---

Mr. Lang: I think that they will see the hon. Gentleman and his party as standing for the past, while industrial relations have made great strides forward in the past 17 years. I invite him to address the gains that have been achieved, not only for the country as a whole, but for trade union members themselves, as a result of the measures that we have introduced.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Does not the truth in this trade union-bashing document lie at the top of page 17, where it is made clear that the Government are totally opposed to trade unionism? Is it any surprise that the Government want to return to the industrial climate of the years before 1906, with no immunities for trade unions, sweatshops, miserable wages and no effective protection for working people? It is not trade unions that are the enemy within in Britain today--it is this wretched Government, who are the dedicated enemy of every working person in this country.

Mr. Lang: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell me why we have a higher proportion of our working-age population in employment in this country than any other comparable country in Europe, and why they enjoy better living standards than ever they did under a Labour Government.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): A quiet question of fact: what legal advice has the Department had on how the courts would interpret the word "disproportionate"?

Mr. Lang: Advice within Government is, of course, private to Government, but we are confident that these proposals are workable and will be effective; that, given

19 Nov 1996 : Column 855

the criteria and the guidance that will be included in the legislation, they will work effectively; and that the courts will responsible positively to them.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley): Have we not seen another general election ploy here, whereby the Tories set out to clobber the unions and clobber the working people of this country? How many times have we heard from Conservative Members that they do not want the minimum wage or the 48-hour directive? They do not want anything--they do not want the workers to get anything at all. The Green Paper proves that all they want to do is to keep the working people of this country down at the bottom. Some Conservative Members could not live on what some of my members are making in my constituency. I would like to see some of the Ministers live a month on some of the wages that my constituents have to live on.

Mr. Lang: What we want is a successful, expanding economy, creating new, prosperous, well-paid jobs.

Mr. Campbell: You have not got one.

Mr. Lang: That is our record of achievement, and we are determined to uphold that record.

Mr. Campbell: We are a low-paid economy; that is what you have got.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. He had an opportunity to put a question. I did not hear a question from him, as a matter of fact.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): Who were the authors of this document? Paragraph 1.16 on page 6 claims that many strikes

"are called before negotiation and other means of resolving disputes have been fully explored."

That is patently untrue.

Is it not the case that many strikes or industrial disputes are provoked by over-powerful and inefficient management, rather than militant trade union representatives? Was that not the case in the ScotRail disputes that the Secretary of State mentioned, and the Post Office dispute? Why, in the interests of balance, does he not seek to protect the interests and needs of employees against over-powerful employers?

Mr. Lang: In the private sector, the quality of employers and management has improved beyond recognition in recent years. As for the ScotRail dispute, 21 of the 22 train operating companies have reached a settlement on that dispute; only in ScotRail are the trade unions holding out and threatening to paralyse Scottish rail travel for five days in pursuit of an industrial dispute. I urge them to do what the other 21 companies have done--sit down and negotiate a settlement, and not put the public at risk.

Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham): I thank the Secretary of State for taking me back about 10 years to a tedious international conference at which I heard the

19 Nov 1996 : Column 856

communist Minister of Labour in Poland explain why the Polish public had to be protected against democratic trade union action. Has he consulted the International Labour Organisation? At least one of his proposals will be in contravention of a convention that Britain has signed.

Mr. Lang: That is highly unlikely, but the consultation period runs for three months, and I look forward to receiving the hon. Gentleman's contribution.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington): May I say that the Minister is going too far? These measures are an affront to liberty. They breach every fundamental principle of freedom of the individual, which many Conservative supporters in the country subscribe to. What he is doing today shows that he has completely misunderstood Conservative supporters in Britain, who feel very strongly on these issues--perhaps in a way that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand.

Mr. Lang: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not understand how strongly the public feel on these issues when they are left abandoned by trains whose drivers are on strike, or when they are unable to receive mail because the post is on strike. They too have rights, and those rights should be taken into account.

Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport, East): Is it not reprehensible to make this further attempt to screw the trade unions, when wages are abysmally low and job insecurity is uppermost in people's mind? When will the Government realise that what is needed is not oppression and tyranny, but partnership and co-operation in industry? That is the way ahead for Britain.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman talks about jobs and wages. Is he not aware that 150,000 new jobs in manufacturing alone have been created in the past three years? Is he not aware that wages at all levels are higher in real terms by a substantial margin than when his party was in power? There should indeed be partnership, but it should involve the public as well. They have a right to be considered in that partnership.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): What does the Minister consider trade unions to be about? Are they not supposed to be involved in negotiating on behalf of their members in various areas of interest? For that they need influence, in order to get their side heard. Their means of last resort, the strike, will be taken away from them in many cases.

Mr. Lang: Too often, what should be the means of last resort is becoming the means of first resort. We are concerned to make the strike the instrument of last resort and to make sure that other factors, such as the public interest, are taken more fully into the equation.

Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East): How can the Minister respond to a 99 per cent. fall in days lost through industrial action by complaining about excessive resort to the strike weapon? Surely the juxtaposition shows that that is simply election propaganda, rather than a proper industrial relations issue.

Mr. Lang: Clearly the hon. Gentleman did not hear me point out that strikes in public utility services, which

19 Nov 1996 : Column 857

constituted 10 per cent. of the total 10 years ago, now constitute 70 per cent. of the total. That is where the problem now exists, and that is why we are addressing it.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): Has the Secretary of State not understood that there are many occasions when working people, through their trade unions, stand up for their rights? Those interests and rights are complementary to those of the public. Is it not a fact that, time and again, health and safety issues affecting workers, which have been pursued with vigour by trade unions, have meant that many accidents have been avoided in our public sector, and where those representations have been ignored, tragedies have come about?

Is it not a fact that the trade unions have been a force for good in promoting the interests not only of the workers but of the general public? Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, and explain why it is good to have trade unions in some industries, but why he defends the right of some miserly, mean employers to exclude trade unions where it suits their selfish interests and not those of their competitors?

Mr. Lang: What a long and complicated question. Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that health and safety considerations are high on our list of priorities and constitute one of the criteria set out in the Green Paper that should be taken into account in assessing whether a strike is disproportionate or excessive. Strikes are far more likely to damage the health and safety of the public--and, indeed, of workers--than they are likely to advance it.

Mr. Blunkett: Perhaps the Secretary of State could answer one simple question. In view of our overall concern for the user and consumer of services, does the legal advice that he has taken suggest that the London Underground dispute this summer would have met the definition of "disproportionate" or "excessive" in terms of its effects?

---