Industrial Disputes (Hansard, 22 June 1976)

§ 2. Mr Terry Walker
asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many workers were involved in industrial disputes in the first four months of 1976 compared with the first four months of 1975.

§ 3. Mr. Cryer
asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost because of industrial disputes in the first four months of 1976 compared with the first four months of 1975.

§ 4. Mr. Flannery
asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many stoppages of work because of industrial dispute occurred in the first four months of 1976 compared with the first four months of 1975.

§ 24. Mr. Woodall
asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many stoppages of work because of industrial dispute occurred in the first four months of 1976 compared with the first four months of 1975.

§ The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth)
Provisional estimates show that 625 stoppages due to disputes began in the period January to April 1976 compared with 905 in the same period in 1975, that 249,800 workers were involved in all stoppages in progress in this period compared with 349,500 in the same period in 1975, and that 1,188,000 working days were lost compared with 2.106,000 in the same period in 1975.

§ Mr. Walker
Will my right hon. Friend appreciate that those figures are encouraging? Can he tell us how these figures compare with some of our industrial competitors?

§ Mr. Booth
International comparisons are difficult and can sometimes be misleading, but the general tendency in industrial countries is that they have an increasing number of days lost due to disputes, and our figures are considerably better than those of the United States of America, Canada, Australia and Italy.

§ Mr. Cryer
Does my right hon. Friend agree that these figures represent a success for the policy of conciliation rather than confrontation? This takes us back to the level of stoppages in 1967 before successive Governments produced legalistic nonsense for binding the trade union movement. Does he also agree that, in order to retain the good will and support of the trade union movement, urgent action must be taken over the level of unemployment, including urgent consideration of matters like selective import controls, particularly in areas such as the textile industry, and more investment by the National Enterprise Board to create jobs?

§ Mr. Booth
I would say to my hon. Friend that certainly the number of days lost in this period are lower than at any time since 1968. As to the cause, I would agree with him to the extent that a very large measure of it is due to attempts at conciliation by the work of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. I would also say that it is partly due to pursuing industrial relations policies as well as our policy of consensus and co-operation rather than of confrontation and legal intervention. However, part of the overall relationship with the trade union movement must involve the other factors that my hon. Friend has raised. I would agree that they are most important.

§ Mr. Madel
Can the Secretary of State say whether the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is doing an industry-by-industry survey to see whether disputes procedures should be improved? There are many manufacturing industries in which improvements really ought to be made so that the procedure is used before there is a stoppage.

§ Mr. Booth
It is certainly within the scope of ACAS to look at procedures used for the conciliation of disputes within industry, and its general remit is to urge people to use their own procedures before coming to ACAS. My Department has recently published a record of the outcome of our inquiry into the level of strikes in this country, and on examining that I might take up the point raised by the hon. Gentleman in respect of ACAS to see whether there is a rôle for an industry-by-industry examination.

§ Mr. Flannery
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the answer he gave initially was very encouraging? Does he further agree that unemployment is a new and terrible discipline which is now descending upon a vast number of working people? Far more time and production is lost by unemployment than by all the strikes put together. Would my right hon. Friend accept that it really is time that something was done to prevent more and more massive unemployment from taking place?

§ Mr. Booth
Of course, one can enormously exaggerate the loss of production which results from strikes. Certainly much more production is lost by unemployment and much more is lost by industrial disease and injury as well. We have to tackle this question of unemployment irrespective of the industrial relations implications. Although there are improvements, some of the things which lead to unemployment can also lead to industrial disputes, and all of us would wish to see a reduction in industrial disputes as well as a great reduction in unemployment.

§ Mr. McCrindle
Is it not essential that the Secretary of State should compare the figures he has given this afternoon alongside the figures for unemployment during the same period? Does he not think that as unemployment rises strikes tend to fall? Can he tell the House what moral he draws from that?

§ Mr. Booth
I have certainly tried to make this comparison of the correlation between disputes and unemployment in respect of other periods of high unemployment, but there is no evidence of a comparable fall in industrial disputes. I have come to the conclusion that many things which have caused disputes are similar to the causes of unemployment, like strikes against attempts to bring about massive lay-offs and closures. I cannot accept that the number of disputes is in any way connected with the high level of unemployment.

§ Mr. Woodall
Does my right hon. Friend agree that these are most encouraging figures? Does he not think, however, that they are not just a flash in the pan but more of a long-term industrial strategy worked out between the Government and the unions?

§ Mr. Booth
I certainly do. They are not a flash in the pan even statistically, because the comparisons that we were making were with 1975, which was a year of low industrial dispute figures, particularly in the period of the year considered. As my hon. Friend has said, this owes much to the developing relationship which has improved industrial relations generally and made for greater national discussion of policies among the TUC, the Government and employers.

§ Mr. Hayhoe
Would the Secretary of State agree that all who have helped to achieve this improvement in industrial relations—this substantial reduction in the number of strikes—deserve our commendation and congratulations? By "all" I mean both sides of industry and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. Would he repudiate the over-simpliste interpretation which tends to praise trade unions when the number of strikes comes down but is not prepared to blame trade unions when the number of strikes goes up? Will he have another look at the correlation between the numbers of unemployed and the numbers of strikes, because my reading of numbers in the past is that there is some correlation?

§ Mr. Booth
I have given my views on the question of correlation, which I stand by, but this is not a matter for praise or blame of trade unions. I am ready to acknowledge that employers as well as unions were prepared to refer matters to ACAS in advance of ACAS being established as an independent statutory body. However, in the particular areas in which special responsibilities have been laid on ACAS there were some references by unions, some jointly by unions and employers and some by employers alone. But it is fair to say in defence of the general view of some of my hon. Friends as to the rôle of the trade unions that more came forward from the unions alone than from the other two sources put together.