---

Column 368

Rather than doing anything significant, the Government have preferred once again to stand aside. In this predicament, does the Department of Employment introduce a Bill to help the long-term unemployed? No, it does not. Does it introduce measures to reskill the work force? No. Does it introduce measures to build a well-paid, highly motivated work force? No. Instead, the Department has introduced a Bill which is partly out of date, which is mean-minded in its intentions and which will have no effect on the employment prospects of the nation.

With 4 million people unemployed, the only job creation measure that the Government can introduce is the abolition of the wages councils. Apparently, the only way in which we can price ourselves into jobs is by pricing ourselves so low that it is difficult to exist.

We have had numerous contributions on the wages councils. Tonight, for the first time, we have had contributions from Conservative Members. None of them produced arguments in favour of abolition. Instead, Conservative Members produced arguments against our arguments for retaining the wages councils. That shows the bankruptcy of Conservative Members.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) said, probably the most ludicrous contribution was the one from the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates). I am sorry that he is not here now. The hon. Gentleman thought that it was all very hilarious and he used the opportunity to mock the disabled. He seemed to think that it was funny that there was a wages council for those who needed invalid carriages. I trust that the fact that he seemed to think that it was a matter for laughter will be noted by the disabled in his constituency.

We also had a contribution from a member of the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes). The best thing that I can say is that it was an extremely short contribution. I did not understand his logic. He said that he had been approached by a business man who opposed the wages councils because he believed that they were inflexible and that they were holding back his progress. This business man never paid wages councils rates ; he always paid well above those rates. Yet for some reason, the wages councils were an imposition on him. I still fail to see the logic of that. We had the usual contribution from another member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). Once again, he was somewhat patronising and dismissive. He fell into the usual fallacy of confusing minimum wage legislation with wages councils. The two issues are related, but they are not the same and it is important always to distinguish between them.

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

Mr. Galbraith : I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not, although I referred to him. He will realise that I am trying to get on, and he knows that I usually give way.

The Government gave no reasons for the abolition of the wages councils, so I shall give them some assistance by trying to crystallise what their arguments might be. They may care to muse about them in future. Basically, there are three arguments for abolishing wages councils. The first is that those who work in wages councils industries do so for

---

Column 369

pin money. The second is that wages councils destroy jobs and the third is that they are an anachronism. That would be the kernel of the Government's argument.

The argument that people in wages councils industries work for pin money, as the Secretary of State implied, does not hold up when we look at the figures. The figure of 76.3 per cent. for those in wages councils industries who are in households with a second income is not very different from the equivalent figure of 72.6 per cent. for those in non-wages councils industries. There is no evidence that those in wages councils industries are different. If those who work in wages councils industries are working for pin money, so are those from double-earner homes who work elsewhere--including, I presume, the Secretary of State herself.

Conservative Members' second argument is that wages councils destroy jobs. I hear assertions and I hear opinions on that, but I have yet to hear arguments to justify them. Conservative Members must learn that opinion is not fact--that the two must be separated. I have read most of the learned academic discussions referred to by the Under-Secretary of State in response to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). The academic evidence is at best confused. If anything, it shows that wages councils do not destroy jobs and that, where they are effective and properly policed, they have a positive effect on employment. So the second argument is no basis for abolishing wages councils.

The final argument, advanced by the hon. Member for Teignbridge--I hope that he will not want to intervene just because I have mentioned him again- -is that wages councils are an anachronism. The hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to mock Winston Churchill. The Tory party has come to a sad--

Mr. Nicholls : On behalf of both myself and Sir Winston Churchill, I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that I was not mocking Sir Winston ; I was mocking Labour Members' assertions that, for these purposes, he was on their side of the argument.

Mr. Galbraith : I realised that the hon. Gentleman would try to gloss over the fact that he mocked Winston Churchill, but it was clear to us all that that was what he was doing. It is a sad day when even in the Tory party Winston Churchill is a figure of fun. I have explained previously that the fact that something has been around for a long time and may in some respects be out of date is not of itself a reason to abandon it ; rather, it is a reason to develop it and take it further. The House of Lords is out of date, yet a Bill to abolish the House of Lords has yet to come before the House. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) referred to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations and the acquired rights directive. The Committee spent some time considering that matter, and we were given the benefit of the Attorney -General's views on that. He came ostensibly to clarify the position, although I think that the general view of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee was that it would have been better if he had not, because we were left even worse off than we had been before.

The gist of the Attorney-General's position was that nothing had changed-- the acquired rights directive had

---

Column 370

always applied, so the regulations had always applied to privatisations and contracting out. I think that that is the position. What has changed is that people now know about the acquired rights directive and they know that it applies equally to undertakings that are privatised. The Government were involved in a cover-up--an attempt to pretend that the directive did not apply and to get round it by including in the original legislation a provision to the effect that it did not apply to commercial undertakings. That went against the acquired rights directive. The Government tried to create a fog so that no one would realise what their rights were, but they were found out and, as the Minister said, the only important issue now is what the acquired rights directive says about appeals being made on that basis irrespective of what is in the British law. That being the case, is it not time for the Government to give clear guidance to everyone involved--to employers, the Department and workers--so that everyone knows the position? Given that the Bill is supposed to be about the rights of individual trade unionists and workers, let us give them guidance concerning their rights and what they can claim.

The Bill has its good parts. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) about the maternity rights and health and safety provisions. I should like to put on record again my view that many of those provisions are included in the Bill principally because the European Community wished them to be in the Bill--they fulfil our obligations in Europe. The Minister and numerous Conservative Members made it clear that if they had been given their way, many of the provisions would not be in the Bill. The Government included them because they were under legal pressure to do so.

I make a small exception in respect of the health and safety provisions, which I know the Minister supports. I am grateful to him for the concessions that he made. Lest there be any further misconception, I repeat that had the Government been left to their own devices, the good parts of the Bill--the provisions dealing with maternity rights and health and safety--would have been excluded. Part I of the Bill contains the trade union legislation. It is based on the ideology of the 1970s and early 1980s --on the premise that the only thing wrong with this country is that the trade unions are too powerful and that if we introduce legislation to neuter them and remove their powers, we shall attain nirvana. That policy failed miserably in the 1980s and it will fail again.

In 1979, when trade unions were supposed to be the reason for all our problems, there were 23 million people employed ; there are now 21 million- -a fall of 8 per cent. In 1979, there were 7 million people employed in manufacturing industry ; now there are only 4.5 million--a fall of 38 per cent. In 1979, we had a trade surplus ; now, despite North sea oil, we have a trade deficit that grows by the day. The Government's attack on the trade unions can therefore be seen to have been based purely on ideology and on spite. Look at the check-off clauses, on which the Minister was in disarray last night and on which he continues to be in disarray today. The clauses will neither enhance the rights of individuals--no one wants them--nor improve the wealth and prosperity of the country.

Trade unions and their members never were and never will be this nation's industrial problem. Good trade unions

---

Column 371

working with Government and industry in close co-operation are an essential part of our industrial development. Rather than be treated as the Government's whipping boys, they should be recognised as part of the basic and essential engine of recovery.

Let us hope that, with the passing of the Bill, the dogma and ideology that have been the basis of all the anti-trade union legislation have finally been laid to rest so that trade unions and their members can once again be encouraged and given the tools to develop prosperity for this country. The Bill does not achieve that. It hinders the process. That is why we shall oppose it tonight. 6.57 pm

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth) : I thank the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (MrGalbraith) for his kind tribute to me and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I reciprocate by saying that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Members for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), and for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) could not have behaved more courteously or constructively during our proceedings. I should also pay tribute to my hon. Friends who, by their eloquence, restrained me from making too many concessions during the passage of the Bill.

I hope that hon. Members will not be embarrassed by that tribute. The TUC was quoted in one of the national newspapers as saying that it had achieved more on this Bill than on all the others put together. I am sure that that is a result of the constructive approach taken by the Opposition Front- Bench spokesmen and their colleagues and by my hon. Friends.

Having paid his tribute, the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden ruined everything by complaining about the Bill. He said that the Bill does not do anything to help the long-term unemployed or about training or to meet the economic problems that we face. The plain fact is that we do not need legislation to tackle the economic problems of a recession. What we need is a Government committed to the policies that this Government endorse --low inflation, low interest rates and the control of public expenditure-- and a Government who are prepared to act in the interests of individuals rather than a party that is clearly dominated by and in the pocket of the trade unions. That was clear from the proceedings on the Bill.

The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden talked about pin money. He attributed that expression to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend has never implied that pin money was involved or said anything about it. The person who used the expression "pin money" rather shockingly was the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission. If the hon. Gentleman has a complaint about the expression, he should take it up with that commission. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that not a single argument that he put in Committee had been lost. I had the impression that he had not even found a single argument in Committee, much less lost one. He said that his vision was one in which everyone would have a job and be paid what their ambition should be. I find it astonishing-- [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that he did not say it, but I wrote it down because I was so surprised by what he said. He should look it up in the record. The socialist Utopia

---

Column 372

held out by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is one which no socialist Government in the world have ever achieved, nor ever will achieve, because we know how it ends.

The hon. Gentleman spoke eloquently about his view of a minimum wage. The countries in the European Community that have embraced his ideas of a minimum wage are those with the highest levels of unemployment. Spain has announced unemployment of 20 per cent. That is hardly surprising, given its commitment to a minimum wage. As the debate went on, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras slithered and slid and changed his position. Finally, we found out the Labour party's position on wages councils. The wages councils have dominated the debates and they are supported by the hon. Gentleman. But he said that if the wages councils were abolished, a Labour Government would not bring them back. That is the Labour party's position.

Opposition Members will fight to the last ditch to stop the Government abolishing the councils. They are so committed to the councils that, if they are ever in government, they will not bring them back. What a shambles. Instead, the hon. Gentleman told the House that he would introduce a national minimum wage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said, a national minimum wage would destroy almost 2 million jobs in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman sought as his authority his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead.

Mr. Dobson : Who supports him?

Mr. Forsyth : The hon. Gentleman asked : Who supports him?

Mr. Dobson : The Minister can misrepresent me as much as he likes. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) supports the concept of a national minimum wage and the Minister should not say that he does not.

Mr. Forsyth : Having looked at the writing of the hon. Member for Birkenhead, it is clear that he said that a minimum wage will destroy jobs. Will the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras say that all the other references that were quoted in the debate and the trade union leaders who were quoted are all being misquoted as well? Everyone knows that, if one puts up the price of labour, one will get less of it. It is like any other commodity. It is absurd for the hon. Gentleman to deny it.

Independent research has shown that a national minimum wage, with differentials being maintained, would destroy 2 million jobs. The truth is that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is so in hock to the trade unions that he would rather sign up to a minimum wage and put more people on the dole than address the problem of unemployment in the United Kingdom.

The hon. Gentleman adduced an argument that he used yesterday. Hon. Members who followed the proceedings yesterday will recall that the hon. Gentleman said that wages councils could not destroy jobs because, at a time when there is a recession, the number of jobs has increased in the wages council industries and that that shows that the effect of wages councils is not to destroy employment. In 1987, there were 2.472 million people in the wages councils ambit. By 1992, that figure had increased to 2.56

---

Column 373

million--an increase of 89,000 or 3.6 per cent. in that period. In the service industries generally, which the wages councils overwhelmingly cover, the increase was 1 million or 7 per cent. So in the service industries as a whole, employment increased by twice as much as in the wages council industries. We will hear no more of that argument which the hon. Gentleman has unwittingly used in support of the Government's position.

Mr. Thurnham : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forsyth : My hon. Friend should allow me to continue because I know that colleagues are anxious to speed the legislation on its way.

I should like to deal with a matter that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). I share his lack of enthusiasm for the transfer of undertakings regulations. Those regulations implement an EC directive which was negotiated by the Labour party 16 years ago. Hon. Members present in the House who were not on the Committee may not be aware that the Labour Government believed that the acquired rights directive which they signed in 1977 would exclude the public sector. That does not say much for their claims about people in the public sector being defrauded by this Government.

The regulations that we introduced did no such thing. We limited the regulations to undertakings in the nature of a commercial venture. That did not exclude the public sector or privatisation, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras claimed. In Committee, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made it clear that the exclusion was narrow in scope. For example, it excludes only some charities that might be considered non-commercial in nature. That exclusion is being removed in clause 26 of the Bill. It is not the case that people have been defrauded because of the minor and technical deficiency in the way in which the directive was implemented.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East asked whether the Government had resisted the Commission's attempt to enforce the directive. I have been told that, if this Government had been in office in 1977, we would never have adopted the directive in the first place. My hon. Friend is mistaken in the great significance that he attaches to the minor amendments to the regulations in clause 26. As I said, the terms of the directive are significant and we want to examine them under the principles of subsidiarity which are enshrined in article 3b of the Maastricht treaty. I suggest that the Clause 26 group should rename itself the acquired rights directive group. The amendments in clause 26 do not alter the impact of the directive.

Sir Teddy Taylor : While I accept that the Minister is a born fighter, I ask one simple question : has the European Community sent a letter asking the Government to make more changes which, in my opinion, will basically bust privatisation, as others have said? Why did the Minister not fight? Why did the Government not take them to court? I am not accusing the Minister ; I am accusing those who made the decisions.

Mr. Forsyth : The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that the changes that arose from the infraction proceedings do not alter the meaning and scope of the directive in the way that he believes. While he may believe that the directive is having an adverse effect on competitive

---

Column 374

tendering, that is a matter which can be addressed only by changing the terms of the directive. For that reason, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will press, in line with the commitment that we have made to subsidiarity, for those matters to be determined in this place according to the interests of competitive tendering and other matters.

We have had a number of debates on the principles behind the Bill. Although the Labour party may vote against the Bill tonight, I hope that we shall see the same thing happening on this legislation as happened on other similar legislation. This Government rid the country of the tyranny of the closed shop and gave ordinary members the rights and protections that they rightly expected. As a result, trade union bosses must now attract members and listen to their views, rather than taking them for granted, as they did so often in the past. Our legislation has moved away from the confrontational, collective style of industrial relations to one in which employees are increasingly valued as individuals. Although the Opposition now say that they would support those changes, they voted against them at the time. No doubt they will vote against the Bill tonight, even though they know in their heart of hearts that most of the measures demand support and will be of benefit to their constituents. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time : The House divided : Ayes 312, Noes 275.

Division No. 156] [7.09 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Alexander, Richard

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Amess, David

Ancram, Michael

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Ashby, David

Aspinwall, Jack

Atkins, Robert

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Baldry, Tony

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Bates, Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Bellingham, Henry

Bendall, Vivian

Beresford, Sir Paul

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Body, Sir Richard

Booth, Hartley

Boswell, Tim

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Bowden, Andrew

Bowis, John

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Brandreth, Gyles

Brazier, Julian

Bright, Graham

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Budgen, Nicholas

Burns, Simon

Butcher, John

Butler, Peter

Butterfill, John

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Carrington, Matthew

Carttiss, Michael

Cash, William

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Clappison, James

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Coe, Sebastian

Congdon, David

Conway, Derek

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Couchman, James

Cran, James

Critchley, Julian

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Day, Stephen

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Devlin, Tim

Dickens, Geoffrey

Dicks, Terry

Dorrell, Stephen

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Dover, Den

Duncan, Alan

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Dunn, Bob

Durant, Sir Anthony

Dykes, Hugh

Eggar, Tim

Elletson, Harold

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

---