involved in a meeting in this building with members of the Equal Opportunities Commission. It could hardly be said that those people are political, yet they told us forthrightly that they believed very strongly in a minimum wage and in Labour's proposals to that end. I had said to them that, whether or not they were supposed to be non-political, they might for once say that this proposal was good. Member after Member and Minister after Minister has said how damaging and destructive a minimum wage would be to the country. Nobody else believes that. I do not mind if Members go to the polls saying that they are opposed to the idea of a minimum wage. Whatever they say, the vast majority of people do believe in the idea.
It is dawning on people that, when poor employers pay starvation wages, the employees have to claim a subsidy from the taxpayer. What kind of madness is it that ordinary families should be expected, by way of their taxes, to subsidise the starvation wages that some employers pay? Perhaps the Minister in his reply will again take up the question of the minimum wage. I hope so, as every mention of it brings joy to my heart. On this matter, we shall receive massive support at the polls.
Column 263
The Government constantly refer to their desire to sue workers. They never talk about suing bad employers. There has been reference to the damaging effects and unfairness of secondary picketing. What about companies, like Hanson and lots of others, that go in for asset-stripping? Employees who are doing a very successful job may suddenly find that their place of work is to close down. It is not a question of performance or of productivity.Is that not a matter that Conservative Members ought to be talking about? Let them stop being one-sided by talking about how damaging workers' action is to other companies. Scores of companies in this country have been damaged by takeovers and asset-stripping. Hanson is only one of the many cases. The big competition between Hanson and ICI was rather interesting. This was one occasion on which the consequences of Hanson's actions were pointed out by management. In some quarters, it is implied that workers do not co-operate with management. That is an absolute myth. Reference has been made to Japanese successes. What is the reason for the record of the Japanese? Obviously, it is a question of management. The production rate of one company rose by 70 per cent. with a static work force. The only changes were in management. That being the case, surely whatever was wrong was to be found in the management structure. Let me give another example of co- operation, this time in my area. I met the managing director of Ferranti, Moston. The company is going through a very difficult patch but says openly that it has had every co-operation from the workers, who have done their level best to make it a success. Why is this firm in great difficulties? The reason is that big business cheated and robbed the company of hundreds of millions of pounds, and, as a result, Ferranti is tottering and jobs are being lost. However, we never seem to talk about it. Let us be realistic. Why cannot the Government be even-handed? Why cannot they see for once that management should be reorganised?
Unfortunately, time has run out for me ; it is a good job for the Government, because I was all ready for another hour.
9.25 pm
Mr. Gordon McMaster (Paisley, South) : I intend to be brief, and I shall need to be. I had not intended to speak, but having listened to some of the contributions from Conservative hon. Members and having seen their lack of understanding of the problems and the reality faced by people outside, I felt that I had to make a contribution on behalf of my constituents.
Not only do some Conservative Members not understand the problems : they do not even care. That is perhaps best exemplified by the Prime Minister's comment which was referred to during Prime Minister's Question Time today-- to the effect that "if it isn't hurting, it isn't working." What my constituents want to know is why it is hurting but still not working. In my constituency, 76 per cent. of manufacturing jobs were lost between 1979 and 1989, and a further 3,600 have gone since.
I remember, when I started work in the mid-1970s, making a bus journey through what, as it turns out, is now
Column 264
my constituency. The journey took me from Johnstone, where there was a lot of engineering employment, through Elderslie, where there were carpet factories and adjacent to the Talbot car factory in Linley, through to the thread mills of Paisley. None of those companies is still there ; it is ironic that, by the end of this year, not a single stitch of thread will be made in Paisley if Coats Viyella is allowed to carry out its closure threat.The position is best exemplified by a story told to me during the by- election in Paisley, South in November 1990. It was told to me by a newsagent in Johnstone called George Barr. He said that, on the morning that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) became Prime Minister, he was in his shop when he heard a thud. He ran outside and found that a young boy who had been going to work had been knocked down trying to cross the road to catch the works bus. He could not cross the road because it was full of buses and cars taking people to work. The day that he told me that story in 1990--ironically, the day that the right hon. Lady fell from power--two boys were playing football across the same road. That is what the decade has done to the area.
In the minute or so left, I want to deal with the European social charter. Last week, I watched a business programme in which a business commentator clearly expressed the concerns of many managers in British industry. They are worried that, because this is the only country which has opted out of the charter, if there are to be closures in multinational companies that employ people throughout Europe, the easiest places to close will be those in the United Kingdom.
In the past few years, we have seen dereliction, decay and despondency all over the country caused by the Government's economic policies. Fortunately for the people of my consituency and for the people of Scotland and Great Britain, those days are coming to an end ; it will not be many weeks before we return to policies of common sense and common decency for the common good.
9.29 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stretford) : I establish again for the record that I am a sponsored Member of Parliament. That will save the Minister saying it. I also read into the record the fact that among Conservative Members present, there is a grand total of seven directorships, three consultancies and one chairmanship of a pension trust. I assume that that post is remunerated, but I am not sure. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) mentioned Maxwell. I begin on a theme that is important to Conservative Members. Their allegation throughout the debate is that there is something basically wrong with the trade union movement. That is why the Secretary of State, on this day of all days, introduces a debate on industrial relations.
We know that the Secretary of State is hostile to trade unions, but we also know that his hostility is wholly synthetic and cynical. When he was first appointed to the Cabinet in January 1990, the BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme reported :
"Mr. Howard said that when the Employment Bill now before Parliament, became law, the desired balance of industrial law would have been achieved. When these reforms are in place we shall have the right framework with which to move into the 90s'."
He also said that he planned to make improved training his main priority.
Column 265
We know what the reality has been since that time. The Secretary of State has been bloodied in Cabinet every time when it comes to money for training. I am glad that the Secretary of State arrives post haste to hear that pronouncement. For his benefit, I repeat that, although when he first came to office, he declared that the industrial relations-bashing exercise was at an end and that training was the priority, he has lost every battle in Cabinet for money for training.The right hon. and learned Gentleman's training programme is already a disaster. There are £110 million of cuts for next year. I assume that that represents one more of his demands to the Cabinet for money having been ripped up and tossed aside to be cast on the fires of a broken yesterday. The Secretary of State is now fighting for his survival.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech today interestingly made no reference to his own White Paper or to his own Green Paper. He had nothing to say about the dramatic events which Conservative Members have tried to persuade the House are the next step in the step-by-step reform of industrial relations.
Not only the Opposition, but the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Personnel Management and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce condemn the Green Papers as irrelevant and hardly worth the exercise involved.
We know that today, unemployment is once again at relatively record heights. Under the stewardship of the Prime Minister, 800,000-plus people have been thrown on to the dole queues. We know that those 800,000 people represent not only human tragedy, but a tremendous cost to the British economy. Those people represent billions of pounds of waste in resources to the economy. When we compare the days lost by those whom the Secretary of State for Employment--as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South -East (Mr. Turner) called him, the Secretary of State for unemployment--has thrown onto the dole with the days lost through industrial stoppages, we realise that it is little wonder that the Secretary of State wants to talk about industrial relations. He could not come to the House to debate either the human tragedy or the economic cost of the unemployment that he and his Government have created.
The Secretary of State briefly mentioned health and safety after an intervention in his speech by my hon. Friend for Neath (Mr. Hain). I noticed that he was not prepared to give way to continue that debate so that we might have been able to discuss the 30 million days lost in British industry through accidents and industrial illness. We know that most of that is preventable and that, under this Government and after two years of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's stewardship, there has been no effort to prevent it. We know that Mr. Rimington, the chief executive of the Health and Safety Executive, has placed it on record in this year's annual report that he is only now recovering from the understaffing of previous years while the Secretary of State was a member of the Government. That is the reality.
Mr. Howard : Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the European Commission's mapping project demonstrated conclusively that health and safety at work in this country was second to none and better than most?
Column 266
Mr. Lloyd : Let me place it on the record that the Opposition cannot share that sanguine and indifferent view of the plight of real people, when the tide of deaths and serious injuries in industry is rising and the failure to resource adequately and prioritise health and safety puts ordinary people at risk.
In Committee today, we debated the tragedy of those who died in the Piper Alpha tragedy. We could also have debated the tragedies of the hundreds and thousands of families whose lives are blighted when one of their loved ones dies or is injured in the workplace. Today there was a memorial service at Westminster cathedral. Unfortunately, because I was engaged in the Offshore Safety Bill Standing Committee, I could not attend it. It simply bore witness to the tragic waste of the 100 people who died in the construction industry last year. That was a tragedy which could have been prevented if we had had a Government who were prepared to prioritise health and safety. That is industrial relations.
It is also industrial relations when we recognise that in Britain today we are seeing the rise of the part-time worker, the home worker and the low- paid, and that 11 million people now live in families where poverty is a major condition of their life. Those are the people whose plight lies firmly at the doorstep of the Government. They are the people whom the Government have refused to help. We hear all sorts of pious nonsense about step-by-step reform of industrial relations. That does not detract from the fact that many of our fellow citizens have been plunged into poverty by the direct actions of the Government and the incompetence of the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Chancellor and, of course, the Secretary of State for Employment.
The Government have not introduced programmes to do anything about unemployment. We were told today that the employment action programme managed to absorb only 10,000 of the 300,000 people thrown out of work over its period of existence. When my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) made that point, the Secretary of State intervened from a sedentary position to say that my hon. Friend should be careful because he might hear something about it. I listened carefully to all the speeches that were made subsequently. I will listen carefully to the Minister who replies. I hope that we shall hear some dramatic news that the Secretary of State has a plan of action for the 300,000 made unemployed in that period or for the 230,000 who were unemployed before the extra 300, 000 people lost their jobs. The public want to know about them. Conservative Members have waxed eloquent about their tremendous concern about unemployment, even though they supported the Government on mass unemployment.
Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West) : They do not care.
Mr. Lloyd : As my hon. Friend says, they do not care. Of course, we know that. But we also know that an election is approaching and that, for purely political purposes, it is necessary for them to place on record how much they care. They thought, as the Secretary of State did, that they saw a winner in Labour's promises of a national minimum wage.
Column 267
Conservative Members express anxiety about a national minimum wage creating unemployment. It was refreshing to hear the Under-Secretary of State--I must say, in the Secretary of State's absence-- own up to something that the Secretary of State has never said. He disowned the Secretary of State's eccentric claims about the number of jobs that would be destroyed. In his new mood and perhaps moving to the left of the Tory party, positioning himself for the Kenneth Clarke takeover in opposition, the Under-Secretary of State is ready to rat on his Secretary of State, and is already scaling down the unemployment consequences of the minimum wage.Let me tell Conservative Members why the Labour party has absolutely no intention of recoiling from the minimum wage. When rates of pay exist which are so disfiguring to those who have work on them, the only possibility is to introduce a national minimum wage to guarantee that people have some dignity in work.
Mr. Ian Bruce : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lloyd : I am sorry, I do not have enough time. The hon. Gentleman made his speech and there is not enough time for me to give way.
People are asked to work as security guards--a responsible position in society, someone responsible for the guarding of public and private property--for 93 hours a week at a princely pay rate of £2 an hour with no overtime. Conservative Members must know that those wages are an outrage in a society such as ours. That outrage comes to the door of the Conservative Members who are prepared to defend such payments.
People are asked to work as clerks for 39 hours a week for as little as £1.52 an hour. I defy any Conservative Member to bring up a family on a 39-hour week at £1.52 an hour. The Secretary of State then offers the taxpayers' money--our money, public money--to prop up the lousy employer. Will the Secretary of State tell me why, when it comes to public spending on the health service, it is the public's money, but when it comes to propping up the lousy employer, the employer who will not pay a decent rate, as far as he is concerned that is fair and reasonable?
Mr. Howard : The hon. Gentleman was not aware of the European Commission's mapping project a few moments ago. Apparently he is also unaware of the report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which states clearly that the way to help people in low-paid work is through the benefits system and not by destroying their jobs. Is the hon. Gentleman entirely unaware of that elementary proposition?
Mr. Lloyd : I am delighted that the Secretary of State is a late convert to international action. The Secretary of State, who has been condemned by the International Labour Organisation for being in breach of his treaty obligations, who turned his back on the process of the social charter because he thought that there were political points to be scored from knocking those vague foreigners, is now praying in aid the OECD. I am interested to hear that.
I would be far more convinced if the Secretary of State were to tell the House that he would take cognisance of the European Community's opinion on an equitable wage. The Secretary of State will not accept that that forms a
Column 268
basis. We know that once again Britain is out of step with the rest of Europe, which wants some concept of an equitable wage--a decent wage for all. We want a decent wage for all our people.Mr. Lloyd : The hon. Gentleman may read our policy document where that is made explicit.
Mr. Lloyd : If the hon. Gentleman cares to read that document he will know what it is. His political paranoia, borne of fear of defeat, will bear fruit. He and the Government will lose and we shall introduce a national minimum wage.
We know that the work force in Britain have the worst working conditions of any in the European Community. We know that we have the worst child care in Europe, and that Britain is the only country with no protection for its workers' hours of work, annual pay, annual holidays or for the working week. Part-time workers are uniquely discriminated against in Britain--an achievement which is unparalleled elsewhere. The Government have decided to persecute the part-time worker.
That is why we shall sign up for the social chapter. That will be one of the first actions of a Labour Government. We shall ensure that we implement --in a way which is in keeping with the needs of the British economy-- directives such as those on working hours, and atypical workers. We shall make them suitable for the sort of economy that we have in this country.
We shall not use the stand-offish nonsensical approach that has made us the laughing stock of the rest of Europe. If Britain has to adhere to the social chapter--as it will under any Government--under the Government's terms, we shall have to accept someone else's bargain at the expense of the British worker, as we have in the past.
The Secretary of State's employment policies have disfigured our society more generally. My constituency has suffered mass unemployment throughout the Government's time in office. I say that with no pride because it disfigures my constituents and my constituency. I have had problems with crime, with the sale of drugs and there have even been killings in my constituency as a result of mass unemployment. I lay those directly at the door of the Government.
I wish to bring the attention of hon. Members to the headline on the front page of today's Evening Standard, "Crime : Blame the Economy--Yard." The article states that Scotland Yard is putting the blame for the crime wave clearly at the door of the Government. It says :
"Social deprivation can be linked to most areas of crime--and the Government must address the electorate in terms of a solution." Opposition Members have been saying that for many years. It is time that the Government began to understand it. The tragedy is that, as with every other source of opposition--local government or trade unions--the Government will seek to abolish the Metropolitan police because it dared to raise a voice in anger.
This has been a good debate in at least one aspect. We have seen that nothing divides the parties more sharply than an issue such as this. My hon. Friends have tried to paint a constructive picture of the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield gave a clear vision of Britain with an industrial structure that would provide a future of
Column 269
conciliation and balance for all our people. The Secretary of State and his hon. Friends want to return to the agenda of the 1970s. I do not know whether this is a parliamentary expression, but the Secretary of State's constant reversion to the policies of the 1970s is a form of political necrophilia, which is almost unknown in other circumstances.The debate has been important because the public will draw its own conclusions about what divides the parties and, when it comes to the general election, I know how the public will judge the Government. 9.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth) : I think we have smoked them out now, because the debate hasbeen characterised by a six-hour attempt by those on the Opposition Front Bench to distance themselves from the trade unions. That will not wash. The answer is perfectly simple and the clue behind it all, in common with many other answers, lies in the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans). I recommend that all hon. Members should read it, because I regret that they were not present to hear it.
My hon. Friend referred to the fact that the Labour party, in spite of its attempt to give the opposite impression today, is the creature, and in the pockets, of the trade unions. My hon. Friend gave one quotation to back that argument and I shall give two others. The first comes from the Leader of the Opposition who, only last year, said :
"In every region, in every industry, in every constituency this union"--
the union that sponsors the right hon. Gentleman--
"represents the Labour party. This union is the Labour Party in so many ways."
Mr. Bill Morris, the boss of the union which sponsors not only the Leader of the Opposition but the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), said :
"This union will never part company with the Labour Party, because we are the Labour Party."
Despite the best efforts of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, that is the true position. That is what underlines the debate and what has emerged from it.
Those quotes explain why the unions still have a block vote in the selection of Labour parliamentary candidates ; 150 Labour Members--more than half the parliamentary party--are sponsored by trade unions. Some of them had the decency to admit that fact in the debate, but not those on the Opposition Front Bench. I remind the House, if I need to do so, that the unions still control the vast majority of the votes at the Labour party conference. Indeed, they cast 5 million votes at the conference, equivalent to nearly 90 per cent. of the total eligible votes. That sets the tone for the debate.
I need not mention the fact that the unions also contribute the bulk of the Labour party's funds. In 1990, they gave almost £4.2 million to it-- two thirds of the party's total income. That also gives the lie to the relationship between the trade unions and the Labour party.
I have given the background to this debate, a background which has had two important results. First, Opposition Members tried to skid over the fact that the Labour party has systematically opposed every trade union reform that the Government have introduced, despite the fact that it is now acknowledged by everyone in
Column 270
the real world, the business world and the international community--if not by the Labour party--that the steady reform of industrial relations has been one of the greatest steps forward and has formed the basis of the revival of our competitive position. It has also attracted inward investment to this country. That is beyond dispute. Despite all that, the Opposition have hardly supported those reforms.In 1990, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on employment and he was asked about the attitude of a future Labour Government to our legislation. He said :
"It's going to repeal all of it, there's no little bits you can keep of it. There's nothing you can keep of this legislation It all has to go."
That was said by the hon. Gentleman in a moment of honesty. He now probably deeply regrets saying it.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) described the measure which for the first time gave union members the right to a strike ballot and to elect their leaders by vote, as "an irrelevant effrontery" and went on to describe the statutory requirement for ballots as "intellectually disreputable"--that said by a Member who is now regarded as one of the leading lights, if not a future leader, of the Labour party.
What has happened between the time those words were spoken and now that has made the Labour Members so reticent on the subject? What explains the fact that, having been so adamantly opposed to our careful, stage-by-stage reforms, they are now utterly silent on the subject? We cannot get from Labour Members, including the occupants of the Labour Front Bench, their true attitude on these issues. Will they repeal any of our measures? They will not say. They are suddenly coy and silent. Do they stand by them? They will not say, not even during this debate, in which we have given them an opportunity to set out their views. We are as much in the dark now about what the Labour party would do as we were at 4 o'clock this afternoon.
That is bad enough, but let us look further--this develops directly from the incestuous relationship between the trade unions and the Labour party-- for having seen that Labour Members have nothing to say about the excellent reforms that we put in place, we must remind ourselves of their record. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield said, "Labour never condemns strikes," although the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) said, rather plaintively, "No one likes strikes." Why, then, did Labour Members not condemn any of the major strikes that occurred in the 1980s? They did not condemn the miners' strike, the seamen's strike or the dockers' strike. Worse still, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), a Labour Front -Bench spokesman, said during the railway dispute in 1989 that the National Union of Railwaymen was
"in a position to win the dispute and deserved to win it." The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East backed the miners from the start of their dispute, saying, "I give my fullest support to the struggle."
Mr. Marlow : I suggest to my hon. Friend that the occupants of the Labour Front Bench did not criticise any of those strikes because the Labour party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the people who organised and prosecuted the strikes, the people who sought to benefit from them.
Column 271
Mr. Forth : My hon. Friend must be right. How could strikes that were so damaging to the public go uncondemned by Labour Members if it were not for the fact that the Labour party is totally in hock to the very unions that created those strikes? That can be the only explanation.Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) rose --
Mr. Forth : I will not give way further. We deliberately restricted the time available for the final speeches so that more hon. Members could speak.
There is a remarkable coincidence between the policy wish list of the trade unions and what then turns up as Labour party policy. The National Union of Mineworkers wanted the condemnation of nuclear policy and a restriction on coal imports. That turned up next as Labour party policy. The Confederation of Health Service Employees, the union which dominates the NHS, called on a Labour Government to abolish compulsory competitive tendering. That pops up as official Labour party policy. But the real giveaway--Labour Members have been prepared to admit to it--occurred when the conference of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers reaffirmed its support for a statutory minimum wage. The next thing we know is that a statutory minimum wage crops up as a main plank of the policy of the Labour party.
It is worth spending a moment considering the statutory minimum wage because now, at long last--after much prevarication and shilly-shallying-- Labour Members have decided that they are stuck with it as a policy and must make the best of it. They are now suggesting--how they are managing to do it mystifies me--that, by waving a wand and saying that by statute everybody will get paid a certain minimum amount, suddenly everybody who now gets less than a certain sum will get more, with no further results.
Anyone who has worked in business or had anything to do with business knows that, if employers are forced to pay a minimum amount or more than they now pay, there can be only one result : many people will have to sacrifice their jobs so that those left in work can enjoy that wage. If Labour Members persist in denying that, they are trying to force an enormous con trick on the public. The public and the electorate will not be fooled. If that is the main policy that the Labour party has in that context, they will get a nasty surprise.
In the Labour party's typical way, it is patronising the electorate and the work force by imagining that people will believe that, simply by wishing on the business community a higher level of pay than exists now, jobs will not be sacrificed. The Labour party stands condemned for not caring about the employment of the very people whom they claim to represent. That is the scandal of what Opposition Members have sought to say during this debate.
Labour Members talk about the social action programme, the social charter and the social chapter and ask us why the Prime Minister so stoutly resisted attempts to lure us into a European Community plot to foist on our economy costs borne by many of our partners in the European Community. When Mr. Delors heard what had happened in Maastricht, he accurately predicted that it would make the United Kingdom a magnet and a paradise for inward investment. We know, and even Jacques Delors knows, what Opposition Members do not yet know--if
Column 272
additional costs are foisted on employers of the Community, the only result can be that we shall become less competitive. We do not want that to happen to our industry, which is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister resisted the siren voices-- [Interruption.]
| Next Section
| Home Page |