House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 Feb 1993

Mr. Oliver Heald (Hertfordshire, North) : In France, Spain, Greece and most other European countries that have introduced minimum-wage legislation for young people, youth unemployment is far higher than it is here. Would the hon. Lady care to comment on that? She keeps saying that the Government in this country are failing people. Have not those other Governments failed people by introducing minimum-wage legislation that has destroyed jobs?

Column 355

Ms. Eagle : The hon. Gentleman should stop barking up the wrong tree. He should consider youth unemployment in Germany, which is known for its high-tech industries and high-quality employment, and see whether that supports his argument.

In May 1979, unemployment in the north-west was 5.1 per cent., but in December 1992, after 14 years of "success" under this Government, it was 10.9 per cent. The Government, uniquely among western Governments, have managed to manufacture two recessions. We are in a world recession and, although Britain went into recession before the rest of the world, it seems that it will come out of it later. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) failed to recognise that we had our own recession between 1980 and 1982 thanks to the Government's monetarist obsessions, which destroyed one third of manufacturing industry.

I want to spend a little time considering the poverty that has resulted from deregulation of the labour market, which was part of the strategy that the Government decided to pursue on taking office. Under this Government, we have seen the largest redistribution of wealth to the rich. That was achieved partly through tax cuts, on which I do not want to spend a lot of time because they are not relevant to the Bill, but plummeting rates of pay have been caused directly by deregulation. The Bill further deregulates and impoverishes and will, therefore, increase poverty.

Part III of the Bill sits uneasily with the Tory party's labour market philosophies. Part III would appear strange to someone who was unaware of its background, because, however grudgingly, it grants some employment rights of a limited and technical nature. Somebody reading the Bill without background knowledge could be forgiven for wondering what is the purpose of part III, given the ideological obsessions of Tory Members.

The Secretary of State tried to take credit for all the rights in part III, but they result either from the Government failing properly to apply previous EC directives or from new directives that they fought tooth and nail, weakened, held up and introduced grudgingly at the last possible moment.

The Library research note on the Bill confirms my view. It says that improvements in the statutory protection in part III are "almost entirely inspired by EC directives."

Would not it be nice to have a Government who had the wit, generosity and commitment to introduce employment protection instead of deregulating, impoverishing and endangering the work force? Another aspect of the Bill that worries me is that it will widen the equality gap--the gap in employment rights between men and women--and the pay gap.

Mr. Michael Forsyth : I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, but I cannot let her get away with that remark, which implied that provisions in respect of women who become pregnant while at work follow solely from, and are driven by, the directive. The amendments that were made last night go beyond the terms of the directive. Will she confirm that the rights included in the Bill go beyond matters covered by European directives, and would she like to withdraw the rather scurrilous allegation that she made?

Ms. Eagle : I thank the Minister for his intervention, but I do not agree with his analysis. Some of the amendments

Column 356

were proposed by Labour Members to make something awful slightly better, which is why we consider Bills line by line in Committee. If the Government had been truly committed to introducing meaningful rights for women at work--maternity and various other rights--they would have considered the ramshackle and piecemeal structure of equality law much more enthusiastically. They would not have introduced a third tier of employment rights in the most technical and most difficult way to implement. I would be much more willing to believe the Minister's commitment to creating meaningful maternity rights for women if the Government had been willing to consolidate women's employment rights in one simple and easy-to-use Act so that employers and employees were aware of their rights. I am not willing to withdraw my observations. The Government have been dragged kicking and screaming by EC regulations into granting minimum employment rights.

The Bill runs the risk of widening the pay gap between men and women, and the Equal Opportunities Commission shares my view. One of the mechanisms that will widen the pay gap, which is against the beliefs of those who favour equal pay for work of equal value and the equality legislation that has been on the statute book for 20 years, is the abolition of wages councils. Analysis shows that the pay gap between men and women in wages council industries is considerably narrower than in unregulated sectors. I suggest that that is so because wages council rates are unisex and apply equally to men, women, workers from ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. People do not suffer from discrimination because of their gender, colour or disability.

Yet another deplorable aspect of the Bill is that it widens that gap. It is a sad day for hon. Members who are committed to achieving equality at work to have to stand by and watch that happen. The Bill is another rehash of the Government's tired dogma. It does nothing to deal with Britain's economic situation, which is at crisis level with massive poverty and unemployment and no prospect that anyone can see of getting out of recession. It does nothing to equip a modern work force to face the 20th century, but instead looks back to the 19th century. Therefore, it should be opposed.

5.58 pm

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : I usually try to avoid debates on trade union reform or labour relations, because they have a bad effect on my blood pressure. I do not like to hear Tory Members--a small minority- -hurling abuse and contempt at trade unions, because when I worked on Clydeside I found more integrity and good will among trade unionists than in certain sections of the Conservative party. It worries me hugely to hear Labour Members expressing great concern about poor people, because they voted huge extra sums of money to agriculture, which is the biggest protection racket that has ever existed and which does massive damage to poor people in Britain, as they well know.

I want to say a few words about clause 26, which has rarely been mentioned in our debate and is rarely mentioned at all. It gives the impression that there has been a conspiracy of silence about a massive change in British law which will effectively undermine the issue of privatisation.

Column 357

The Government's practice with regard to EC measures has been to say, "This doesn't really matter at all. It is hardly a change. In fact, the Law Officers have told us that everything is going very well." However, this morning I received a letter, which I shall be glad to give to the Minister, from the managing director of the Clause 26 group. It stated :

"Companies are facing financial ruin as a direct consequence of the confusion brought about by the inclusion of clause 26 in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill."

He may be exaggerating, but members of the Committee are well aware that something serious has happened, which will have a significant effect on our economy.

Let us consider what is involved in privatisation. Refuse collection and street cleaning contracts had a value of about £448 million, the cost of ground maintenance was about £141 million and for building cleaning about £191 million. I have gained the impression--

Mr. Michael Forsyth : I know about the concern expressed by the Clause 26 group. I have spoken to the group, as it lobbied the Committee. There is nothing in clause 26 that changes the terms of the acquired rights directive. The concern expressed to him relates to the provisions of that directive. My hon. Friend's knowledge of Community institutions is second to none, and he will know that there is nothing that we can do in the Bill to change the terms of that directive.

Sir Teddy Taylor : I note that the Minister says that the directive has not changed, but, as someone who has studied these issues, I hope that he is aware that we are changing the law. I hope that he is aware that the House passed a law after the EC had issued the directive. After that, infraction proceedings were taken against us for three years. As far as I am aware, that was not made known to the House or to the industries directly involved.

The Commission said, "Please change your interpretation of five aspects of our directive, which is a splendid directive." The Government apparently accepted four changes. I am sure that they accepted a battle of correspondence but not a real battle. They did not go to court over one single aspect. Is that not the case?

Mr. Forsyth : Four of the points were taken on board, and one is still subject to dispute. I reinforce my point : it is the terms of the directive which matter. If the Government did not comply with infraction proceedings and if we did not change the law, it would still be open to people to look to the courts to enforce the terms of the directive. That is the key issue which my hon. Friend needs to take on board.

I agree that we need to consider the terms of the acquired rights directive and that, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, it is a matter which can best be determined by national Governments, but because the pass was sold by the Labour Government as far back as 1977, we are not in a position to do so.

Sir Teddy Taylor : The Minister talks about legal points and what happens if we do not conform to infraction proceedings. That is the most astonishing interpretation of European law that I have ever heard. Infraction proceedings result in our being written a letter. If the Commission says that we are not applying the directive

Column 358

properly, it will take infraction proceedings, which means sending us a letter, and we must send one back. If we feel that it is a battle worth fighting and something about which we feel sufficiently strongly, we can go to the courts.

The Government accepted four proposals. The Minister says that it is a matter of interpretation of the law, but it is a significant interpretation. It is disappointing that, when a significant change is made to United Kingdom law or, as the Minister would say, our interpretation of the European directive, no one wants to talk about it or to consider the implications.

I feel strongly about this, because Southend-on-Sea started the business of municipal privatisation. Some people may not agree, but we believe that we were the first. We made a big change in our cleansing department by saying that we would get rid of a lot of people. We decided to start again and do it differently. We were attacked for many reasons : people said that we were trying to cut costs and slash wages, but now wages are higher and we have an efficient service which has saved a great deal of money. It has now happened all over the country, as the Minister is aware. Conservatives usually think that privatisation is a good thing. A huge amount of money has been saved across the country--the estimate is about 20 per cent.--by saying that we want to try all these exciting things.

I submit that, under the new interpretation which the Government accepted following infraction proceedings, privatisation will be severely undermined. The Minister might doubt that, but I shall cite an example. Privatisation is about to take place on the Fenchurch Street line, which goes to Southend-on-Sea. I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, who usually tells me the truth, because, as the Minister knows, he is a decent guy. He does not talk about such things as the social chapter or unusual interpretations ; nor does he talk a load of rubbish on television like other Ministers. I asked him what would happen. He wrote :

"we understand that under TUPE all staff employed wholly or mainly on the passenger service operations of the LT&S at the time will transfer when a franchise is let for those operations. Their wage rates and other employment terms and conditions will be maintained, and the recognised trade unions will have to be consulted"-- meaningfully. As Members of the Opposition Front Bench are aware, if we do not have meaningful consultation --the word "meaningful" must also be interpreted by one of the bright tribunals--the employer will be fined the equivalent of two weeks' wages. Basically, that is a huge change, which has had dramatic consequences.

A firm called Thamesway, one of our great new privatised bus companies, said that it wanted to be involved in the Fenchurch Street privatisation. It believed that it was a great idea and wanted to run the train more efficiently in a new spirit of private enterprise. The company knew that it might have turned out to be a disaster or a great success like our cleansing operation. What happened? When the Bill was published, Thamesway said that it was no longer interested. Hon. Members will remember the great prison privatisation that was to take place. A firm called McAlpine was going to do exciting things so that people would jump up and down far more efficiently at less cost, prisoners would be happier and would get coffee in bed in the morning. I do not know how the firm was going to do it, but it proposed to do it more cheaply and better. However, I understand that the firm has now abandoned the idea.

Column 359

The Minister may say that it is all a question of how we interpret the law, but the plain fact is that a massive change has occurred. The evidence is there. Time will tell if I am wrong. The Minister might believe that firms are going to rush to become involved in privatisations. If they do, he can say, "Taylor is a clown", but the change is big, and it is happening.

I do not object to the fact that the EC acted when there was a Labour Government. What worries me is that we are not being told about a massive transfer of decision-making--the facts are being deliberately hidden. Is that merely Taylor's view? Far from it. The Clause 26 group consists of employers, the people who want to become involved in privatisations and have spent a fortune trying to get them off the ground. The group is saying that, if it had been told about infraction proceedings, it could have saved a great deal of money and time :

"If contractors had been aware that Brussels was seeking to enforce the Acquired Rights Directive on public service contracts, they would have viewed the new market opportunity in an entirely different light."

If the Minister wants the letter, he can have it. This is not me telling stories ; it is what the Clause 26 group said. It said that, if it had known about this, it would have approached the matter in an entirely different way.

Then there is the famous social chapter, about which we have been given all kinds of nonsense. Ministers told us that it would cost British firms millions of pounds, but now the Foreign Secretary tells us that it will not apply to Britain at all.

It is time for the Government to face up to the fact that these things are happening. People should be told what is going on. Things ought not to be hidden. We could, as usual, blame problems on the Labour party and the trade unions by saying that they were in power when the original directive went through. However, mighty things are happening, and it is very important that we should face up to that fact.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth (Coventry, North-East) : The hon. Gentleman probably does not know that, throughout the Committee stage, Conservative Members referred to concern about creeping competence, about matters in respect of which the European Community was slowly eroding the rights of the British Parliament. Surely it must seem strange to ordinary working people that some Conservative Members should be so animated by the question of the right to continue to exploit working people. We have before us a Bill that removes workers' rights in a most profound way, yet the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends seem to be concerned only by the fact that Europe is taking more powers from this Parliament.

Sir Teddy Taylor : If people agree with the hon. Gentleman, if they think that Tories are a bunch of scum doing everyone down, they can change the Government, and therefore the policies. What worries me about EC directives is that people can do nothing about them. The hon. Gentleman may agree with those people who say that privatisation is wrong, and bad for working folk. I happen to think that it is good for workers--by, for example, keeping costs down. If private enterprise were to sweep through agriculture, for instance, the living standards of working people in Britain would be infinitely higher. It is a question of different approaches. The hon. Gentleman

Column 360

may be right, and I wrong. If he can persuade the people of Britain that laws of the type of which he is in favour should be brought in, that will be fantastic. Sadly, however, rights are being taken away. The really bad thing is what would happen in privatisation generally. All workers would have to be kept on, wage rates maintained, and working conditions protected, and there would have to be meaningful consultations with the unions. Having said that, I want to put three simple questions to the Government.

First, do they regard this as a serious matter? That is a simple question, requiring the answer yes or no. The Government may say that nothing has changed, that what we are faced with is simply the interpretation of a directive, but there is a huge difference of interpretation. I am referring not to what we have heard from the Law Officers but to the desire of the Commissioners to take proceedings, to which we have been told we must agree. I happen to think that that is a very serious matter.

Secondly, have there been any signs that industry and commerce are giving up their interest in privatisation? Recently, I have given two very specific examples, and there are many more--a huge number, the Clause 26 group says. Are the Government aware of any such cases ? Thirdly, what is the reason for the row about one of the five measures that the Government are not conceding to the EC--a measure in respect of which we may go to court? I refer to the granting of recognition to trade unions or other employee representatives for the purposes of these meaningful negotiations. I can assure the Minister that I have a real problem in Southend-on-Sea--a railway line that is to be privatised. I do not know what to tell workers, friends and neighbours. Until now, I have urged people to rejoin trade unions fast, on the grounds that they need representation in the meaningful consultations. This is a matter of great importance and real significance.

People in the Department of Employment work very hard and late to do the best for the working people of Britain. Let them concentrate on telling people what is happening. We know that there has been a mighty change in the interpretation of the directive. There is no point in saying that nothing much has happened. Let people be told what has happened ; then a decision on what to do about it can be made. Some people say that we cannot go on like this, that change is necessary. Others say that private legislation should be tried. What is happening in this case has happened in many others. A major change is being made in the rights and liberties of the people of Britain. We should be able to go for privatisation if we think that it is a good thing. However, people are not being told what is happening. Things are being swept under the carpet. There is pretence that the law is unchanged or that there are only a few minor changes. People in Britain should be told to wake up. Firms should not be deprived of information. We must realise that something nasty and serious has happened- -and, sadly, it is something over which we have no control. 6.15 pm

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery) : I should like to begin by apologising for my absence at the beginning of the debate. I do not have the good fortune to have been a member of the Standing Committee that dealt with this Bill, but those who were on the Committee will probably

Column 361

remember the measure as the one that did away with the wages councils. It seems that that is the impact that the Bill has had on the public. Yesterday we had a full debate on the issue of the wages councils. The Tea Room round by the Whips has been a little more successful today. Yesterday, during that focus debate, we did not have the advantage of hearing any Conservative Member, apart from the Minister, support the abolition of the wages councils. Today we have heard some such support from the Government side.

I should like to put to the Minister a question that I would have put to one of his hon. Friends if he had chosen to give way to anyone during his speech : what do the Government regard as the lowest acceptable rate of pay? Do the Government believe that it is right that very large numbers of people should have to rely on social security benefits to support their income? If so, how does that accord with Tory philosophy? It seems to me to contradict entirely the philosophy that private enterprise should not only exist but prosper. I cannot believe that part of Tory philosophy is that private enterprise should be founded upon a situation in which bankruptcies and liquidations increase every year, in which more and more people find that their employers have gone bust without even making proper PAYE payments, and when more and more people are forced into low-wage employment.

I should like the Minister to deal with a particular problem that affects rural areas such as my constituency of Montgomery. A reality of life in rural mid-Wales and, I expect, in similar rural areas is that opportunities for work in agriculture are beginning to diminish as fast as in some heavy industries, such as coal and steel, in the past. As a result, we have an increasingly low-wage economy, in which people are looking increasingly for jobs that do not exist. What do the Government intend to do to ensure that people who find work in the tourist industry and in the residual industries in rural areas are not paid at abominably low rates?

I have visited factories in my constituency where wage rates, particularly for women, are extremely low. For example, two or two and a half years ago, women packing cosmetics were being paid less than £2 an hour. I am very pleased to say that the rates were raised shortly after my visit, and I hope that was not a coincidence. In many factories around the country women in particular are greatly disadvantaged in terms of wages. As was said yesterday, women--especially single parents and others in similar positions--will be particularly affected by the removal of the wages councils. The Government cannot be proud of that. [Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) like me to give way to him? I think that he muttered something about my having missed out the ethnic minorities. I do not know whether that was intended to be a constructive contribution to the debate ; in my view, it was a pretty disgraceful one. Does the hon. Gentleman want me to give way? I see that he does not. In that event I shall continue.

The Bill missed the opportunity for Government Departments to combine their resources, and the considerable talents of those who work in them and who can produce imaginative schemes at the drop of a Government pencil, in an attempt to produce a real strategy for employment in this country.

Column 362

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman well knows that a Third Reading debate must encompass what is in the Bill, not a future employment strategy.

Mr. Carlile : I was going to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it was a disappointment that the speeches made both on the Floor of the House and in Committee revealed that the Department of Employment had done little to ensure that the Bill contained at least some of the opportunities that could have been included if a strategic approach had been adopted.

There are other disappointments as well as the provisions concerning the wages councils. In the context of employment rights, it is disappointing that the Government did not allow those who go before industrial tribunals to have legal aid. Few Labour Members here now were Members of Parliament when industrial tribunals were introduced. I am confident that Labour Members would now disagree with the deal that was done between the unions and the Labour Government. The unions did not want legal aid to be available for industrial tribunals because that might have reduced union membership. That was not a creditable deal.

Most Opposition Members, whether they belong to the Labour party, to my party or to any of the other Opposition parties, would agree that the rights of people who lose their jobs through redundancy or dismissal are not fairly protected when the employer can use solicitors and counsel to appear before the industrial tribunal but the employed person is rarely able to do so. Many employed people are extremely well represented by trade union representatives at industrial tribunals, but at some tribunals I have had the feeling that the employee has not had the resources to enable him to present his case with all the investigative and evidential resources available to the employer. In omitting to give legal aid to employed people going before industrial tribunals the Bill represents a missed opportunity.

I regret, too, that the maternity and paternity rights proposals discussed in the debates on the Bill have found favour with the Government only to a limited extent. In so far as the Bill takes the law forward and improves rights it is welcome, but what it does is extremely limited.

I am confident that many more Bills will come before the House involving the factors that I have mentioned, especially legal aid, wages councils, and maternity and paternity rights. The Government cannot be complacent in the belief that they have created a charter of rights of which a British Government can be proud. The Government's intransigence about the social chapter, and the intransigence of people such as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), will evaporate as the years go by--but it will be shameful to see the British worker lagging behind those in other countries in the European Community because, compared with his colleagues elsewhere, he has fewer rights.

6.24 pm

Mr. Oliver Heald (Hertfordshire, North) : The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) said that the Bill was aimed at the wrong issues. I start by disagreeing profoundly with that statement. How can it be wrong to provide new rights for trade union members and for employees, including a whole raft of new maternity rights? How can it be wrong to improve the constitution of

Column 363

industrial tribunals to cut delays? How can it be wrong to create conditions for new jobs by abolishing the wages councils? The hon. Member for Delyn, like me, was here on Second Reading and served on the Standing Committee, so he knows that at that stage I said that the Bill was good. Having been through the whole Committee process and having heard the hon. Gentleman speak many times over those 55 hours, I am prepared to say that the Bill is better now. The Bill has been improved partly because of the hon. Gentleman's contributions, and partly because of those of other members of the Committee. It is wrong for the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members to say that the Government did not respond to what they, and we, said in Committee. For example, the hon. Gentleman will recall that one of the points that he and other hon. Members made about trade union ballot scrutiny was that the confidentiality of individuals might be breached and their security put at risk if the sort of information available to scrutineers became common knowledge. On that issue the Government listened and acted. New clause 6 deals with the problem.

Much criticism was levelled at the Government on the basis that if there was a flat rate of check-off, it was ridiculous for the Bill to require notification of increase on an annual basis. The Government listened to that and acted. There was criticism that women did not have sufficient freedom to choose the starting date of their maternity leave. The Government listened and acted. On issues of individual safety, practical common sense and individual freedom the Government not only heard what was said but acted.

Hon. Members raised other issues, too, on which they would no doubt have liked their views to be represented in the final form of the Bill. But it is clearly wrong to say that there has not been a Committee process that has improved the Bill.

I especially welcome some of the measures that have not been generally discussed in the debate. The method of dealing with delays in industrial tribunals--by giving the chairman enhanced powers to deal with legal issues and issues of contract--will be a great help. Having attended industrial tribunals over the past year or so, I have seen the delays. Five months is the average in half the cases listed, and a delay of a year or more is not unknown. If we can transfer 25 per cent. of the work to the chairman only-- and that would be the effect of the provision--waiting times will be cut dramatically. That does not harm in any way employers' and employees' confidence in the system of industrial tribunals and in the concept of the industrial jury.

I heard what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said about legal aid for industrial tribunals. In my view, legal aid would change industrial tribunals dramatically--

Mr. Alex Carlile : They would be fair.

Mr. Heald : I do not accept that. Over the years, industrial tribunals have developed from being informal at the outset to being far more legalistic. Nevertheless, the whole approach is still that people from each side of industry tackle the problem and try to solve it in a manner different from the adversarial system that we know in the courts.

Column 364

My experience has always been that if an applicant is not represented by a lawyer, the chairman and the members of the tribunal bend over backwards to give him every assistance. Certainly people have not suffered as a result of not having the services of someone such as the hon. and learned Member or myself.

Sir Harold Walker (Doncaster, Central) : Possibly I am the only Member present who was a Member of Parliament when industrial tribunals were introduced. I do not recall the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), the spokesman for the Liberal party, being present. Bearing in mind that he is a lawyer, probably fishing for work, may I tell him that the original purpose in excluding legal aid was precisely the reason given by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald)--that we wanted industrial tribunals to be a means of informal jurisdiction rather than bring in the legalities and complexities which all too often accompany the presence of lawyers.

Mr. Heald : I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. A unique quality of an industrial tribunal is that it is a common-sense tribunal where lay members can get at the truth of the incident and the facts that are important to the case, partly because of their own experience of both sides of industry.

I have heard the impassioned plea of Opposition Members who say that if wages councils are destroyed, the fabric of society will be destroyed and people on low wages will suffer. There is a choice : low pay or no pay. There is no doubt that minimum wage regimes anywhere in the world cost jobs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said yesterday, one may decide that it is a price worth paying. That is fair enough, but it is not right for Opposition Members to lecture us on the basis that there is not a price to pay for minimum wage legislation.

France has high unemployment ; one reason is minimum wage legislation. One reason why Britain has lower youth unemployment than France, Spain, Greece and other European countries is that they all have minimum wage legislation.

If we are seeking a strategy to deal with unemployment, we have to take that issue into account. Is it right to have more jobs, even if some of them are less well paid, or do we say that there is a certain level at which we will pin the minimum wage and that we will bear the cost in terms of fewer jobs?

I was interested to read in the Daily Mail yesterday a remark by Lord Jakobovits, the former chief rabbi :

"Idleness wrecks and corrupts. Any job, no matter how lowly the pay, is better than that."

It is important to have a sense of reality in the debate. With 17 million unemployed across Europe and with people desperate to work, many of them wanting the flexible, part-time jobs that wages councils deal with, the issue should be addressed seriously. The abolition of wages councils will provide a flexible method of employment and will give people more job opportunities.

6.33 pm

Mr. John Hutton (Barrow and Furness) : It could be said that the Bill is a sad and unconvincing measure. It has more to do with satisfying the ideological fixations of the union bashers and the labour market deregulators than with the social and economic difficulties facing the British

Column 365

people after 14 years of the Government's ruinous economic and industrial policies. If those are the Bill's objectives, I do not think it satisfies either of them.

Yesterday and today, the Bill has been attacked from both the left and the right of the Conservative party. Many Conservative Members are deeply concerned about some of the provisions. Some of those concerns have been expressed today.

Following the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), whom it is always a pleasure to follow, I think it worth putting on the record that we on the Labour Benches have given limited endorsement to some parts of the Bill. We cannot give those parts our complete endorsement because they do not go far enough. As we have said throughout the proceedings, we believe that at some time we may have to tidy up the mistakes of the Department of Employment. The limited parts of the Bill which we can endorse have been completely overshadowed by other parts which have been drawn to our attention by my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members. I am thinking particularly of the abolition of wages councils in clause 28. Today at least we have had the benefit--if that is the right word ; I am not convinced that it is--of hearing some justification for the abolition of wages councils, but the House has been bitterly disappointed.

We heard a ludicrous speech by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), who clearly thought that the abolition of wages councils was a matter for hilarity and humour. I do not think that that hilarity will be shared by the 2.5 million people, and particularly the 2 million women, who will be exposed to the evils of low wages and exploitation by employers. If that is the best that Government Back Benchers can do, it is pathetic.

Clause 18 establishes the so-called commission for protection against unlawful action. When the Government are cutting the legal aid budget and withdrawing from the postal ballot regime established in the Employment Act 1980, at the same time to throw money at a ludicrous commissioner seems to be absurd. How is it possible to cut legal aid and to withdraw from the postal ballot regime while spending millions to support frivolous and absurd litigation? There are also absurd provisions on check-off in clause 11. The Government have yet to provide any coherent justification for the check-off regime which they propose as the law of the land. They cannot provide justification, because there is none. Clearly, the purpose of clause 11 is to strangle check-off arrangements. That will damage industrial relations, and it was not requested by employers. Significantly, there is tension between parts of the Bill which seek to improve the employment rights of individuals and other parts which will take rights away. There is a mix of deregulation and regulation. I think that that is why the Bill worries many Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who unfortunately is not in his place.

Parts of the Bill are so badly drafted--again I am thinking of clause 18-- that they look like three cherries on a fruit machine for lawyers. It is no part of the business of the House or of hon. Members to enact legislation which will have that result. The law which we are making is not

Column 366

clear or concise. It will not improve the employment rights of individuals. It will simply generate work for grossly overpaid lawyers. That is not a sensible use of our time.

The principles behind the Bill were out of date before the measure was presented. A party which proclaims the value of deregulation as a method of stimulating employment is presiding over chronic, mass and rising employment. Clearly the Government have no answers to the accusation that the economy is out of control. All they can produce is this absurd attempt to abolish the minimum wages set by wages councils.

The Bill is a sad reflection on the Government's economic ambitions. Not many Conservative Members have been part of our proceedings ; I can only conclude that they were too ashamed and embarrassed to participate. I hope that those who have had the benefit of hearing the arguments deployed by my right hon. and hon. Friends will come to the only possible conclusion--to reject the Bill on Third Reading and to restore some sanity and decency to employment rights.

6.38 pm

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : I apologise to the House for not being present for the earlier speeches. I was serving on a Select Committee. As a consequence, I will speak briefly.

If we are to say that levels of pay are the most important factor in employment and that we should allow them to come down, we should consider not just the 2.7 million who are covered by wages councils ; to be consistent, we should talk about teachers, doctors, nurses, dentists and all the others who, as my hon. Friends and I can claim with pride, have seen an increase in their real earnings which restored part of the fall which took place under the Labour Government. Going back to what happened before 1979 is not a helpful way of dealing with trade union and employment legislation. We need to recognise when we resist parts of the social chapter--one of the issues that has come up in our debates on the Bill-- that the European Community proposals to limit the number of hours that people work do not apply to executives, to European Commissioners or to Members of Parliament. They might apply to people who have high manual earnings or who have low manual earnings. I do not go along with such a proposal because I do not believe that it is necessary. Similarly, much of what is in the Bill is not necessary. Aspects of it may be welcome to some, but it is not necessary in the main, with the exception of measures required by European directives and European judgments.

Some provisions, such as those on political fund ballots, are important because such ballots need to be carried out fairly. I hope that when union members decide, under the regular review, whether they want to maintain a political fund, more and more of them will say that they do not. I hope that, even if they have a political fund, they do not just keep paying money to the Labour party. That is damaging to the Labour party, to the trade unions and to the Conservative party. If we merely see trade unions as supporting one section of our political opponents, we shall react as we have with some elements of the Bill.

If more hon. Members had listened to a Radio 4 programme a week ago when Brian Widlake dealt with poverty and with people who had lost their jobs, their attitude to wages councils would be different. Many of

Column 367

those interviewed were prepared to take work not just at poverty wages, but below poverty wages. Hon. Members would then have looked more carefully at the research evidence quoted by the Department of Employment on the employment consequences of a change in the lowest rates of pay under the wages councils orders.

I repeat one point I made last night. The only serious evidence--it is pretty weak at that--that Employment Ministers have put forward is that if the rate of pay for people at the bottom of the wages councils industries fell by between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent., there might be a 1 per cent. increase in employment. I have always accepted that there might be an employment impact. However, I believe that virtually to eliminate pay--a drop in the rate of pay of 20 per cent.--for an increase from 2.7 million to 2.727 million is out of order. It does not make sense. I am very surprised that that proposal is being put forward.

There is a price to pay for the abolition of the wages councils which is far greater than the price that we pay for having them. If that balance of pain is being carried by those who are far worse off than ourselves, I believe that we should take their interests more seriously when we consider legislation.

The House cannot be said to be giving whole-hearted consent to the Bill. I hope that the other place will feel free to consider some of the issues from the beginning. For the Bill to have gone through Report without the right wing of the Tory party speaking in support of Ministers shows that we have gone beyond the days of the 1980s when such people supported what was happening.

I take a pretty moderate approach. I can see the faults in trade unions, in political parties and in some official arrangements. The fact that I oppose so many of the details of the Bill suggests to me that we should hear the reflections of the other place. I hope that the Bill comes back with some changes.

6.42 pm

Mr. Sam Galbraith (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) : I first pay a compliment to the Ministers--the hon. Members for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin). I take the view that if the hon. Member for Stirling can damage my street credibility, I can certainly damage his. I believe that I speak for all Opposition Members when I say how grateful we are for the way in which the Committee was conducted, and for the reasonable and constructive manner in which issues were debated. It made a pleasant change from my previous experience in Committee with the hon. Member for Stirling, when we engaged in trench warfare night in and night out, and came out with the Bill almost unchanged.

Matters have been different this time. The hon. Member for Stirling has made concession after concession after concession after concession after concession--I told him that I would damage his street credibility--to the extent that the Bill is significantly changed. We are grateful for that, small mercy though it is.

We conclude our proceedings on the Bill on the eve of the announcement that the official unemployment figure is, almost certainly, above 3 million--4 million in real terms. Twenty seven people are now chasing every vacancy, at a cost to the taxpayer of £27 billion. The number of people employed has fallen by 8 per cent. since 1979 and the number of those employed in manufacturing industry has fallen by a staggering 38 per cent. over the same period.

Next Section

Home Page