| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to give way? He has a minute left, could he possibly condescend to give us a hint of Labour Party policy?
Lord Paul: My Lords, it would be difficult to give Labour Party policy in one minute. The Labour Party wants to have good relations with business and industry.
It could well be that the unrest in these service monopolies is caused by a feeling of job insecurity. The way to deal with this is to tackle the insecurity and not the balloting rules for industrial action. These companies had a tradition of lifetime employment, but today employees have to make a difficult transition from a job in an industry where there was little change, to a new job in a new industry requiring higher and different skills and abilities. Nothing less than a re-employment system is required, because it is the individual who is at risk.
If the noble Lord wishes to protect the community from industrial action--however it is voted on--the law is a poor instrument. The real way to protect the community is to improve the quality of the staff working in the businesses which service it, and help people to improve themselves.
This has been the message from industry for many years now. People can earn a satisfactory living, and get job satisfaction, if they have the encouragement and opportunity to improve their skills, knowledge and education to tackle the new challenges which are bound to come.
7 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Paul, with his industrial experience. I believe that, like me, he is fond of cricket--but that, I suppose, is another story.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has, by introducing today's debate, remedied an omission in our proceedings, for when on 19th November last the Secretary of State made his Statement in another place on the Government's Green Paper on industrial action it was not repeated in this House.
However, as the noble Lord knows, I am sorry that the Motion is worded as it is, for what the Government are now proposing is not to make it unlawful for trade unions to call for industrial action which has disproportionate or excessive effects unless it has the support of the majority of union members entitled to vote. They are proposing to make such action unlawful, irrespective of whether it has that support.
On a number of occasions since 1979 my noble friends and I have found ourselves in broad agreement with the Government's step-by-step approach to the reform of industrial relations law. Indeed, in at least one instance--namely, in seeking to extend the use by trade unions of secret ballots--we were ahead of the Government. In this case, however, I do not feel able to support the Government.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, will know that in the light of responses to the 1981 Green Paper on trade union immunities the Government decided that they should not then seek to restrict the right of workers in essential industries to strike. But now they are contemplating legislation which could have even wider effects.
As Liberal Democrats, my noble friends and I are naturally predisposed to safeguard the right of individuals in the last resort to withdraw their labour. But apart from the question of principle--and I do not forget that the community, too, is dependent for its protection on the law--as someone who has had first-hand experience of handling industrial relations in a large company, I am concerned about the practicality of what the Government now have in mind.
First, there are problems of definition; in particular, what is to constitute a strike which has, in the words of the Green Paper,
- "disproportionate or excessive effects".
- "there would inevitably be some initial uncertainty, but this should reduce as case law builds up".
Judges have made it plain enough in the past that they do not relish getting embroiled in the minutiae of industrial disputes, and although, understandably, none of them is taking part in the debate, the initial reactions of industrial lawyers to the Green Paper suggests that the judiciary are unlikely to welcome participating in the Government's proposals.
However that may be, as I see it, the main danger in what the Government now have in mind receives only scant attention in the Green Paper. Paragraph 2.32 rightly argues against taking action to ban specific strikes in selected areas, thereby avoiding, as the document puts it,
- "the problems of definition and targeting inherent in any general approach".
I wish to ask a question because, frankly, I am uncertain of the answer. If those groups had no assets, could the individuals comprising them be brought to court and their property seized? If so, one wonders whether the Government have taken sufficient account of the findings of the Donovan Commission in 1968 on unofficial action and of how, four years later, the Government's face was saved in the infamous case of the dockers who were rescued from imprisonment only by the intervention of the Official Solicitor.
I know it will be said that any worker who strikes can be sacked and could, in theory, be sued by his employer for breach of contract. But as the Government acknowledge in Section 2.25 of the Green Paper:
- "In practice this never happens because even when the employer does not reinstate sacked employees it is not worth while to sue them".
Then it is proposed that the period of notice of strike action after a lawful ballot should be doubled from seven to 14 days; that such action should be legal only when a majority of those entitled to vote are in favour, rather than a majority of those voting, a point emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell; and that strikes, once started, should be subject to fresh ballots at intervals of two or three months. But these changes would tilt the balance even further than at present in favour of employers.
That point is referred to in paragraph 2.26 of the Green Paper, which discusses the case for partial removal of immunity to allow trade unions to be sued for damages caused by any industrial action which they induce. In dismissing such a step, the Government say:
- "It would fundamentally shift the balance of power towards employers".
The trouble is that there are differing views as to where that point of balance should lie. A further proposal is to end the right of officials of recognised trade unions to take time off for union activities and to be given information for purposes of collective bargaining.
In the past, I have argued, particularly in debate on what became the Employment Act 1982, that it is in the interest of employers to consult and provide employees or their representatives with adequate information on matters affecting them. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, will recall the discussions that took place at that time and the sympathy he then expressed for the amendment that I put forward which formed the basis of what ultimately became Section 1 of the Act. This requires companies employing more than 150 people to include in their annual reports a statement describing the action taken during the financial year to develop arrangements aimed at involving employees in the company's performance in a number of specified ways.
I suggest it is significant that that section forms part of an act concerning industrial relations. I have given notice to the Minister that I should be grateful if, in replying to the debate, he would give a general indication--I realise it cannot be much more than that--of how during the past 15 years companies have responded to this statutory requirement.
The Green Paper does not appear to take any account of such a positive approach to the problem with which it is concerned. I simply do not understand why the proposals it contains are put forward now, except perhaps as a populist measure in contemplation of the forthcoming general election. It might be that they will do nothing to improve this country's industrial relations.
I can compliment the Government on one point: that their proposals appear in a Green Paper rather than in a White Paper and in the precipitate legislation which was threatened at the time of the last Conservative Party Conference. This at least permits the canvassing of alternative ways of dealing with what I acknowledge is a serious problem.
Perhaps I may give an example of one such alternative. In its initial reaction to the Green Paper, the Institute of Personnel and Development suggested that managers and unions should be encouraged to reach no-strike agreements and commit themselves to arbitration if no common ground could be found. This voluntary approach to arbitration receives some support in paragraph 2.30 of the Green Paper. In the view of the institute, only if a union were to reject such a framework or submit to it only to embark on industrial action in the face of an arbitrator's decision should remedies like those now proposed by the Government be brought into play. This, it was said, would put employers just as much as unions on the spot, for under the scrutiny of independent arbitrators they, too, would have to ensure the integrity of every decision made in their dealings with trade unions.
I do not say that that is necessarily the course which the Government should now follow. I quote it as only one example of how, in the view of managers having wide practical experience of industrial relations, the Government's proposals might at least be modified. In conclusion, I urge the Government to think long and hard before committing themselves to the action proposed in the Green Paper.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |