ADVISORY, CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION SERVICE (Hansard, 30 July 1975)

HC Deb 30 July 1975 vol 896 cc1952-9 1952

§ Mr. Brittan
I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 10, leave out from first 'of' to end of subsection and insert:

'(a) assisting the peaceful settlement of trade disputes and other questions arising between employers and employees by offering and providing conciliation and arbitration,

(b) helping the safeguarding of individual rights of employees whether it is threatened by employers, trade unions, organisations of them or by fellow employees, and
1953
(c) encouraging the improvement of collective bargaining and, where necessary and appropriate, its extension and development and the reform of collective bargaining machinery.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, we are to discuss Amendment No. 2, in line 10, leave out 'collective bargaining' and insert 'conciliation and arbitration in place of industrial action'.

§ Mr. Brittan
Both amendments seek to amend the definition of the duty of the Advisory, Counciliation and Arbitration Service. We seek to support them for two reasons. First, we think that the definition of the duty of the service contained in the Bill as it stands at present is adequate, because it is insufficient and limited in its scope. Secondly, we think that, as a result of events since the original publication of the Bill, it has become somewhat out of date. The first amendment relates to the inadequacy of the definition. The second relates to its being out of date.
To say that the service should be charged with the general duty of promoting the improvement of industrial relations and then to single out the duty of encouraging the extension of collective bargaining and the development and, where necessary, the reform of collective bargaining machinery is too one-sided an approach. We do not believe that collective bargaining, however, important it may be in normal times, is the be all and end all of industrial relations. It is a part, and an important part, of industrial relations, but it by no means the only part. Certainly it is not the only part of industrial relations with which the ACAS should be concerned if it is to be of the maximum value.
Therefore, in Amendment No. 1 we seek to add various other matters which it shall be the general duty of the ACAS to further. We believe, for example, that it can play a useful role in assisting the peaceful settlement of trade disputes and other questions by offering and providing conciliation and arbitration, as its name suggests. The definition in Clause 1(2) does not prevent the service engaging in conciliation and arbitration, but we think that should be highlighted in the definition at least as much as the extension and reform of collective bargaining itself.
1954 11.15 p.m.
Similarly, we think that great importance should be attached to the safeguarding of the individual rights of employees whether threatened by employers, trade unions, organisations of employers or of fellow employees. We think that in any of these cases the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, in the discharge of the functions allotted to it, should place a high requirement on the preservation and defence of the rights of individuals against threats from wherever they may come. We believe that if the definition at the outset of the Bill is to reflect adequately what the service should do, these changes should be made.
I turn now to Amendment No. 2, which deals with the changes in the situation in the country which have arisen since the Bill first came before the House. We suggest in Amendment No. 2 leaving out "collective bargaining" and inserting conciliation and arbitration in place of industrial action". It is no use blithely carrying on with this legislation and totally ignoring the realities of what is going on in the world at large and in the Government. We have a situation where only this week the Government are to all intents and purposes in the process of abolishing collective bargaining for a year. The £6 per week maximum which, in effect, will be a universal £6, whatever the Government may say about that, makes nonsense of talk about collective bargaining. Although we have been given the prospect of an extension of the Government's policy in a different form at the end of one year, one way or another the idea, if the Government have their way, that collective bargaining in anything approaching the form in which it has existed in the past in this country will continue to exist is clearly baseless.
It is only right when passing legislation of this kind at least to pay some heed to what is going on in other areas of legislation. To pay full heed to the new policy would involve altering, amending or abandoning large chunks of the Bill. We should at least recognise the realities and descend from the world of illusion and idealism to the extent of accepting the amendment. We should recognise that for the moment at least—there will, of course, be opportunities for the Government to introduce further 1955 legislation should the situation change—the rôle of collective bargaining is, if not totally dead, significantly diminished.
We believe that the amendments would give a clearer, fuller, more balanced and fairer picture of what the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service can and ought to be asked to do and will at the same time take account of the new realities which have come into existence since the Bill first came before the House.

§ Mr. Booth
These amendments propose changes in the definition of the duty of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.
The Government are opposed to Amendment No. 1 because the new words proposed for the definition of the duty of the service do not properly reflect intentions as to the function of the ACAS, with which to some extent they are incompatible.
Paragraph (b) is unacceptable as it would give ACAS the inappropriate task of safeguarding the rights of individuals. It is true that the ACAS conciliation officers have functions under Clause 2(4) and Clause 99 concerning certain statutory rights of individuals, but the industrial tribunals to which complaints lie have the responsibility for safeguarding the rights of individuals. The rights of individuals are not dealt with in Part I of the Bill, the clauses of which concern collective bargaining and related matters. The objection to subsection (c) is that it demotes and dilutes the provision for extension of collective bargaining which the Government regard as an important means of improving industrial relation. Its extension and development are, in the amendment, qualified by the words "where necessary and appropriate", in contrast to the words in the Bill as printed. Also "the improvement of collective bargaining" is an ambiguous phrase.
On Amendment No. 2, the Government wish the ACAS to give particular attention to the extension of collective bargaining as a primary means of improving industrial relations. One of its major functions will be to deal with conciliation and arbitration and the thousand and one other issues that have to be resolved in relationships between employer and employee. We feel that an 1956 improvement must be achieved in the long run if the service is to work satisfactorily.
There are two areas in which improvements have to be carried out. The first is where collective bargaining arrangements are not yet established and the second is where the arrangements have fallen into disrepair and become out-dated and ineffective.
I reject the implication in the speech of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) that we should tailor the objectives and duties of the service to the current economic situation. We have tried to lay down in the Bill a statement of duties for the service that will serve our nation for many years—possibly into the next century. This is a milestone in our consideration of these issues. To tailor it to a financial and economic situation that has developed over a short period would be detrimental rather than beneficial, even in the short term. It is a highly inadvisable solution.

§ Mr. John Page
I did not have the luck to serve on the Standing Committee, and in my absence the Minister of State has not improved. I used to think of him as a chap who should go far. He was courteous and gave sensible answers to straight questions. I was amazed when he said the ACAS would not fit into Amendment No. 1 because it was inappropriate. The amendment suggests that there should be advice, conciliation and arbitration. If this is not accepted, perhaps the service should be called the Collective Bargaining Improvement Service or something more factual. To wrap it up in this strange envelope is amazing. The Minister of State said the Bill was a milestone. It seems to me more like a millstone.

§ Mr. Mayhew
The speech of the Minister of State fell far short of what was required in a reasoned reply to the amendments. This part of the Bill is dedicated to the improvement of industrial relations—that is the heading of Part I—and such a task could not be more admirable or more topical. Foremost in the Government's arms against the sea of industrial troubles is the ACAS. It has to be immaculate in its independence and in its impartiality, and it is invested with a sacred charge, a general duty in that the clause refers to the improvement of industrial relations.
1957 But it is, alas, going about that the Bill is biased and one-sided, and not even-handed, as the Government tell us. It is said that its whole cast and bias is in favour of the trade unions. The fact that we are continually being told that it is part of the price for securing the agreement of the unions to the social contract may have something to do with it. Or the fact that every significant provision increases the strength of the unions may have something to do with it. Whatever the reason, the unfortunate impression seems to have got around—and very wounding it seemed to be to junior Ministers who advanced the Government's case in Committee—that this is an unfairly biased Bill. Nothing could be more damaging to the true purposes of the Bill, which is to promote the improvement of industrial relations.
By some slip of draftsmanship the only opportunities given for this general duty of promoting the improvement of industrial relations are the extension of collective bargaining and the development and, where necessary, the reform of collective bargaining machinery. No doubt the highly partial bias that this conveys to the reader of the clause is, as the Bill is drafted, purely accidental. Why should those two avenues of approach, so narrowly separated, be the only ones which are set out as examples of opportunities of the general duty which the service has of promoting industrial relations?
In the amendment we provide the Government not only with an opportunity but with a means of setting this unfortunate impression right. What could be more germane to the improvement of industrial relations than the opening words of the amendment assisting the peaceful settlement of trade disputes"? What could be more central than offering and providing conciliation and arbitration or the safeguarding of individual rights of employees". no matter by whom they are threatened? All these objectives are to be found within the terms of the amendment. What could be more appropriate than encouraging the improvement of collective bargaining and, where necessary and appropriate, ts extension and development and…reform"? 1958 The package in the amendment is something no one could disagree with. Even more important, it is one which imparts absolutely no hint of bias or partiality in favour of the unions or the employers. It does not give a tilt to the way in which the ACAS should go about its business.
I listened with amazement to the Minister of State. He said that his objection to the amendment was that it did not reflect the interest of the Government in collective bargaining, that it demoted and diluted the importance of collective bargaining. Our objection is that the clause permits and concentrates the importance of collective bargaining to the exclusion of all else. It gives the impression that the Bill is biased, and that can do only harm. We believe that the amendment removes from the clause the flavour of favouritism with which, by complete inadvertence, I am sure, it is so contaminated at the moment.

§ 11.30 p.m.

§ Mr. Hayhoe
We debated this matter at length in Committee, and the Minister was under considerable pressure to make some changes in subsection (2). Indeed, he gave an indication, though not an undertaking—this is reported at column 68 of the Committee Hansard—that he did not necessarily feel that the parliamentary draftsmen had the words right, that the words in paragraph (a) of our amendment here, in effect, were words which he thought unexceptionable, and he would see whether they could be incorporated in the Bill.
As far as I can judge, the Minister's efforts have been of no avail. He has not met the points which were made with such force and clarity in Committee. It is disadvantageous to the launching of the ACAS that such changes have not been made. I hope that the Government will look at this matter again. It is highly desirable that we have words in Clause 1 which draw away from the criticism expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew), that the Bill is seen as partial in its objective.
The matter could be put right by some alteration in the wording. Obviously, the Minister is in no mood to make a change now, but I hope that he will be prepared to look again at the arguments presented in Committee and again 1959 tonight with a view to making changes, when and if the Bill is considered in another place, which would not in any sense detract from the positive side as it is at present but would produce an evenly balanced measure.
Perhaps an even balance may be a disadvantage in the Secretary of State's eyes, but let him set aside his own desires in this matter and look more widely. As the Minister of State said, the ACAS may well be there when all of us are gone. It behoves us, therefore, to look with a little more neutrality to the future and try to get the wording of the objectives right now. A greater effort should and could be made, and I hope that the Minister will make it.

§ Amendment negatived.