HC Deb 22 October 1975 vol 898 cc646-61

Lords Amendment: No. 96, in page 19, line 34, leave out from "and" to "with" in line 35 and insert "employee representatives".

Mr. Varley

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we shall take the subsequent Lords amendments associated with it.

Mr. Varley

We here have one of the clearest differences made to the Bill in the other place. In this House, after very full discussion of the question, it was decided that information should be made available to trade union representatives, as those best able to fulfil the responsibilities involved. In another place, the change has been made to provide information to employee representatives, and an employee representative has been defined in such a way that it would be impossible for workers in a company to elect a full-time trade union official to be their representative. Instead, the employee representative must be a full-time employee in the concern. This is an approach we on this side totally reject.

We believe that information should be passed to trade union representatives. The Bill therefore before these amendments specified that information should be made available to trade union representatives; but it did not specify who they should be. This gave the company considerable discretion as to which representatives of unions should be furnished with information. It could be union representatives at the level of the plant, for example shop stewards within the company, or it could be district or national officials of the union. The choice was deliberately left to the company, so that it could make arrangements for disclosure that matched its established arrangements for consultation and collective bargaining. The Bill thus provided a considerable measure of flexibility, to match the particular circumstances of a company.

Moreover, the Bill in no way prevented employers from disclosing information to non-union representatives; they could continue or extend existing voluntary arrangements. It was open to the company to provide information by other means: a company was completely free to provide the information it was required to furnish to trade union representatives to other employees—for example, to works councils or to staff associations where these existed—or direct to all employees. We in no way wish to prevent this, and the Bill would in no way hinder this. In addition, it was open to all employees to join trade unions and to trade unions to seek recognition from an employer, in order to benefit from the statutory requirements of the information disclosure clauses.

11.30 p.m.

What the Government do not accept is that there should be a statutory duty for information to be disclosed to representatives of workers other than union representatives. Consultations, and information disclosure, are inescapably linked with collective bargaining: collective bargaining must involve consultations, and collective bargaining is the responsibility of trade unions. Any attempt to separate them, so that unions dealt with collective bargaining and other representatives with consultation, will result in misunderstanding and confusion. Rather, we are concerned to accept that unions have a role, and to take the steps necessary to ensure that there will be strong and responsible unions to discharge their powers and their duties. This we view as a step towards our goal of strong and responsible unions playing a constructive part in collective bargaining, in consultations and in industrial democracy.

The Government wish to encourage the development of strong responsible and independent trade unions. We believe that trade unions are the proper means through which workers can have an effective say in management decisions which affect their working lives, and we made this clear in the White Paper, when we spoke of trade union representations from the firm and of "union representatives from companies" as the means of disclosure. To this end this Bill and the Employment Protection Bill which is before Parliament at the moment aim to strengthen the rights of trade unions in collective bargaining and in discussion with consultation about the future of companies.

Instead of this, we have a definition of employee representatives which would exclude full-time officials, and would thus in an important respect limit workers' choice. The effects of this are far reaching: disclosure is to be made only to persons who are the elected representatives of employees in the company or companies concerned. But in many organisations there are no persons who are elected as representatives of the employees.

What is more, as was made very clear, these reserve powers are to be used only in those cases where the employer refuses to make satisfactory voluntary arrangements. This is just the kind of employer who is least likely to have in existence a system for electing representatives of his employees. Yet if there are no such duly elected representatives the requirements of this Bill will not touch that employer. There is, therefore, a considerable danger that this amendment would make this part of the Bill a dead letter. That is why we disagree with the amendment.

Mr. Heseltine

I understand the Secretary of State's rationalisation in putting forward the concept that members of trade unions should have a special privilege in the consultation processes with the companies in which they are employed. However, his explanation did not do justice to the fact that in the early days of the negotiations about the drafting of the Bill the view of the Minister responsible for it was that the information should go, not to the trade union, but to the employees. The pressures which were brought to bear—not from within the Government, but from outside the Government—led ultimately to the present drafting of the Bill.

It is not a criticism of the rôle of the unions to say that there are other working for companies—often large numbers—who have no wish to be members of unions. Some companies have managed to organise their relations with their employees through different processes of consultation and involvement which have nothing to do with unions and the employees of such companies are perfectly satisfied with the framework of consultation and representation which exists. Therefore, it can only be regarded as a retrograde step that the Government are now singling out one group of people in industry as against another. There is no evidence to lead one to suppose that the unions are able to represent the people who belong to those unions better than other forms of employee representation in industry. The fact is that there are some 10 million people working in British industry who are not members of unions. I find it extraordinary, therefore, that the Secretary of State should say that it is only those who have joined unions who should be entitled to the special privileges of the Bill.

Mr. Heffer

Would the hon. Gentleman explain who represents those who are not in trade unions at shop floor level? Whom do they elect to speak for them?

Mr. Heseltine

There are many companies which have very effective staff associations, where there is wide consultation at all levels in the company, and there are companies—hon. Members opposite know them as well as I do—where the unions have been unable to persuade the employees to abandon their staff associations in favour of the unions.

I wish to express no preference for a system of staff associations as against unions. I merely make the point that the people who opt for staff associations are as entitled to have their wishes heard as are people who have opted for the trade union system. [Interruption.] It is, if I may say so to hon. Members opposite, their automatic reaction every time anyone suggests an alternative to the suggestion that trade unions have a divine right, to drown the voice of anyone who advocates an alternative system.

I find it a wholly repugnant intellectual concept that we should talk about democracy at a time when we are giving to union members rights which we are not prepared to give to others. If the companies are to be given discretion in the case of their non-union members, why not give them discretion in the case of their union members? Why should there not be the same degree of compulsion in giving information to non-union members? What is it that singles out a person who joins a union as being entitled to special privileges, other than the political pressure that the unions are able to exercise on the Labour Party? That is the only discriminating factor, and it is an unethical factor on which to base the law of the land.

The second point which the Secretary of State made was that it should be possible for the trade unions to choose a representative who is not employed in the company. That means that he has to be a full-time trade union official outside. The argument has an inconsistency. It is possible that as the disclosure of information develops, it will be positively against the interests of employees in companies that full-time union representatives not employed in the companies should have access to the sort of information envisaged in the Bill.

To give an obvious example, if the full-time union representative not employed in a company were to discover, under a system of compulsory disclosure, that the plans of that company were in conflict with plans of a larger company where he had more members of the same union, that company being in competition with the smaller company, the interests of that trade union official would not be with the company from which he got the information; they would be with the company where he had the larger number of members.

That is diametrically opposed to the interests of the employees of the company, trade unionists or otherwise, from which the information originally came. There is divided loyalty in the appointment of an outside trade union representative to represent employees in all conceivable circumstances. Although we shall not have a chance to debate the matter, I understand that it is the Government's intention to resist the amendment dealing with disclosure to members of a company. That would make an equivalent amount of information available to them.

I believe that the Government are putting outside union members in a dangerous situation. They will accumulate a range of information which will put them in the position of insider dealers. I do not wish to cast aspersions on the morality of the union officials who are given the information. I merely make the point that they will be entrusted with information which will not be available to the market at large and that large sums will be at stake. That is an intolerable situation which is against the whole basis of the system that we now have for raising funds and supplying capital for the vast majority of British manufacturing industry. That must be so if one group of people should be entrusted with information which other people will not be made aware of at the same time. There must be the risk that people will turn such information to their private gain.

If any similar proposal was put before the House which applied to any other class of people, Labour Members would be the first to come forward with the most virulent attack upon such privileges and the dangers inherent in them. I give an example of the dangers that follow from entrusting information to people not employed in the company that the information concerns. Let us consider the position of overseas investment. It might well be that a company with large union representation within it sees its growth prospects in developing not only in the British market but in the overseas markets. The employees of the company, both union and non-union, may be convinced that the industrial strategy for their company depends upon such expansion. However, the non-employee union representative who is outside the company might know that one of his other companies will be prejudiced if the company from which he gets the information is allowed to expand in overseas markets and to compete with the other undertaking which he also happens to represent. He is placed in an impossible position of divided loyalties.

I have no doubt that we should recommend that the Lords are right in the amendment that they have put before the House. Firstly, it is alien to any real concept of democracy that we should have privilege for one group and not for another—namely, those who are not members of a union. Secondly, the proposal put forward by the Government has nothing to do with good employee relations—indeed, I would say the reverse. By treating one group as privileged and the other as unprivileged we are setting apart employees when the whole emphasis should be on treating them alike.

Those of us who have followed this legislation will know that this is one more political deal that has been done by the Labour Party for its political masters in the unions. We shall support the Lords amendment.

Mr. Heffer

The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has made one of his usual speeches which avoid the real issues. Quite clearly he does not understand the real issues. The hon. Gentleman, like so many of his hon. Friends, seems to have a thing about trade union representatives. A trade union representative is probably the most democratically appointed person in the country. Conservative hon. Members have had very little experience of the shop floor. They do not know that workers come together to elect their shop stewards. If they do not wish to continue with them they can call another meeting to remove them. In fact, they often do so.

11.45 p.m.

Conservative Members have no real knowledge of what happens. Some do—perhaps one or two. They do have knowledge of what happens in the board room. We either have organisation in industry or we have chaos. If we give information we have to give it to someone so that it can be disseminated among the mass of the workers. How is that to be done? By giving it to the elected representatives of the work force.

Mr. Stainton

rose—

Mr. Fairbairn

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)

Order. Let us have one speaker at a time.

Mr. Stainton

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. On this question of disclosure, the most outrageous case that has come to my notice—and I do not say this in an anti-trade union sense but it is of relevance—concerns the leak at the Labour Party Conference of the discussions that were going on between the National Dock Board and the Felixstowe Dock company. The shares of that company were quoted at 87p and the offer being discussed was 150p. There was a leak at the conference through the representative of the Transport and General Workers' Union that was picked up by the Daily Telegraph. It was leaked to the City. Is that in any sense defensible?

Mr. Heffer

I do not know that there was such a leak from trade union representatives. The hon. Member must prove that. I do not know that there is any proof one way or the other. This is somewhat irrelevant to the points we are discussing. We are discussing two separate points. First, there is the question of who will have the information to disseminate it among the work force.

Mr. Fairbairn

That is the second time that the hon. Member has asked who shall have the information so that it may be disseminated. The funny thing about the Industry Bill is that it says nothing about the duty to disseminate. It says nothing about to whom information shall be disseminated or whether it shall be squinted at by anyone in the meantime. The information is to go to representatives of trade unions and no further. That is the plot.

Mr. Heffer

That is an argument that came up in Committee. It was explained by Government Ministers and by other hon. Members. What happens in industry is that a shop steward is elected. He calls a meeting of the work force and explains the situation. If there are printed documents from the company arrangements are made for them to be disseminated. I cannot help it if hon. Members do not understand what happens in industry. We have tried to explain it many times. That is the reality of the situation.

Conservative Members have spoken of staff associations. It is true that in certain industries—usually among the staff not the manual workers—there are such associations. It is interesting to note that more and more of these associations are now opting to join bona fide trade unions. Many of them are joining as staff associations. They are entering, for example, ASTMS, the General and Municipal Workers' Union, the Transport and General Workers' Union, APEX and other unions that cater for those sections of workers. That is happening increasingly, because they are finding that as staff associations they have no real powers in negotiations with the employers. The argument about staff associations is artificial and phony.

I shall tell the hon. Gentleman something about the so-called works committees which are not made up of the elected shop stewards' representatives. I had experience of them in the dock board in Liverpool. Many of them were made up of workers who were supposedly elected. In some cases they were nominated. When it came down to discussions about the real life of the workers in the docks the committees were told that it was not something that they could discuss because it was a trade union matter. They ended up by dealing with canteens and similar matters, and had no influence on the working life and conditions.

As a result of their own experience, workers have increasingly replaced such organisations by shop stewards' committees and workers' representatives elected through the trade union movement. The real representatives of workers are those who belong to their trade unions and are elected by their trade union and who can be removed by the workers through their trade union organisation. The alternative is chaos.

Mr. Hal Miller

A large manufacturer in my constituency is trying to introduce worker participation in decision-taking, and has insisted on a shop floor election of representatives—[Interruption.]—something which I understood the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to approve of. There was no reason why the workers should not have elected the shop stewards, but they elected only three out of the 11 on the body carrying out the participation. The people my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was objecting to were the trade union representatives from outside the plant. That is not shop floor democracy, because they are not involved in the company. Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to that point?

Mr. Heffer

I said that there were two points to the argument. One was the representatives at shop floor level, and the other was the fact that trade union officials who were responsible not to one company but to the trade union as a whole had information given to them. That is a more serious argument. The other is totally phony, based upon ignorance of what happens in industry.

The other argument has more substance, in that a trade union official is responsible not to only one group of workers in one company but to workers throughout the whole of an area, region or district. I know that it was suggested that there was a leak at the Labour Party Conference, but in practice every trade unionist knows that when information is imparted to trade union officials it is not used in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggested, to line their own pockets. That is the most absurd suggestion I have ever heard. The trade union official represents the workers in different companies perhaps in the same industry, but he is concerned for their full employment, irrespective of which company they work for. No hon. Member could give any example of the misuse of information to the detriment of a company.

Mr. Heseltine

That may be so, but is that possibly because there has never before been a law to compel the disclosure of information?

Mr. Heffer

I now come to the last point of the argument—

Mr. Heseltine

Answer the question.

Mr. Heffer

I am doing so, but in my own way. I do not need the hon. Member to tell me how to do it. He is deft at not answering questions. The basic objection of the hon. Member and his hon. Friends is to any disclosure of information to trade unionists or workers. They suggest that they are in favour of disclosure and of industrial democracy but when a definite proposal comes before the House they find a million reasons for opposing it.

The basic reason for their opposition is that they know that when a worker knows precisely what happens in a company he is in a better position to negotiate better wages and conditions and to determine the future direction that the company should take. One of the lessons we must learn from modern industry is that workers no longer wish to be merely cogs in the industrial machine. They want a say in the managerial functions. It is therefore vital that the workers should get this information.

Take the example of workers' co-operatives like KME in Kirkby. The workers are involved in the decision-making and they have a greater sense of responsibility to the company and the industry in which they work. They have a stake in the company. That demonstrates why we believe in the greatest possible disclosure to the workers.

Hon. Members should know that I was in at the beginning of the Bill and I have a right to be in at the end of it. I have a right to support the best elements in this Bill. One of the most important parts of the Bill is precisely—

It being Twelve o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded, pursuant to Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 250.

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W) Mabon, Dr J. Dickson Rose, Paul B.
Flannery, Martin McCartney, Hugh Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) McCusker, H. Ross, William (Londonderry)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael McElhone, Frank Rowlands, Ted
Ford, Ben MacFarquhar, Roderick Sandelson, Neville
Forrester, John McGuire, Michael (Ince) Sedgemore, Brian
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) Mackenzie, Gregor Selby, Harry
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) Mackintosh, John P. Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Freeson, Reginald Maclennan, Robert Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Garrett, W E. (Wallsend) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Shore, Rt Hon Peter
George, Bruce McNamara, Kevin Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Gilbert, Dr John Madden, Max Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Ginsburg, David Magee, Bryan Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Gould, Bryan Mahon, Simon Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Gourlay, Harry Mallalieu, J. P. W. Sillars, James
Graham, Ted Marks, Kenneth Silverman, Julius
Grant, George (Morpeth) Marquand, David Skinner, Dennis
Grant, John (Islington C) Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Small, William
Grocott, Bruce Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Mason, Rt Hon Roy Snape, Peter
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Maynard, Miss Joan Spearing, Nigel
Hart, Rt Hon Judith Meacher, Michael Spriggs, Leslie
Hatton, Frank Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Stallard, A. W.
Hayman, Mrs. Helene Mikardo, Ian Stoddart, David
Heffer, Eric S. Millan, Bruce Stott, Roger
Horam, John Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Strang, Gavin
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H) Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N) Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Molloy, William Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) Molyneaux, James Swain, Thomas
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Moonman, Eric Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Hunter, Adam Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Moyle, Roland Tierney, Sydney
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King Tomlinson, John
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) Newens, Stanley Tomney, Frank
Janner, Greville Noble, Mike Torney, Tom
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Oakes, Gordon Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Jeger, Mrs Lena Ogden, Eric Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Orbach, Maurice Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
John, Brynmor Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Johnson, James (Hull West) Ovenden, John Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Owen, Dr David Ward, Michael
Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Padley, Walter Watkins, David
Jones, Barry (East Flint) Park, George Watkinson, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Parker, John Weetch, Ken
Judd, Frank Parry, Robert Weitzman, David
Kaufman, Gerald Pavitt, Laurie Wellbeloved, James
Kellsy, Richard Peart, Rt Hon Fred White, Frank R. (Bury)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert Pendry, Tom White, James (Pollok)
Kinnock, Neil Perry, Ernest Whitehead, Phillip
Lambie, David Phipps, Dr Colin Whitlock, William
Lamborn, Harry Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Lamond, James Prentice, Rt Hon Reg Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Price, C. (Lewisham W) Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Lee, John Price, William (Rugby) Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) Radice, Giles Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S) Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Richardson, Miss Jo Wise, Mrs Audrey
Lipton, Marcus Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Woof, Robert
Litterick, Tom Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) Wrigglesworth, Ian
Lomas, Kenneth Robertson, John (Paisley) Young, David (Bolton E)
Loyden, Eddie Roderick, Caerwyn
Luard, Evan Rodgers, George (Chorley) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Lyon, Alexander (York) Rodgers, William (Stockton) Mr. Donald Coleman and
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Rooker, J. W. Mr. Joseph Harper.
NOES
Adley, Robert Bottomley, Peter Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Alison, Michael Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Arnold, Tom Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) Churchill, W. S.
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Braine, Sir Bernard Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Awdry, Daniel Brittan, Leon Clark, William (Croydon S)
Bain, Mrs Margaret Brocklebank-Fowler, C. Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Baker, Kenneth Brotherton, Michael Cockcroft, John
Banks, Robert Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Beith, A. J. Bryan, Sir Paul Cope, John
Bell, Ronald Buchanan-Smith, Alick Cordle, John H.
Berry, Hon Anthony Buck, Antony Cormack, Patrick
Biffen, John Budgen, Nick Crawford, Douglas
Biggs-Davison, John Bulmer, Esmond Critchley, Julian
Blaker, Peter Burden, F, A. Crouch, David
Body, Richard Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Crowder, F. P.
Boscawen, Hon Robert Carlisle, Mark Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Question accordingly agreed to.

12.12 a.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Before proceeding further, I call the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords Amendments Nos. 177 and 178.

Under the terms of the Allocation of Time Order agreed to by the House earlier today, I shall now proceed to put separately the Question on those Lords amendments to which the Government have tabled a motion to disagree, followed, in each case, where appropriate, by the Question on the amendment in lieu to be made.

When we come to Lords Amendment No. 149, I shall put the Question that the amendment to the Lords amendment be made, followed by the Question on the Lords amendment itself.

When we come to Lords Amendment No. 151, I shall put the Question, That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment and then, if that motion is agreed to, the Question that amendments be made to the words so restored to the Bill.

When we come to any amendment which involves privilege, I shall call the attention of the House to the fact, and put the appropriate Question.

Finally, I shall put en bloc the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the remaining Lords amendments.

Now that that is clear, with the leave of the House I propose to take together Lords Amendments Nos. 99, 100, 101, 102 and 108.

Lords amendments disagreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 109, in page 21, line 2, leave out from "and" to "an" in line 3 and insert "employee representatives".—[Mr. Varley.]

Question, That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment, put and agreed to.

Amendment made to the Bill in lieu thereof: In page 21, line 2, leave out 'a' and insert ' the authorised'.—[Mr. Varley.]

and add the following clause: