---

Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim): Does the Secretary of State agree that, while we must always try to balance the rights of employees and the interests of the community and of employers, there is a real danger that we could deny the legitimate expression of grievance? What protection does he propose to introduce to protect the legitimate rights of employees?

Mr. Lang: We have no proposals whatever to inhibit the legitimate expression of rights by employees. We propose that, when a union is contemplating industrial action, it will have to consider the effects of that action on the public. Too often in the past the public have been the innocent victims of industrial disputes. Now we are insisting that they are brought into the equation, and that they have rights that unions must take into account before deciding to embark on industrial action.

Mr. David Congdon (Croydon, North-East): Does my right hon. Friend agree that strikes are an outdated method of settling industrial disputes? Does he also agree that strikes in essential services such as those on the underground and in the Post Office are, in effect, a blackmail of the community, and are unacceptable to civilised society?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that the view that he has expressed is held by the great majority of the British people.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Is it not nothing short of sheer hypocrisy for the Government to send a Minister to the Dispatch Box to talk about the bravery of the firefighters in Kent, the train drivers and others in the public services who saved lives, and then, about half an hour later, another tinpot Minister attacks those very same people, because, very rarely, they have the audacity to tell their Tory bosses, "Enough is enough," and threaten industrial action?

Let me remind the Secretary of State that the last Tory Prime Minister who went to a general election on the question, "Who rules Britain?"--he has just left the Chamber--failed, of course, to win. People can see this for what it is--an election gimmick. If the Secretary of State wants to deal in a fair society, he should remember that it takes two to cause a strike. It is not just employees. On many occasions, bosses deliberately cause strikes,

19 Nov 1996 : Column 852

against the background of mass unemployment. The Government have encouraged that throughout their 17 years. Thank God they are on the way out.

Mr. Lang: I think that I heard the hon. Gentleman say that before the 1992 election, the 1987 election and the 1983 election. We shall see. As for putting people at risk, I wonder what his view is about the strike called by Derbyshire fire services against Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council. Our proposals would bring the public into the equation and give them the right to take action if they were put at risk as a result of the action of Derbyshire fire services.

Mr. Skinner: I was negotiating a settlement; I was ACAS.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle): Was it not somewhat inconsistent of the Communication Workers Union to seek to punish the public by the withdrawal of their mail, having argued that the Post Office should not be privatised because it should remain a public service? Is there any relation between the fact that there have been strikes in the Post Office but not in British Telecom, and the fact that one is privatised and the other is not?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. The introduction of competition and the breaking of monopolies is one way to undermine such attitudes that hold the public to ransom. Clearly we must do more on the privatisation front.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon): As trade unionists are consumers and consumers may well be trade unionists, are we not unnecessarily polarising the issue? Is it not the case that people may be deprived of goods and services by industrial action that is proportionate and not excessive? Is it not a matter of judgment as to which actions may be excessive? Individuals will have different interpretations, which are bound to lead to a plethora of cases being brought before the courts. What steps does the Secretary of State intend to take to limit the number of cases that may be repetitive or vexatious?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is right--it is a matter of judgment. Individuals and organisations that seek to take action will need to judge whether they have suffered disproportionate or excessive effects. Before calling a strike, the trade unions will need to decide whether the effects of that strike on the public, industry or the community at large might be disproportionate or excessive.

We are setting out criteria in the Green Paper to give guidance on the matter. We are consulting on it, and we shall develop the proposals further. However, the underlying principle is clear: where disproportionate and excessive effects take place, the immunity of the trade union is, and rightly should be, forfeit.

Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton): Is my right hon. Friend aware of the welcome that the Green Paper will get from London Underground commuters and the customers of the Post Office, who would say "sooner rather than later" of legislation? Does he remember how the strikes on the underground and in the postal service

19 Nov 1996 : Column 853

embarrassed the Leader of the Opposition this summer? Yet this afternoon, we have heard the authentic voice of old Labour.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. We on Conservative Benches are the commuters' friend--the Labour party is the strikers' friend.

Mr. Ken Eastham (Manchester, Blackley): Is not the statement by the Secretary of State in complete contradiction to the remarks made by the Prime Minister during Question Time today? He was boasting about the tranquillity of the relationship with trade unions. The Secretary of State has contradicted those boasts about how well everything is going.

The Secretary of State mentions the days lost through strikes, but how about the days--a hundred times as many--lost through unemployment? What about cowboy employers--are they to have no responsibility? They are not included in the document. This announcement shows that this is a fag-end Government, who think that they are on to some sort of gimmick--but they will lose the general election.

Mr. Lang: It seems to have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that, for the past four years, while industrial action in this country has been reduced, unemployment has been falling. We are addressing the rise in industrial action in August this year and the preceding months, which reversed that trend, and in which action was focused on public sector services. That is where the public suffer most, and we are proposing this action so as to bring the public's rights into the equation.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North): I give a wholehearted welcome to my right hon. Friend's statement and his Green Paper on behalf of the beleaguered commuters and small businesses of my constituency. When taking representations on his Green Paper, will he reflect on the fact that, if we had accepted at face value representations from people such as Labour Members and trade unions--who will no doubt beseige his office with all sorts of false representations--we would have got nowhere over the past 17 years, and would still be stuck with the awful industrial relations record we inherited from the last Labour Government?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All the industrial indicators point to the success of our industrial relations policy--improved productivity, attraction of huge inward investment, falling unemployment and all the other measures of industrial success. Unless we address the remaining specific problem of industrial action in the monopoly public sector industries, we shall continue to suffer from the growth and recovery in industrial action that will damage those successes.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): Is there any strike that the Secretary of State would support?

Mr. Lang: I believe that strikes should be the weapon of last resort, not of first resort. Through a series of

19 Nov 1996 : Column 854

step-by-step proposals, this Government have achieved great things in industrial relations; we now intend to take another positive step in that direction.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill): In the entire history of British industrial relations, can the right hon. Gentleman recall any occasion on which he found the management at fault?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady was clearly not listening to my earlier answer on that subject. Management does not enjoy immunity to civil lawsuits as trade unions do. It is open to anyone to take out a lawsuit against management if it is believed to be responsible. We are concerned with the fact that trade unions, while sheltering behind immunity from civil actions, make decisions that do not take proper account of the damage they inflict on the public.

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East): Does the Secretary of State recall that it was Stanley Baldwin, a Conservative Prime Minister, who said in reference to the Taff Vale decision--the last time that immunity was removed from industrial action--that Conservatives need not complain about the class war, because they started it? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that no one outside the House will be fooled by his talk of protecting innocent third parties, but will see his proposals for what they are--a naked class attack on the workers of this country?

---