INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

HC Deb 31 January 1972 vol 830 cc177-87

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

I beg to move, That the Industrial Relations Act 1971 (Commencement No. 3) Order 1971 (S.1., 1971, No. 1761), dated 27th October, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th November, be withdrawn. We are praying against this order, which brings into operation some of the most objectionable parts of the Industrial Relations Act. The various paragraphs of the order bring into operation in toto 59 Sections of the Act, eight Sections partially, Schedule 1, two paragraphs of Schedule 3, Schedule 6, Schedule 8, relating to amendments to the Act, and Schedule 9, repeals of previous Acts.

The order has been in operation since 1st December last year. At that date the National Industrial Relations Court opened its doors for business. The powers of the Act now under discussion could have been used at any time since 1st December. The order brings into force Part VIII of the Act which deals with emergency procedures. It also brings into operation Part III, dealing with collective bargaining, under which the provisions relating to the agency shop and the approved close shop agreements apply.

What we find so objectionable is that it brings into operation the so-called unfair industrial practices, except those relating to the rights or so-called rights of a worker or trade union member. We are very much concerned with the emergency procedures laid down in the Act. A Press hand-out from the Department of Employment of 4th November, 1971, said, From December parties will be able to take action in the Industrial Relations Court relating to all these provisions"— that is, the provisions in the order— and also the registration provisions. Up until today those provisions had not been extensively used. I do not argue that they should be used because, if they were used, it would exacerbate an already explosive situation. If they were used, they would be totally irrelevant to the needs and requirements of the present conflict in the coal mining industry.

The Government have got themselves into a false position. We have the coal miners' strike on our hands. It is the first national strike in the industry since 1926. Last year, we had the biggest loss of days in strike action since 1926. The Government argue that matters are much better. They say there are fewer strikes. But we are losing far more days in strike action. Although we get fewer strikes in numbers, we are getting longer and bigger strikes, and they are more difficult to settle.

According to the Government, we are seeing a great achievement. The fact that we had 13 million days lost in strikes last year as against 11 million the previous year and an average of between three million and 3½ million in the days of the Labour Government is an advance. If that is the sort of advance that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want in industrial relations, it is not the sort of advance that the people want.

Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke)

Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that all that he is doing is merely restating the need for the introduction of this legislation? It was not on the Statute Book at the time that we were building up the figures that he has produced.

Mr. Heffer

I am glad that the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) intervened. The Secretary of State has gone into print on this matter. It is not my usual bed-time reading, but my attention has been drawn to the report of an interview with the right hon. Gentleman which was published in Reader's Digest, in the course of which he talked about the emergency powers that we are discussing under this order. The right hon. Gentleman said: The Act allows me, as Secretary of State for Employment, to apply to the new National Industrial Relations Court for a 'cooling-off' period—of up to 60 days—in any dispute that I feel might endanger public health, create serious disorders or severely damage the economy. Where the livelihoods of a large number of workers would be affected, I can also ask the court to order a secret ballot if there is doubt whether a majority of the workers want to take industrial action. The right hon. Gentleman was asked: Won't such a complex Act create a lawyers' paradise? He replied: No, I don't believe it will. Like any law in a free society, it is not meant to be invoked in every dispute. It has not been invoked in the coal miners' dispute, and for one simple reason. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is totally irrelevant to any solution of the dispute. In any case, instead of using his conciliation powers, instead of using the machinery, instead of trying to get a settlement of the dispute, the right hon. Gentleman is standing behind the National Coal Board and making it difficult for the Board to reach a settlement.

It is no good the right hon. Gentleman putting his hand on his heart and telling the House, as he did in the postmen's strike, "I am being absolutely fair and neutral; I am not on one side or the other." Everyone knows that he was against the postmen and in favour of a continuation of the dispute until the postmen were forced to accept less than they wanted. A similar situation has arisen in respect of the coal miners. But there is an important difference which the right hon. Gentleman should understand. The coal miners are a great deal more experienced in industrial conflict than were the postmen.

The right hon. Gentleman faces a very dangerous situation. He could invoke Section 141 and have a ballot, putting to the coal miners' whether they were really in favour of the strike. I should like to see him try. Whereas about 58 per cent. were originally in favour of the dispute, he would find today that the coal miners are almost 100 per cent. for it.

We cannot have a situation in which, on the eve of the dispute, the Chairman of the National Coal Board withdraws all previous offers and expect the miners not to become angry at the Board and the Government, who are applying a wages policy while telling this House that no wages policy exists.

We believe that the order, which brings in all these Sections, is totally irrelevant to solving the problems in the coal mining or in any other industry. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to solve the coal mining dispute, let him use his conciliation machinery properly. Let him, in fact, withdraw the letters that he sent to the chairmen of the arbitration boards drawing their attention to the speech of the Chancellor in the Budget debate when the Government were pointing to the norm. If the Government want to solve the problem they should use the machinery in the correct way. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to go from this House tonight and begin to become active in solving the coal mining dispute, not to line up behind the Board and make it difficult for it to reach a settlement.

I have no intention of making a long speech tonight. However, I should like to draw attention to one other part of the order. I refer to the part which deals with compensation, the part which states that trade unions or trade unionists may be fined, although the Act does not call it a "fine". If trade unions or workers do not desire to carry out this particular Section of the Act, they could find themselves inside a prison. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will say that that is not true, but I could quote again what he said in Reader's Digest. The facts are that heavy penalties can be imposed on the trade union movement as a result of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act. Wherever this kind of law has been applied, as in Australia and other countries, where trade unions have refused to pay the fine or compensation, as the right hon. Gentleman calls it, industrial conflict has intensified, not diminished.

Since 1st December, when this part of the Act came into operation, we have not seen it play any positive rôle in helping to solve an industrial conflict. Therefore, it is an irrelevant and dangerous Act which makes difficult situations even worse. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against the order tonight.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke)

I have never heard the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) make a weaker speech or one with less conviction than that which he made tonight in moving the Prayer. I am astonished, after all that this was billed for, that we should have such a mouse come out from the hon. Gentleman whose bellow we normally expect.

The hon. Gentleman made three points in the course of his speech. I will deal with each point briefly, because it is not worth detaining the House long over them.

First, the hon. Gentleman told us that last year the largest number of working days were lost in this country since 1926, that this must be the result of Tory activities and of the Act in particular, and that this was an argument against introducing these Sections of the Act which the order would bring into operation. But the hon. Gentleman knows, as well as anybody in the House, that the Act was not in operation last year, because we spent much time debating it here. He knows perfectly well that, with the introduction of these orders, we are only now seeing the implementation of major parts of the Act.

Even when it went on the Statute Book it was having no effect until the orders were laid to bring into operation the various parts of the Act to which they referred. Therefore the whole of that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was based on a false foundation. Indeed, I should turn it the other way and say to the hon. Gentleman that if the situation is as bad as he suggested at the beginning of his speech, that shows even more firmly the need for action such as the Government have taken in introducing this legislation.

Mr. Alex Eadie (Midlothian)

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the relevant part of the Act became law immediately it should be used against the miners?

Mr. Mitchell

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but if he will allow me I will deal with every point made by his hon. Friend. That was his third point, and I will deal with it thirdly in my speech.

The hon. Gentleman's second point was that the Act empowers the Secretary of State to apply a cooling-off period, provided—and the hon. Gentleman listed the items in the Act which have to be fulfilled to convince the court—that the dispute is endangering the national economy, national safety, and various other things. What the hon. Gentleman failed to tell the House—the House does not need reminding of this, but apparently the hon. Gentleman does—is that the Minister must also be convinced that the use of the cooling-off period would be likely to lead to a settlement. That must be a matter for the judgment of the Minister. It must be a matter of timing. Because, at this stage in the affair, the Minister has not decided that a cooling-off period is likely to lead to a settlement, or that it is the right time to apply it, there is surely no good reason for not having such legislation on the Statute Book. Again the hon. Gentleman has failed to make his point.

The hon. Gentleman's third point is that involved in the Sections of the Act to be brought into force by this order there is the question of alleged prison sentences, but we have had no indication that there is any reality in that. The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about fines, but he knows that the Act does not provide for the introduction of fines. It contains a provision about awards for compensation. The hon. Gentleman has not given one indication, either tonight or during the debates on the Bill, of any way in which the compensation awards would be other than fair and just. The hon. Gentleman did not remind the House that the compensation awards apply against both employers and trade unions who breach agreements into which they have entered. Therefore on his third point he has failed to make the case for rejecting the order.

The order provides for the introduction of much of the machinery by which the Industrial Relations Act will operate. We all know in this House—and the thinness of the attendance of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the weakness of the hon. Gentleman's speech—[interruption.]—It is not this side of the House which is objecting. It is hon. Gentlemen opposite who are supposed to be objecting. The thinness of attendance and the weakness of the speech of the hon. Member for Walton show that hon. Members opposite no longer have arguments of force and validity to make against the Act, and that much of the improvement which our industrial relations so badly need in the months ahead will rest on the smooth operation of the Act.

The House should give this order its blessing. Hon Members would serve the interests of the unemployed, those who want to work, their constituents and the country at large if they would try to help the generation of the good will on both sides of industry which is essential to the prosperity of industry and those who work in it.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney)

This order is a monument to the belief that once this House passes legislation, everything happens automatically. In fact, the passing of legislation is only the first part of the proceedings. Democracy rests upon consent and if that is withheld, the laws which the House passes do not work in practice.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) did not deploy on this occasion the full power of his oratory, it was probably because of his implicit recognition that this issue will be determined not here but outside. Oratory at this moment would be out of place. My hon. Friend put the case adequately and effectively and said all that needed to be said—that it is one thing for the Government to pass legislation like this but quite another for them to enforce it.

This legislation affects the relationship not between persons and Government but between persons and other persons. That type of legislation is often ineffective, and so it will prove in this case. The Government are trying to control relationships between employer and union or employee. One thing which emerged from our long discussions on the Bill was the extreme complexity of such relationships and the extreme difficulty of laying down rules which would apply throughout the whole range.

It will prove impossible to regulate these relationships, so the legislation will be piecemeal—effective in some respects but not in others. Consequently the law will fall into disrepute. The Act will apply in some areas. It will prevent some things being done where it can be enforced, but in other areas it cannot and will not be enforced.

So our reactions to the Act are varied. From their personal knowledge of industry, my hon. Friends know that it will be impossible to enforce, so they are not too worried. But some of us are worried about the possible implications of the Act on industrial relations we know something about. Section 18 brings in special provisions for the approval of closed shop agreements. This provision was introduced—to some extent, at any rate—because of protests made by myself and others on this side about the consequences of relations in the entertainment industry. It was traditional to attempt to control the numbers coming into the industry: unless there was an effective closed shop, the industry would be even more showered with excessive labour than is the case already.

This provision, which was introduced to permit the possibility of a closed shop in certain circumstances, will benefit some parts of industry. It will be of no benefit in the area for which it was introduced. If hon. Members opposite are to be believed, it was introduced to give some protection to the entertainment industry, to make it possible for that industry to regulate the numbers coming in. However, this provision does not permit that, because it prevents the pre-entry closed shop. The desirability of controlling numbers entering the industry applies not only to the entertainment industry and to performers and technicians but over a wider field where the union performs more than the ordinary functions of a union but a series of functions such as those performed by barristers-at-law and other professions whose entry is controlled by examination. This is the alternative to an examination qualification.

Where, as in the case of this closed shop qualification, the closed shop is not allowed to be pre-entry, it is no use. It has to be pre-entry or it is not a closed shop. It is merely a recognition of the existence of trade unionism after the event. In these areas what is necessary is a recognition of the existence of trade unionism before entry. Therefore, this provision is valueless.

In the whole of this legislation one sees that the attempt by Parliament to provide effectively for the complex relationships between unions and their members and between unions and employers will prove to be ineffective. I say, not only on behalf of the trade unions in the entertainment industry but also on behalf of employers, that the Act will do nothing but a disservice to industrial relations in entertainment. We shall have to attempt to get round the legislation. We shall have to try to make agreements with reputable employers to overcome the barriers which are placed in the way of unions by this legislation. We shall be able to make agreements with reputable employers, but there will be disreputable employers who will get round the agreements. Consequently, the whole range, tone and standing of the industry will be lowered. This fear is shared by the best employers in the industry as well as by the trade unionists concerned.

I say that this legislation is no good, in that it sets out to control relations which are not susceptible to legislative control. In so far as the order seeks to regulate what already exists, it will have no effect upon the present situation. In so far as it seeks to prevent a control which has been exercised hitherto by unions, the unions and the best of employers will try to get round the order. If my hon. Friend the Member for Walton did not spend a great deal of time upon the order, he spent as much time on it as it deserved.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)

The Opposition have been particularly schizophrenic tonight. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), and from a seated position the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), have complained that, though they do not like the Bill and the emergency provisions, they cannot understand why the Government have not brought them into force. It seems to me that hon. Members should be grateful—

Mr. Heffer

I do not want to delay the hon. Gentleman, but I must point out that I said precisely the opposite. I can well understand why the Government have not brought them in.

Mr. Page

I think that the hon. Gentleman said that he was surprised that the Government had not brought them in. and this was the view of the hon. Member for Salford, West also, I think. The hon. Gentleman made great play of the fact that there had already been a ballot in the coal mines. He will recall that the vote in that ballot was 58 per cent. in favour of a strike, which is 3 per cent. above the 55 per cent. needed to call a strike. Had it not been for a change in the N.U.M. rules this year—

Mr. J. D. Concannon (Mansfield)

What the hell do you know about it?

Mr. Page

I do not want to take too long, and the hon. Member will have an opportunity to make a speech.

Mr. Concannon

I have 20 miners from my constituency locked up today—not under this Act, because it is irrelevant to it all, but why should I have to come and listen to you waffling while I have 20 miners locked up?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not accuse me of waffling.

Mr. Page

The hon. Gentleman seems proud that some of his constituents, if they are his constituents, or members of his union, have been locked up.

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)

He did not say that.

Mr. Concannon

Never mind. He is at it again.

Mr. Page

He is concerned that they are locked up, and they are locked up, presumably, because they were involved in non-peaceful picketing. This is something which worries people greatly. It is worrying to the people of Britain that, because of non-peaceful picketing, two power stations are already closed down and are failing to put electricity into the national grid.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

There will be some more next week.

Mr. Page

Hon. Members opposite seem to be happy that the public should be inconvenienced in this way. It seems that their attitude to the Industrial Relations Act and the present law covering picketing is that, if there is something in the law which they do not like, the law should be ignored. If that is so, I hope that they will say so in the debate.

The main meat of the Act—[An HON. MEMBER: "Filibuster".] It is hardly fair to be accused of filibustering if one is hardly allowed to make a speech at all.

This Commencement No. 3 Order brings into force a large part of the Act. It is surprising that so many of its provisions were ignored by the hon. Member for Walton when he opened the debate. He referred to only a couple. I should have expected him to be rather pleased to see Sections 8 and 9 in the list, to mention only two, which stop the free rider. It has been a source of complaint in the trade union movement over the years that there have been members in factories and other establishments who accept the negotiating and other responsibilities of trade unions but pay nothing for them. It is blind of Labour Members continually to ignore any beneficial parts of the Act, to take the attitude of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), who achieved a great success during the passing of the Act, and say that what he achieved is of no use to members of the profession for which he speaks. It is a sad reflection on them.

I welcome the Act, and I congratulate my right hon. Friends on the perspicacious way in which it has been used so far. It is sad that hon. Members opposite, when the country is suffering high unemployment—

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

And a Tory Government.