| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dismore: I remind my right hon. Friend that the Chairman of the Social Security Committee is a Liberal Democrat and he is fully signed up to the report.
Mr. Darling: I know the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) well. Within the Liberal Democrat party there are many different views on everything. When we come to discuss the CSA, I hope that the hon. Member for Northavon will reflect on the practical effect of what he is saying. Surely the crucial thing is to get maintenance flowing to children as quickly as possible.
The hon. Member for Northavon and others mentioned the benefit payment card. We did not proceed with it because it was costing far more than anyone had
anticipated, it was running three years late and there were formidable problems with the technology. We decided to provide the Post Office with a banking capability and that, from 2003, we would move to making payments by automated credit transfer which is cheaper--I make no bones about that. At present, the Department pays too many benefits through giros that were designed during the second world war, and we need to bring the system up to date.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the letter sent by the Benefits Agency two weeks ago. That letter has been going out in one form or another since 1982.
Mr. Webb:
Is it still going out?
Mr. Darling:
Yes, because we ask people from time to time whether they want to revise their arrangements. We want to ensure that the transition is manageable so that the Post Office can provide the service that we all want.
I will deal with pensions only briefly because we will debate them at greater length on Second Reading and beyond. The Government's policy is clear: we believe that moderate and higher earners would be better off having funded pensions than relying on state pensions. The state second pension effectively doubles the rate at which those on low earnings, who certainly should not be in funded pensions, accrue their entitlements. For example, someone earning £6,000 a year would get £13 a week under SERPS, but more than £50 a week with the state second pension. That is the best possible way of helping the lower paid.
We believe that those on higher pay should be in a funded system, with an occupational, stakeholder or personal private pension. Private pensions are better suited to those on higher earnings because of their high administrative charges. Our philosophy is to ensure that all those who work throughout their lives will have the opportunity to build up a decent pension and avoid the situation that exists now, with too many people retiring on inadequate pensions.
The hon. Member for Havant referred to our manifesto and SERPS. The changes that we are making will be much better than SERPS. Those who supported us in the general election will be glad that we have gone a lot further than we said in the manifesto. We will return to all these issues on Second Reading and in Committee.
The Queen's Speech covers more than the two Bills. Today's debate has encapsulated the Government's twin themes of building an enterprise economy and creating a fair society. That is what people wanted when they voted for us. They wanted an end to the boom and bust of the past. They wanted a stable economy, with businesses growing and individuals doing the best that they can; but they also wanted a fair society in which those who had lost out under the Tories could be looked after far better than in the past.
The people who supported us in the general election wanted us to end the scourge of mass unemployment. We have reduced youth unemployment by nearly two thirds, and there are now more people in work than ever before. We are driving up standards in schools, helping people to get better qualifications and to do better.
The contrast between us and the Conservatives could not be clearer. We are building economic stability; they left us with a doubled national debt and an unstable
economy. We are building strong public services; they wanted to privatise them. We are providing opportunity for everyone, not just the privileged few; they were increasingly concerned with just the few. We are taking the tough decisions that we need to take to reform the welfare state and modernise our institutions. In short, we are building a country fit for the future, whereas the Tories left us with a country that was run down and in which an increasing number of people were excluded.
The Queen's Speech represents the policies of the future--the policies that we need for the next millennium--as opposed to the policies of the past. I commend it to the House.
Debate adjourned.--[Mr. Betts.]
Debate to be resumed on Monday next.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Betts.]
Mr. Alan Keen (Feltham and Heston):
It gives me great pleasure to speak about the implementation of the Employment Relations Act 1999, and I can give no better example of the difference that it will make than that provided by a dispute in my constituency.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness on his relatively new appointment; it is the first time that he has been at the Dispatch Box when I have spoken. I have a great deal of contact with many of his former colleagues in the Communication Workers Union, and when I told them that he was doing very well in his job as a Minister, especially in dealing with employment relations, they sent a message. At first I thought that it said, "Well, we always thought that he must be good at something," but then I realised that they did not mean that. I am sure that they really meant, "He must be really good at something like that"--and I am sure that he is.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) will be able to say a few words before the Minister replies, and I am also pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) has offered his full support, although he cannot be here because he has a prior engagement. Many of his constituents are affected by the dispute.
The case that I shall use to illustrate the benefits of part of the Act is the current dispute taking place in my constituency close to Hatton Cross, just outside Heathrow airport. Tomorrow, Saturday 20 November, will mark one year since that long and difficult dispute started with the dismissal of 273 members of the Transport and General Workers Union for holding a one-day strike.
The strike was an official and lawful dispute, and the union and the members had jumped through hoops to ensure that they complied fully with all legislation on industrial action. Yet a legal loophole was available, and the company, LSG Lufthansa Skychefs, took advantage of it and sacked all the strikers. That loophole will be closed when the Act comes into effect in April, and strikers in lawful disputes will be protected for eight weeks from unfair dismissal. It will never again be so easy for irresponsible managers to act in such an arbitrary and unfair way.
Despite all the months that have passed, the strikers, many of whom are my constituents, continue to pursue their dispute and their campaign with dignity, honour, and a determination to win. I am proud of their conduct in the dispute, and of their strength and their unity. It has been a long and hard struggle, and in such a dispute everyone is affected--the sacked workers, their families, and the wider communities of Cranford, Southall and Hayes. Many families are suffering enormous hardship, risking their homes and now facing winter fuel bills again, and life out in the cold on the picket line.
For the employer it is almost business as usual: the company immediately replaced the sacked strikers with a mixture of agency, short-term contract and permanent staff. One year after it sacked an entire work force its new employees are saying that they are suffering the same
treatment as the others--promises on pay remaining unfulfilled, changes to rostering and poor management attitude. Those are the features that started the dispute in the first place.
The one-day strike on 20 November was an action of last resort, following months of negotiations on proposals to introduce flexible working patterns. The employees had agreed to try out the new system on a trial basis in exchange for a deal on sharing the savings, but the negotiations on the productivity deal broke down, despite the use of conciliation by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.
The employers failed to honour the status quo agreement, then they failed to deliver the promised 1 per cent. pay increase. Finally, they refused to go to arbitration. Only then did the union ballot for industrial action, for which there was a large majority: 75 per cent. were in favour.
Within hours, couriers worked their way round the Heathrow area delivering letters of dismissal. As that happened, other union members came out in support, and met the same fate. The final count was 273 dismissals. After that, numerous efforts were made by the TGWU to arrange talks with Lufthansa Skychefs, through ACAS, through myself and through many other concerned parties. Those efforts were rebuffed and the company offered jobs back, but only on the basis that employees accepted the imposed terms--and, of course, with a timetable that victimised the most active trade union members.
The climate of industrial relations was anything but fair in the months leading up to the dispute. Only this summer, three race discrimination cases were settled by the company following separate incidents of racial discrimination. Nothing that the group of sacked strikers has done warrants such behaviour by a responsible employer.
Lufthansa Skychefs is part of a multinational corporate giant. One of the key owners is Lufthansa German Airlines, which in turn is part owned by the regional German Government in Westphalia. Lufthansa German Airlines promotes social partnership and dialogue, but it appears that that applies only in Germany and not in the United Kingdom. Strong employment rights and national consensus about the value of partnership at work mean that a dispute of such scale and duration would never be permitted in Germany.
In Britain, even though our Government promote fairness at work, workers still face managers who are reliving previous decades, during which the Government of the day were ruthlessly bent on destroying employee and trade union rights. It is clear that our Government's work has started to change the climate of industrial relations, but the Tory legacy of macho management lingers on--not least, of course, in Lufthansa Skychefs.
I urge hon. Members to join me in condemning the actions of Lufthansa Skychefs in failing to show any commitment to settling the dispute, and in calling on it to negotiate on the right that my constituents still aim to win: to return to their jobs. The dispute is about basic trade union rights--dignity and respect at work. Those are basic human rights. I urge hon. Members to join the boycott of Lufthansa German Airlines and our protest at the owners of the Heathrow kitchens, in order to ensure that this is the first and only anniversary of the dispute.
In December--this will be very familiar to the Minister--I always visit my local sorting office to show my support for the postmen and women in the busy run-up to Christmas. On my way there last December, I called in on the Skychefs picket line. I was shocked and pleasantly surprised to see at least a dozen women and many men already on the picket line at about quarter to 6 on a freezing cold morning. I was also on the picket line on Christmas day, along with more than 100 of the sacked workers.
On such occasions I have never seen anything other than a friendly gathering of people. Obviously, there is some shouting when lorries move in and out of the factory, but that is only to be expected. The people concerned have acted with dignity despite the problems that they have faced. I have been told in the past couple of days that some of the sacked workers have been holding a candle-lit vigil close to the home of Skychefs general manager, Tim Otteridge. I have doubts about the wisdom of such action; every action of course has a reaction, and that is why it is vital that the strike is settled before too long.
It is very easy for those who use Heathrow for holiday and business flights to take for granted the world's busiest international airport. They often fail to realise that it is our equivalent to a coal mine or steelworks. Heathrow provides 55,000 jobs. The people on the picket line and other constituents of mine who live close to Heathrow endure the deafening aircraft noise, air pollution and traffic congestion as their contribution towards this wonderful industry in west London. They accept it with little complaint for the compensation of jobs for themselves and their families, and of security for their children and grandchildren. They deserve better than the treatment handed out by Skychefs management.
I am not speaking in theory; I know the area extremely well. I first moved to Feltham--less than a mile from the Skychefs depot--more than 36 years ago. Immediately before my election in 1992, I worked continuously for 13 years less than half a mile away from the present picket line--directly under the flight path. I know that the sacked strikers deserve better than the treatment that they are receiving. Legislation cannot and, of course, should not be retrospective, but the fact that, under the Act, the action of the Skychefs management would be illegal gives the workers a strong moral right to be reinstated.
It is interesting that, according to the recent financial press, Lufthansa has purchased 15 per cent. of British Midland. I hope that there is some effort to settle the dispute honourably and very soon because, otherwise, we shall have to begin to call for a boycott of British Midland, too. The people around Heathrow would take such a call very seriously because it is our industry, and we do not want to damage it. However, when people become desperate, as they are with Skychefs, desperate action is inevitable.
My main concern is for the sacked strikers, especially because most of them come from the Asian community around Heathrow. A parallel can be drawn with the actions taken in the past by coal miners. The same cohesion is apparent in the Asian community as existed in the mining areas. The loyalty to a cause is very difficult to shift, so any action taken is likely to go on for a long time, as happened in coal disputes in the past.
We must remember that, as a result, people suffer for much longer. It is therefore even more important that we do something about this dispute as soon as we can. People are suffering who will not give in: we must bring the dispute to an end. None of the strikers expect the Government to intervene directly, but we hope that effective pressure--of which this debate is an element--will make a difference.
Finally, the Government deserve some praise. Many people felt that the Employment Relations Act could have provided stronger help for workers and trades unions, but none of the three major disputes in west London in recent years would have arisen had a Labour Government been elected in 1992, rather than in 1997.
The Hillingdon hospital dispute is the longest running of the three, and after four years has still not been settled satisfactorily, even though the tribunals that have been held have found in the workers' favour. Workers have been awarded money and told that they will get their jobs back, but the Granada group--the employers involved--continues to refuse to re-employ them. That strike started when the original contractor reduced pay from £3.50 an hour to £2.50. It, and all the suffering caused to the strikers, could never have occurred if the minimum wage legislation introduced by this Government had been in place four years earlier.
2.30 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |