INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (IMPROVEMENT) (Hansard, 17 December 1969)

§ Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to improve industrial relations by setting out a Highway Code of good industrial relations practice, by reducing misunderstandings through ensuring that a limited company's workers are at least as well informed as its shareholders, by encouraging employers to modernise their grievance procedures and trade unions to modernise their own rules, by ensuring that new written agreements are binding on employers and trade unions unless both parties agree otherwise, by providing a civilised alternative procedure for resolving many disputes without the need to resort to strike action, by protecting the public from certain limited types of strike by withdrawing the blanket protection to call these particular strikes without risk of any penalty, and by other helpful measures. I apologise to hon. Members for choosing a day when so many statements have taken up the time of the House already, but if anyone doubts the importance of my Bill I hope that he will look at the figures of industrial disputes.

Throughout the 1950s the average number of new strikes a week outside of the coal industry was 11. During the 1960s the average figures has risen to no less than 31. So far this year it is over 50 a week outside of the coal industry. In view of rocketing figures of this sort we realise how essential it is that legislation be introduced to deal with such a very serious problem.

The figures themselves, serious though they are, underestimate the real damage which is being done to industry, for the figures do not, and cannot, cover those who are unable to work because others are on strike so that they do not have the parts which they need, the equipment they should operate, and so on. It is, therefore, in the national interest that top priority should be given to legislation in this matter. Indeed, with great respect to the House and the First Secretary of State, I consider that legislation on industrial relations is more important than legislation on prices and incomes at this time.

The Government did promise legislation. The Prime Minister went so far as to say of his Bill last summer: I have to tell you that the passage of the Bill is essential to the Government's continuance 1365 in office. There can be no going back on that. The country is tired of delay. The House is tired of delay. Those who are involved in industrial disputes are tired of delay. Therefore, I have come forward to help by introducing my Bill.

I recognise that one cannot legislate for good industrial relations. I do not pretend for a moment that we can, for industrial relations are about men and management, about foremen and shop stewards, and how they get on with one another. But what we can do is provide a framework within which they can make sensible bargains and stick to them afterwards. That is one of the primary objectives of the Bill.

The Bill is not an attack on responsible trade unionists. But it will be an attack on agitators and irresponsible elements. It will encourage trade unions to modernise their own rules. There will be a registrar to see that rules are fair, just and democratic. If anyone doubts the need for this, let him consider that no fewer than 50 unions have a system of appeal against disciplinary penalties, with appeals being heard by the same body which imposed the original penalty. I seek to raise the standard of the stragglers to that of the best in British trade unionism.

The Bill will ensure that new written agreements are binding upon employer and trade union unless both parties agree otherwise. Enormous advantages will flow from that to the trade unions, the employers, and the country. It will mean that one of Donovan's prime aims, to see an improvement in the content of agreements, will be reached, for once people are negotiating a binding agreement they will be much more careful about the content of the agreement which they are making. There will be less uncertainty and less misunderstanding—those two major causes of industrial dispute.

Another advantage will be an improvement in communications, for once a trade union or an employers' association is making a binding agreement it will make sure that its own members realise what they are being committed to.

Next, it will enable trade unions to sue for damages if an employer breaks an agreement. Hon. Members on both sides will have noted that one of the most serious problems facing Londoners today is the dispute on the Northern Line. In 1366 that dispute, the trade union concerned maintains that the employer has broken an agreement. If that be so, my Bill will provide the opportunity of redress for the men concerned without their having to go on strike. That in itself will be recognised by those unfortunates who have to travel on the Northern Line as an enormous step forward.

Next it will make the unions use their best endeavours to see that an agreement is stuck to, once made. Too often, trade union officials use unofficial disputes as a means of negotiating, as a means of putting pressure on an employer. My Bill will ensure that the trade union will come off the fence and will make clear to its members where it stands as a party to the agreement which has been entered into.

I draw attention to one other enormous advantage. My proposals will provide a civilised alternative procedure for resolving many disputes without the need to resort to strike action. In the short time available to me, I give just one example. Thirty per cent. of the cases in which the Department of Employment and Productivity is asked to intervene involve questions of recognition. The time has come when it should not be the Minister, the Commission on Industrial Relations, a public inquiry or the employer which should decide the union to represent the men where there is a dispute about recognition in a factory or plant. The decision should be taken by the men on the factory floor. That will be industrial democracy at work. Take the ballot box into the factory; let the men decide for themselves. By machinery of that kind, we shall create an opportunity for finding a peaceful solution to one of the major causes of industrial dispute today.

I do not pretend that my Bill will be a panacea to resolve all industrial disputes. But it will start the first step on a road which is essential if we are to deal with the spreading industrial chaos which is doing so much damage to Britain today.