COMMON OWNERSHIP (Hansard, 2 July 1975)

§ Mr. George Rodgers (Chorley)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for changing companies into self-governing democratic enterprises. The purpose of the common ownership movement is to ensure that there is democratic control of industry by people work-in industry and that, instead of capital employing labour, labour should employ labour. For over 50 years the Labour Party has been pledged to replace capitalism by common ownership. There has been some little progress in this direction. Several of our basic industries are held in public ownership, partly as a consequence of enlightened legislation by Labour administrations, but largely because the tide of events has made it clear that the old economic structure is obsolete and unworkable.

It is interesting to note that there has been a distinct reluctance by successive Conservative administrations to return nationalised industries to private ownership. Indeed, the formula provided by the previous Government to rescue Rolls. Royce is currently being utilised by the present Government to transfer ailing private enterprises to public control.

I have never felt satisfied that the process of nationalisation is the only way, 1476 or even the best way, of introducing democratic control of industry. Too often to work for a nationalised industry is much like working for a large private company—the sense of involvement and community of purpose is usually conspicuous by its absence.

Government statements of intent on worker participation are welcome, but at present they lack substance. Common ownership means more than putting lone workers on company boards or issuing them with a few company shares; it means more than profit-sharing or capital-sharing. Genuine common ownership means worker control based on ownership.

Of course there may be variation in detail but the essential ingredient is that the enterprise should be run by, and in the interest of, the workers and the community and not for the profit of outside shareholders.

It is frequently suggested by those who oppose industrial democracy, or at best pay lip service to it, that the workers are apathetic about industrial democracy, and have little or no interest in the problem of management, being principally concerned with the material rewards of their employment. It is claimed that workers lack managerial ability and that they do not have the capacity to understand the complex nature of modern industrial organisation.

I refute these criticisms. All people have a natural interest about decisions affecting their lives, whether in work or outside it, and most want to share in that decision-making, given the opportunity so to do.

If interest seems lacking, it is because occasion to exercise interest is absent in present circumstances. Most workers have a far greater capacity to take on the functions of management than the current inadequate methods of education and training make apparent.

Given proper preparation and opportunity, workers could assume many of the so called "managerial" functions without undue difficulty. It is, in my view, scandalous that so much of the nation's talent has been casually squandered for so many years. In many fields of activity from mining and building to the service industries, teams of workers 1477 already undertake much of their day-to-day work with little or no interference from established management.

We have the evidence that working people created the trade union movement, and have serviced local and national Government. It is arrogant nonsense to pretend that there is some mysterious "know-how", some strange mystique, attached to management that is available only to a select few, possibly because of background and breeding.

Industrial common ownership is necessary and is inevitable. In fact, it already flourishes, albeit, as yet, on a small scale. To obstruct its progress would be folly, as formidable industrial problems lay ahead and the old order cannot provide the remedies.

New equipment and new technologies in manufacturing will mean fewer man hours. It should mean a shorter working week, perhaps earlier retirement and maybe a sabbatical year for those engaged in industry so that workers may enjoy leisure and pleasure before old age takes away the flavour of the experience. Whatever the pattern to emerge, those who are directly involved, should, and must, be involved in the decision-making. One of the ways of achieving this is by the extension of industrial common ownership.

This is no fanciful theory. The system of common ownership is thriving now in various parts of the country. At present some dozen firms are members of the industrial common ownership movement and several more are moving in this direction. They range from Fakenham Enterprises, a leather goods manufacturer, which was incorporated in 1972 following a 17-week work-in by 10 redundant women shoe workers, to the Scott Bador Company, which was converted in 1951 and has 400 worker-co-owners. This organisation has experienced a 20-fold growth since entering into common ownership. It has a turnover of £10 million and is highly profitable in a very competitive field.

In 1973 the worker-co-owners shared a bonus of £73,000, each one benefiting equally; £36.000 was provided to charities and a further £36.000 diverted to promote new common ownership companies.

1478 Worker control is no vague idealistic notion; it is practical and it is already happening.

I must pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Edwards), who has undertaken much pioneering work in establishing common ownership, though many others have played leading rôles. There have been people of wealth and substance who had no stomach for the old selfish and inefficient system. There have been redundant workers who have rejected being the victims of that system.

One enterprise was assisted by financial support from the South Wales National Union of Mineworkers and the Society of Friends. Another, Sundolandia, which was established in 1973, deals mainly in improvements and modernisations to terraced properties in and around Sunderland. From a total of 45 workers, it employs 23 apprentices and 17 skilled tradesmen—remarkably encouraging proportions to those who are anxious about employment opportunities for young people. The company's articles reflect a concern for social justice as well as democracy at work. Twenty per cent. of any profit must go to other similar common ownership enterprises, to the Third World, or to charity. In a situation of open hostility from the main building employers' organisation, it has received fraternal support from local building industry unions. That support has been crucial.

The merit and the success of the common ownership movement is beyond dispute. My Bill would make it simpler for companies, controlled by outside shareholders, to change to a common ownership structure by modifications to company law and taxation—thus enabling them to purchase their own shares. It would allow common ownership companies to qualify for the same concessions as already apply to co-operatives registered under the Industrial and Provident Society Act 1965. It would allow such enterprises to qualify for grants and loans under the proposed co-operative development agency.

I ask the House for leave to introduce this modest measure. It would serve to advance the cause of democracy in industry, which, I understand from a perusal of manifestos issued at the time 1479 of the last election, is the earnest desire of all parties represented in this Chamber.