HC Deb 15 January 1974 vol 867 cc342-7
3. Mr. Skinner

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he now proposes to seek to repeal the Industrial Relations Act.

11. Mr. Golding

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now seek to repeal the Industrial Relations Act.

Mr. Whitelaw

No, Sir, but I repeat that I am willing to examine carefully any constructive suggestions for improving the operation of the Act.

Mr. Skinner

I am not so sure that the trade union movement would want to make any further constructive suggestions about amendments in view of what happened last night and the way in which the Government were not satisfied with the pound of flesh, which is more than I would give. They wanted blood instead. [An hon. Member: "Get on with the question".] I will get around to it.

There is plenty of time—until July 1975. Is the Secretary of State aware that the Act was introduced, according to the Government, to create industrial harmony and to bring sweetness and light into relations between management and unions? If that is so, why have not the Government used the Act to solve the present industrial impasse?

Mr. Whitelaw

The hon. Gentleman has not been the foremost in producing sweetness and light into the proceedings of the House. However that may be, one must face the facts about the Act. The hon. Gentleman and others who take his view regard everything to do with the Act as wrong. One must consider some of the things that are not wrong and that he would not think were wrong. For example, there are the provisions about unfair dismissal. The hon. Gentleman must accept how much they have been used to the benefit of many union members.

Mr. Fell

Does my right hon. Friend recall that time after time my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has invited the trade unions—[An Hon. Member: "Question."] This is a question. Has not my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister time after time invited the trade unions—the TUC—to put forward suggestions for improving the Act? Exactly how has the TUC reacted? What suggestions has it made?

Mr. Russell Kerr

They are on the record. Why does not the hon. Gentleman read the documents?

Mr. Whitelaw

There has been a widespread demand from both the Labour Party and the TUC that the Act should be totally repealed. That is their position, and I understand it. But I do not believe that in the long run it is a tenable position, because there are many parts of the Act that all hon. Members want to see preserved.

Mr. Golding

Why does the right hon. Gentleman speak with so little conviction on this subject? Why are the Government being so pig-headed? Why do they persist in their policy of confrontation, which is bringing us all to disaster?

Mr. Whitelaw

I do not see how those comments arise from the Question. The hon. Gentleman says that I have been pig-headed. Many other things are attributed to me, but I have very seldom heard that said of me. I do not believe that these questions arise on the Industrial Relations Act. We have adopted a thoroughly reasonable, fair and sensible position as regards particularly the miners' industrial dispute and all the other matters, and we stand by it.

Mr. Tebbit

Would my right hon Friend need something more than a solemn and binding undertaking or statement of intent before the Government withdrew the Act?

Mr. Whitelaw

We have made it perfectly clear that we have no intention of withdrawing the Act. We have said plainly that we are prepared to amend those parts of it which the results of their working have shown it would be right to amend. The Labour Party says that it wishes to repeal the whole Act. It would throw out many things that it specifically wants if it did so.

Mr. Ashton

As the Government and their supporters consistently make statements that the miners are led by a small group of mindless militants and Communists, why have not the Government used the Act to conduct a ballot of miners to see whether they would accept phase 3?

Mr. Whitelaw

The hon. Gentleman impugns my motives in a totally unfair way.

Mr. Prentice

The right hon. Gentleman keeps repeating what other Ministers have kept repeating: that there is a contradiction in our position. Therefore, I wish to make it clear to him that appeals against unfair dismissal were the policy of the Labour Government and always have been our policy. We will continue with those appeals and improve the provisions. Otherwise, we intend the total repeal of the Act. We have made it clear over and over again that the choice before the people in the General Election, when it comes, is therefore either the repeal of the Act and a new deal under a Labour Government or continuing with the Act and other policies which have produced the worst system of industrial relations since the 1920s.

Mr. Whitelaw

I do not accept all that the right hon. Gentleman says. I am sure that he, like everyone else, will wish to be very careful. If he says that the only parts of the Act he would retain are the unfair dismissal provisions, I wonder whether that is the position his party would take.

5. Mr. Walter Johnson

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now review the working of the Industrial Relations Act with particular reference to the income tax position of those unions which have deregistered under the Act and to the fact that such unions are not permitted to negotiate union shop agreements.

Mr. Whitelaw

I will take these and other suggestions into account in considering possible amendments to the Act.

Mr. Johnson

I s the Minister aware that to make this suggested amendment to the Industrial Relations Act would at once improve the relationship between the Government and the unions? Surely that is a small price to pay. Will he look again at the matter? The unions regard this aspect of the Act as being mean, petty and spiteful.

Mr. Whitelaw

I am perfectly prepared to consider this proposal. I am not sure whether the hon. Member is correct because there are those who, understandably from their point of view, still demand the total repeal of the Act. Nevertheless, I take the hon. Member's point and I shall consider it carefully.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg

When my right hon. Friend considers any amendments will he consider making compulsory a secret ballot for the election of union officers to be conducted in the same impartial way as the elections conducted by the electricians' trade union?

Mr. Whitelaw

Obviously it is correct to consider all these proposals when examining possible amendments to the Act.

Mr. English

I s the Secretary of State aware that large firms in industry make no use of the Act and that they, as well as the trade unions, would seek its amendment? When does he propose to bring firm proposals before the House?

Mr. Whitelaw

I note the hon. Member's comment, but he must remember that a great deal of use is being made of the Act. Many cases have been settled by voluntary agreement before coming to the Industrial Relations Court and a great deal of work has been done on industrial relations which is of considerable value. The hon. Member and his hon. Friends cannot get away from that fact.

10. Mr. William Hamilton

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what recent talks he has had with representatives of the TUC on proposed amendments to the Industrial Relations Act.

Mr. Whitelaw

I have had discussions with representatives of the TUC on a number of economic and industrial matters. The Industrial Relations Act has been touched on in our talks, but I have not discussed particular proposals for amendment.

Mr. Hamilton

Why does not the right hon. Gentleman take an initiative in this matter, particularly since Sir John Donaldson has said that the Act needs amending? Surely that would be a step in the process towards reconciliation, about which the Government are particularly fond of speaking. Is it not the case that the Government themselves are not using the Act? Will the right hon. Gentleman say which will come first, repeal of the Act or a General Election?

Mr. Whitelaw

I have never proposed, nor has any of my right hon. Friends, that we should repeal the Act. We have consistently said that there are many parts of the Act, large portions of it, which are accepted to be of value by large numbers of people. The hon. Member asked what talks I have had on this matter. In the talks that I have held many people have said they want the Act repealed. Therefore, I have said that I am considering various amendments and proposals for amendments which have been put to me.

Sir P. Bryan

Why does not the hon Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) take an initiative and make his own specific suggestions? Has my right hon. Friend noticed that Question No. 5 today was the first specific suggestion we have had from the Labour side for an amendment to the Industrial Relations Act?

Mr. Whitelaw

My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) has considerable experience in these matters. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was sacked."] A great many demands have been made for total repeal of the Act. I regard them as unrealistic and I agree that few constructive amendments have ever been put forward.

Mr. Heffer

I s it not the case that, during the passage of the Bill, the Opposition put forward a whole series of amendments, including those put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson)? During the course of the Bill the Government on no occasion accepted any of the arguments in spite of being warned that, if the legislation went through unamended, it would create more industrial relations problems and would prove to be a great albatross round the Government's neck. Is it not time that the Government learned from the experience of hon. Members who have worked in industry for a long time and who know that the Act must be got rid of at the earliest possible moment, but that in the meantime it should be amended to ease the position?

Mr. Whitelaw

The hon. Member speaks in contradictory terms. He says that those with experience believe that the Act should be got rid of altogether. I do not believe that that is the hon. Member's position. He says that there should be amendments in the short term. The Government have said that they are prepared to consider and, indeed, are considering amendments. It cannot be consistent to speak on the one hand about total repeal and on the other hand about amendments.