House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Jun 1993

Mr. Heald : I am grateful to have the opportunity to make a short contribution. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is absent, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is present, on their recent appointments and I wish them well during the coming years.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : The hon. Gentleman speaks for himself.

Mr. Heald : I am told that I speak for myself, but I think that I speak for the Conservative party and Conservative Members in expressing those sentiments.

Column 800

The amendment is necessary for two reasons : first, to clarify the law and, secondly, to enable employers to have bargaining arrangements with employees which suit the needs of the workplace. It has been said that the legal position was clear before the decisions in the Court of Appeal. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have practised in this area of the law for many years. Companies have sought advice from me on these issues. There were contentions on both sides. It is right, as was said earlier by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), that somebody of the stamp of John Hendy QC is a force to be reckoned with. He had a point of view which he expressed in the Court of Appeal and he succeeded. But it is equally true that Patrick Elias QC, an eminent silk in this area, the editor of "Harvey on Industrial Relations Law", the established text, took a completely different viewpoint, argued it and lost. It is wrong to say that in those circumstances, with eminent lawyers putting forward arguable viewpoints on both sides, the law is as clear as day. That is hindsight writ large.

Mr. John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) : Would the hon. Gentleman therefore argue that in every case ever heard in the Court of Appeal where barristers are found to argue for both sides the law must be in doubt?

Mr. Heald : That is not what I am saying and I think that the hon. Gentleman realises that.

The point in this case, which I shall amplify in a moment, is that the industrial tribunal, with an experienced tribunal chairman and experienced lay members who listen to detailed argument from experienced lawyers, came to one conclusion. The matter then went to the employment appeal tribunal, which has a High Court judge who deals with such cases every day of the week, flanked by members of great eminence, including senior trade union leaders whom we all remember from years back, eminent employers and so on. They heard the arguments and decided the case in a completely different way. Both the industrial tribunal and the employment appeal tribunal said in this case that the decisions were difficult to make. The matter then went to the Court of Appeal which made a decision which is the current state of the law. There may be a further appeal to the other place, and who knows what the result of that would be in this case? But it is worth saying that the House has the opportunity to clarify the law tonight, and why should that not be done?

Mr. Clapham : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Ridgeway v. British Coal case in 1987, when John Hendy represented the union, clarified the law and since 1987 the law has been clear? Does he further agree that that clarity was added to by the two cases that were heard in the Court of Appeal?

Mr. Heald : If the hon. Gentleman allows me to develop my argument, I shall deal with that point.

The point about collective agreements is that they are not legally enforceable. When in the 1970s the Government offered to make them legally enforceable the offer was flatly rejected on both sides of industry. A collective agreement which sets out a bargaining arrangement can be part of the individual's contract of employment only if it is incorporated in it, and usually it is not.

Column 801

There has been a series of cases, of which Alexander v. STC is probably the most recent, where it was held that provisions of collective agreements that deal with bargaining machinery and such issues are not part of the individual's contract of employment. That thrust of the law has been there for 20 or 30 years. It is part of the background to what we are discussing tonight and cannot be ignored.

It was thought of section 23 of the 1978 Act that the words "action taken against him as an individual"

meant that the action had to be concentrated on the individual's position rather than being an action that could be described as collective. It was thought that derecognising the union, taking away collective bargaining arrangements, was an action more properly directed at the union rather than the individual. Therefore, in a leading text--"Harvey on Industrial Relations Law" in fact--headed : "Taken against him as an individual"

it says :

"This requirement raises a fundamental question as to the nature of the action taken by the employer--was it collective (ie against the union itself) or individual? Action against the union that merely affects the individual as a member would not be within this section."

Hon. Members have criticised those of us who have advised companies--and individuals, I hasten to add--on the provision over the past few years. We have been in some doubt about what the law actually is.

The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) mentioned the 1987 National Coal Board case, in which the Union of Democratic Mineworkers received a higher pay award than the National Union of Mineworkers. I am not sure that NUM members received any increase in money at all, but, if they did, it was much less than the amount received by UDM members. It was argued then that to pay a worker less because he was a member of a particular trade union was unlawful, under section 23 of the 1978 Act. Those who advanced that argument, however, did not go on to consider circumstances in which a union had been derecognised and the employer wanted to introduce individual contracts providing for such matters as profit-related pay and profit sharing.

8 pm

It was thought at that time that if an employer was introducing a contract that was more beneficial than the existing contract in terms of pay and conditions, no one could argue that employees who did not accept that contract were being penalised under section 23. It was said by lawyers that they were simply not receiving an advantage received by others. No doubt that is a very legalistic approach. Decisions made in the Court of Appeal have taken the interpretation of the law a stage further ; before April this year, no cases existed that decided these issues.

I have mentioned the case involving the NUM and the UDM. The Armitage case- -which has also been mentioned--clearly demonstrated that a union member had been punished for involving a union representative in a dispute with his employer ; the references to the judgments involved are also very clear. What was not decided, however, was what happened when one group of employees received a payment and another group was not

Column 802

given a specific punishment. The effect of those judgments has been quite different from what was expected by many in the legal profession.

I am not saying that the Court of Appeal was wrong to make the decisions that it made in interpreting the law ; any lawyer would accept that it has made its ruling. The House of Lords may decide the question on some future occasion, but why should we wait, when we have the opportunity to clarify the law and reach a conclusion tonight about its correct interpretation? It is unlikely, but perhaps the Opposition will triumph, leaving us with the judgment of the Court of Appeal and awaiting that of the House of Lords. What is more likely is that Conservative Members will back an amendment that clarifies the law, in the interests of both workers and employers. One of the developments that set the 1980s apart was the change in a number of aspects of the workplace--a change for the better, in my view. Suddenly, unions were prepared to reach single-union deals. I do not think that many people genuinely believe that those deals were not in the interests of the workers. Surely they were preferable to deals made by a group of unions which might not always agree among themselves, and which did not always represent the workers as effectively. I think that they were a tremendous success.

Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield) : What about the closed shop?

Mr. Heald : I will not reply to sedentary interventions. No one could say that workers in, for instance, the Honda factory in Swindon, where individual contracts operate, do not enjoy excellent terms and conditions.

Mr. Etherington : Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the following circumstances? Individual employees have been balloted at their workplace, and have decided on a particular trade union, only to find later that their employer has imposed another union on them against their will. Is that the hon. Gentleman's understanding of democracy?

Mr. Heald : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the point. One of the problems in this country is the chaotic nature of the union movement. I hesitate to criticise it in the presence of so many of its members, but a large number of unions are competing with each other for membership. One of the great advantages of the single-union deal was that at least it brought some common sense into the workplace.

Mr. Etherington rose--

Mr. Heald : I do not accept the argument that the hon. Gentleman is probably about to advance--that giving trade unionists freedom to choose which union to join conflicts with single-union deals. The point about such deals is that it is known which union is recognised ; it does the dealing, and the end result is generally in the interests of the workers.

Mr. Etherington : How does the hon. Gentleman square his opinion with the fact that, when a single-union deal was struck in the coal industry, a Conservative Government sought to involve another union of their creation, which they sustained and nourished--the scab union that has the nerve to call itself a union, although I do not class it as one? The Government say that single-union deals must be good : that they have created

Column 803

harmony from chaos. Yet they were responsible for effectively trying to destroy a single-union agreement in the mining industry, in much the same way as they are now destroying the industry itself.

Mr. Heald : I could hide behind the argument that British Coal-- although it has not yet been privatised--is an independent body, a corporation which makes its own decisions ; but I do not think I need do that. Some Conservative Members--I am certainly one--admire the way in which UDM members stood up for common sense and decency during that long strike. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not agree, but I am glad that they were given the opportunity to play a role in the coal industry. I believe that, even now, they are presenting some of the more imaginative proposals for the industry's future--far more imaginative than those of the NUM, whose policies seem to belong to the dark ages. I do not accept that the old, NUM-style union leaders are making the most genuine, cutting-edge contributions.

The old-fashioned, dinosaur trade union leaders often say that all the Acts passed during the 1980s should be repealed ; but do Opposition Members really want to return to the days of flying pickets, secondary action and all the nonsense of the show of hands at the factory gate? We have got rid of all that, and I believe that, in general, the Labour party agrees with what we were doing two or three years ago, at any rate. It is a pity that there cannot be more consensus about where we are going.

Companies want single-union deals and individual contracting because they want to be able to compete. They are just like you and me. It is a breath of fresh air to visit some of the modern workplaces and see what is being done there ; indeed, it shows us the future. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House should go and look at those projects, and see the future. I believe that they should support initiatives that bring such features of British industry closer to being the norm.

We face threats from the Pacific rim--

Ms Eagle : We are hearing about the Pacific rim again. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we must compete with the lowest of the low, on what are almost slave wages, to have an industry in the future? Or does he think that we should create a floor of provision so that we can compete on quality rather than slave wages?

Mr. Heald : I am about to visit Taiwan and Japan to see for myself. I do not claim to have personal knowledge of it. What I have read and what I have heard as a member of the Employment Select Committee from the Japanese, Taiwanese and others who have come to visit us to give evidence is that they have rising wage rates. They have high-tech industries and modern, individual contracting arrangements such as those I have described. They are leading the way to the future. It may be that some countries in the Pacific rim still have low wages, but not all of them have. We are competing against countries with high levels of skill and the wide range of instruments that are needed in order to be a successful modern economy. The time has come for a shake-up on the Labour Benches. The question is not whether we should have derecognition or recognition of trade unions for bargaining, but whether we recognise what the future requires so that we can move forward and

Column 804

put Britain back to where it should be as one of the top manufacturing countries in the world. We can do that if we act together in the interests of the nation.

Ms Eagle : Before making any comments on the amendment, I remind the House that when the Bill was in Committee I declared an interest as a member of the Confederation of Health Service Employees. I am also sponsored by that union. That does not mean any personal financial remuneration, but a small amount of money is paid to my constituency party every year. I am COHSE sponsored because I believe in principle that membership of trade unions is a good thing and that having an active trade union movement, unencumbered by vindictive laws, is a sign of freedom in a society and is something that we should all desire.

The background to the Lords amendment is the Government's labour market policy over the past 14 years. There has been much fine and interesting shadow boxing today, mainly between lawyers, about what is at stake. What is at stake is the balance of power in industrial relations. Over the past 14 years the Government have had at their heart the desire to deregulate the labour market. They have tried to do that because it fosters exploitation, lowers wages, allows arbitrary treatment and insecurity at work and provides no knowledge of whether there will be a set contract even within a few months.

Mr. Heald : I listened to what the hon. Lady said about the balance of power in industry. She made it sound very adversarial. Will she accept that in the best and most modern plants there is a team effort and everybody works together? They do not have a confrontational approach. Has she visited factories where that is true?

Ms Eagle : Of course, the best industrial relations is a team effort, where it occurs. Unfortunately, the way in which the Government have changed the law, together with some of their other economic policies, has encouraged and spread bad employment practices.

We have had six punishing and vindictive Acts of Parliament which have institutionalised discrimination against trade unions. That is unprecedented in western democracies, and it is a record of which I believe any totalitarian regime would be proud. The economic policy pursued by the Government has been so disastrous that it has led to mass unemployment on a scale not experienced since the 1930s. People who say that individual employees have a choice and can leave a job must remember how constrained that choice is when they are unlikely to obtain another job because of the bad state of the economy. The Government's ambition is to turn us into the sweat shop of Europe. They have made their refusal to sign the social chapter and guarantee working people decent pay and conditions into some sort of perverted virtue whereas it is a barbaric disgrace. The Government have abolished many employment protections and failed to create a framework of law which will impose responsibilities on employers to treat their work force decently. It is against that background that the amendment must be judged.

I believe that the weakening and destruction of trade unions has been central to the Government's political aims since 1979. The Lords amendment, which is an opportunistic amendment, and was suddenly perceived as such when the Court of Appeal made its judgment and the Bill happened still to be in the Lords, is a massive

Column 805

escalation of the assault on trade union rights. It is an assault on not only collective but individual trade union rights. The Government's methods and motives in this matter have been extremely cynical and beneath contempt. No other democracy would contemplate overturning a court decision so quickly, with no consultation, before the judgment was published in its written form and before all legal action in the cases concerned had been completed. We have a higher court so that it can make final judgments on such matters. The Government are so contemptuous of the rule of law and the courts that they go ahead with their ideological bigotry before the Law Lords have had a chance to sit.

On 30 April the Court of Appeal made its judgment. On 6 May the amendment was announced in the House of Lords. It was published on 20 May--a Thursday --and on the Monday the House of Lords was asked to sit in judgment on the new clause, which had come out of the blue. After 90 minutes of debate, the clause was carried.

8.15 pm

The amendment is a blatant abuse of parliamentary procedures simply because, as was said earlier, the Third Reading had already taken place. Extremely unusual tactics had to be pursued in order to fit the amendment in while the Bill was in the other place. It is immoral because it gives the green light to victimisation in the workplace. It is a serious attack on the freedom of association. It is important to remember how Hannah Arendt, that great writer about

totalitarianism, defined what is meant by that term. She explained that one of the conditions that needs to exist in a totalitarian regime was what she called "atomisation". That means the isolation of individuals and the derogation of collective rights. What we have here is a precise example of atomisation.

The amendment is probably illegal. As has been mentioned, it is certainly against many of our international obligations. It is probably against article 118 of the treaty of Rome--I thought that the Government were pro- Europe. It is against the International Labour Organisation convention on freedom of association, and, as has also been pointed out, it is against the European convention on human rights. Did the Government check on any of that in their hurry to push the amendment through in the other place?

During the debate in the other place, Earl Russell asked Viscount Ullswater whether he had taken advice on whether the amendment was contrary to European law. Viscount Ullswater said :

"We do not believe that there is any infringement of any international obligations."

Puzzled by that answer, Earl Russell again asked whether that opinion was based on any legal advice. Viscount Ullswater said : "I should have to take advice upon that."

Clearly there was confusion.

Mr. Michael Forsyth : I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want to misrepresent my hon. and noble Friend Viscount Ullswater. Later in the debate, in answer to a question from the noble Lord Russell, my noble Friend said :

"the Government have not taken legal advice outside Government on the matter. However, the Government are satisfied that there is nothing in the amendment which is in

Column 806

breach of our EC or other international obligations."--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 24 May 1993 ; Vol. 546, c. 42-51.] If the hon. Lady has read the debate, I am puzzled why she is not making that position clear to the House.

Ms Eagle : The Opposition have slightly less faith in the Government's ability to take their own legal advice and in the quality of that advice when it is taken. Doubtless the time will come when that assertion will be checked in the international courts.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : Is that legal advice the same as that which backed up the viscount, as reported on 6 May? Viscount Ullswater said that the House of Lords should welcome the fact that

"the Government intend to clarify an area of law which has been thrown into confusion by the Court of Appeal's decision".--[ Official Report, House of Lords, 6 May 1993 ; Vol. 545, c. 862.]

It seems that we have returned to the position whereby the law is what the Government want it to be after the fact rather than their saying in advance what they hope it will be and changing the law if the Court of Appeal disagrees with them.

Ms Eagle : I thank the hon. Gentleman for his observation. The one thing that is certain is the fact that the Court of Appeal was sure about what the law should be when it made its unanimous decision on 30 April.

In practice, the amendment will allow bribery and coercion of individuals to sign away their rights in the workplace. Its purpose is to remove the very raison d'e tre of trade unions and hope that they will wither away as a result. The Court of Appeal agrees and found that the only purpose of paying non-union members a differential was to penalise people for being members of a trade union. The aim of the amendment is indirectly to abolish trade unions. I believe that that is the Government's motivation. What protection will there be from the abuse of employers' power and from the arbitrary imposition of different terms and conditions of work? What protection is there for the individual in the workplace if the amendment is accepted? The only thing that is worse than the amendment and the intention behind it is the Government's display of Orwellian double-speak in their cynical attempt to justify their outrageous decision to introduce amendment No. 8 in the first place. First, the Government denied that the amendment meant a change in the law. Indeed, the Secretary of State was at that trick again today. The Government said that the amendment is a clarification, but I believe that that notion has been comprehensively dealt with by my colleagues. Clearly, it is a serious change in the law.

Secondly, the Government have said that a new management right is elucidated to decide exactly how management wants to negotiate with its staff. They talk a great deal about relations between employers and their staff, but the way in which they define those relations is almost like those between master and slave. The employer can do anything that he or she wants as long as it is in the workplace, and the staff have to put up with it or go. That does not lead to a good, active economic regime in a modern civilised economy.

Mr. Michael Forsyth : The hon. Lady has been studying the record of debates in another place. Will she respond to

Column 807

the point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the Labour Government's position in 1975? Lord Jacques said : "Clause 45"--

as it was--

"deals with individual rights of employees, not collective bargaining issues By giving the individual employee a right to take part in his unions' activities unimpeded, Clause 45 does not require an employer to recognise his union or treat with it in any way."--[ Official Report, House of Lords, 23 September 1975 ; Vol. 364, c. 189.]

The position as enunciated by the Labour Government appears to be that which the hon. Lady is attacking.

Ms Eagle : The Minister of State must not read quotations out of context. The debate on 25 September 1975 was in answer to the Earl of Gowrie who had tabled an amendment to the effect that such protections should apply only where there was recognition of the union, which puts the entire debate in a wholly different perspective. That should be borne in mind.

I am anxious to conclude and allow other hon. Members to speak. In Tory double-speak, denying a pay rise to a trade union member is not victimisation but allowing the employer to achieve an organisational or strategic purpose. The people of this country know precisely what is behind the Government's outrageous behaviour. Unless amendment No. 8 is thrown out and treated with the contempt it deserves, the people of Britain will realise exactly how the law is being used, and they will punish the Government for it.

Mr. Boyce : Anybody listening to our debate would get the impression that the Tories are the workers' friends, but nothing could be further from the truth. There has been much wringing of hands today. One Conservative Member, who I understand has had to leave the Chamber to take a telephone call, said that we want more consensus politics. I wonder where he has lived for the past 14 years. Under Baroness Thatcher, consensus was a word which would not have dared utter its name in the House or elsewhere. Consensus politics went out of the window.

We are encouraged to believe that the amendment will lead to better protection and higher wages. One Conservative Member said that it is not about lower wages but higher wages--talk about the moon being made of blue cheese. If Conservative Members were honest, they would perhaps agree with the Foreign Secretary, who said on Radio FM that Britain would have to compete with the Tamils before we succeed in the market. I have the tape of the broadcast if anybody wants to borrow it--for example, the Minister of State.

The honest Conservative Members spoke about the least possible employee protection. If the Government were being honest, we would be discussing the abolition of trade unions because that is their final intention. Where do we go from here? One of Lady Thatcher's most praised successes was the reform of the trade unions, so why is there a need for the amendment? It is not merely to clarify the law which, in any event, is the role of the courts. We are the lawmakers and the courts interpret what we say, although perhaps not what we intended to say. The amendment is clearly a change in the law and anyone who says otherwise is not being truthful.

I should have declared an interest at the beginning of my speech. I am proud to be a member of and sponsored

Column 808

by the Amalgamated Engineering Union. My union was in the forefront of single union deals. I may have reservations about such deals, but they appear to be succee employee if he decides that he wants to belong to another trade union? I could be cynical and say that I shall join the Association of First Division Civil Servants first thing tomorrow morning. I am sure that I would be welcomed within the ranks of the civil service.

I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall conclude by returning to something I said earlier. The Bill is another step towards the derecognition and abolition of trade unions by the Government. They would admit that if they were honest. They began by banning trade unions at GCHQ. To pile agony on agony, is not it ironic that a person who injures himself and earns more than £60 a week will be refused legal aid whereas, under this legislation, anyone can challenge a trade union's decision to take industrial action or any decision that he believes will affect him personally? He has only to take the matter up with Jill Rowlands, the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members, and he will be given almost a blank cheque to pursue the union in the courts. How does that square with the democratic rights of ordinary trade unionists?

Finally, somebody will have to tell us where the case law on equal pay for work of equal value stands now. If paying non-trade unionists more than trade unionists for the same work is not a change in law, somebody had better explain why. Somebody had better get an answer to that question quickly.

8.30 pm

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) : Whatever protests Conservative Members may make, a vital freedom is under threat from the amendment--the right freely to associate and to join in collective bargaining. The Court of Appeal was absolutely clear, and I see no confusion in its judgments. In both cases, it found that a kind of bribery was being offered, which had only one purpose--to penalise people for being members of trade unions and to deter them from remaining members. The judges spoke with great clarity when they decided that the employers' object was to reduce the power of the unions, and that such anti-union discrimination was unlawful.

I read an article by Hugo Young of The Guardian about the court cases, in which he talked about

"a shameful saga, showing up a politically sick society". I disagree with only one word of that--the word "society". I would replace it with the word "Government".

When moving his amendment in the other place, Lord Ullswater said that the position after the judgment both of the employment appeal tribunal and of the Court of Appeal was unsatisfactory. We must ask, unsatisfactory for whom ? Was it unsatisfactory for employers, who have friends in government, who want to break international law and who do not want to conform to international standards ? Most of us here think that that is the truth. Of course, the amendment represents a change in the law, and it is extremely cynical to pretend otherwise. It is yet another attack on trade unions, intended to deter people from joining. The Government's objectives are clear, and they cannot hide them with all the clever "lawyerspeak"

Column 809

that we have heard in the debate. The amendment is designed to ensure that the rights of employers to discriminate against trade unionists are solid. Everybody recognises that. The so-called dispassionate legal gobbledegook uttered by the Secretary of State does not fool anyone on the Opposition side of the House. I add my voice to those who have objected to the underhand way in which the amendment was sneaked into the House of Lords. It was drafted without consultation and rushed through at the last possible moment. That was a typically sneaky and cynical manoeuvre from a totally unprincipled Government.

Trade unions are an essential part of a democracy. They are the only organisations that stand between ordinary working people and the untrammelled power of business and government. Business interests and employers have massive representation in the House and elsewhere. We all know about the secret funding by wealthy individuals and the company donations that keep the Tory party afloat and influence Tory policies. The amendment is just another example of that influence. Asil Nadir was no exception ; the history of the Tory party is riddled with scandal. By contrast, trade unions are open about their support for Labour, and their members are consulted at every level. Over the past 14 years, there have been many pieces of legislation, every one of which has been aimed at seriously weakening trade unions and the way in which they represent working people in the workplace. The measure before us is the most pernicious of all. It is almost certainly in breach of International Labour Organisation regulations and of European legislation. No reporting and quoting Lord Ullswater will remove that fact, which will emerge again in the future. The Government argument that the amendment secures the right of employers to negotiate with their staff is clearly nonsense. Of course employers will flock to offer extra money to induce staff to surrender their right to union representation, because that will pay off. It will help to weaken the unions further, and once the unions are completely ineffective in bargaining, the employer will move in and pay any kind of wages and impose any kind of conditions. Inducement not to join a union will leave many employees unprotected and, of course, it will seriously weaken trade unions.

The amendment would make it legal to victimise trade unions. It is a change in the law designed to legalise victimisation, and the Government know it. I agree with many of my hon. Friends that the next step will be to outlaw trade union membership altogether. This is a sad day for democracy, and the measure is certainly a betrayal of justice and of working people in this country.

Mr. Gary Streeter (Plymouth, Sutton) : In view of what I have heard in the debate, I wish to make a brief contribution.

Lords amendment No. 8 brings the law into line with what I have always assumed it to be, and I used to be a practitioner in company and in employment law. Indeed, during the 1980s I spent much time advising employers on how they could remove themselves and their employees from the shackles of old and dusty collective agreements and local house agreements, and transform the working and legal relationship into one based on individual contracts. We went about doing that in the 1980s in exactly the same way in which the amendment envisages that it

Column 810

can be done. For all the right sound commercial reasons, the relationship between employer and employee was transformed. As we look round at the industrial and commercial landscape in the 1990s, we find that in many companies the reforms of the 1980s have freed up working relationships, so that rather than having to go through a trade union intermediary and negotiate on every nut and bolt, every working practice, employers and employees now talk to each other. Instead of local and national agreements, many provisions of which were not known to people locally, employers now get round the table with employees and talk about what is required in the firm. That is happening up and down the land, whether Opposition Members recognise it or not.

Over the past 10 to 14 years, employees have benefited from better working relationships with employers than they had in days gone by. I argue strongly that what has happened as a result of Conservative trade union legislation has been to the benefit of many employees. I talk to a lot of people employed in all sorts of companies and businesses, and they appreciate having the freedom to communicate with employees and to have the kind of individual contracts of employment that can reward merit rather than rewards being locked away in collective bonuses and other agreements.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the amendment simply reflects the law as I have always assumed it to be. Employers have the right to sit down with employees and to change the terms and conditions of employment, without in any sense discriminating against trade union members. We must ask ourselves : does the amendment prevent anyone from joining a trade union? The answer is no, it does not. Does it deal at all with the issue of employers recognising trade unions? No. That is entirely a matter for the employer to decide in consultation with his work force.

We are seeing on the Opposition Benches some of the ritual war dances that we have seen over the years. It saddens me enormously that lessons have not been learnt from the past 14 years. It is especially poignant that, as we debate the issue tonight, I understand that the management of Timex have now decided to close the factory because of the intransigence of trade unions in that locality.

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East) : If the hon. Gentleman had any knowledge of the real situation in Dundee he would know that the factory is closing down because of the intransigence of its management, which from the very beginning has refused to negotiate. Indeed, it manoeuvred the workers outside the factory gates so that it could use Tory employment laws to sack the entire trade union work force and bring in non-union workers. But those macho tactics did not work. What we are presented with today is the sweetener approach, which it is thought will have the desired effect of doing away with trade unions and the collective rights of workers.

Mr. Streeter : Last night, I saw trade union officials leaving a hotel in Scotland, having spoken to management. They were saying that management had said that if the dispute continued, there would be a real prospect of its having to close the factory, that there would be no alternative. The interviewer asked the trade union officials, "Does this mean that you are going to change your

Column 811

position?" and was told, "Oh no, we will fight to the end." What a sad indictment. They have indeed fought to the end--the end of their members' jobs--and I hope that they are proud.

Mr. Heald : Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation is governed not just by the employment laws of the 1980s? The old common law of England --

Mr. McAllion : What about Scotland?

Mr. Heald : The old common law of England, Wales and Scotland has always provided that if workers go on strike, the employer is entitled to dismiss them. Employers have always been able to take such action, just as workers have always been able to strike.

Mr. Streeter : My hon. Friend makes a very valuable point. That has been the law for many generations, and it must continue to be the cornerstone of employment legislation.

I have said all that I want to say. The amendment clarifies the law as being what it has always been intended to be. In the long term, it will benefit management and employees and will facilitate modern industrial relations.

8.45 pm

Next Section

Home Page