Employment Bill [Money] (Hansard, 3 November 1987)

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
The money resolution should not go through on the nod. We should point out that the £3 million that the Bill will cost could be put to much more important uses. For example—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Will hon. Members who are not taking part in the debate on the money resolution kindly leave the Chamber quietly?

§ Mr. Cryer
I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection. I assure you that when roles are reversed I shall, as always, support you as you apply the Standing Orders of the House.
In June this year the estimated cost of outstanding repairs to schools in my constituency—repairs needed to make them wind and watertight — was just over £3 million. I have identified immediately an expenditure priority far superior to this mean and tatty little Bill, which attacks our organised work force. It attacks the most economically disadvantaged in our society—people who struggle from week to week to make ends meet and who organise themselves in trade unions so that they are just equal to the power of organised capital.
The Government always claim that trade unions cause days to be lost through strike action. The truth—the Government should know this because they have an army of civil servants ready to dig out the information—is that in any average year more days are lost through industrial injury than through strike action. Let me give the figures. In 1980 we lost just over 11 million days through industrial stoppages, but we lost 13.1 million days through industrial injury. In 1981 we lost 4 million days through industrial stoppages, and 10.9 million through industrial injury.

§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman making a frustrated Second Reading speech, or a speech on the money resolution?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)
The money resolution is fairly wide, but I hope that I shall hear a little more about money from the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).

§ Mr. Cryer
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for indicating that you will listen, which is more than Conservative Members intend to do. Obviously I shall have to spell my point out in detail so that the 45 minutes allowed are taken up with my explanation.
I am talking about the alternatives on which the £3 million could be spent. On Second Reading the Government claimed that trade unions, by their industrial action, caused many lost days in industry. Before I was foolishly interrupted by an hon. Member, who I assume 881 is part of the goose-stepping tendency of the Conservative party, I was saying that, in 1981, 4 million days were lost through strike action, but 10.9 million days were lost through industrial injury. In 1982, 5 million days were lost in strike action, and 10.8 million days were lost through industrial injury. In 1983, 3.7 million days were lost in industrial stoppages, and 9.5 million days were lost through industrial injury.
The clear priority for any Government with a decent set of priorities — not the priorities that featured in Germany before 1939, when there was a vicious attack on the trade union movement—is to increase expenditure on health and safety at work inspectors, not on a commissioner for trade union protection. Since 1979 the number of health and safety inspectors has plummeted. There are not enough personnel to carry out as many inspections in factories and in service industries as they should. That is why more people are losing life and limb in British manufacturing and service industries than is reasonable. That shows the rotten priorities of this rotten Government.
The £3 million would be better spent on a commission of inquiry into the City. Such an inquiry might be expensive—

§ Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West)
Throwing good money after bad.

§ Mr. Cryer
As the hon. Gentleman said, it would be throwing good money after bad. Conservative Members frequently say that trade unions have immunity; that they can take industrial action and are free from actions in tort. They claim that we need such legislation because of that immunity. I remind the House of what happened when the Government's friends from Lloyd's came here in 1980. Many hon. Members at the time—there are still some—were lining their pockets from Lloyd's insurance, and when their chums came up from Lloyd's and asked for complete immunity from civil action for the Council of Lloyd's their hypocritical reaction was not to say that immunities were serious matters for anybody, but to say, "We will pass the legislation", and all the Ministers went into the Lobby to vote for immunity for the Council of Lloyd's. It was claimed that the legislation was necessary so that Lloyd's could conduct its affairs properly, but since that Bill became an Act those greedy people in the City have been rocked by scandal after scandal. There is a fair case for spending the £3 million on an inquiry. The Tories could then look at the damage that they did five or six years ago to try to discover where they went wrong.
The commissioner for trade union rights will cost £1.2 million. Yes, there is a drop in the number of health and safety at work inspectors in both the specific and general categories, but £1.2 million will be spent on so-called commissioner for trade union rights. That commissioner will be the Government's puppet and will be used to attack the trade union movement. Why not spend the money on wages council inspectors, for example, to make sure that all those who donate so lavishly to the Tory party employ people at decent wage levels and to give the poorest earners in our society some protection? That would be a better priority for the Government.
Hon. Members will be keen to know that expenditure of £1.5 million is allowed for in the first year by the Bill. Disraeli described the Tory party as a party of organised hyprocrisy. Nothing demonstrates that better than this 882 legislation, because when the Tories talk about secret postal ballots, they are not worried about democracy. The Tory party has never worried about democracy—witness its own example. Who elected the new chairman of the Tory party, a new Mr. Nobody? Nobody elected him. He was appointed by her who will be obeyed.
If Tory Members are so concerned about postal ballots, why did they not set the nation an example, as some Tory Members would have liked? The truth is—I know that that will come as a shocking revelation to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that postal ballots are designed to allow their chums, the handful of people who own this country's press, to get their dirty hands on the so-called democratic processes of the trade union movement. I mean the Rupert Murdochs of this world.
Conservative Members subscribe to some sort of supervisory legislation when it comes to their elections. None of them have put forward proposals to remove the legislation that covers radio and television and allocates a fair amount of time to all the candidates at a general election. That is a legal requirement and it is reasonably scrupulously carried out. I have not heard any Tory Member object to that procedure. However, when it comes to trade unionists, the Government want unscrupulous rogues such as Rupert Murdoch to be able to give double-page spreads for the candidates of their choice, but double-page spreads attacking trade unionism with a viciousness, inaccuracy and unscrupulousness that would have made Goebbels blush. That is the gutter out of which The Sun, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and the other 'Tory papers spread their filth when they get involved in trade union manipulations. All this is about getting those newspapers through the letter-boxes.
Instead of engaging, as we do, in debate and discussion here in Parliament and then making a judgment—that is a fair form of democracy — if the principle that the Government support in this rotten little measure were carried into effect with Parliament, we would not need to bother coming at all. That may not be too much of a blow to some hon. Members. We could simply have postal ballots on all the legislation. They could be sent through the post to our homes and The Sun, the Daily Express and the Daily Mail could be allowed to provide all the background information. The Library could he closed down. Why have access to factual information? What nonsense it is.
There would be some degree of veracity in the protestations about democracy from the Conservative Benches if, at the same time as they were talking about postal ballots, they introduced legislation to say that in every paper there should be an equal division of space between all the candidates. Indeed, one Tory Member suggested that there should be funds available to enable candidates to distribute election material. Who would finance that? It is not included in the £3 million allocated for this legislation.
There should be some legislation to make funds available to ensure that there is a commissioner to prevent newspapers from giving distorted and biased presentations of one candidate against another. If there were funds available to enable a commissioner to ensure that material was sent out in equal balance for all candidates in a trade union ballot, there might be a case for the Government's argument. However, that would still not equate with the democratic discussion and informed, objective examination of the merits of a candidate that occurs during a 883 general election. The Tories do not want the rules that apply to radio and television, both BBC and ITV, to apply to the press. That would mean a balanced and fair press, and we do not have such a press. The present system works in the Tories' favour, and they want to see the massive degree of prejudice against Labour continue.
By and large, the money could be used for far better purposes. I hope that, in Committee, the Government will recognise that some amendment is needed on the lines that I have suggested so that more money can be spent on health and safety. At present a forensic lottery confronts so many workers when they receive injuries. Indeed, I have already pointed out to the Minister that thousands of workers receive such injuries each year.
The Minister could do a service to the nation by restoring the statistics of people injured for three days or more and therefore off work for that period. In 1984 those statistics, by virtue of the ending of the industrial injury benefit, were lost. We do not know whether, there is a cluster of injuries near—let us pluck something out of the air — nuclear power stations or civil engineering works. Until 1984 we automatically had such statistics. It is outrageous that those vital statistics are now denied the nation, thus preventing remedial action from being taken to stop the drain of life and limb that takes place, week in, week out, in our factories, shops, offices, railway premises and so forth.
I hope that the Minister will take note of my remarks—it is a vain hope. However, my speech demonstrates 884 that there are more important priorities at hand and that we on the Labour Benches are pressing for them and will continue to do so.

§ The Minister for Employment (Mr. John Cope)
In some ways it is reassuring to find that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) did not lose his touch during his absence from the House. I was concerned that the European Parliament might have affected him, but I need not have worried.
The hon. Gentleman has advanced a number of alternative uses for the money that is the subject of the resolution, but we think that as the House has given a Second Reading to the Bill we should also vote the money to support it.