INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (Hansard, 8 December 1972)

§ Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)
That this House approves the efforts of all those who seek to encourage moderation in industrial relations and a true working together as an alternative to discord. We have just finished discussing the security of Europe, but the security of this country is important and it is at hazard if there is disruption in industry. A few weeks ago headlines in the newspapers informed us that during September the number of days lost by strikes had gone down. This was a small light in an otherwise gloomy situation covering the whole of this year, but we are thankful for it.
Industrial strikes in this country are known in Europe as the English disease and they therefore give us no grounds for either pride or pleasure. This year has been the worst since the General Strike of 1926 and 22 million working days have been lost. In September this year, according to the figures from the Department, there was a reduction. There were 160 stoppages involving 51,600 workers, compared with September 1971 when there were 165 stoppages involving 62,000 workers. I would guess that that is equal to the working force of two large cities being out at any one time.
In 1972 almost all the large industrial complexes were affected—docks, railways, engineering, the mines and the building trades—all covered by the very large unions. Many of the strikes were indulged in without going through the proper motions of agreed procedures. Some were for wage increases but others were clearly and obviously political. Striking as a political weapon has increased in the last two years and it is not to our advantage.
In the EEC we lead the field on strikes at the time when we are going into Europe. The social and economic consequences of this cannot be disregarded. They affect the country, they affect companies and they affect individuals. The 1889 country loses in reputation and also in exports and production generally. It loses at home because, as strikes add to costs, so prices rise. It assists inflation. Companies lose because their investment is affected. Their confidence for future investment is eroded and obviously production is retarded.
In the nationalised industries, because of strikes, losses increase. Consequently the taxpayer has to pay out more in order to meet those losses—costs on the Exchequer which could otherwise lead to reductions in taxation. During the coal industry strike it was estimated that the loss on the gross national product was about 3 per cent. When the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was in charge in 1969, there was also a loss of £48 million in exports—about 8 per cent. of the then production in the motor car industry.
I have a number of figures but as time is short I will skip them. They are, however, good examples of the kind of thing that happens when there are strikes, many of them unofficial.
Individuals are affected—trade unionists because they are out of work and short of wages, but also consumers because prices go up, production is lost and supplies are short. The families of strikers are also affected. They are sustained in some measure by social security, but if the strike lasts for any time they feel the pinch.
Management and employee relations are damaged, deliveries of goods to the customer are affected and this can be disastrous in terms of foreign buyers who expect goods to be delivered on time. Prices are affected upwards and in addition many thousands of people are laid off because of a strike—people who are not themselves actually involved.
Because it is known that strikes can damage the country as a whole, there are certain groups of people who seek to stimulate strikes, not for the sake of local or immediate gain but simply in order to creat and pursue unrest. They are quite happy to get what they can in the process in the way of increased wages or whatever it may be, but the main purpose of these groups in pursuing strikes is political, anarchistic, simply to secure disruption in industry.
1890 These groups exist not to seek to persuade but to intimidate. To such groups stoppages, whatever they are for and wherever they occur, are counted as victories. The longer the stoppage, the bigger and the better the victory.
The Communist Party in particular recognises this. Indeed, it is the declared policy of its executive. At the Communist Party conference in November 1971, a resolution was passed with these aims: 1. To increase industrial activity"— that is strikes and disturbance; 2. To win the major unions into the Communist fold"— in order to increase disturbance in industry; 3. To change the composition of the General Council of the TUC towards Communist control". The Communist Party grass-roots leadership is active in every major strike. Nor do they act only in their own locality; they are mobile, and they organise flying squads. They organise mass picketing, and in so doing they break the law because the law of peaceful picketing cannot be sustained when there is mass picketing.
Today, 10 per cent. of all union posts are in the hands of the Communist Party. The Transport and General Workers Union has three Communist Party members on its executive, and up to 15 out of 39 are fellow-travellers, probably more faithful to Communist influence than to Labour Party influence. In the AUEW, Communist control or influence is exercised through about one-third of all the full-time officers. It must be remembered that these two unions carry enormous power with their block votes.
In addition to the main Communist Party, there are the splinter groups. The Communist Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions has played a significant part in recent strikes, led by its chairman Kevin Halpin and its secretary Jim Hiles. There is the Socialist Labour League led by Gerry Healey, and there are the International Socialists. There is the Maoist-Leninist Communist Party led by Reg Birch.
All these organisations are involved in industry, and they have one main aim. Their declared main aim is revolution. They move in on strike situations simply 1891 to further the revolution. During the building strike the agitation was led by the Building Workers Charter Group, a breakaway from the Communist Party and based at the headquarters of the International Socialists.
In February a meeting was held at which Kevin Halpin spoke and in April there was a national conference of building workers. The speakers included a former Young Communist organiser, Peter Carter, and a Liverpool Communist, Alan Abrahams. These men and these organisations had been holding meetings stimulating the building strike.
I have here a book. It is a considerable document. I shall not read extracts from it, but it has been compiled by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers. It is not just what that federation says, because it contains pieces from the Press, comments, letters and the like. There are over 100 examples of violence and intimidation during the building workers' strike.

§ Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this particular dossier—of which I also have a copy—of the National Federation of Building Trade Employers was never submitted to the building trade unions and that no discussions were held with the building trade unions? This is purely a dossier presented to the Government and putting one side of the argument in relation to violence and intimidation, without the unions being able to examine whether the allegations are true or false. Surely the hon. Gentleman must agree that if we are to get union co-operation with the employers on wrongful picketing, that sort of attitude on the part of the federation concerned does not help towards good industrial relations.

§ Mr. Lewis
I accept what the lion. Gentleman says, but I see no reason why it should have been submitted to the unions as many of the examples given are taken from newspapers in any case. Others are from correspondence. The hon. Gentleman has a copy of the document although copies were not sent to the unions. There is nothing to prevent his answering what is in this dossier. My view is that the unions or anyone else would find that what is contained in it 1892 is very difficult to answer because much of it was seen by the public on television.

§ Mr. Heffer
Will the hon. Gentleman accept my word that union members are being accused without the union being able to investigate? It is widely rumoured that some of the most militant people during the recent building workers' strike were non-unionists, who have not had the experience of proper, disciplined organisation which the trade union movement provides. If there were instances of wrongful picketing, it was precisely because of elements who had had no experience in the trade union movement.

§ Mr. Lewis
The fact remains that if the unions are to be reputable when there are strikes, they will have to do much more to control not only their own members but also those whom the hon. Gentleman says come in. We accept that some others do come in. Otherewise a situation will be created in which the public will think less well of unions than they do at present. That is not what we wish to happen, because many of us on the Government side of the House believe that a strong but moderate, sensible and reasonable trade union movement is a good thing. But this kind of activity, as set out in this book and seen on television, is not acceptable.
During the miners' strike support was whipped up by the London Combined Shop Stewards Committee for Electricity Supply and Distribution through an official organ called "Power Worker", published by George Wake, a Communist. The Communists and fellow-travellers are not only busy in this way; they are also equally effective underground. Mr. Chapple of the electrical trades union has said that shop-floor meetings are often second meetings. The first has already been held. A caucus of Communists and extremists sorts out the agenda in advance, so that the action taken at the meeting proper is then decided.
John Gollan, Secretary of the Communist Party, has indicated that election to Westminster is less important than security influence in the unions. An aim which the Communist Party has been trying to secure for years has been achieved: there is now no ban on Communists holding positions in the unions. 1893 The aim of dominating the unions is the Communists' declared objective.
If the unions can be pushed far to the Left, they can, through the card vote, dominate the Labour Party conference. As the Labour party conference now seeks to impose its will on the Parliamentary Labour Party, the Communists having infiltrated the unions, and, through them, got a grip on the Labour Party, they are also getting a grip upon politics through hon. Members on the Opposition side.
In such circumstances democracy is at peril. All the organisations and individuals involved in this process have as their aim and objective the complete destruction of democracy. Small incidents are made use of to secure major objectives. One example is individual union membership, as in the case of Mr. Goad. The case of James Goad—it is through the courts, so I can now speak about it—is a disgraceful pillorying of an individual.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)
Order. I hope that the hon. Member will remember a comparatively recent ruling which I think hon. Members will remember about reference to cases in this category.

§ Mr. Lewis
The case has already been decided by the court. It was on the tape when I came into the Chamber, so I can comment on it without difficulty.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have no knowledge of this. When I entered the Chamber the position was not quite as the hon. Gentleman has described. I am prepared to accept that it may be so, but within the House we must be very careful. There may even now be an appeal.

§ Mr. Lewis
I leave that aspect after commenting that it is a very serious situation when an hon. Member who says that he has read something on the tape and refers to a case is ruled out of order, because in my view he is within the rules of order.
The constant disruption in industry is of no advantage to unionists. It is certainly no advantage to their finances. The Amalgamated Union of Engineering and Foundry Workers is almost bust; it is in serious financial trouble partly because 1894 of its extreme leadership and because for the last 18 months the leadership has pursued strikes which has cost the union a great deal of money. There is no advantage to the trade union movement in pursuing a constant battle with employers or with the Government.
Some of my hon. Friends have talked about strike pay in the past and abolishing social security payments for the dependants of strikers. I do not go along with that, but I believe that there is much to be said for the unions having to pay strike pay when their members are on strike; because if the unions intend to battle they should have to pay for it just as much as the community must pay.
There is no easy answer to all these problems. However, we cannot just throw up our hands and say that we have no answer. We must insist on a certain amount of order in industry. I believe that employers must do much more to allow union members to conduct their meetings during working hours on the shop floor.
Recently my hon. Friend the Minister of State opened the headquarters of an engineering employers' organisation in my constituency. Representatives of the unions were present. Relations between the union leadership and employers were obviously very good. This is the kind of thing we must pursue—