GENERAL PRINCIPLES

HC Deb 28 July 1971 vol 822 cc621-30

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 10, leave out "and responsibly conducted" and insert: conducted on behalf of workers and employers and with due regard to the general interests of the community.

5.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I need scarcely say anything in explanation of the Amendment. In Committee a number of points were raised by Opposition speakers who objected to the words responsibly conducted". In another place the Opposition moved the Amendment to meet the point, and the Government were happy to accept that Amendment. It certainly met our requirements, and appeared also to meet the Opposition's objections. I therefore hope that without more ado the House will be able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

We do not wish to take up too much time on the Amendment. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it was put forward by the Opposition in another place and accepted by the Government. But I should like to make one or two brief points, because we are reaching the closing stages of the Bill. It has been a long haul. Before we plunge into the detail of all the Amendments, we want to make it absolutely clear, as we have throughout, that we are totally opposed to the Bill. We shall continue to be opposed to it when it becomes an Act, and we shall want to get it off the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment.

I should also like to say something about the Prime Minister's speech last Saturday at Gloucester, in which he claimed a great deal for the Bill. He amazingly claimed that it has been very successful—before it has passed through all its stages here. That is not instant Government; it would be miraculous Government. He says that the Bill has already led to a reduction in the number of strikes. He also says that the reflation of the economy has come about as a result of a Bill which has not yet passed through the House. That would be miraculous Government, and we do not accept it. It is a fallacy, and we believe that the right hon. Gentleman knows it. The Bill has had no real effect on industrial relations, except in a negative sense, because workers opposed to it have been involved in industrial action in which they would not otherwise have been involved.

We are considering an Opposition Amendment which was supported by the Liberals and accepted by the Government. But I want to make it absolutely clear, because of something the Secretary of State said in the previous debate on the guillotine Motion, that whilst we put forward certain Amendments in the other place, some of which were accepted, that did not mean that we accepted the Bill in principle. In other words, we were getting the best we could from the situation as it stood, and it is important that that should be absolutely clear. We shall not divide against the Amendment, but we accept it in the spirit which I have described—that it is not basically in line with what we want, but is the best that we can get in the circumstances.

It must be understood that the trade union movement is part and parcel of the community as a whole. It represents 10 million working people out of the total population of just over 50 million, so it is one-fifth of the community. The general interests of the community are therefore very much in line with those of the trade union movement. We emphasise that, because too often it is suggested that the interests of the community and those of the trade union movement are different. The community is the trade union movement and when we are talking about the general interests of the community we are equally talking about the general interests of trade unionists as a whole.

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)

It is interesting to observe that the Amendment deletes the words "responsibly conducted" about which we had a long philosophical debate at an early stage of the Bill. The Secretary of State then stoutly rejected our arguments. The debate ran for about eight or nine hours and was the forerunner of the guillotine which was introduced shortly afterwards. It is interesting to note that although concessions have been made on minor points, they were made in another place and the Secretary of State did not have the courtesy to make them here and to accept our arguments. We felt that we were addressing a blank wall because of his cavalier attitude to our suggestions.

Mr. R. Carr

Did the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends move an Amendment remotely like that to which we have now agreed?

Mr. Orme

We debated this principle and we debated the words "responsibly conducted", and one after another three eminent lawyers from both sides of the House gave different interpretations of the meaning of the words.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Isle of Thanet)

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that a different form of words had to be found to replace the word "responsibly"? The Opposition did not suggest an Amendment at the time—that is not a matter of complaint; they just did not. None of us at the time was able to find the correct legal formula to provide the meaning. This has now been done by saying that the workers and employers must pay due regard to the general interests of the community, which is another way of saying, "responsibly".

Mr Orme

That is a lawyer's interpretation. I accept that these words say much the same thing.

Mr. Harold Walker (Doncaster) I recall the debate very clearly, because I participated in it. It was not that we were seeking to find a synonym. While accepting in principle, as a matter of common sense and everyday behaviour, the need to behave responsibly and with due regard to the general interests of the community, we pointed out that such a pejorative word had no place in legislation, because it threw the onus to decide what was responsible behaviour on to a judicial body. Even in this case a court will still have to determine what is in the general interests of the community. We said that it was wrong of the Government to do that. We said that the responsibility for determining what was in the general interests of the community rested with the Government and with Parliament.

Mr. Orme

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Secretary of State asked whether we had sought to amend those words; we sought to delete them, as he will remember. We had a long debate on Clause 1, which contains much of the philosophy of the Bill to which we still completely object.

I know that this Amendment was suggested in another place by supporters of my party, but one is entitled to ask what the Government mean by the interests of the community and who will define those interests. I remember the Wilber-force Committee throwing almost this definition in the face of the Government and saying that it was not for it to decide.

Are the trade unions to take as a starting point in this exercise of determining what is in the general interests of the community the Government's actions in the last 12 months, actions which have sorted out the pay claims of workers in the public sector for special treatment, and the claim by the Post Office workers is a classic example?

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

And the engineers today?

Mr. Orme

There was a U.P.W. strike which resulted in an award of 9 per cent., but the Post Office engineers are now awarded 13 per cent. In the U.P.W. now in a position to argue that there should be due regard to the general interests of the community? As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, the trade unionists are members of the community. The Government's actions on wage awards have been directly against the interests of members of the community.

For instance, the Social Security Bill will abolish the three waiting days for unemployment benefit and industrial injury and sickness benefit, and that will affect millions of trade unionists. We shall later reach Amendment No. 301, which is one of the most pernicious to be inserted in another place. Are the general interests of the community duly regarded when certain sections are singled out for special treatment, for the unfair treatment displayed by the Government in their attitude to public service employees and to social security benefits?

6.0 p.m.

It is all very well sending a Bill like this to the trade unions and using in Clause 1 words saying that the negotiations shall be … conducted on behalf of workers and employers and with due regard to the general interests of the community. If that is so this Government are not setting a very good example. We have got to take this into account and I hope that the Minister does not think that this loss of words and the acceptance of the Amendment in another place absolves the Government from the responsibility for this pernicous legislation, this anti-social legislation which discriminates against sections of workers. This does not take into account the general interests of the community but gives preferential treatment to some and discriminates against others.

Clause 1 is the philosophical base of the Bill. The Amendment has not improved the Bill because the Government's policies are so wrong. If the Government think they can get away with such phraseology and climb on to the band-wagon they are mistaken.

Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke)

I did not intend to intervene in the debate at this point but I feel that I must say a word of rejection of what the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has said about the Minister being like a brick wall. In Committee no Minister was more careful in the consideration he gave to the cases made by the Opposition as well as by his own back benchers. The very length of the number of Amendments accepted by the Government is a sign of this. The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) drew attention, in another context, to the very large number of Amendments. This is a vindication of the way in which the Minister has kept a receptive ear and it is a total rejection of the comments by the hon. Member.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)

I apologise to the Secretary of State for being a few minutes late when he opened the debate. Having heard what the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) has said I must confess that whatever consideration the right hon. Gentleman gave to our Amendment, that consideration always ended up with a flat "No". The only Amendment we wanted was that the Bill should be taken out completely. With regard to this new phrase … with due regard to the general interests of the community I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). He said that the Government had paid no attention to the interests of the community recently. They have. They have just conducted negotiations with the Six and capitulated to them. Apart from the community if we look at this term … the general interests of the community who I ask is to distinguish between the person as a member of society and say that his desire to improve his living standards and those of his family is against the general interests of the community? Who will be the arbiter of the general interests of the community?

It should not be the trade unions or the employer. The person who decides what is in the general interests of the community must be the government of the day and not a person who is introducing the negotiations. He looks to what is in the interests of his members and identifies his members with the community as a whole and negotiates in their interests.

This Amendment is no better than what we had before. To say that the negotiations must be conducted responsibly or in the proper interests of the community is all very well. Every trade union negotiator who knows his business presents his claim responsibly. Everyone goes in with the interests of the community at heart, because they see the interests of their members as part and parcel of the community. These words neither improve nor help the Bill. They are a nonsense.

Mr. Rees-Davies

I too, did not intend to intervene but I wish to say this briefly, once and for all. We have listened to two more Second Reading speeches, one from the Opposition Front Bench by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the other by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). If they continue to abuse the processes of the Lords Amendments instead of getting on with the argument attendant on each Amendment I for one will speak in other debates. If we are going to have this used as a stalking-horse with all the old arguments, all the old claptrap about whether it is good for certain unions, all the speaking to the general public outside once more instead of getting on with the job, then we on this side will mark our opponents opposite. I will not sit here and hear a lot of general argument like the speech from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).

It was a wholly unnecessary speech from beginning to end. It said nothing. We have an Amendment here for which the Opposition asked. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was perfectly justified in saying that he may not accept the Clause. This was an improved Amendment. It could have been taken on the nod. It was no more and no less than a different use of the word "responsible" by the words set out. It is to do with the principle of collective bargaining; it is nothing to do with the general argument as to who does and who does not decide it. The question is whether the Amendment is acceptable. It is acceptable to all parties. We could have by now been dealing with the fifth or sixth Amendment.

There are over 300 Amendments and it will be to the advantage of the country if as many of them as possible are properly debated. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite not to waste the time of the House on Amendments which are wholly unexceptionable—[Interruption.] Wasting time on Amendments which are entirely acceptable and because of that we do not get on with matters—[Interruption.] It is an Amendment well known to be acceptable on behalf of the Opposition and regarded as a substantial improvement.

Mr. Heffer

We are entitled to speak.

Mr. Rees-Davies

Yes, entitled to say "We accept it", but not to deliver a great diatribe about the generalities of the Bill and then go on, when my light hon. Friend does his best to find a for- mula which is acceptable, to make it a launching pad for an attack upon the Bill as a whole. What is the effect? My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) gets up and says that he has to put the record straight and having heard this I too get up. As a result this Amendment which ought to have been and should have been disposed of in one minute and a half to two minutes has taken half an hour.

I merely say this. We have five days to do good business. I am certain that we on this side will not interrupt and will not speak more than is necessary. If hon. Members really want to make certain that the whole of this gets into a turmoil and ends up with a lot of party warfare instead of what is for the benefit of the community, then let them start this game on the first Amendment by making unnecessary speeches. It will merely mean that those on our side will take their full share of the time.

On this first Amendment there would have been no speakers at all. It could have been passed in two minutes. Hon. Gentlemen know in their heart of hearts that this is true. Let us try to get on with those Amendments that are acceptable so that we can talk briefly about these important matters. Where there is controversy on an issue let the contest be decided as quickly as possible.

Mr. Harold Walker

It is not for the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) to make decisions on behalf of the House, as he presumes to do. It is for hon. Members to judge what is or what is not important. He suggests that all we are talking about is a general principle. I remind him that our objection, powerfully expressed in Committee and in another place, has been to the fact that the National Industrial Relations Court might well have to take this matter into account. This is one of the obligations imposed on it by the Bill.

We have said before, and we say now, that, while we accept the general principle, our objection is to this being written into the legislation as something to be determined by the National Industrial Relations Court. Hon. Members have a sense of obligation to constituents, and if they have views on this matter they should express them. That is what they have been sent here to do.

Mr. Rees-Davies

The hon. Gentleman must be deliberately missing the point. This is not the occasion on which we should again debate the general principles of the Bill. The question before us is whether we agree with the Lords in the said Amendment. We all agree with the Lords. Hon. Members are merely dealing with the minutiae of a legal formula as to whether the terms are sufficient. It is agreed that they are sufficient. Therefore, let us get on with the debate.

Mr. Ronald King Murray (Edinburgh, Leith)

I regret the remarks of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), because he has tried to curtail a debate which has already been curtailed by the guillotine and to introduce a free enterprise guillotine on his own judgment and responsibility. I do not intend to let his remarks distract me from making any comments I am entitled to make in probing the Government's thinking behind the Amendment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sal-ford, West (Mr. Orme), in his pertinent remarks, pointed out that the National Industrial Relations Court might have to adjudicate about the general interests of the Community and decide to what extent parties to industrial negotiations should have them taken into account. Clause 1 deals with a much wider sphere of industrial relations than simply the question of the National Industrial Relations Court.

I ask the Secretary of State—and I hope that he will do me the courtesy of replying—whether the Government contemplate any institutional arrangement before matters reach the National Industrial Relations Court to ensure that the general interests of the community are protected. Will the Government wait until a case is referred to the Court, or do they contemplate that steps may be taken by a third party at an earlier stage in the general interests of the community if they are thought to require representation?

Mr. David Stoddart (Swindon)

It is absolutely intolerable that hon. Members opposite should be so mealy-mouthed and hypocritical in their remarks about Opposition speeches on this Amendment. The answer was in the Government's hands when they drafted the Bill. The verbiage in the Clause has caused all the argument about it.

This is a matter of some importance because the National Industrial Relations Court will have to pronounce on whether something is in the interests of the community. As one who has negotiated at national level, I see in the Clause another argument to be used by the employers in negotiations. Not only will figures have to be produced making comparisons with other industries, but we shall have to answer the criticisms——

Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)

The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. Does he not appreciate that we are not here concerned with the Government's thinking? We are concerned with the thinking of Lord Diamond, who moved the Amendment in another place. The Government have simply moved to accept it. It is the hon. Gentleman's party's thinking which is embodied in the Amendment.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Stoddart

I am speaking as a backbench Member, and as a trade union member and representative.

I see real dangers in the Clause for the reasons which I have given. It represents another argument which will have to be answered by trade unionists when they negotiate at national level and local level, because the employers will say, "We should love to give you an increase, but it would be against the general interests". I worked in the electricity supply industry and subsidised low-cost electricity for many years. Electricity supply workers will be told by the employers that it is not in the general interests of the community that electricity prices should increase although perhaps they should have as great an increase as car workers.

I am not happy about the Clause. I was not happy about it before. I say, with apologies to my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, that I am less happy with the Amendment than I was with what was proposed originally.

Question put and agreed to.