§ 2.48 p.m.
§ Lord BOYD-CARPENTERMy Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the long written reply given by Lord Wallace of Coslany to his request on 21st February to list the countries other than the United Kingdom in which trades unions enjoy immunities and privileges in respect of the bringing against them of proceedings in courts of law can be properly summarised by the answer, "None".
§ Lord BOYD-CARPENTERIn that case, my Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his at least quantitatively satisfactory written reply of 21st February, may I ask him now to tell your Lordships which countries, other than this country, allow legal immunities to a trade union 1146 pursuing a trade dispute which permit it not to be taken to court in circumstances in which an injured fellow-citizen could otherwise sue it?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANYMy Lords, as I tried to indicate in my previous reply, it is dangerous to make facile comparisons between the complex and very different legal systems of the various countries. In many countries it has not been necessary to give trade unions immunities comparable to those in this country because of the different evolution of their legal systems and different history of industrialisation. In short, where many industrialised countries guarantee a right to strike, this country instead allows employers' associations and trade unions certain traditional immunities from legal action which, so far as trade unions are concerned, allows them to take effective, peaceful strike action.
§ Lord BOYD-CARPENTERMy Lords, does not that answer confirm that the noble Lord and the Government are quite unable to quote any other country in the world which grants these legal immunities, and is not my Question this afternoon therefore fully justified?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANYMy Lords, this is a case where Britain can set an example to other countries. Noble Lords should restrain their mirth until I have finished. There are a number of countries in Europe particularly—and I quote one, Sweden—which can even give us an example.
§ Lord BLYTONMy Lords, is the Minister aware that for over 60 years of my life in trade unions the Conservative party has always tried to destroy us either by legislation or propaganda? Is he further aware that, if the Conservative party today gets into power, there will be another trade union confrontation because of the policies it pursues? Is it not also the case that the Conservative party forgets the 1926 strike when it backed the coal-owners and crucified us, and it is now annoyed because the power is going to the trade union movement?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANYMy Lords, my noble friend has considerable experience and I accept what he says 1147 without any question. It is a fact that there is a remarkable difference between a Conservative Government and a Labour Government. Again I say to the Benches opposite—wait for it! There is this difference: The average number of working days lost during the period of office of the last Conservative Government was 1,279.000. The comparable figure for this Government's period of office, up to and including January 1979, is half of this: namely, 630,000. I invite noble Lords on the Benches opposite to laugh at that.
§ Lord ROCHESTERMy Lords, would the noble Lord agree that there are a number of countries in Western Europe where industrial disputes concerning agreements already entered into are settled, if necessary, almost invariably by arbitration or by recourse to courts of law?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANYMy Lords, there is an agreement announced between the TUC and the Government, and the Government's aim and the TUC's aim is to try to bring about a better situation in industrial relations. What the noble Lord says is true: there are some areas in our country where the same thing is done. Whether it can be extended is a matter for the unions and employers to settle among themselves, and the Government will give benevolent help, at least from this side.
§ Viscount TRENCHARDMy Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the answer he has just given is not really answering the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester? It is true that in every country in the Free World agreements—which was the subject of Lord Rochester's supplementary question— are enforceable, and this country alone is the one where they are not enforceable and not defendable. Would the noble Lord say what bearing he thinks that has on the number of days lost in strikes, which is not, in fact, the point? The point is the constant strike threat position, which does not affect other countries.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANYMy Lords, it should be remembered that the Conservative Government's 1971 Industrial Relations Act contained a provision that every collective agreement made in writing 1148 after the passing of the Act was presumed to be a legally enforceable contract unless it contained a provision to the contrary. In practice, agreements made during the life of the Act contained such a provision, and the evidence is that employers are no more interested in legally-binding collective agreements than unions. It is open to the parties concerned to make legally-binding agreements if they so wish. They are free to do so.
§ Lord COTTESLOEMy Lords, is the Minister aware that he has given us an interesting dissertation that has no relation to the question asked?
Viscount ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, on the subject of the number of days lost through strikes, is it not clear that any Prime Minister can reduce the number of such days perfectly simply? If you surrender there is no need to fight.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANYMy Lords, that is hardly a supplementary question worth answering. I have given the facts, backed up by the ILO.