Employment Protection Act (Hansard, 21 December 1976)

§ 7. Mr. McCrindle
asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the operation of the Employment Protection Act.

§ Mr. Harold Walker
In so far as it has already been implemented, yes.

§ Mr. McCrindle
Is it still the Government's intention to introduce Schedule 11 to the Act on 1st January? Is it not clear that the requirement to equate the working conditions of various groups of employees in the same district is liable to blow a large hole in the Government's wages policy and to strain their social contract? Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that postponement of the implementation of that schedule might be in the best interests of the community in fighting inflation?

§ Mr. Walker
The possible inflationary effects following the implementation of Schedule 11 have been very much exaggerated. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I doubt whether he has fully understood the provision. We consider that it will give unions a useful tool to deal with pockets of low pay.

§ Mr. James Lamond
Has my hon. Friend any intention of amending the Act so as to tighten up the definition of an independent trade union?

§ Mr. Walker
The House will know that there have been problems arising from certification of independence and the assumption in some cases that this gives some kind of passport to recognition. Because of that, we are looking at the matter carefully and consulting the TUC and the CBI about whether changes may be necessary.

§ Sir A. Meyer
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the British Steel Corporation is currently offering employment contracts for a period of 25 weeks? If a nationalised corporation is thus seeking to avoid the implications of the Employment Protection Act, how can other employers be expected to comply with it? Is this not a commentary on the effect of the Act on employment prospects?

§ Mr. Walker
I am not familiar with the situation to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I am bound to say that I see difficulty in relating it to the provisions of the Act. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it is in some way a practice that is being stimulated by extra costs arising from the Act, I must remind him and the House of what my right hon. Friend said on the last occasion when we were answering Questions a month ago—namely, that the total extra cost of the Act when fully implemented would be less than one-quarter of 1 per cent. of industry's wage bill.

§ Mr. Hayhoe
Will the hon. Gentleman understand that we on the Conservative Benches will be utterly opposed to TUC-inspired amendments about the requirements for independent trade union recognition? Is he also aware that we believe that it is grossly irresponsible to bring Schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act into operation at the beginning of next year since it may well lead to widespread pay increases—particularly in the white-collar sector—outside the pay policy as at present envisaged? Does he realise that these pay increases could lead to a further loss of jobs?

§ Mr. Walker
The hon. Gentleman ought to know, because he was intimately involved with the passage of the Act through the House, that Schedule 11 extends to many other workers only the benefits that are at present enjoyed by a few workers under the Fair Wages Resolution. The inflationary effects of 448 the implementation of Schedule 11 have been thoroughly exaggerated. As for the hon. Member's opposition to any change in the provisions relating to certification of independence and recognition, I would have thought that he would be the first to recognise the difficulties now emerging from the assumption on the part of some organisations that certification should give them some sort of automatic right to recognition. This was never intended by the Act, as the hon. Member knows.