HL Deb 28 January 1992 vol 534 cc1190-203

4.16 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater)

My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for me to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the Government's legislative intentions following the consultation on the Green Paper Industrial Relations in the 1990s which was published in July last year.

"As with all our previous trade union legislation, the proposals I am announcing today have two main objectives: first, to safeguard the democratic rights of trade union members within their unions; secondly, to protect employees, employers and the community at large against the abuse of industrial power. Each of these proposals is carefully designed to meet a clear deficiency in our present arrangements.

"This has been acknowledged by the organisations which have commented on the Green Paper.

"The CBI say in their response that they 'warmly welcome the Government's continued commitment to reviewing the law governing the conduct of industrial relations'. The Engineering Employers Federation say that they 'strongly support the Government's objective of providing a balanced and effective framework of trade union and industrial relations law' and that 'the step by step approach has been seen by all to have worked successfully and it is right that it should continue'. The Institute of Personnel Management say that 'the Green Paper is primarily aimed at particular abuses which it is the duty of Government to address in order to protect the rights of the individual'. "In all, we have had over 100 responses to the Green Paper. These have come from employers organisations, individual companies, trade unions and other organisations and from individual people. The number of responses is in itself a clear indication of the interest the Green Paper has aroused and the importance of the issues it has raised. Most of the proposals it contains have been widely welcomed.

"I deal first with the proposals to protect the public against strikes and other forms of industrial action. The first proposal was announced by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in his statement on the Citizen's Charter.

"We proposed in the Citizen's Charter to provide a new right for members of the public in relation to unlawful industrial action which affects a public service. This proposal has been widely welcomed. At present, the employer has the right to bring proceedings against a trade union which organises an unlawful strike. Members of the public, who are usually the specific target of industrial action, have no such right. If the employer does nothing, the citizen is defenceless.

"We therefore intend to introduce legislation to establish a new right for members of the public to seek an injunction to halt unlawful industrial action affecting a public service if the employer concerned fails to use the remedies available to him. This proposal has been widely welcomed. It will enhance the protection of the public and it will be a further deterrent to unlawful industrial action.

"The consultations have also shown that there is strong support for legislation to require trade unions to give seven days' notice of strikes. Strike notice is a well-established feature of the law in other countries. This requirement will help to protect the general public against lightning strikes in the public services. It will also allow employers to take steps to safeguard jobs and businesses.

"In addition, there has been strong support for the proposal to reduce the scope for intimidation and fraud by requiring strike ballots to be conducted by post and to be subject to independent scrutiny.

"These measures will add significantly to the protection which our legislation already provides against strikes which are deliberately targeted on the life of the community. We intend to introduce legislation to implement all of them.

"I turn now to the rights of individual union members. The first concerns an employee's freedom to join the union of his choice. Only last year we saw how building workers who left the construction union—UCATT—when its leadership fell into the hands of the far left were prevented from joining the General and Municipal Boilermakers, even after the GMB had indicated that it would welcome them. That was clear evidence of how the operation of the TUC's Bridlington Principles can deny employees the chance to belong to the union of their choice. Contrary to the claims of the TUC, only a minority of employers have expressed reservations about the change in the law we propose to make. We therefore propose to introduce legislation which will give individual employees the right to join the union of their choice, free from interference from any arrangement between trade union bosses which is designed to deny them that choice.

"The consultation also showed widespread support for the proposition that the law should not allow trade union dues to be deducted from an employee's salary without his or her individual consent. Since the Green Paper was published there has been further evidence of the scope for abuse of "check-off" arrangements. On 8th December, for example, the Sunday Times reported that union subscriptions had been deducted from the pay of some 10,000 construction workers in London but that these subscriptions had never reached their trade union. The case for reform of the law is clear.

"Some employers have said that they believe a requirement to review the check-off annually would be unnecessary and burdensome. I have therefore decided to accept a proposal from the Institute of Personnel Management that employers should be required to seek the consent of their employees to the check-off every three years. In addition, we propose to introduce legal safeguards which will ensure that in future no employee has union subscriptions deducted from his pay without his individual consent.

"Again, no one has seriously questioned the need for further legislation to protect union members against the sort of financial mismanagement which was revealed in the Lightman Report into the affairs of the National Union of Mineworkers. Nor is there any serious doubt that the law on trade union elections needs to be strengthened in the light of the ballot rigging in the 1990 elections for the National Executive of the Transport and General Workers Union.

"I have decided to adopt a suggestion which was put to my Department in the course of the consultation that unions should be required to employ a mailing house or some other external agency to distribute and store voting papers. This proposal is, I believe, the most effective way to ensure that electoral fraud of the kind which occurred in the Transport and General Workers Union is not repeated. I have also accepted the advice of a number of organisations, including the TUC, that, for security reasons, union members should not have access to the names and addresses of other union members. Instead I propose that the independent scrutineer should be allowed such access on behalf of any union members who are concerned that the list may not be accurate.

"The consultations have indicated a wide range of views on the proposal in the Green Paper relating to the legal status of collective agreements. There was both support for and opposition to the specific proposal on which we sought views. Some employer organisations have put forward alternative suggestions. This is an important and complex issue. We shall continue to consider the scope for amending the law in the light of the comments we have received and, if appropriate, we shall consult further before taking a final decision.

"It should be clear to everyone, Mr. Speaker, that this has been a genuine and productive consultation. We have modified some of our proposals in the light of the views we have received. But the consultations have shown that there is widespread majority support amongst employers for a great majority of the proposals in the Green Paper.

"The legislative plans I have announced today are designed to consolidate and build on the improvement in industrial relations which we have achieved over the last 12 years. They will increase the rights of individual members of the public, of individual trade union members, of individual employees and of the community at large. They will ensure that we have an effective and up-to-date framework of law in order to maintain that progress in the 1990s.

"The clearest evidence of the progress we have achieved so far is our record on strikes. More working days were lost because of strikes in the last 12 months of the last Labour Government than have been lost in all of the last five years put together.

"No one should be surprised by that stark contrast. Before 1980 the law gave trade unions a virtually unlimited licence to organise strikes and industrial action, no matter how remote from the original dispute. There was no requirement for ballots before strikes and the law allowed flying pickets to spread the disruptive effects of industrial action far and wide.

"The choice before this House and the country is clear. On the one hand, there is the threat to roll back the legislation of the last 12 years, to put the trade unions back in the driving seat and make strikes easier, longer, more frequent and more damaging than ever before. That is the policy of the party opposite. On the other hand, we can carry forward the process of reform and build on the achievements of the last 12 years. That is what the decisions I have announced today will do and that is why they deserve the support of the House."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

4.27 p.m.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, first let me apologise for my voice. As everyone can understand and hear, I have an awful cold.

I thank the Minister for making the Statement, but not, I am afraid, for the content. I shall not mince words. I believe that the Statement is unnecessary and vindictive. It is another unnecessary intervention by government in industrial relations. No one really wants it. The employers to whom I have spoken do not want it and I am surprised by what the Minister said regarding the CBI's present reaction; that was not its initial reaction. It was not the reaction of the Chamber of Commerce or other employers' organisations.

It is not the view of the public from what one can see. The recent polls indicate that unions are not unpopular and there is a substantial view that there has been quite enough anti-union legislation introduced. In fact we have had too much legislation in this field already, much of it in contravention of ILO regulations.

The proposal allowing individuals to sue unions is quite absurd. Employers are already able to do so if the relevant provisions relating to the dispute action have not been carried out. Do the Government want to open the door to maverick actions against unions? It may well be a bonanza for lawyers but not for anyone else. It is not the way to handle industrial relations. I am not surprised that few employers have taken the opportunity to take the unions to court. Most sensible employers in the public and private sectors realise that that is not the way to settle industrial issues.

The proposals regarding deduction of union dues will not commend themselves to employers as a whole. It will mean extra administration for employers as well as unions. In my view there is no evidence of substantial abuse. Some time ago I saw representatives in this House of a small staff association. They were appalled at the prospects held out in the recent Green Paper; they were also confused. They said, "We are a staff union; we are not affiliated to the TUC nor the Labour Party. A lot of our members vote Conservative. How can they do this to us?" They saw it as hampering their activities. I had to explain to them that the Government are against collectivity; they do not like employees combining together to protect their interests, even if they do so in a house union without outside affiliations.

The Statement underlines the correctness of my perceptions at that time. I repeat that there is no evidence of widespread abuse despite what the Minister said. Generally speaking, the system works well. So why disturb it and place extra burdens on both employers and unions?

The Government want to weaken trade union organisation and seek to do so by attacking funding arrangements. It is already the practice to seek authority to deduct subscriptions from pay from the individuals concerned. There is no need for further legislation.

Why do the Government want to undermine still further the authority of the Trades Union Congress? The TUC system for regulating relations between unions has worked reasonably well since 1939. Of course there have been one or two hiccups, as there always will be in any system, but its decisions have invariably been upheld by the courts when they have been challenged.

I am a member of the current TUC disputes panel. I suppose I should declare an interest, and also state that I am not a trade union boss. As far as possible we do our best to take time to reach our decisions and to make sure that they are fair.

The Government are in favour of soft regulation in other fields, notably the finance sector. Why are they not in this one? There have been enough frauds in the finance sector, but in that sector soft regulation is all right while it is not all right where trade unions are concerned. In any event, it seems quite inconsistent to seek Japanese involvement, which frequently means single union agreements, and then, by means of this legislation, try to inhibit the success of such agreements. For the Government to introduce measures to make that even more difficult seems rather absurd.

As for balance and cooling-off periods, why do the Government not understand that there is always a greater degree of membership participation in a workplace ballot than there is in a purely postal one? A lot of postal ballot forms are ignored or put aside to go later and then are not used. A workplace ballot stimulates interest in the workplace and the returns are higher. But perhaps greater membership involvement is not what the Government want because that tends to increase trade union membership. In my view, the Government want union membership to decrease.

As for the hoary old chestnut of cooling-off periods, I am surprised that that has surfaced again. It could very well be a heating-up period when a campaign could get off the ground. I am sure that that is not what the Government want.

The Government have made reference to practice in some EC countries. I would remind the Minister that in those countries there is a complete framework of trade union rights quite foreign to anything we have in this country. To attempt to introduce such practice against a background of declining legislative protection for trade unions and their members is quite outrageous.

All in all, this is another piece of legislation intended to weaken unions on ideological grounds. The real reason is, I believe, clear. The Government perceive unions as providing protection against exploitation, and they are right. Unions would plead guilty to that. That is what they are there for. But this Government, hard on the heels of Maastricht, are interested in a low wage economy. A particularly perceptive news editor headlined the Maastricht story with, "Welcome to Mr. Major's wonderful bargain basement." That is accurate. The Government are out to create sweat-shop Britain but they cannot say so openly because the British electorate would not like that very much. So we have another set of legislative proposals designed to weaken protective organisations. This is part of a general strategy.

I hope that these proposals never have the opportunity of coming before us as a Bill. If they do, noble Lords can rest assured that this side will oppose them vigorously.

Baroness Seear

From these Benches we also wish to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. The Government seem to have chosen a day on which speakers on both Opposition Benches are practically speechless, which must be a matter of some comfort to them.

On these Benches we accepted the need for much of the earlier legislation the Government put through. But, as we have said on previous occasions, enough is enough. Reforms have gone through, many of them beneficial, but further legislation at this stage is not in the least necessary and will be seen as being vindictive.

There are items in the Statement of different weight and importance. Obviously, fraud has to be dealt with. Other matters are of a much more wide-ranging and fundamental nature.

Behind the proposed legislation there seems to be a desire further to weaken trade unions. Any decent industrial system requires effective, well organised trade unionism. We would be the first to admit that there have been abuses of trade union power in the past, but as all our competitors know you cannot run a successful industrial system unless there is a proper, responsible trade union movement. That is needed. The impression one gets from these proposals, as one does from some but not all previous legislation, is that the Government do not accept that it is necessary. If we are to move into a successful future we want a good, positive industrial relations policy. There is nothing good and positive about the proposals the noble Lord is putting forward today.

I note that the Government are claiming credit for the fall in the number of strikes in recent years. They are saying that this shows how successful their policy has been. But any examination of the statistics will show that strikes always fall dramatically in times of unemployment. There is absolutely no point in going on strike in days of unemployment. Why do the Government think that it is their legalisation on trade unions which has reduced the number of strikes in this country and that the reduction is not the inevitable result of unemployment? On the one hand, people are extremely reluctant to take strike action because they want to hold on to their jobs, and on the other hand a strike is a weapon with very little power because when employers have very little work on their books they do not mind very much if people go on strike. So there is not much point in striking. The Government have never explained why they think it is their legislation and not the state of the labour market which is having an effect on the level of strikes in this country.

In the Statement, the Government refer to the right of union members to join the union of their choice. I do not think the right hand knows what the left hand is doing in the Department of Employment when it can produce such a statement at the present time, having only last week told the security guards that they could not join a union of their choice if that union was affiliated to the Labour Party. I do not know how the noble Lord squares that with the Statement here that the rights of individual union members require that they should be free to choose.

This is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There may be some abuses still, but wholesale legislation of this kind is unnecessary. I find it very odd, not to say naive, that the Government should call in aid the fact that some employers are enthusiastic about it. Industrial relations are about the balance of power between those representing the employees and those representing the employers. Legislation so biased in favour of the employers is surely to be expected to have approval from the employers, but good industrial relations require a proper balance of power between the two.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I am sure the whole House will join me in saying how bravely and resolutely the noble Baronesses, Lady Turner and Lady Seear, replied to my Statement. I hope that they will both be better in a day or two. I was going to congratulate them on accepting the Statement. However, that would be too much to ask.

The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said that the Statement was unnecessary and vindictive. I cannot accept that. I believe that our step-by-step approach over the past 10 or 12 years has been the right approach. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that her party accepted that there was a need for the earlier legislation. I believe that at the time her party felt that there was no need for the legislation or for the various provisions of that step-by-step approach. Now her party accepts that they have been beneficial. Even the party opposite accepts that much of the union legislation brought forward over the past 12 years has been beneficial to the balance between—

Baroness Seear

My Lords, if the noble Viscount looks at the record, he will find that there were aspects of the earlier legislation which received support from these Benches.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, of course I accept that. The present situation is that now all the previous legislation seems to have been accepted, whereas at the time it was very often opposed. We have the same approach now. I believe that the proposed legislation, which is opposed now will be accepted as being very useful and helpful in time to come.

The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, made the point that individuals do not need the power to take action against unlawful strikes in the public services. It is the fact that employers have not exercised their right that we feel that individuals need that increased right. It is against individuals that strike action is being taken and against their own convenience.

I referred in the Statement to a number of abuses. It is against those abuses that we need to take action. We need to protect the rights of individuals and give them the choice. That is what the proposed legislation will do. We are giving people the opportunity of joining the union of their choice; we are giving them the choice to see whether they want their union dues taken through the check-off. That is the choice we are giving them. Also, there are abuses which are recognised abuses. We are taking steps to make certain that those abuses are corrected.

Nothing in the general employment law or in the Green Paper proposals contravenes any ILO convention ratified by the United Kingdom. Where ILO committees have made observations on aspects of the UK law, the Government have always responded and they will continue to respond as and when appropriate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, missed the point about the fact that the number of strikes has fallen. Of course in a period of recession what she says is entirely correct. But what I said was that over the past five years, when employment was at its record high, the number of strikes had fallen. Over five years the number of strikes was smaller than the number of strikes in the last 12 months of the previous Labour Government. That was the figure that I quoted: five years—not this year, not last year—but over five years.

The noble Baroness also raised the point again of the security guards. She said that they could not join the union of their choice. There is nothing that we have said that has prevented them from joining any union that they want to join. It is a question, however, of recognition of one union now that the security guards will no longer be non-industrial civil servants. It is a recognition agreement, rather than expecting members to join either one union or another. It is a question of balance, and I believe that we have achieved a balance. We have identified abuses and we seek to correct them. We seek to give people more choice. I believe that we have done just that.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating this most important Statement, which is of great interest to all of your Lordships. It is a most admirable Statement indicating a very proper approach to an immensely important matter. It is the most recent in a succession of measures which have been carried by Parliament over the past 12 years to deal with problems of industrial relations. What makes it impossible to argue against it, and against them, is the unchallengeable fact that industrial relations have steadily improved over the years very largely as a result of that legislation. The Bill will carry that process a stage further and fits in extremely well with the previous legislation. For that reason, I am glad to see this proposal put forward.

I was pleased to see the provision under which a member of the public will be able to bring proceedings against a union in the light of and as a result of industrial action, where at the moment he is unable to do so. The point is that in the public sector union industrial action is aimed to get its way by putting pressure on the public. In the public sector, the employer, is not in any degree affected. The employer does not lose profits; his remuneration is not affected. The pressure is put on the public not, as in the private sector, on the management and owners. It is because so far the public have been unable to take proceedings in these cases that a weakness in the legal structure has been revealed. I am delighted that this is now to be put right.

It is also necessary to deal, as the Bill proposes to deal, with various fiddles in connection with union elections. It is so important because the unions are themselves so important to the working of our economy that their operation should be free from difficulties caused by malpractices of one kind or another in the conduct of their elections. It is a good thing—

Noble Lords

Order!

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe

My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken for three minutes now.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I am infinitely obliged to the noble Lord, who has just wasted another minute. My Lords, I was about to conclude by saying that I am delighted with this measure. I hope that it will be brought forward very soon. I am grateful to my noble friend for outlining it.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his remarks. They coincide with my own feelings exactly. This is a proper approach. He pointed very rightly to the fact that industrial relations have steadily improved over the past 12 years.

I ask myself: why should we suddenly want to change that fact? What is it that we are being accused of that we should suddenly want to change the industrial climate that we have steadfastly sought to improve over the past 12 years? So, these are corrections of abuses.

I am glad that my noble friend indicated his support for the individual being able to take action against unlawful strikes in the public sector. The remedy is an injunction that the strikes should stop. That is how it should be. There is no question of compensation; it is an injunction that the strikes should stop. I am quite certain that that is the right balance.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton

My Lords, the noble Viscount has kindly repeated the Statement. Will he ask his right honourable friend to reconsider three areas of it? The first is the nature of the response, a point to which my noble friend referred. I listened carefully to what the noble Viscount said. I took it that the organisations—and the representative employer organisations, which is what matters—were in agreement with the objectives. However, the noble Viscount did not say whether they approved of the particular proposals.

As I understand the position, the check-off proposals were opposed or doubted by the following representative organisations; namely, the British Chambers of Commerce, the British Institute of Management, the CBI, the Engineering Employers Federation and the Institute of Personnel Management. The public service injunction proposals were also opposed. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, can take heart—they may go little further than the existing law. So far as concerns Bridlington, serious doubt was thrown on the proposals by three of the representative employer organisations. Many noble Lords must surely have had similar experience to some of us. Sensible personnel managers fear the day when the Government make the Bridlington agreement between unions—which does not oppress individuals—inoperable. British industrial relations will suffer.

The second area relates to the way in which the Government look at the international and comparative position of British employment law. To take a point in passing, the noble Viscount and his fellow Ministers always rejoice, as do we, in the fall in the number of days lost through industrial action. But were he a member of a government in any Western European country except Denmark over the past 10 years, he could show the same fall. No doubt his counterpart in Germany is saying "We must keep co-determination and the precise system that we have. Look how the numbers are falling". As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, suggested, it is not a serious argument about the nature of law and the nature of liberty.

The noble Viscount suggested that strike notices are well established in other countries, but he omitted a very important feature. In those strike notices there is invariably in Western Europe something which makes the process more even handed. In France, after a strike notice in the public sector the employer must negotiate. That is also the position in Italy, under the law of 1990. In Ireland, under the new law of 1990, seven days' notice secures protection for unions against an injunction in the High Court. Where is the even-handed balance in the Government's proposals?

Finally, the noble Viscount said that there was no evidence that we were in breach or had been said to be in breach of the International Labour Organisation convention on freedom of association. I ask him to look at every annual report of the committee of experts and at the freedom of association report on case 1540 of 1991. The governing body also adopted the proposition that the legislation of this country contravenes the convention of 1948 on freedom of association. The fact that it has not been adopted in a paragraph of the report of the annual body meeting in the ILO does not alter the annual statements which have been made and to which the Government have never responded. Will the noble Viscount ask his right honourable friend to look again at that?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, asked me to reconsider three areas. He referred to the balance of those recommending the proposals. All I can tell him is that the requirement to give express written consent before check-off deductions can be made was favoured by a significant majority of employers. It was because of those employers who said that they would not require an annual review of the check-off deductions that it is recommended that that should now be done over three years. The noble Lord will be pleased to know that during our consultations we have listened: we have listened to the arguments put forward and we have acted accordingly.

I shall not give the precise details of the replies that we received because, as with all previous similar consultation exercises, we ask for and treat responses on the basis that they have been offered in confidence. That applies both to the content of the response and to the identification of the source. That is right. We wanted to get replies in all honesty from those people who wrote in.

The noble Lord asked me to compare what happens abroad with what happens in this country. We have to consider what the position was some 13 years ago regarding the number of strikes we were having at that time. It is not good enough just to say that we now have the same low number of strikes as they have on the Continent. Thirteen years ago we had a colossal number of strikes. It put many people at risk of losing their jobs and of being able to get around the country. It is against that record and the record now that the climate of industrial relations has improved so much.

I cannot believe that the noble Lord can say that he is not in favour of a cooling off period and that the seven day notice period is in some way against the interests of the company, the employees or the country. I find that difficult to understand. That is what he is saying. He is saying that it may be all right for other countries but not for this country. The noble Lord has his own logic, although I sometimes find it difficult to follow.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, I made a similar point. I was saying that in other countries where there was a requirement there was also a benevolent framework of trade union law. We do not have that benevolent framework here. That was the point that I was making.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness is saying. In this country we have a much more voluntary approach to industrial relations and not the straitjacket that exists in a good many European countries.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that noble Lords on this side of the House have no issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, or the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, on the question that we need a responsible trade union movement. The issue appears to arise when the party which I support introduces legislation to restrict abuse and is then accused—as it is accused today—of weakening the structure. The truth is that it is strengthening the structure.

Does my noble friend agree that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has done great service by making this Statement, as this mini-debate today has evinced? An election is coming. This is a most highly-sensitive political issue. It is an issue that we cannot decide in this House by debate. It is an issue for the country to decide. So we know already where we stand on the battle of the manifestos: it is the party that I support against the party opposite and the Liberal Democrat Party, which joined forces to oppose our proposals for reform. This issue is of vast political importance. I thank my noble friend the Minister for having come clean and for having come out into the open so that everyone knows where the Government stand.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. The Green Paper proposals were made in July of last year and the consultation period then took three months. The Statement is a response to that consultation period. In my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, I demonstrated that we have listened to those whom we consulted and have even adjusted our original proposals.

I agree with my noble friend that restricting abuse strengthens the structure of unions. It is not a question of trying to weaken the unions. It is a question of protecting freedom—protecting the freedom of individuals to join the union of their choice. The one thing that has attracted inward investment from abroad is the operation of single union agreements.

Lord Greene of Harrow Weald

My Lords, I should like to address the Minister on one or two points that have been raised. I am in agreement with the point of view that we must have a responsible trade union movement in this country. However, we also need some responsible employers. I am not saying, as the Minister implied, that all trade unions are wrong; neither am I saying that all employers are wrong. I worked for some time on the trade union side. I should have thought that the proposed legislation will not make it any easier for the trade union movement to operate.

One or two points were made by the Minister in connection with the deduction of trade union contributions through the pay bill. What makes the noble Viscount think that trade unions have obtained that without agreement with the employers? Some time ago, when Dr. Beeching was chairman of the British Railways Board—or, I should say, the late Lord Beeching—I negotiated with him for the deduction of trade union contributions through the pay bill. He said to me at that time, "I would be prepared to do that, if you are prepared to do something for me." He then asked me whether I would support him in connection with the question of payment by cheque. Those were the days before we were able to obtain payment by transfer to the bank. I agreed that I would do my best in regard to the payment of wages and salaries by cheque, and he in turn agreed to have the contributions deducted through the pay bill.

What makes the Minister think that I want to hand my money over to the employer if I do not like him? He might keep my contributions. If we get into any difficulties so far as concerns industrial action, the question of handing over money to the employer seems to me to be entirely wrong. It was done at the time to which I referred because computers were being introduced into industry. Therefore, it was quite easy, and good from a commercial point of view, for deductions of contributions to the trade unions to be made through the pay bill.

As I have trade union experience, there are many other points that I should like to make; but, after all is said and done, it is a matter of securing good relations on both sides.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, of course the Government want to see responsible unions and responsible employers. The Statement that I repeated today in no way goes against that aim. From his long experience, the noble Lord, Lord Greene, talked about the "check-off". However, it is important to realise that the check-off is certainly of assistance to the trade unions; it is the collecting of their dues by the employer which is of assistance to them. All that we are suggesting in the Statement—and it will be put into legislation—is that employees should agree that that is the right way of paying their union dues. They should be given the opportunity to say so.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I should say at the outset that I believe, quite frankly, that the Statement before the House is a piece of pre-election propaganda and that it is quite unnecessary. First, as regards a member of the public being able to obtain an injunction, will that not in fact exacerbate the problem rather than cure it? I ask that because, usually, the kind of strike we are considering is an unofficial one and injunctions by the public are more likely to prolong rather than shorten the dispute. Secondly, in relation to the lists of members' names which are to be held separately —and, apparently, safely—by an outside organisation, will the candidates in an election have access to such lists so that they can contact the voters in any election?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, the important aspect of the noble Lord's first question is the fact that we are talking about an unlawful strike. In that case, the employer, or a union member can take action; but no other member of the public who has been inconvenienced by the strike can do so. What is proposed will put the matter right so that individual members of the public who are very inconvenienced by such a strike can take action.

I am afraid that I do not have the exact information about whether candidates for election can consult the list. It was on security grounds that we felt that members should not be able to see the list containing the names of other members. However, I shall endeavour to find the answer and will write to the noble Lord on the matter.

Lord Waddington

My Lords, I am sorry but I must draw the attention of the House to the Companion to the Standing Orders and the recommendation that discussion after a Statement and the questions put by the Front Bench spokesmen should not extend beyond 20 minutes.