HC Deb 22 July 1991 vol 195 cc954-73 5.16 am
Mr. Lewis Stevens (Nuneaton)

First, I apologise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State of Employment for bringing him to the Chamber at such an unearthly hour of the morning.

The topic that I wish to debate is trade union reform. Since 1980 the Government have adopted a step-by-step approach to industrial relations in Britain by means of five Acts which have had considerable success.

The change in approach can be seen in the number of stoppages in recent years and the number of working days lost in industry and in service. In 1990 some 1.9 million working days were lost compared with almost 13 million on average during the 1970s, which is a dramatic change.

There have been important cases, such as the National Union of Railwaymen in 1986 and the Ford workers in 1990, where on a ballot, despite the advice of union leaders, workers have decided not to strike. Since 1980, despite the apparent lack of publicity, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has been notified of more than 1,000 ballots.

Since the first of the Acts came into force, there has been a great reduction in trade union membership. That is not something about which I would gloat. It is rather sad that people should not look on the trade unions as an important part of their working lives. Perhaps part of the problem is that the unions have not managed to keep themselves attractive. Their functions have tended to become blurred with the passing years. Some of the reasons for their traditional efforts on behalf of their members have disappeared. They have frequently attained some of their early objectives.

The unions fought long and hard to reduce hours of work. I can remember the pride that my father, a shop steward, took in obtaining a reduction in the working week in his company—from 48 to 44 hours—which meant that the workers did not have to work on Saturday mornings any more.

Many grassroots members of trade unions still work as they always have done to obtain the best possible conditions for their people. But their leaders have often created problems.

The success of the legislation of recent years can be seen in the differences brought about in industrial relations and in bringing inward investment to this country. The United Kingdom has become an attractive prospect for companies from overseas. In 1989, 54,000 jobs were created by inward investment—the highest number ever. I doubt whether that could have occurred under the old-fashioned industrial relations set-up.

Unfortunately, some unions are still in the dark ages. According to The Independent, Keva Coombes, the former Labour leader of Liverpool city council, has admitted that the roots of the council's problems were the entrenched attitudes of its trade unions, which had not shifted since the 1950s". The unions must bring themselves up to date and make themselves attractive to the membership.

There has been a great shift: whereas trade unions in the private sector used to have the most members, now the public sector unions have the most. There has also been a move away from blue collar unions to white collar unions. Because of changes in the law, the individual has greater powers within the union nowadays; and employers can take action to prevent the worse effects of strikes—yet quite a number of people still, somewhat surprisingly, consider strike action. Only this morning I read in the Daily Mirror—

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)

Why the Daily Mirror?

Mr. Stevens

Because it was the only available paper. The back page carried the banner headline, "Strike", and continued: Everybody out, says the PFA. Even in the world of soccer there seems still to be a tendency to consider striking. Given the problems of the football world I should have thought that that was the last course of action the Professional Footballers Association would want to take—it will hardly be attractive to the players and clubs. I gather that the reason has to do with the proposed super league, which would apparently disadvantage some people—so they are thinking of striking. I do not believe that matters need come to that.

As for the future, there are still one or two changes in trade union legislation that could prove beneficial. In his citizens charter my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposed an entirely new legal right for the citizen. Unlawful industrial action, such as an unballoted or political strike in a public service, can currently be challenged by an employer or a member of a union who is called upon to take part in the action. Such strikes have a widespread and devastating effect on the everyday lives of ordinary citizens. Under the new proposal the citizen would have the right to bring legal proceedings to halt any unlawful industrial action affecting services covered by the citizens charter. That will deal with cases in which people are severely affected and will cover people in business or those trying to get to work.

Many trade unions in the private sector have no-strike agreements, which are an important advance in industrial relations. People who work for some public services are not permitted to strike, but perhaps workers in those services should consider voluntary acceptance of the fact that strike action should form no part of their armoury for carrying out negotiations. Pay review bodies, which were introduced by the Government, have taken away the likelihood of strikes.

I read in The Sunday Times about the sacking of the chief of the National Union of Journalists. The report said: For subscriptions of up to £165 a year, among the highest in the trade union movement, members have complained that they get little more than a laminated press card and a newspaper that spouts left-wind ideology. Surely the purpose of trade unions is service to their members. Earlier I spoke about the leadership of trade unions. The report in The Sunday Times says: Turner, … formerly letters editor at the Mirror, sees himself as the champion of working journalists standing up to professional trade unionists more interested in bickering than bylines. That suggests that some trade unions do not properly serve their members.

We should examine further three areas that need reform. The law calls for a ballot before industrial action can take place, but there should be a period of perhaps a week before a strike can occur. Such a delay is commonly called a cooling-off period, but during that time frustration could grow. My reason for calling for such a period is that it would enable people to reflect on the effects of what might take place. That could be taken into account by individuals and companies and other groups who could then try to establish how to meet their various needs without resorting to industrial action. That would be of considerable advantage. It seems only fair play to give people a breathing space to adjust their needs.

There could also be reform on the right of people to join a trade union of their choice. This still creates some problems. There are still inter-union rivalries. No doubt some of the new arrangements such as no-strike agreements have developed because they are usually tied up with single union agreements. We know that a number of unions have been involved in some rather unseemly squabbles and that the Trades Union Congress has threatened to expel its largest union, the Transport and General Workers Union, for poaching members from two other unions—the Amalgamated Engineering Union and the National Union of Public Employees. The desire to join the union of one's choice is not unreasonable. The laws that we have passed over the past 12 years have given trade union members a great number of freedoms and it would be reasonable to give people the right to join the trade union of their choice. That might encourage some to rejoin or join the trade union movement.

The third area where change can take place is the basic area of agreements between trade unions and employers, which at the moment are not enforceable in law. It would not be a bad thing if we moved to a system similar to those of other countries, so that such agreements are enforceable in law, although only with the agreement of both parties. It is odd that many contracts are enforceable in the courts, although people do not always insist on enforcement and may come to a mutual agreement, when this one is not. I cannot see why, as we move into new areas of trade union and employer relations, we cannot make that change.

Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stretford)

The hon. Gentleman talks about agreements being enforceable in law. He may be aware that there was an exchange between the Minister and myself some months ago about the situation at Rolls-Royce, where the management arbitrarily threatened to tear up the contracts of employment of all its employees, without any notification or negotiation. Does he think that such agreements should be enforceable in law? Where a trade union has been recognised as the legitimate negotiating body over many years, but the employer arbitrarily tears up negotiating rights, should that be enforceable in law?

Mr. Stevens

It is open. If we agreed that the contract should be enforceable in law, it should be binding on both sides, not just one. The agreements are made; that is the position, so if they are enforceable one way, they must be enforceable the other. That could protect both employer and employee. Our industrial relations legislation has been intended not only to strike a balance, but to make the employer-employee relationship reasonable and workable, as opposed to one side dominating the other. We have seen too much of that in the past, particularly in the 1960s.

There is room for us to develop trade union law and reform the existing legislation. That would benefit trade unionists and others. Employers would have more concrete arrangements on which to work, especially if agreements became enforceable in law. That would remove the uncertainty that is still to be found in many industrial disputes: only when they escalate into direct conflict does it become clear what will happen.

If the Government do not introduce such reforms, the Opposition almost certainly would not. Essentially, the Labour party remains dominated by the trade unions. The policies of which we have heard so much—or, perhaps, not enough; we do not know the details—would rely on the union barons to take us forward into the future. Today, the unions sponsor a higher proportion of the parliamentary Labour party than at any time since 1935; that includes the majority of the shadow Cabinet. Since 1981, they have controlled the lion's share of the vote in the election of the party leader. As far as I am aware, the Leader of the Opposition has no plans to alter either arrangement.

In deference to their paymasters, the Opposition have opposed every trade union reform since 1979, including the introduction of pre-strike ballots and ballots for union elections. They have not opposed a single major strike in recent years: they did not oppose the miners' strike, the transport strike or the health service strikes. They seem determined to repeal much of the successful and welcome legislation of the past 12 years. Their policies would almost certainly bring about the return of secondary action and flying pickets, and would grant the unions unprecedented legal immunities and privileges. They would be protected by effective sanctions if they broke the law.

Labour's latest document, "Opportunity Britain", still contains policies that would benefit trade union leaders, and the unions continue to influence Labour's policy in many major areas of the economy, training, health and transport. The threat to the economy, productivity and growth is as real as ever. Labour's trade union reforms would almost certainly prove disastrous.

I believe that we need a further step on the step-by-step approach that the Government have taken over the past 12 years to discourage precipitate action and protect third parties that play no direct part in disputes. A cooling-off period following ballots has proved successful in other countries. I also believe that it is time that people had a statutory right to belong to the unions of their choice. That would remove the effects of the Bridlington procedures and take away some of the functions of the TUC.

We should also consider the status of agreements between trade unions and employers. They should be made legally binding, as they are in some other countries. In years to come we shall want to introduce further reforms. During the past 12 years we have passed both major and minor legislation to improve industrial relations. That legislation has proved to be enormously successful. It has also proved to be very popular both within the trade union movement and outside it. We need, however, to do a little more. I hope that the Minister and his Department of Employment colleagues will include some of the points that I have made in their Green Paper. If we do not continue trade union reform in order to improve industrial relations, the Opposition will never do so.

5.40 am
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) for providing the House with the opportunity to debate this subject. He has raised a number of interesting points and ideas for taking trades union reform forward. He has told us about the work still to be done, but he will probably agree with me when I say that we shall essentially be dealing with fine tuning. We shall have to look at the pattern of trades union reform since 1979, adjust it and get it right in the light of developments.

If one looks at the pattern of trades union reform since 1979, it is easy to see what a very long way we have come. I refer to pre-strike ballots, ballots for the election of trades union officers, the developments relating to secondary picketing and the outlawing of the closed shop. All this, and a great deal more, forms the pattern of legislation and trades union reform since 1979.

It is not surprising that a pattern of reform such as that should be introduced by a Conservative Government. It very much underpins Conservative philosophy, which is all about making sure that the rights of organisations do not become bigger than their aggregate parts. It is a question of ensuring that major organisations do not lose sight of the fact that if they have been created to serve the interests of their members, that is exactly what they have to do.

It is not surprising that a Conservative Government, not a Labour Government, should have been very keen to ensure that there is proper freedom for members to operate within those organisations and to embark on such a course of reform. The interesting aspect of that course of reform is that it should have been so overwhelmingly popular, as is evidenced by the results of three general elections. It will be common though not comfortable ground between us that whatever other reasons people may have had for voting Conservative at the last three elections, the question of trades union reform has featured significantly and resulted in some people, many of whom were trades union members, voting Conservative for the first time.

The fact that a Conservative Government embarked on such a course of reform and the fact that it has been popular is not, in a sense, surprising. What is surprising, perhaps, is the fact that the Labour party has now decided that it is in favour of these reforms. It is prepared, superficially at least—I stress the word "superficially"—to say not that it has been in favour of these reforms all along, but that for some particular reason, not yet specified, it intends to look at this matter in an entirely different way from the way that it has looked at it in the past.

An interesting feature of our debate is that two questions can be asked. First, is it likely that the Labour party has truly changed its position—has the leopard truly changed its spots? Secondly, is it actually true that it has done so? On the question whether that is likely, it is worth considering the history of the Labour party and what that tells us. To be fair, I ought to make the point that, in view of what I am about to say, I imply no criticism of the Labour party. On previous occasions I have stated the argument in a slightly different way. A debate such as this, however, attended only by aficionados concentrates the mind and makes one behave in an even fairer way than one might otherwise behave.

The point that must be made is that it would be quite wrong to accuse the Labour party of being a mainstream political party. Nothing in its history or origins gives rise to that supposition. It does not pretend, and I use that word in both senses, to be a popular movement. It cannot pretend to be rooted in the general traditions of this country. It cannot be said to be a popular movement based on ordinary sentiments of common sense and patriotism. Its genealogy is short, obvious and brutish: it was created to be the mouthpiece of the trades union movement. That is what it has been over the years and in a sense, even if we do not particularly like what the mouthpiece says, it is no criticism of the Labour party to say that that is what it is. Much though the Labour party may try to avoid the fact, it is the mouthpiece of the labour movement and of the trades union movement. That is its purpose and why it was created.

We are given to understand that, despite the Labour party's origins and history, all has changed in recent times. We are asked to accept that, because of the dynamism and sheer intellectual force of the Leader of the Opposition, the Labour party has entirely changed its spots and can no longer be regarded as merely the mouth on a stick of the trades union movement.

Is that likely? We are told that the Labour party has introduced significant reforms to ensure that it will not be dominated by the union movement. The problem is that the most significant of the reforms is due to be made after the next general election, when Labour party policy will be decided, as always, by its conference. Even after the major reforms that the Leader of the Opposition has introduced, 70 per cent. of the votes cast at the Labour party's conference will be the block vote of the trades union movement. That is after reforms have been made to reduce union domination. It is a funny reduction in domination if, after the event, 70 per cent. of the votes to decide party policy are cast by the trades union movement.

In deciding whether the Labour party has changed its position on trades union reform, or is likely to do so, one must consider the sponsorship of Labour Members. They would be the first to correct me if I were to pretend that 100 per cent. of the parliamentary Labour party is sponsored by trades unions. Some 33 per cent. of Labour Members are not; only 67 per cent. are sponsored by trades unions.

If that worries Labour Members, they need have no fear, because the shadow Cabinet shows solidarity. Every one of its 20 members is sponsored by the trades union movement. In case any members of the general management committee are lurking up in the gallery, listening to our debates or will study them later, Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen will confirm that all the members of the shadow Cabinet, which is represented here tonight by the second division, are sponsored by the trades union movement.

Even if one were prepared to ignore the raw figures, it is worth considering what some of the reformers say about trades union matters. We should consider the two leading lights and moderates of the labour movement. The views of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—he of the lunchtime offensive—were interestingly described in his house. He spoke of a legal requirement for pre-strike ballots. He described the proposition for pre-strike ballots and ballots for union elections—

Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield)

No, he did not.

Mr. Nicholls

It is interesting that although only four Labour Members have come here to defend their position on the trades union membership, they already know I want to draw to the attention of the House. What does the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, the hero of the lunchtime offensive, think about trades union ballots? Does he think that they are a useful extension of trades unions' members' rights? Is he pleased that it strikes a libertarian blow? No. He describes it as "an irrelevant effrontery". He went on to say that statutory requirements for ballots were "intellectually disreputable" and that for unions, they would gravely undermine the effective pursuit of their members' interests."—[Official Report, 8 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 170.] That is from someone who is a leading light in a party which would have us believe that trades union reform is now safe in its hands. That is from a person who, when Labour suffers its next election defeat, will be well poised to take over leadership of the Labour party.

Let us look to the younger generation and put the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East to one side for the moment. Let us go for the young Lochinvar and look at the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) when he was trying to describe how he felt about trades union ballots. What did he say about the Bill that made them a reality? He described the ballots as a "shabby, partisan strategy" and as "a disgrace". Just in case he had not made his position abundantly clear at that stage, he said that he saw a ballot as a scandalous and undemocratic measure against the trade union movement".—[Official Report, 8 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 210.] That is the reality of the way in which leading lights in the new, revisionist, squeaky-clean Labour party feel about trades union matters.

Every single trades union reform that the Government have introduced since 1979, which the Labour party says is now safe in its hands, was opposed root and branch by the Labour party, often in the most lurid terms. There is not a single major strike that members of the Labour party have opposed in recent times. If one needed to consider for one moment whether it was likely that the Labour party, or the Labour party as it is likely to be constituted in the foreseeable future, could be anything other than a tool and pawn of the trades union movement, one would not have to listen to my words—good idea though that may be. All one has to do is to look at what the Labour party says about itself—[Interruption.] This is one of the occasions on which my innate fairness can bubble to the surface, because in making my point, I have only to quote those who now seek to deny it from sedentary positions.

The answer to the first question—whether it is likely that the Labour party would now change its spots—is that it would not. Even if it is not likely, is it true? It is worth considering four areas in which the Labour party will say, superficially, that it has changed its position. Let us consider the publication "Opportunity Britain". Let us ignore for the moment that a noun has been used as an adjective. In one area of the publication, while proclaiming itself to be squeaky clean, revisionist and modern, the Labour party has managed to pledge itself to go further down a left-wing, trades union road than it has ever done. It now makes it clear in "Opportunity Britain"—on page 39 for those who wish to have a look at its latest policy on these matters—that it would for the first time be impossible for employers to be able to dismiss strikers. It is a bizarre proposition that, after all possible safeguards, an employer should employ people to work in his concern, yet not be allowed to dismiss them when they decide that their idea of a contract of employment is merely an opportunity to strike. That proposition and that move towards making it impossible to dismiss strikers are so extreme that they were not even adopted by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) when he was in government. That proposition was even too extreme for that right hon. Gentleman. It is a bizarre proposition from the Labour party and far more extreme than anything that a Labour Government have adopted.

It is interesting to discover the position of certain leading lights in the Labour party on ballots. We are led to believe by the hon. Member for Sedgefield that the tiger has changed its spots and that the Labour party has been in favour of pre-strike ballots all along. Those who pay the piper call the tune and it is interesting to consider what the trade unions say about—

Mrs. Llin Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

Tigers do not have spots.

Mr. Nicholls

It is interesting that I am now being heckled. Opposition Members are upset because if they stand in favour of some of the reforms it means that they will go against those who pay the funds of the Labour party.

It is worth considering those who pay the piper, for example, Ron Todd, the recent relatively moderate leader of the Transport and General Workers Union and what he says about ballots. It appears that he is now in favour of ballots for strikes, but he made it clear in an article in The Independent that he does not mind if those ballots are not held until after the strike has been called. It is a odd commitment to pre-strike ballots and ballots generally if one believes that one can have a strike first and perhaps a ballot later. That is what lies behind the Labour party's being in favour of ballots.

What about secondary picketing and sympathy action? It is clear that the public are thoroughly fed up with such action. There are still many people who can remember the chaos to which the country was reduced in the winter of discontent specifically because secondary picketing and sympathy action were allowed. We are now told by the Labour party that slight secondary picketing and slight sympathy action will be allowed. If one considers what the trades union apparatchiks say about that, one sees that it is slightly different from what Labour party spokesmen say.

That great luminary of the trade union movement, and to be fair, its greatest paymaster, Mr. Todd, has made it absolutely clear to those whom he seeks to fund what his position would be. Presumably the Opposition would want to hear about Mr. Todd and the TGWU. After all, many members of the shadow Cabinet are sponsored by that union. The Leader of the Opposition is sponsored by that union. They all know where their marching orders come from. When Mr. Todd was asked about how he felt about secondary picketing he said: We need fair rules on picketing. We need the right to enforce our own rule book He was speaking to that well-known moderate journal, The Morning Star. That paper said that he went on to stress that his definition of secondary action included the right to strike in support of those "in unorganised workplaces". Just in case anyone might miss what Mr. Todd thought was a necessary right of secondary picketing and sympathy action, he said: if you want the bottom line that is it and we'll consider any means of getting there. That is the true reaction of the Labour party to the restoration of rights on secondary picketing and sympathy action.

One need only consider the tortuous definition that is proposed by the Labour party. It says that it would allow secondary picketing and sympathy action, but that there would have to be mutuality of interest to justify such action. What does that mean in practice? On the BBC programme "On the Record" the hon. Member for Sedgefield admitted that that connection would be there for National Union of Mineworkers' pickets—if there is anyone left in the NUM these days. He said that NUM pickets would be entitled to go out and picket in support of electricity workers. The hon. Member was also able to confirm again that that would mean that National Union of Seamen pickets would have been entitled to bring cross-channels ferries to a halt. It would mean that the TGWU would have been entitled to carry out its threats against Ford, even though those threats prevented substantial investment at Ford at Dundee. Although the headline is that the Labour party now has a responsible attitude on those matters, the small print turns out to mean something else.

When one is trying to form a view on the matter and work out what the situation might be, it is worth looking at what some of the more honest members of the Labour party are prepared to say. The hon. Member who springs to mind is a member of the shadow Cabinet who, whatever his other attributes and characteristics, fiercely speaks his mind, such as it is. He is the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is much maligned. We all think of the skit that we often see of the hon. Gentleman on "Spitting Image", which has been unfair to him because, in reality, he is much worse than he is portrayed. It is interesting that when he was asked recently to reflect on the position of the trade union movement in relation to the Labour party he said: There is no way the Labour party can be distanced from the trade unions"— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

I am pleased that Opposition Members realise, as all good puppets should, their position in this matter. He continued: I don't think there's any doubt in anybody's mind about our alliance with the trade unions. We sit down and discuss our policies and come to agreements before we go to conference. Nobody will be able to break that link. So the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has made it absolutely clear that there is no question of breaking that link.

Ultimately, the Labour party realises that its position on trades union reform has been a vote loser. Because it is moving into new times, it now goes in for realpolitik. It has suddenly discovered that it is even more in favour of trades union reform than we are. But its structure and funding and the trades unions' say in the framing of its policies show that it is unreal to think that, if it were in office, the Labour party could ever be anything other than it was created to be: the mouthpiece, for better or worse, of the trades union movement. There is nothing wrong or dishonourable with that position. In a sense, it has now become part of British tradition and is very praiseworthy. However, it becomes less than praiseworthy, and becomes intellectually and historically dishonest, when such a party denies its history and pretends that it will abandon it in the future. There is no evidence whatever for that proposition. This debate gives us an opportunity to reflect on that fact.

6.3 am

Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stretford)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) on deciding to debate this subject, although I am at a loss about what he wanted to say. I had been concerned that two good speeches would be spoilt by the hour of the night and the lack of an audience, but events have proved me wrong because two not-so-good speeches have not been spoilt.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth)

We are about to hear another.

Mr. Lloyd

The Minister must follow me in whatever form he chooses.

There is little that I can say to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) except that he is right in at least one accusation, because the Labour party has no intention of turning its back on its history. Why should we? Our history makes the party what it is and I do not seek to justify our position, because it has been justified many times before. If the charge is simply that we recognise that we hold certain values in common with different sectors of society, the Labour party is and will continue to be committed to the pursuit of those values through the political mechanisms of this place.

As for the subject of this debate on industrial relations in Britain and the need for trade union reforms, may I say to the hon. Member for Nuneaton that there may be a need for a seven-day cooling-off period between Conservative Members coming up with ideas and the publication of Green Papers by the Secretary of State which say, essentially, what is in the hon. Gentleman's speech. That is because the only possible justification for the speech of the hon. Member for Nuneaton is that the Minister and the Secretary of State for Employment felt that they might be lucky enough in the ballot to obtain some prime time. Instead, the poor old Minister had to turn up at 5.30 am to justify and possibly throw some light on the debate.

The sad reality is that Conservative Members felt, and still feel, that trade union bashing will give them an electoral bonus. They normally start on the process before a general election. For those who do not already know it, it is a good indication of the fact that a general election is on the way. The unfortunate news for Conservative Members is that the British public do not give trade union legislation a high priority.

A recent opinion poll convincingly showed that 93 per cent. of the public support an employee's legal right, not only to trade union membership but to trade union representation when in dispute with an employer. The public even allow for the concept of an employee being in dispute with his or her employer because they recognise that such things occur.

Some 85 per cent. of the public support the legal right to a minimum wage—something that is advocated by the Labour party and most of the rest of Europe, but scorned by the Government. Some 66 per cent. of Conservative voters are strongly against the idea of any further legislation to limit trade union rights, which means that 66 per cent. of the supporters of Conservative Members do not believe them when they say that there is a need for further step-by-step, lemming-like moves over the cliff to which the Government would take the country in terms of trade union legislation.

The simple reality is that the British public recognise, as does the Labour party, that industrial relations—far from being one of the Government's successes—contain many sectors in which the Government's policies have totally and abysmally failed. That failure is meted out to the detriment of some of the most vulnerable people in society.

The Government have for many years been in dispute with many international organisations, including the European Community and the International Labour Organisation because of their total failure to provide an industrial relations regime that is seen to be fair on all sides of industry. We know that the International Labour Organisation—the United Nations trade union agency—has condemned the Government roundly and soundly for their abuse of trade unions and trade unionists. It contrasts the Government's concern to prevent what they would describe as the abuse of industrial power with their lesser concern for the rights of trade unions". That is absolutely right, because the Government have run away from the concept that employees should have any rights in the workplace.

One of the ILO's most ringing condemnations, from which the Government have constantly run away, is of their decision to ban employees at GCHQ from being trade union members. That issue is still unresolved and we do not hear Conservative Members raise it when they speak of the abuse of the ordinary people of this country. When Conservatives abuse the most vulnerable people, Parliament should draw its own conclusions about the unkind and unpleasant nature of the modern Conservative party.

There has been a denial of the negotiating rights of teachers, which was condemned by the ILO. The Government have refused to take action on the blacklisting of people—[Interruption.] That, as the hon. Member for Teignbridge should know, is common in many parts of British industry. People, simply because of a history of trade union activity—or sometimes not even that—are prevented from obtaining any further employment in those parts of industry because they are deemed to be unacceptable to employers. We saw that in relation to work on the channel tunnel, where active trade unionists were unable to obtain employment. It is a disgrace.

Mr. Nicholls

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not believe that an employer should have the right to take into account that a trade unionist may have a history of industrial disruption? Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that an employer should be obliged to employ such a person? The answer that the hon. Gentleman is groping for is yes, but it would be interesting to hear it from the hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. Lloyd

We have said consistently that blacklisting is an outrageous principle, by which an employer can use his so-called right of hire and fire for narrow and sectarian political and industrial ends.

Mr. Nicholls

The hour is late, but I am not sure that I heard the hon. Gentleman answer my question.

Mr. Lloyd

Does the hon. Gentleman seek to intervene again? I will give way to him, if he asks politely. The hon. Gentleman's behaviour is not something to which one is normally accustomed in the House, or elsewhere.

Mr. Nicholls

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lloyd

In a moment. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to learn some of the customs and traditions of the House, and I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can only approve of that.

Blacklisting has been condemned by international bodies such as the ILO. If the hon. Member for Teignbridge wants to tell the House that he believes that the ILO and others are wrong to say that blacklisting is an outrageous abuse of human rights, I will listen with considerable interest.

Mr. Nicholls

Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question that I put to him a few moments ago? Does he accept that an employer should have the right to refuse to employ a trade unionist who has a history of industrial disruption? The answer is either yes or no.

Mr. Lloyd

The hon. Gentleman chooses to phrase his question in that way, but I repeat that an employer does not have the right to blacklist a person when, in some instances, he or she has not even been an active member of a trade union, and organisations such as the Economic League have got it wrong. The Labour party has already sought, in previous Employment Bills, to make blacklisting illegal.

Mr. Nicholls

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

Mr. Lloyd

Not on the same issue, no. I have made it clear where Labour stands. We do not accept the abuse of individual human rights by blacklisting.

The hon. Member for Teignbridge might want to leap up and down in the same hysterical fashion in respect of sympathy action. Again, the ILO condemned the Government for making the concept of sympathy action illegal—particularly where it is associated, as was the case with the notorious Wapping dispute, with a move by the company artificially to split its work force by using the law as a direct weapon against its employees. The hon. Member for Teignbridge has already made it clear that he supports the sacking of workers who strike. He is clearly out of step with international opinion in that respect as well. The Government and their supporters are far from the norms of conventional and decent opinion throughout Europe and the world.

It is claimed that Britain has a successful record in terms of stoppages in industry. Let us be realistic and compare the numbers of days lost through industrial dispute, and the number lost through death and injuries at work.

Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield)

Does the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) accept that the citizens charter should allow the public to know of the secret and often spurious information on their private lives that is held by organisations such as the Economic League, and to correct it where it is wrong? Every individual has an inalienable right to be employed in commerce or industry. Does the hon. Member for Teignbridge share that view—yes or no?

Mr. Lloyd

The reality is that the Government do not agree with that proposition. They have made it clear on numerous occasions that they do not agree with the concept of individual basic human rights at the workplace. They believe that an employer has a right to do what he feels is right in his own interests. The Government's attitude is that if that means trampling down the rights of employees, so be it. That should be evident to anyone who believes in human rights in a free society. The idea that an organisation can store information covertly is a dubious one; the notion that that information should be uncheckable is so outrageous that there is an overwhelming case for banning the activity.

Mr. McCartney

If we accept from the Prime Minister that the citizens charter relates to the public sector rather than the private sector, we must recognise that within British Telecom and British Coal there is a tendency to use organisations such as the Economic League. If someone is employed in the public sector, he will have the rights that are set out in the citizens charter. Surely he should be able to seek out and challenge the information that may be held on him, which might be fallacious. At present there is no right of challenge. An individual's career might be blighted irrespective of whether he agrees with trade unionism. His views on trade unionism could be described as irrelevant in the circumstances.

Mr. Lloyd

My hon. Friend is right. I ask the Minister to confirm that part of the citizen's rights will be an entitlement for those who work in the public sector to challenge both the use and abuse by public sector employers of blacklists of the sort that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has described.

Mr. Nicholls

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lloyd

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I suspect that he is no longer in a position to answer authoritatively for the Government or the Prime Minister, to tell us what will be introduced in the citizens charter. Being ever interested in his views, however, I shall give way to him, but perhaps for the last time in this debate.

Mr. Nicholls

The hon. Gentleman and I have been round this course before. In the context of the debate, perhaps he will remind the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) that the Government introduced the right of an employee not to be denied employment because of trade union membership. We are talking about an entirely different proposition, and one that obviously escapes the hon. Member for Makerfield. The proposition is not that someone should be denied work because of trade union membership. As I said, the Government have made that an impossibility. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), with his usual cheap remarks and jibes, chooses not to recognise that. He will not give a straight answer to my question, which is whether an employer should be entitled to refuse employment to someone with a history of industrial disruption—not someone who is merely a member of a trade union. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Government introduced the right that a person should not be refused work merely because of trade union membership.

Mr. Lloyd

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman still practises law, but he suggested in his little diatribe that if a law is passed that gives rights to trade unionists, that makes it impossible to discriminate against trade unionists. He merely demonstrates—

Mr. Nicholls

I did not say that.

Mr. Lloyd

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should read Hansard when this exchange appears within it. I think that he will find that my quotation is accurate.

The simple reality is that in Britain there are many who are denied employment only because they are members—not active ones—of trade unions. That is the position in the construction industry, for example, and in other parts of other industries. The Government can pass any law that they like, but unless they are prepared actively to prevent the use of blacklists they merely provide themselves with a fig leaf of respectability—I think that the Minister know this—while failing to give people legal protection. People's lives have been blighted by the actions of vicious employers. Actions have been taken that were designed to maintain a degree of control in certain industries which should not be tolerated in a society such as ours.

The hon. Member for Nuneaton talked about Britain's great success in terms of the present industrial climate. There is a contrast to be drawn between the number of days lost through industrial stoppages and the ever-increasing number of days lost through deaths and injuries at the workplace. That is one of the scandals of our time, and it falls directly on the doorstep of the Government. During recent years, the number of deaths has once again increased. The latest figures available show that some 200,000 people each year are injured in the workplace in Britain. That is a frighteningly high figure. A phenomenal number of people are suffering because of the incompetence and indifference of Conservative Members and the Government whom they seek to support.

The Government have systematically underfunded the Health and Safety Executive and have systematically attempted to drive a wedge between the people at the workplace and the protections that they should be entitled to enjoy in any society that claims to be civilised. If we are serious about a proper industrial climate in a modern economy, a right to healthy and safe working practices is not simply something to be afforded when the economy is put to rights, but something fundamental to our sort of society. It is a fundamental right for our fellow citizens at the workplace.

I draw the Minister's attention to the case of Jan Leadbitter, who died at work recently and whose employer, Bovis Construction, was taken to court. The family contacted me because they were devastated that the company, which has a poor industrial safety record, was fined a mere £1,000 by the court. It is an outrage that a company that allowed one of its employees to die, through its negligence—there is no doubt that it was negligence by the company—was fined only £1,000 by the court, which deemed that to be sufficient penalty. Conservative Members may think that that is a reasonable response by the courts, but we do not. Companies that are irresponsible to the point of allowing their employees to die should suffer penalties considerably greater than that.

Mr. McCartney

A year and a half ago, an 18-year-old constituent of mine was electrocuted and died after a fall. His employer was found guilty in the magistrates court of four offences, for which the highest fine was £400. His mother and father are devastated and his fiancee's life has been destroyed. Despite its negligence, the employer walked away with a minimum fine.

Because my constituent was killed three weeks after his 18th birthday, his family has no claim in law for compensation. He was deemed to be an adult with no wife or children, yet in reality he lived in a family and looked after his parents. The company offered to pay for the lad's funeral, which cost about £1,500, and then walked away. Had that lad been killed in the street by, for example, a nightclub bouncer, that person would have rightly served 15 years. Because the gentleman concerned calls himself a managing director, he walked away from the court with a £400 fine for negligently killing a person.

Mr. Lloyd

My hon. Friend draws attention to an important point. Obviously, compensation can never be enough in such cases. What we should be determined upon—but the Government are not—is to make such events so rare as to be exceptional. The sad reality is that there are 623 deaths and 200,000 injuries a year, with probably another 2,000 people dying through work-induced health disorders and about 80,000 people joining the list of those whose health has been ruined in the workplace. For this Government, the health and safety elements are not a priority. While that charge is real and fitting, I say to Conservative Members that every time that they speak about industrial relations, they speak with—

Mrs. Golding

Forked tongues.

Mr. Lloyd

Not only with forked tongues, but with gross hypocrisy.

The Government of law and order are faced with the problem of the 100,000 firms since 1979 that have been found to be illegally underpaying their workers. If the data that I have are accurate, about 1 million people who are covered by the wages councils do not receive the wages to which they are entitled.

The Conservative party, which claims to have respect for the law, has never been strong in defence of those 1 million people or in pursuing employers who are prepared to flout the law. The Government unashamedly do not pretend to support that law. When we know that about 10.4 million people at work are paid below the level of the Council of Europe's decency threshold, we know that Britain has a crisis of poverty wages. The problem will not be resolved by pious aspirations about driving people back into work. That has not happened. Once again, unemployment is increasing massively. That explains why the hon. Member for Nuneaton said that there were fewer industrial stoppages this year than previously.

Low pay is holding back our economy and our fellow citizens. It stops our employers investing in training and in deriving the maximum potential from those at the workplace. The Conservative Government do not aim to crack down on the illegal underpayers. A Labour Government will introduce a minimum wage, as Labour Members have said publicly, and we will ensure that it is used to the advantage of people in the workplace.

Wherever we look, the Government's record on industrial relations bears no comparison to that of the rest of western Europe. The Government are blocking European Community directives dealing with the burden of proof in cases involving sexual discrimination at work, parental leave and working hours.

I shall quote the case of Robert George, a practising Christian, who works for Plant Breeding International in Cambridge, a subsidiary of the multinational firm, Unilever—a name known to every hon. Member here.

Mr. McCartney

That company is a big contributor to the Tory party.

Mr. Lloyd

As my hon. Friend said, that firm is a big contributor to the Tory party. Mr. Robert George has been working for the company for many years. During the harvest, lasting from July to October, he is expected to work 12 hours a day, seven days a week—an 84-hour week. [Interruption.] The Minister sniffs—I am not sure whether in commiseration with Mr. George or in indifference. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will respond to my point. [Interruption.] It is interesting to note that the Minister has revealed that he will not respond.

The Government unashamedly blocked the directive on working hours, which would have meant that, for the first time, Britain would come into line with every other country in Europe, bar one, in defining a maximum working week. The Government are not prepared to comment on the case of Mr. Robert George, who is not even able to exercise his right as a practising Christian to take Sunday off. It is a disgrace that that should happen and that the Government are not prepared to investigate the problems faced by that individual and many others because of abuses by big, respectable employers. It is a disgrace that the Government stand alone in Europe in blocking the working hours directive. It is about time that we had a Government who were prepared to put the interests of working people to the fore and to accept directives on working hours that affect the liberty of our fellow citizens.

The Government are out of touch on leave entitlement and the right of workers to be represented at the workplace. Britain is virtually alone, other than Ireland, in having no system whereby the British worker has a right to representation on health and safety issues. On a minimum wage, maternity leave and parental leave Britain is again out of touch. In addition, Britain is blocking a directive which would give rights to part-time workers and it stands virtually alone in Europe in having laws which discriminate against part-time workers.

When the hon. Member for Nuneaton tells us that Britain's industrial relations record is a success he is far from the truth. I accept that he was put up to this debate tonight by a Government who want to maintain their trade union-bashing approach. But millions of people in Britain are suffering under the lousy industrial relations climate that the Government have created. The next Labour Government will be committed to introducing a climate at the workplace which embodies the values of civilisation and which protects those who are abused. The Government want industrial conflict, so beloved of Conservative Members who thrive on it. A Labour Government will ensure that conflict at work is rare and that the British worker will be able to operate in the workplace with dignity.

The Labour party is unashamedly close to the trade unions. It is because we value the role of trade unions in protecting people at the workplace that I stand here tonight to say that there is a better way than that put forward by the Government. That better way is coming soon.

6.32 am
Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield)

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken. I take it that he has the leave of the House to speak again.

Hon. Members

Yes.

Mr. McCartney

I thank hon. Members for giving me the opportunity to speak again. I do not wish to repeat the arguments that have been made tonight on a party-political basis. At the end of the day we can agree or disagree. But in practical terms, industry today provides a clear, unequivocal picture of the modern industrial management structures of companies, whether private or public, that have a real interest in developing a meaningful relationship with the work force.

My constituency is the home of Heinz, the largest food production company in the world. It has the largest food production plant in the world for baby food, soups and other household items which are mainly sold to the largest supermarket chains in Britain.

Some eight years ago it was clear that for Heinz to survive in the marketplace in the United Kingdom and Europe it had to enter into a massive research and development programme. That meant a massive change for the work force and management structures.

The company took the view from the outset that it considered the work force and the trade unions not to be against investment and reorganisation but to be a catalyst for change. During the past eight years there has been a massive change in attitudes in the company to the point where Heinz has not only maintained its market leadership in the food industry but has led the way in showing how trade unions and management can work together to develop, restructure and win new markets at home and in the EC.

Before Ministers start attacking trade unions, they should consider what happens in companies such as Heinz where the management uses the skill of the unions and involves them in a meaningful dialogue about the changes that are necessary. The management also allows the unions to put forward practical solutions to the problems of the marketplace.

After millions of pounds of investment, Heinz recognises that were it not for the role played by the unions in the changes in the company, the advantages that the company has gained in the marketplace would never have happened.

In London and Wigan the shop stewards are principal partners in the changes in the company. [Interruption.] The Minister seems rather fed up with this debate—

Mr. Forth

I have been up all night.

Mr. McCartney

So have we all.

Mr. Nicholls

Give the Minister a chance to reply then.

Mr. McCartney

The hon. Gentleman spoke for hours and hours, making party-political points.

If the Minister is serious about his interest in industrial relations and in trade unions, I invite him to come to my constituency between now and the autumn and meet the management and trade unions at Heinz. He could look over the factory, where working relations have been transformed. The management realises that it has to take the unions with it when effecting such multi-million pound transformations. That in turn leads to a better company and to better products. It enables the company to win hands down against European competition.

Heinz has proved that taking the trade unions with the management means a better company and product in the long run. I hope that in the next debate on employment policy we shall not hear from Conservative Members the sort of petty-minded attitudes which we have heard tonight. They are 20 years out of date, and they have no place in the sort of modern industrial society that we have in Britain today.

6.36 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth)

A new technique has unfolded during this debate: the Minister is given only a few minutes in which to wind it up. Perhaps the House will have to get used to that, but it came as a surprise to me.

The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) referred to a debate on employment policy. If he had read the Order Paper he would have seen that the debate is supposed to be about trade union reform. That oversight should not surprise us. This morning trade union-sponsored Opposition Members have come trotting along, no doubt at the bidding of their paymasters in the National Graphical Association, the National Union of Public Employees and the Transport and General Workers Union. They have done everything they can to avoid talking about trade union reform. That, too, should not surprise the House.

My hon. Friends, by contrast, including my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) who initiated the debate, wanted to talk about trade union law and trade union reform. It was sigificant, but not surprising, that Labour Members wanted to talk about almost anything else—deaths and injuries at work, for instance. As usual, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) got his facts wrong and ignored the fact that this country has one of the best records in Europe in that area. Other European countries look to us to establish best practice in health and safety. That was confirmed recently by the Health and Safety Executive's mapping project, which I recommend to the hon. Gentleman.

Again as usual, the hon. Member for Stretford made an inaccurate reference in passing to underfunding of the Health and Safety Executive. He should know by now—I have told him often enough—that the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission has publicly confirmed that the commission and the executive have the resources that they require to do their job properly.

The hon. Gentleman went on to refer, as he always does, to prosecutions under the wages council regulations. This is yet more evidence that the Opposition are obsessed with the need for prosecutions, completely ignoring the methods used by the Health and Safety Executive and by the wages inspectors—information and persuasion. Those techniques seem alien to Opposition Members, who seem constantly to lust after prosecutions in every possible circumstance. That is a frightening taste of things to come if the Opposition ever get the chance to run the country.

My hon. Friends wanted to talk about industrial relations and their reform and to point to our record of improved industrial relations which, among other things, have led to a flow of inward investment that is second to none and an impressive record of job creation. The Opposition were candid enough to admit that they are still wedded to their minimum wage policy, even though it has been demonstrated over and over again that such a policy would cost the jobs of hundreds of thousands of low-paid people. Perhaps the Opposition have calculated that to force up the pay of some at the cost of jobs of others is a price which they are prepared to pay. The Government are certainly not prepared to pay that price. Our job is time and again to tell the people of this country that whereas a small number of them may benefit in the short term from a statutory minimum wage, a large number of people would lose their jobs and suffer the consequent and disastrous fall in income. The electorate will ponder that between now and the next election.

The hon. Member for Stretford inaccurately tried to tell the House that a recent opinion poll showed that a large number of people were against further limitations on trade union powers. I think that I have quoted him accurately. That signifies a profound misunderstanding by Opposition Members of what the past and, I hope, future reforms of industrial relations are all about. They have nothing to do with limiting trade unions' powers, but are concerned with the enhancement of the role of individual trade union members and members of the public. We want to safeguard the democratic rights of trade union members within their unions and vis-a-vis their leaders. We sought to establish a fair balance between the trade unions and the employers and to protect employers and the public from the abuse of trade union power of the kind that is long behind us, such as the closed shop and the flying pickets.

Opposition Members again raised the spectre of the return of pickets, secondary picketing and violence on the picket line. We have put all that behind us, but apparently the Opposition are undertaking to see its return if they are returned to government.

Mr. McCartney

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forth

No, because the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Stretford monopolised the debate to the point where I do not have enough time fully to answer the issues that they and other hon. Members have raised. Given the limited time that is left, it would be inappropriate for me to give way.

Employees are free to decide for themselves whether to join a trade union in which they have the right to vote in a secret ballot for the election of leaders. All union members can decide whether to go on strike, and they are free from any threat of disciplinary action. Employers are free to decide whether to recognise and negotiate with trade unions.

Perhaps most importantly, the law protects businesses and jobs against flying pickets, secondary action, unofficial strikes and other abuses of industrial power. All those major advances have been recognised not only by the electorate in the three successive election victories that we have enjoyed, but, perhaps more importantly, by investors from other countries who have flocked to the United Kingdom because of the favourable industrial relations framework and atmosphere that have been created by the Government. Those investors provide an ever-increasing number of quality jobs in quality companies.

What the Opposition would do is in doubt, and it is time for them to come clean. We had some hints from them about what they would do about the closed shop, secondary picketing, the rights of trade unions over their members and the role of strike ballots. In all these sectors, where we have made such advances, the Labour party either does not want to come clean with the electorate or, if it does, has demonstrated a remarkable capacity to turn the clock back and to restore to trade unions and their leaders the frightening powers and overwhelming role that they had in the dim and distant 1970s. If this is the reality of the Opposition's industrial relations policy, it is truly frightening.

Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton, we are able to get a glimpse of what the Labour party would do if it could. The significance of the debate is that Labour Members have shied away from discussing what they would do with trade unions under the law, and have instead concentrated on irrelevancies and marginal issues. That, if nothing else, shows full well the nature of the Labour party. I regret that the opportunity to explore these issues has been all too brief. I hope that, over the coming weeks and months, the House will have ample opportunity fully to explore what Labour Members have to say about these issues, so that the electorate will see their policies in all their horror.