| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Industrial Action
6.34 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway rose to call attention to the effect on the community of any excessive or disproportionate industrial action taken by trade unions without the consent of the majority of members entitled to vote; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this debate on this Motion, which I beg to move, is as stated on the Order Paper. But the debate may also afford general discussion on other aspects of the proposals of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade in the Green Paper Industrial Action and the Trade Unions--perhaps the last step in the step-by-step approach of my noble friend Lady Thatcher, whom we are so delighted to have with us today.
The doors as to representation on these proposals are not due to close until 28th February, so perhaps contributions from distinguished speakers from all sides of your Lordships' House may serve some constructive end. There will inevitably be dissention; there will evidently be argument. But I seek some practical, constructive end.
The views of the noble Lord, Lord Paul, a mega-industrialist, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, an erstwhile doyenne of the First Division Association, who have not been so long with us, are indeed very welcome and are awaited with particular interest. A debt of gratitude is tendered to all noble Lords who are to speak in this debate as without an exchange of informed information and opinion, there is no debate.
The Motion calls attention to the freedom under the law of a trade union official, without the consent of the majority of the rank and file membership entitled to vote, to initiate strike action on seven days' notice, to maintain strike action without any requirement as to reballoting--strike action (and I use these words advisedly) known and intended to inflict wholly excessive disproportionate expense, hardship and inconvenience on the community.
Let us not mince matters. This is a matter of consequence to the electorate. It is a matter on which there is no prospect whatever of political convergence, save as between the parties opposite. The importance of debate is wholly evident, for the industrial action of scale of this order poses an untoward danger to our competitive economy, in particular to inward investment, and to the City of London--and this is where this debate dovetails with the first debate; I heard my noble friend on the Front Bench say the remarkable success story, and so indeed it is--but not only that, to our balance of trade in goods and services and to the integrity of our currency in the markets.
Exploitation by the Royal Mail and the London Underground unions in August 1996 of this gap in the step-by-step approach has afforded a most unwelcome, unacceptable precedent--a gap (and I say this because I know) which was advisedly left open in the hope that no further step would have to be taken--and a hope which was justified until August 1996, but no longer.
The London Underground strike was called on seven days' notice--albeit with the support of 50 per cent. of the membership entitled to vote--but there was no provision for reballoting. In the result, on each day of each strike about 2 million travellers suffered disruption in their everyday life, and substantial damage was caused to the economy, estimated by some in the City as of the order of £50 million a day--at the behest of 1,500 train drivers.This is a situation which no government ought to accept. I know my noble friend Lady Thatcher well enough to say that she would not accept it, and I know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will not accept it, and he is committed to seek to ensure that the community is not held at random hostage.
The purpose of these proposals of the President of the Board of Trade is to maintain and increase favourable trade. Assuredly, it is not to slight the trade unions, the trade union movement or any of the many responsible activities of trade unions. However, as membership and recognition of trade unions is dominant in the public sector, some settled framework--for which beer and sandwiches or whatever at No. 10 affords no substitute--is needed to discourage disproportionate industrial action.
There are rumours that the parties opposite favour the reintroduction of self-regulation, voluntary conciliation and arbitration. But is it realistic to suppose for one moment that any such regime could be any more effective than the facilities that already exist, or indeed that the trade unions would ever accept a system of compulsory arbitration?
As to the economy, the Thatcher administration--I think I can say it in the presence of my noble friend Lady Thatcher--was the first to recognise that the economy was--and I heard this expression used in the other debate--the goose which laid the golden eggs. In 1979, with 30 million working days lost through industrial action, double the days lost on the OECD average--about 10 per cent. in the public sector--no eggs could even hatch.
Those were the old days, the tough days, and we now are indebted to the legacy left to us by that administration. We were then the sick man of Europe. Our economic viability was only such as was accorded by the IMF; hence the step-by-step approach as implemented for the past 17 years under this Conservative administration. Today the state of our thriving economy is the envy of Europe. From 1992 to 1995 the working days lost through industrial action, on average, were less than half a million a year. But in August 1996 more working days were lost than in the whole of 1994 or 1995--in the main due to the series of strikes on the Royal Mail and London Underground.
Notwithstanding the article in The Times on 2nd January with the heading "List of candidates cuts links with unions", as the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, affirms, that link must be maintained. This symbiotic relationship between the trade unions and the Labour Party shall inevitably hobble Labour, whether in or out of office, in taking any relevant initiative in this context. Why so? By force of circumstance. It is a no-go area
for Labour because, by tradition, it is a no-go area for the trade unions. In this respect the trade unions are neither able nor willing to put their own house in order.It is much to be doubted whether Mr. Blair, if in office, could ever be in a better position than that of Lord Wilson or the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, as regards taking any effective action. Indeed, the brave initiative of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn--In Place of Strife--as we know from the copious references in Volume 3 of the Crossman Diaries, split the Wilson cabinet right down the middle. It never took root.
The Callaghan administration, which was unjustly--I stress that--deprived of trade union support, died a dingy death at the behest of militants in that winter of discontent with the three day working week. The economy--Tony Crosland's solution to the dilemma of democratic socialism--was in ruins.
As to the present policies of the Labour Party, such it would appear, could only widen the gap to which this Motion calls attention. It is understood that it is proposed to enforce statutory recognition, to enlarge legal immunity, to enable industrial action to ensue without fear of dismissal, although in breach of contract of employment, by affording such entitlement as from day one to all employees, whether full-time or part-time. The proposed automatic deduction for trade union dues from wages affords anxiety as to victimisation and as to intimidation. I gave evidence before the Donovan Commission and paragraph 924--I looked it up the other day--adverts to the very considerable benefit to the political funds of trade unions and concludes that this is a political question, not a question of industrial relations.
The Conservative Party proposes a relevant and constructive resolution that the majority of those entitled to vote must be obtained on a pre-strike ballot; that 14 days' notice must be given to enable business customers and the public to make preparations and alternative arrangements if statutory immunity is to be conferred, and that there should be some requirement as to the reballoting for the continuance of industrial action. It is also proposed to remove immunity from industrial action where there is a manifest disproportion between the purpose of the strike and the consequences to the community as inflicting serious damage on the economy or subjecting everyday life and business activities to significant disruption.
I accept that the drafting of such provision to reflect the concepts of paragraphs 2.4 to 2.8 of the Green Paper and establish a new framework based on legal criteria will require meticulous attention.
In conclusion, my Lords, surely it is now wholly apparent, almost irrespective of party, that some effective initiative must be taken by any government to discourage strikes, the cost and inconvenience of which the community is no longer able or willing to tolerate. This package of Green Paper proposals may also commend itself to your Lordships to safeguard the economy, the wealth of a nation which can ill-afford disproportionate industrial action or a kingdom disunited. I beg to move for Papers.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Paul: My Lords, sadly, during the 1960s and 1970s we had a history of industrial disputes in this country which created a "them and us" attitude. This was an important factor leading to our poor competitiveness.
When she became Prime Minister, a distinguished Member of your Lordships' House--I am delighted that she is in the Chamber--decided that something had to be done if British industry was to regain its competitive edge. Contrary to popular belief, at first she encouraged unions and management to work together. But after a few years this even-handedness was disregarded.
Managements were pampered and labour unions reviled. The result was that labour was squeezed and management awarded themselves higher rewards. Predictably, this produced a return to the "them and us" society, worse industrial performance and a more severe recession than that suffered elsewhere.
In my opinion, good relationships between management and employees cannot be created by legislation. New legislation will create new problems and so, although I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on introducing this Motion, I do not welcome it. An attack on the right to strike is a charter for the bad employer. I know, because I come from a family business and we believe that we must all work together for the betterment of British industry and British society.
Industry today operates in an environment of intense competition. Trade unionists know that employer and employee are both subject to this pressure. Employees also need to know the aims and rules of a business in order fully to identify with it. Motivation and action require clarity of purpose. That is what managers are struggling to achieve and if it is absent there is no point in penalising the employees.
We should be looking at how to get rid of the need to strike, not the right to strike. That can be done only by building relationships at work based on partnership and trust. People expect to be treated fairly and to have a say over matters that concern them at work. Good management is about fostering co-operation, not confrontation. Lawyers have no role here. That is why most disputes are settled by negotiation. If there is a feeling of fairness and unity of purpose with the company, everybody wants to work. Therefore, in practice, the circumstances of the Motion would hardly arise. In an establishment where there is a dispute, no union would embark on industrial action if fewer than half its members had not participated in a ballot.
When Ian Lang introduced his Green Paper on industrial relations in another place on 19th November 1996, he introduced the concept that abstention would count as a "No" vote. Obviously, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, agrees with this. In exactly the same way, it is equally impractical to assume that a trade unionist will consider an abstention as a "Yes" vote.
In any industrial relations, the way to deal with disputes is not to try to brow beat people into a docile state of mind. It is to identify a community of interest. This is why the key words in modern industrial relations are "empowerment", "involvement" and "commitment".
For our businesses to be more competitive in today's commercial world, employees have to understand what is going on in a company, so that they can become involved in its progress and use their own initiative to encourage and achieve this. Staff have to be empowered because companies can no longer afford detailed supervision. People have to be trusted to get on with their work. They need to become better skilled and educated to handle new technology and deal more intelligently with problems and decisions as they arise. This is what is required to compete in business today, and it can be achieved only in an atmosphere of perceived fairness.
The Government's Green Paper contributes little towards achieving this. The Green Paper seems to be designed to feed the prejudices of noble Lords opposite about industrial relations, and thereby perhaps the Government seek to acquire some advantage in the forthcoming election. This only reflects the Government's incompetence at managing people, which they have demonstrated time and time again.
If there is a real problem, it could be in the regulated and sheltered service industries. But these do not reflect the British economy as a whole. Recent disputes in these organisations, such as the Post Office and London Underground, have had a lot to do with employees' frustration at lack of progress, lack of investment, and lack of perceived fairness in these organisations. Legislation will not solve these problems. Management, investment and competition will.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page