Trade Union Recognition

HC Deb 06 April 1998 vol 310 cc22-81

Madam Speaker

I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

3.32 pm

Mr. Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood)

I beg to move, That this House urges the Government to define its policy on trade union recognition; and urges it to require the support of 50 per cent. of the total workforce, rather than 50 per cent. of those voting in ballots, to determine whether union recognition should be compulsory, given the Government's rejection of the Official Opposition's policy of leaving the law unchanged. The motion is intentionally narrow. The Government amendment covers a wide range of important subjects, but they are not germane to the subject of trade union recognition, which is the subject that the Opposition seek to debate in the first part of our time today. The Government amendment deals with the minimum wage, the social chapter, works councils and the working time directive. Those are all essential and important issues, but they are different from the subject that we have put on the Order Paper.

The question this afternoon is simple and straightforward: should the law impose an obligation on employers to recognise trade unions, and, if so, when should that obligation arise? That is the question that the House is being invited to address. Our attitude to it is very clear.

Like the Confederation of British Industry, we are opposed to the compulsory recognition of trade unions. The provisions imposing compulsory recognition were key elements of the Employment Protection Act 1975. The Government like to argue the benefits of pilot schemes, but we conducted a pilot scheme on those proposals in the late 1970s, and it was a disaster. That is why we are opposed to reintroducing into law the principle of compulsory recognition of trade unions. We abolished such recognition in the Employment Act 1980, and that was one of the key elements in the long-term improvement in employment and industrial relations brought about during the 1980s and early 1990s.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

rose—

Mr. Dorrell

I give way to the hon. Gentleman, always with pleasure.

Mr. Winnick

On 25 January 1984, the Tory Government banned trade unions at Government communications headquarters. Does the Opposition spokesperson now agree that trade unions should be recognised at GCHQ, a change introduced by the Labour Government within weeks of coming to office, or does he take the view that the ban was right? If so, would a future Tory Government reintroduce the ban at GCHQ?

Mr. Dorrell

Again, Labour Members are keen to raise any subject other than that which we are seeking to put before the House. The question that the House is being asked to consider is whether the law should impose a requirement for the compulsory recognition of trade unions.

Mr. Winnick

That does not answer my question.

Mr. Dorrell

I was going to go on to say that, of course, many employers voluntarily recognise trade unions as the representatives of their workers. There is widespread use of that practice in both the public and private sectors. For the purposes of this debate, the question is not whether trade union recognition is desirable or undesirable in all circumstances or in any particular set of circumstances, but whether the law should impose a requirement to recognise trade unions in a particular set of circumstances, against the wishes of the employer. That gives rise to several consequential questions.

If one is prepared to accept the principle that recognition should be imposed against the will of one of the parties to the agreement, the question arises—it is one that is causing untold grief within the Labour party and between Labour Front Benchers and the trade unions—what are the circumstances in which the obligation to recognise trade unions should operate? What are the implications if the principle is enshrined in law?

If recognition is compulsory, how should one treat the non-union staff of an employer who is required to recognise a particular trade union? What issues are covered by a compulsory recognition agreement? We have heard nothing from the Government about that. We have been told about the principle of compulsory recognition, but the Government have not set out the implications for trade unions and employers if a recognition agreement is imposed.

Mr. Winnick

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dorrell

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman again in a moment.

What would happen if the parties to an imposed recognition agreement failed to agree after negotiation? Would the employer still be free to act as an employer must be free to act, to defend the interests of the firm and therefore the long-term interests of the people who work in it, or do the Government intend to impose a recognition agreement that gives a power of veto to trade union bosses over decisions that affect the viability of a firm? Is that the position that the Government are adopting? They have introduced the idea of compulsory recognition, but have refused to tell not only us but the employers and others who would have to operate the agreements what the implications would be.

Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham)

The right hon. Gentleman is getting terribly worked up very early in his speech. In effect, what is on the table is nothing other than a version of what has existed in the United States since 1935, wholly supported and endorsed by Republican Congresses and Republican Presidents. If the right hon. Gentleman made the same speech in America, he would be laughed out of the House.

Mr. Dorrell

That is an interesting principle, which the hon. Gentleman might like to try out on the Prime Minister—that new Labour should sub-contract policy making to the Republican party in the American Congress. I look forward to hearing how he gets on. I am not sure that he will command the support of all his right hon. and hon. Friends on that.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

Does my right hon. Friend recall that, in June 1997, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment told reporters that the Government's White Paper on fairness at work would be published by the President of the Board of Trade by the autumn of that year? Ten months later, it has not appeared. Is that not because the Government are at war with themselves, with the modernisers on one side and the trade union lackeys and recipients of trade union sponsorship on the other?

Mr. Dorrell

As ever, my hon. Friend is one step ahead of my argument. I was about to raise that point.

Labour Members thought that they had resolved the issue and had an agreed policy that they could implement immediately after the general election. The Labour manifesto said: People should be free to join or not to join a trade union. We have no difficulty with that. However, the manifesto continued:

Where they do decide to join, and where a majority of the relevant workforce vote in a ballot for the union to represent them, the union should be recognised. The argument among Labour Members is over what those words mean—as we saw in the exchange last week between the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Winnick

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dorrell

No, I will not, because I am dealing with the revealing exchange between the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his true hon. Friend, who is sitting on the Bench below the Gangway.

Mr. MacShane

We are all friends on the Labour Benches.

Mr. Dorrell

The hon. Gentleman can convince us of many things—perhaps even that we can sub-contract policy making to the Republican party—but he will never persuade us of that.

I am glad to see the hon. Member for Bolsover in his place. At Prime Minister's questions last week, he said: When does the Prime Minister expect to conclude the talks with the Confederation of British Industry about the vexed problem of trade union recognition rights and voting by a simple majority? Is he aware that, the way that they are going on, they will probably take longer than the Northern Ireland peace agreement? That is an interesting parallel. The hon. Gentleman thinks that the disagreements in the Labour party are similar to those in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister's response was revealing.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

What about the bit at the end?

Mr. Dorrell

I left that out. In the interest of peace on the Labour Benches, I am going on to give the Prime Minister's reply. He said: In the manifesto we stated that trade union recognition would be given if a majority of the relevant work force wanted it. We said that in government we would consult and negotiate on what that meant".—[Official Report, 1 April 1998; Vol. 309, c. 1254.] That is an extraordinary proposition. We have the Prime Minister's word that the Labour party intended to consult and negotiate on the meaning of the words in the manifesto on which it was elected.

Some Labour Members and their supporters in the trade union movement thought that they knew what the words meant. Mr. John Edmonds said: This was very well discussed before the Government came into office. We worked out all the details. We are rather surprised that we are now a month before the White Paper is due to be published and apparently there are so many issues which haven't yet been settled.… It is a clear manifesto commitment that everybody understood. Mr. Edmonds was in for a shock. He went on to say, more threateningly: I think the Labour Government will understand that if it didn't deliver that there would be some very difficult consequences within the party. We are beginning to see the disagreements that give the lie to the proposition of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) about everyone being friends.

Several other issues are at stake over this matter, in the great Labour movement. The manifesto commitment is in truth new Labour in microcosm. At the election, the British people were presented with a coalition that combined, on the same side of the argument, the hon. Member for Bolsover and Mr. Rupert Murdoch. It will not come as a surprise either to Mr. Murdoch or to the hon. Gentleman that that coalition, which defied gravity, is beginning to crumble a little at the edges.

Mr. Phil Woolas (Oldham, East and Saddleworth)

Does not that coalition simply show just how unpopular the right hon. Gentleman's party was?

Mr. Dorrell

The hon. Gentleman will need to reflect on the fact that it shows how unairworthy the vessel on which he is flying will turn out to be. He is in the House, but how long will he stay here? As this Parliament progresses, that question will increasingly dominate his thinking and that of many of his hon. Friends.

The Prime Minister knows that the press know that the coalition that he put together, which includes the hon. Member for Bolsover and Mr. Rupert Murdoch, is, to put it no stronger, a trifle suspect. He knows that the question of trade union recognition throws the spotlight on one of new Labour's key weaknesses. That is of course why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pointed out, the implementation of the pledge in the doublespeak of the manifesto has been delayed.

Mr. John Monks, of the Trades Union Congress, sought to persuade the Prime Minister immediately after the general election that the commitment was, in the words of Mr. John Edmonds, clear; everybody knew what it meant. He asked why it should not be put into the National Minimum Wage Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham could then have talked about it all night.

Mr. Monks said that there was an opportunity to put the commitment into a piece of legislation and carry it through, as everybody knew what it meant. The Prime Minister was a little more cautious; he ordered delay. As he had got the hon. Member for Bolsover and Mr. Murdoch on the same side of the argument, he told Mr. Monks to go away and get the TUC on the same side of the argument. That was always, of course, an impossible task.

The CBI has been crystal clear on the issue. Mr. Adair Turner said: The CBI would quite clearly prefer not to have legislation creating a statutory requirement for union recognition …We don't see the need for change and we would prefer to leave the legal framework as is. We on the Conservative Benches whole-heartedly agree with those words.

Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston)

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Opposition motion exactly reflects the CBI's position? Does he recall that, when his Government proposed that all those who did not vote in ballots for industrial action should be counted as votes against, the CBI opposed that as nonsense?

Mr. Dorrell

That is another example of Labour Members being intent on talking about every subject other than the one on which they are currently disagreeing. I quite understand the hon. Lady's self-preservation instinct; it is a great deal easier to talk about issues on which they are all on the same side. The motion requires Labour Members to address an issue that is a subject of argument in the Government. The Labour party was elected without having resolved the meaning of the words in its manifesto.

Mr. Turner went on to say that, if we must have compulsory recognition, which is an undesirable state of affairs, three key issues have to be addressed. I shall touch on two of them briefly before referring to the third, which is the key and by far the most important.

First, I wish to refer to the position of those who are not members of trade unions, when there is a compulsory recognition agreement. Of those people, Mr. Turner says: there should be a right for individuals working in units covered by collective bargaining agreements to make separate individual contracts with their employers if they so wish. That must be right. We cannot have a compulsory recognition agreement that claims to subsume the rights of those who choose not to be a member of a trade union. The rights of non-union members are critical and must be addressed.

Secondly, I refer to small firms. Mr. Turner says: At the small company level, entrepreneurs should simply be able to say—this is the style by which I want us to work within this company—bargaining based or not, consultative or directed in style—and to attract to that company people who are happy to work in that style. Once again, that is a clear enunciation of an important principle.

We then move to the third and critical question. What majority is required? If we are to have compulsory recognition, what support does the trade union have to show among the work force of the particular part of the company that it claims to represent? That question—raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover with the Prime Minister—is in danger of tearing the Labour party apart. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Labour Members say that is rubbish. We shall come back to that.

This is a key issue of principle. Who can claim the right to speak for, and negotiate and do deals on behalf of, a group of workers? The CBI says—and we agree—that, if we must have compulsory recognition, a trade union must be able to show the support of at least 50 per cent. of those on whose behalf it claims to speak before it can claim that right. That is a simple proposition.

The trade unions and the hon. Member for Bolsover argue, on the contrary, that, if there is a 20 per cent. vote and 10.1 per cent. of the work force vote for recognition, that 10.1 per cent. can impose their will on 89.9 per cent. of the employees of the company. That is the principle that the hon. Member for Bolsover and the trade unions stand for. The Prime Minister knows which side is right—there is no argument about which side his instincts are on. The question is whether he can carry his party with him.

This is an acid test of whether new Labour is any different from the Labour party of nearly 30 years ago. Then, it was not the President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who was presenting a paper, but another lady, Baroness Castle, who presented "In Place of Strife" in 1969. Is this to be "In Place of Strife, Volume 2"?

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye)

I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman's view of legitimacy. Why is it somehow not legitimate for less than 50 per cent. to speak on behalf of the whole, when Governments may be elected by 43 per cent. of the vote and when directors are often elected by a very small number of the shareholders voting, yet speak on behalf of the company?

Mr. Dorrell

That is a question one dreams of being asked. The hon. Gentleman asks what difference there is between an election and the claim of a trade union to speak on behalf of a group of workers. They are completely different propositions. The claim of a trade unib on to speak on behalf of a group of workers should be based, as a minimum, on commanding the support of the majority of the group of workers on whose behalf the union claims to speak.

This is not just a matter of principle—trade union bosses understand clearly that it is a matter of straight power politics. Mr. Bill Morris understands that. As long ago as 1991, he was saying: The unions' big problem today is not maintaining the closed shop"— that is the old argument—

it's getting recognition. If I have to choose between a closed shop and statutory recognition, I'll choose statutory recognition.

Mr. Bill Morris sees clearly where the interests of his union as an organisation rest. That is why the trade union movement has vacated the field on the subject of the closed shop, recognising that compulsory statutory recognition is more important. That is what the argument is about, and why Mr. Morris is making it crystal clear that it is an issue on which the Transport and General Workers Union intends to stand and fight.

I can quote more up-to-date words from Mr. Morris, to reinforce that principle: This is a defining issue for trade unionists. There is simply no room for compromise …It's a straightforward choice: either the Government supports the CBI position or the TUC position. Mr. Morris says that it is a straightforward choice, with no room for compromise.

Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was because of the importance of the issue that so many trade unions made available millions of pounds, not least in kind, through providing professional full-time agents, computers and cars in marginal seats at the general election? Now the trade unions are demanding their payback for what they did last year.

Mr. Dorrell

My hon. Friend is right, and I shall offer some reflections on that linkage in a moment. First, I must dwell on the strength of feeling attached to the principle within the trade union movement. It is not only Mr. Morris who sees how important it is from the unions' point of view. Roger Lyons, the general secretary of the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union has said that the issue could make the split on the lone-parent benefits look like a vicars' tea party". He understands the important issues to be decided in politics today.

Mr. John Monks has said: If this goes …wrong …it will be a decisive moment. Furthermore, an unnamed senior figure in the Labour party—someone with good contacts at the New Statesman, so we can draw up an acute short list of who that might be—has said: Someone, somewhere is selling out". Those are the words being used within the Labour party to describe the current debate about what the words in the Labour manifesto mean.

The principles are all clear enough. Labour Members have a problem. The hon. Member for Bolsover does not have one, and we heard last week what he thinks about these issues. I have brought my pager, too and I use it as often as he does—

Mr. Skinner

indicated dissent.

Mr. Dorrell

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman borrowed it. His right hon. and hon. Friends on the Labour Benches have a problem, however. They are in trouble in this debate, because they do not know which way Tony is going. They are sitting like startled rabbits caught in the headlights. They do not know which way to leap, because they have not yet heard on the pager which way the new Labour version is going.

We know which way the Prime Minister would like to go, and there is no serious secret about that—

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)

Both ways.

Mr. Dorrell

Yes, both ways at once, but even for the Prime Minister, that is impossible. His instincts are clear, as we heard from the Lord Chancellor, who is always sent in to bat on an unpopular cause, to see where the bullets are coming from. Before the election, the Lord Chancellor made it clear that the Labour party should adopt the CBI position, so that is one piece of evidence about where the Prime Minister is coming from.

The House will remember that the Minister for School Standards—another licensed Blairite and another tin hat shot up occasionally above the barricades to see what is coming—held a famous dinner party in Blackpool—

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire)

It is a good place for a conference.

Mr. Dorrell

Yes, that was the last visit by the people's party to the people's resort—perhaps that is why the Labour party is not going back to Blackpool.

The Minister for School Standards speculated with a group of journalists about how a new Labour Government might provoke a crisis—[Interruption.] I see Labour Members nodding; they recognise the argument. The Minister almost salivated over his dinner at the prospect of the new Labour Government provoking a crisis in their relationship with the old Labour trade unions, giving new Labour the opportunity to break the trade union link. We know where the Prime Minister's instincts—his private, deepest thoughts—lie. Probably, he sometimes allows himself to dream what The Sun headline would be if Labour made it clear that it was dumping the trade unions and going with the CBI.

As the Prime Minister steels himself in the still watches of the night to take the decision, other voices, of which my hon. Friends have reminded us, will whisper in his ear, "Listen, Tony. Labour has an £8 million overdraft, and Unison, the TGWU and the GMB have all cut their contributions." The Prime Minister will also be reminded that the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union has withheld £250,000. Sources at the union say that it wants to see the contents of "Fairness at Work" before it gives the money. That is the first cautionary note sounding in the Prime Minister's ear.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington)

What advice would the right hon. Gentleman give to a constituent who came to his surgery on a Saturday asking about recognition? Let us suppose that the constituent said, "I'm having trouble with my employer at the local factory. We have tried negotiating, but the employer does not want to talk—we seem to have almost no rights." What would he say to that constituent, who had come to him for protection?

Mr. Dorrell

I would say, first, that he could talk to his employer and, secondly, that he did not need to be a member of a recognised trade union to talk to the employer. I would also tell him that I did not believe that his trade union had any right to speak on behalf of other employees at the firm unless it could show that it had the majority support of the other employees—that is the principle that the House is being asked to discuss.

I was listing the cautionary voices that will whisper in the Prime Minister's ear, among which, apparently, will be that of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), which will advocate the proposition that we return to the 1970s—that is his slogan—and compulsory recognition.

Mr. Campbell—Savours

I believe in fair play.

Mr. Dorrell

The hon. Gentleman bellows, "Fair pay." [HON. MEMBERS: "Fair play."] How can he seriously argue for fair pay when, in the 1970s, his prescription led to high unemployment and industrial failure, and Britain was the lame duck of Europe?

Although the Prime Minister's instincts may point in one direction, he has to consider his £8 million overdraft and whether the union dues will keep coming. He must remember the opposition that the trade unions are threatening to mount if he follows his, and Mr. Murdoch's, instincts. Another senior source in the union to which the hon. Member for Workington belongs—the TGWU—said: If the white paper turns out to be as bad as we fear, the movement will need to decide how to build opposition to it inside and outside Parliament. The Prime Minister knows that this is the issue that can light the touch-paper to opposition in the trade union movement and on the Government Back Benches. That is why he is handling it with kid gloves.

The Prime Minister has an even more serious threat in his mind. Barely an edition of the newspapers comes out without our learning of another member of the Cabinet lining up with the hon. Member for Bolsover.

Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry)

They are not here.

Mr. Dorrell

Their instinct for self-preservation is sufficiently developed to ensure that they are absent. The President of the Board of Trade has to be here only through the bad luck of our discussing a matter relating to her Department.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment makes it clear privately, in a non-attributable way, that he is on the unions' side. Goodness knows why, but the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is on the list; perhaps he wants to safeguard his position. The Secretary of State for Health is there, presumably representing all his old friends in the London Labour party. The Secretary of State for Wales is always on such lists. The Deputy Prime Minister is keeping his head down, but his name is there.

The one the Prime Minister really has his eye on is his next-door neighbour, who is going around burnishing his links with the trade unions. Where has the Chancellor of the Exchequer been on the subject? He has been off to a great shindig with the Transport and General Workers Union, at its 75th anniversary party, no less.

The brother in arms of new Labour said: If the trade union movement didn't exist today, it would have to be created. He certainly did not get that off the No. 10 pager. The Chancellor continued: Let us remember that the trade union movement was born against the odds, it grew against the odds, it developed its strength against the odds and it will succeed against all odds.

The Chancellor praised the Transport and General Workers Union's former leader, Mr. Jack Jones; not too many new Labour spokesmen volunteer support for him. Perhaps most tellingly of all, he let slip the thought that he was "on their side". He is busy building his position.

One need not know much Labour party history to have a strong sense of deja vu. In 1969, Barbara Castle knew what had to be done, and the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, was right behind her. It was always dangerous to be out in front of Harold Wilson. The Chancellor of the day was busy burnishing his contacts with the trade unions, and Harold Wilson performed the manoeuvre for which he is best remembered: the strategic scuttle.

Nearly 30 years on, the Prime Minister faces the same test: will he face down today's trade union bosses and make a principled stand, or is he in reality Harold Wilson mark 2? To govern is to choose, and the Prime Minister has now to choose.

4.7 pm

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney)

I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof: congratulates the Government for acting quickly and effectively to redress the damaging culture of low pay, job insecurity and the sweatshop economy inherited from the previous Government by adopting a partnership approach to set decent minimum standards for all workers; notes that good standards at work are essential for competitiveness and business success and that the Government has, as part of its strategy for ensuring decent minimum standards and labour market flexibility, involved employers' and workers' representatives on the Low Pay Commission and in discussions on trade union recognition, and in addition has restored union rights at GCHQ, signed the European Social Chapter and made rapid progress on the National Minimum Wage Bill; and further notes that the Government is also committed, as part of that strategy, which enjoys wide support, to implementing the Directives on Working Time, Young Workers, European Works Councils and Part-Time Work, and to fulfilling the Government's commitment to enable workers to enjoy union recognition where a majority of the relevant workforce vote in a ballot for the union to represent them. That was a tour de force on the only subject that ever unites the Tory rabble: a fundamental attack on employment rights in the workplace.

The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) even had the cheek and temerity to complain within 30 seconds that the Government had tabled an amendment to prompt discussion on other issues relating to employment rights, such as the minimum wage, the working time directive, part-time rights and insecurity. He was a member of a Government who created complete insecurity for the work force and undermined workers through low pay. They supported only those employers who wanted to implement poor employment practice, and undermined those who wanted to apply good employment practice.

We have witnessed the right hon. Gentleman's desperate last attempt to stay in the shadow Cabinet. I noticed at the weekend, under the headline, "Barbie's Hero", that he is for the chop in the next reshuffle and is described as the burnt-out education spokesperson. After that speech, I think that we have a burnt-out shadow Cabinet and a burnt-out Opposition who have learnt nothing from their defeat last May.

I am glad that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is here. He went on unofficial strike against his own Cabinet; he walked out on his Prime Minister. The Prime Minister decided to look for recognition and went for a recognition ballot. The right hon. Member for Wokingham lost it and went around Britain with his Euro-sceptics as flying pickets against every Conservative who stood at the last general election. He is an expert on poor industrial relations in his party.

Mr. Bercow

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. McCartney

The hon. Gentleman wants to calm down. He has a long evening ahead of him. I am sure that he will have an opportunity to contribute at some stage.

The right hon. Member for Charnwood raised the question of Labour and trade union funding. What a cheek from a party which refuses to give back the money stolen by Asil Nadir. What about the Greek millionaires found guilty of corruption in their country? Did the Tories give that money back? The answer is no. To top it all, they took money from Hong Kong drug barons and still refuse to pay it back. The Labour party needs no lessons from Conservatives about the openness of its funding.

I am surprised that the right hon. Member chose this subject. Trade union recognition is part of the broader question of the way in which people are treated at work. It is part of partnership at work, part of a fairness culture. It is about whether people at work should have fundamental and democratically exercised rights in the workplace.

Over the past few years, we have seen all too clearly that the Conservatives are against decent, fair treatment of workers and the exercise of fundamental, democratic rights. They are against fair pay and against people having the protection of a union if they want it. They also campaigned against minimum standards that workers throughout the rest of Europe enjoy as a matter of course. They are against so much that one might think that they were not in favour of anything.

Mr. Winnick

Is it not interesting that, when I asked the Opposition spokesperson whether the Conservatives remained committed to a ban on trade union membership at GCHQ, he refused to give an answer? Was not the banning of the trade unions there disgraceful? Is it not good that, within weeks of the election of a Labour Government, we carried out our promise and lifted that bad ban?

Mr. McCartney

My hon. Friend is right. As the Conservative Government left Downing street, trade unions were allowed back into GCHQ. I am proud of that decision.

Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire)

In the light of the Minister's apparent condemnation of Conservative industrial relations policies since 1979, will he say which of the six major Acts passed since then he proposes to reverse?

Mr. McCartney

The hon. Gentleman displays something else: always living in the past. The set of proposals that this Government will introduce is about workers living in the present, about dealing with the fact that the previous Government left us in an horrendous position of low pay, insecurity in the workplace and individuals being sacked at the whim of employers. We intend to deal with that in no uncertain terms.

The right hon. Member for Charnwood also suggested that the Opposition may change their view on some policy areas. I shall deal with that later. The truth is that the Conservative Government wanted to deliver a sweatshop economy for Britain. The Tories always supported bad employers against good employers. They drove down pay and conditions and so undercut good employment practice. Their Government was always on the side of poor employment practice. Never once did they stand up for decent employment standards, employment rights or, in a market position, for good employers investing in their employees, in education, training and good employment standards.

The Conservative Government always undercut the good employer by supporting the Arthur Daleys of this world. They even abolished wages councils, which provided a minimum of protection against the exploitation of some of our most vulnerable workers. They indulged in a frenzy of privatisation and compulsive competitive tendering, as a result of which thousands of workers lost their job or had their pay cut and their hours increased.

The Conservatives did all that in the name of deregulation, claiming that those measures were necessary to give employers the opportunity to create jobs, but they presided over the highest level of unemployment since the 1920s. Even on their own fiddled figures, unemployment rose to more than 3 million. I remember a Prime Minister saying that that was a price well worth paying.

At the general election, the voters did not think so, and elected a Labour Government to make a difference for millions of people in the workplace. I am astonished that a party with such an appalling record should seek to draw attention to that record, by contrasting it with the positive, fair and even-handed action of the Labour Government.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford, South)

Is it not true that the previous Government never called the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress together to discuss employment rights? Does my hon. Friend remember the speech by Baroness Thatcher, in which she declared that trade unions were the enemy within?

Mr. McCartney

The whole raison d'etre of the Conservative party is opposition to partnership in the workplace. Other than the schoolboy politics it contained, the whole basis of the speech by the right hon. Member for Charnwood was opposition to partnership, for the sake of opposition. At no stage have the Conservatives committed themselves to the principle of partnership in the workplace; they believe solely in the principle of hire and fire—the employer's capacity to do anything whatever to the employee in the workplace. That is something the British people rejected by voting against the insecurity and fear of exploitation ushered in by the previous Government's policies. We are going to make a difference.

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)

The hon. Gentleman is talking about history again, but does he remember the winter of 1978-79? I know that he is very young, but does he remember that winter of discontent? Was that the sort of partnership between employers, employees and Government of which he speaks?

Mr. McCartney

I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that I am very young—as the youngest grandfather in the House of Commons, I take his remark as a great compliment. However, the hon. Gentleman has again proved my point—the Conservatives live in the past, three decades ago; they take no account of the changes that have taken place in the workplace.

The Labour Government were elected, in large measure, to put an end to unfair and shabby treatment of working people. We have already taken great strides towards restoring a fair balance to the world of work. We have a clear, detailed and popular strategy for promoting fairness at work; we have a strategy for promoting partnership and mutual trust; we have a strategy for raising competitiveness by ensuring that workers are well motivated and productive. Ours is an inclusive policy: we want those who want work to be able to get work. The challenge in the workplace is ensuring that Britain is a more competitive and fairer place in which to live and work.

In part, that is a matter of establishing a fair balance: to have a framework of law that guarantees decent minimum standards, while maintaining necessary labour market flexibility. We need the force of the law to deal with the worst employers—those who pay poverty wages, who force their employees to work excessive hours and who make their workers clock off when business is slack and clock back on when it picks up. Those unscrupulous employers not only mistreat their employees but undermine their competitors who are trying to provide decent terms and conditions. We need tough laws to deal with cowboy employers. We need to protect employees and good employers from unfair competition.

Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon)

As we have already heard one or two blasts from the past, would it surprise my hon. Friend to learn that the infamous anti-trade unionist George Ward is chairman of Hendon Conservative association? He has not lost his anti-democratic principles, and that association has, recently been suspended from the national association, on the ground that Mr. Ward, among others, has been trying to infiltrate the Conservative association with his friends and relatives and employees of Grunwick?

Mr. McCartney

That is another sorry example of infiltration into the Tory party. We have seen Asil Nadir, Greek shipping magnates and drug barons do it, and the tragedy is that the Conservatives take no steps against that sort of thing. Consequently, the British public have largely rejected the Conservative party wherever it still tries to exist.

The truth is that we need to go beyond the law, and change the climate in our workplaces from one of confrontation to one of partnership. Employers and workers have many common interests. They both need their organisations to succeed, to generate profits and well-paid jobs. Employers need a skilled, motivated work force. Workers want interesting, secure jobs where their talents are properly used and their contribution respected. That already happens in the best workplaces, but in too many there is no mutual trust. The values of greed and lack of respect for workers' dignity, preached by the previous Government, are still far too prevalent.

Mr. Collins

While the hon. Gentleman is on the subject of unfairness at work and bad employers, will he tell us who was right at Wapping: Rupert Murdoch or the print unions?

Mr. McCartney

That is another pathetic question. This Government were elected on the principle of establishing recognition in the workplace. The discussions that are taking place are about how, not whether, that will operate.

The Government are setting themselves the long-term task of improving the climate at work, building trust and partnership. It is not just about union recognition, although that is an important and familiar form of partnership in the British industrial tradition. It is about rights and respect, and about involvement in lifelong learning for every worker, including the two thirds who are not union members.

The White Paper on fairness at work, which we shall publish in the first part of this year, will set out our policy on building partnership and how we intend to pursue it. All the employment measures that we have taken and will take are based on a partnership approach, which is the best way to improve competitiveness.

A few organisations have long treated employees as partners and equals. A few, but far too few, have share option schemes for all employees, not just for directors. There are encouraging signs that more firms are moving in the right direction. For example, proposals were recently announced for a partnership between Tesco and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which will give employees better representation through the union, new consultation structures and improved communications.

Another example is the partnership-based approach adopted by Transco, part of the former British Gas. Its approach is to "open the books" to all employees so that they know exactly where the company's financial resources are invested. It is also involving the unions in a partnership council for business improvement. There have been many other examples in the first year of this Government. Employers are looking at a new culture of partnership in the workplace.

Yesterday, I was pleased to see reports of an agreement between the Alfred Marks employment agency and the Communication Workers Union, which will mean that thousands of temporary workers at BT will at last be covered by the union for negotiating purposes.

Mr. Lansley

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way twice to me. He says that the debate is not just about union recognition, but his speech so far is about anything but union recognition. Will he now tell us whether he supports the CBI or the TUC position?

Mr. McCartney

That is another silly question. The Government have made it absolutely clear that, in the first part of this year, we shall publish a White Paper that will include matters surrounding union recognition. Following the White Paper and consultation, we shall introduce a legislative programme. I do not intend to negotiate with the hon. Gentleman, who is totally opposed to recognition in the workplace.

Mr. Dorrell

If the Minister will not answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), will he at least, as it is the subject for debate, suggest to the House some of the considerations that others should take into account in seeking to answer that question?

Mr. McCartney

The question will be answered when the White Paper is published, in view of the consultation that will be carried out. This is the first Government in 18 years who have opened up any consultation and dialogue with employers about partnership in the workplace. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, who is also an employer, will say whether the companies of which he is a director recognise trade unions. I note that he is not coming to the Dispatch Box, so the answer would appear to be that he does not recognise trade unions.

As a first and vital step, the Government have begun a dialogue with employers' and workers' organisations, seeking their views and involving them in the formulation of policy. Within 90 days of the election, we set up the independent Low Pay Commission to advise us on the level of a national minimum wage. The commission includes representatives of employers and workers, as well as independent members. It has carried out the most extensive consultation on low pay with employers and employees ever seen in this country.

We then invited the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress to hold discussions on the subject of today's debate—trade union recognition. They did so, and published a joint statement showing considerable and welcome agreement. They agreed that priority should be given to voluntary agreements, with the law as the last resort. They agreed that the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service should have an opportunity to conciliate before the statute procedure is invoked. They agreed that there should be a procedure for derecognition. They agreed that, once an application for recognition or derecognition has been decided, there should be no new application for at least three years. They agreed that unions should be able to make joint applications. They agreed on how the ballot should be organised and conducted, though not on what majority should be required. They agreed that non-union channels of representation can continue alongside recognition.

I could go on listing the areas of full and partial agreement. Suffice it to say that there is already more about which the CBI and TUC agree than disagree. They have continued talking to us, and I hope that they can find yet more agreement.

Involving social partners is a completely different approach. The previous Government shunned trade unions, despite the fact that they represent millions of workers—still a third of the work force, despite the efforts of the previous Government to drive down trade union membership. At times, it seemed as though the previous Government shunned employers' organisations, too. It was no surprise when, in November 1996, the then Government's proposals for yet further restrictions on trade union activities were heavily criticised by, among others, the CBI and the Institute of Directors.

In contrast, we see employers and unions as our allies. We are working with them, involving them in all our policies that affect the workplace. We showed the way in the first few days after the election, by ending the ban on trade unions at GCHQ, restoring the basic right of workers to join a union of their choice—something the previous Government obstinately refused to do, despite national and international criticism.

Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan)

As I understand it, the Government do not intend to change legislation with regard to balloting trade unions on industrial action, or to change the law on secondary picketing, and they do not intend to change other industrial legislation that was passed by the previous Government. All we are saying is that it is a requirement of our Government to give people in the workplace the legal right to join a trade union.

Is my hon. Friend aware that giving people the right to join a trade union is not simply giving them the right to take industrial action? It is also to give them the collective protection that the trade union offers people in the workplace.

Mr. McCartney

I think that we are giving more than that. We want to ensure that people in the workplace have the opportunity to exercise their statutory rights, whether or not they are in a trade union. The Government's whole approach is to give people in the workplace standards and minimum rights, whether they are part time or full time, and we shall continue to do so in conjunction and in co-operation with employers and trade unions. Where trade unions are in the workplace and employees want to be represented by them, that should also be a right. That is why the Government have put forward their proposals, which were accepted at the general election.

Involving social partners is a completely different approach. During the general election, Conservatives continued their opposition to partnership in the workplace, but we as a party are prepared not only to reject that proposal but to support, in intellectual and practical terms, various measures to promote partnership in the workplace. We introduced the National Minimum Wage Bill to put an end to poverty pay and to curb cowboy employers who drive down standards and undercut decent employers. The Tories failed in an attempt to filibuster in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and the Bill has now completed its stages in the House and gone to another place.

Perhaps the right hon. Member for Charnwood would like to tell us, and the working people of this country, what he and his hon. Friends would do in the unlikely event that they were ever again on the Government Benches? Would they repeal the national minimum wage and allow wages to fall to the levels that we now see, with security guards and hairdressers earning £2 an hour or less? Does he support his leader, who has clearly suggested that, at the next election, the Tories will not oppose a national minimum wage. Is that correct?

Mr. Boswell

When the Minister asks us, as he has in the past, about our attitude to the national minimum wage—and, indeed, to the specific issue that we are discussing—would it not be helpful, in the light of our motion, if he told us what the Government's proposals are? That is what we are about today.

Mr. McCartney

I have been setting out the Government's position on partnership and on minimum standards in the workplace since the beginning of my speech.

It is clear that the right hon. Member for Charnwood will not follow his leader, who, not a week ago, told The Observer that, at the next election, the Conservatives would consider not opposing the national minimum wage. We now see a further split in the Conservative party. It is clear that "Vote Tory in the next election" means "Vote for wage cuts".

We are about to implement the working time and young workers directives. The previous Government, of whom the right hon. Member for Charnwood was a member, wasted more than half a million pounds of taxpayers' money on a futile legal challenge to the working time directive. That directive will give workers seven new rights. It will give them the right not to work for more than 48 hours a week. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he still opposes that proposal? Will the Conservatives oppose it?

The directive will give more than 2.5 million workers the right—for the first time—to three weeks' paid annual leave, rising to four weeks in 1999. Will the Conservative party still oppose people's right to paid holidays? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Conservatives still oppose that proposal, or will they drop their opposition? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what his party's position is? The answer seems to be no.

The directive will give workers a rest period when they work for six or more hours a day. The Tories oppose that entitlement, regardless of how long people work. Will they now drop their opposition, and support the Government? I give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to speak. Will he do so? The answer is no.

The directive will give workers a right to minimum daily and weekly rest periods. The Conservative party is against giving people one day off a week. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us now whether the Conservatives have dropped their opposition to that proposal, or continue to oppose the principle of giving people equal status in terms of days off during the working week? The right hon. Gentleman still does not want to answer.

When he was Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Gentleman opposed regular health checks for night workers, and special protection for young workers. Will he now tell us whether he has dropped his opposition to those proposals? The answer is that he has not even concerned himself with whether those rights should continue.

The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to have a debate about improving standards in the workplace for millions of British workers. That is because, as an employer, he is implacably opposed to good employment practice—unlike tens of thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands, of employers in Britain who want fair and decent standards, and support the Labour Government's proposals. The right hon. Gentleman is still indicating that the Conservatives oppose minimum standards in the workplace.

Mr. Collins

As the Minister is on the subject of the working time directive and questions about it, will he tell us whether the Government are in favour of reducing the maximum working week to 40 hours, as is now being proposed in Europe? If they are against that reduction, how—now that they have given way on qualified majority voting—do they propose to stop it?

Mr. McCartney

Again, the hon. Gentleman shows a distinct lack of knowledge of the subject. The Government are introducing the 48-hour week by implementing the working time directive. Consultations are currently taking place about excluded sectors—the eight European employment areas that are excluded from the directive at present. We will consult on that, and, at an appropriate time, Europe will reach a decision that we will support in principle. [Interruption.] We support the principle of decent minimum standards for all workers. Why are the Tories so opposed to that?

The right hon. Member for Charnwood and the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) have shown their lack of interest in the promotion of decent standards in the workplace. They have tried to have a schoolboy debate. They have tried to suggest, rather fatuously, that there is some disagreement between the Labour party and industry over the concept and the principle of introducing trade union recognition.

All those measures are part of the broader strategy that I have described for competitiveness through partnership, decent standards and labour market flexibility. So is trade union recognition. As I have said, we asked the CBI and the TUC to try to narrow their differences. They did so, and produced a joint statement. We have continued to have discussions with them, and have achieved a great deal of agreement. Unlike the right hon. Member for Charnwood, I want to congratulate the CBI and the TUC on the spirit of co-operation with which they have approached the issue, to achieve a constructive way forward and to ensure that the White Paper will meet the needs of everyone in the workplace to secure agreement over recognition and representation.

Mr. MacShane

Surely the whole House should congratulate the CBI and the TUC, especially on their agreement not to go for penal clauses, for fines or for sequestration, which was the vindictive approach of the Conservative party when it was in power. As I understand it, the White Paper will aim for partnership and agreement, not for the use of the heavy hand of the law to victimise one side of industry, as Governments have done in the past.

Mr. McCartney

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The purpose of the White Paper is to encourage and promote partnership in the workplace. The world has moved on since 1975: the structure of industry and employment in this country has changed profoundly; the number of trade unions has dropped from 484 in 1976 to 255 in 1996 due to amalgamations; and trade union membership has dropped from a peak of 13 million in 1979 to just under 8 million in 1996.

The trade union movement has responded to those and other developments by changing and modernising. Trade unions are now committed to working with management for their mutual benefit, which is why 88 per cent. of the FTSE top companies already recognise unions voluntarily, and why inward investors such as Toyota and Nissan have willingly recognised trade unions.

We have encouraged the CBI and the TUC to pursue their discussions with the Government. The discussions are making good progress: it would be unrealistic to expect social partners to agree on everything, but I am confident that they will agree on a great deal and will help the Government to put forward balanced, practical proposals.

The proposals will provide a rational, agreed way of resolving disputes. At present, employers are free to ride roughshod over the wishes of their work force. Employers have derecognised or refused to recognise unions against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the work force, and continue to do so. I do not want to name names or to take sides in disputes that are under way, but that cannot be right—there must be a better way of resolving such disputes than goading trade unions into taking industrial action.

In future, the vast majority of recognition claims will be settled by negotiation between the parties. Our proposals will be designed to encourage voluntary settlements at every stage—legislation will apply only as a last resort, when the parties have reached an impasse despite the good offices of ACAS.

I shall not be drawn on the details of our proposals; I must ask hon. Members to be patient for a little longer. We shall publish the White Paper as soon as we can. I assure them that it will be worth the wait, and all the better for the effort that we have put into building a consensus between the social partners. It will be a consultative document, but, as we said in our manifesto, we shall consult on how to implement the recognition agreement, not on whether to do it. Afterwards, we shall move to legislate as quickly as possible.

The Government are moving quickly and decisively to restore a fair balance of rights and duties in the workplace, to promote partnership and to ensure decent minimum standards. We are well on the way to achieving a national minimum wage, to guaranteed minimum paid holidays, to reasonable rest breaks and an end to unreasonably and harmfully long hours, to equal rights for part-time workers and to a right to reasonable time off for parents, including adoptive parents.

The White Paper will set out our proposals for the last substantial brick in that edifice—a framework of decent employment law for the 21st century. I urge the House to support the Government amendment.

4.38 pm

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West)

In the first half of his speech, the Minister spoke about what Conservative Members did in government; in the second half, he spoke about what we would do when we got back to government, but he did not appear to have read the first line of the motion.

People rightly criticise the Government for treating the House of Commons with contempt. If he were listening to me instead of consulting hon. Members on the Bench behind him, the Minister might hear the words to which he should have addressed his speech. I should be most grateful if I had his attention. The motion states that the Government should define its policy on trade union recognition".

The Minister did not do that: he talked about the White Paper and said that Conservative Members had asked a silly question; he then talked about how he wanted to achieve consensus—but he is stuck with his own words about a silly question being asked.

There are choices to be made about the threshold for union recognition. The Conservative motion makes it clear that the Government have rejected the Opposition's policy. The Confederation of British Industry accepts that the Government's policy will be implemented. Before the Government make a decision, they should spell out their own view, but they have not done so. My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) quoted the exchange between the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the Prime Minister—the "Skinner is innocent, okay" question. The Prime Minister would not give an answer.

Similarly, Government supporters have to look at their bleepers to discover what they are supposed to be thinking. Shortly after the general election, the Conservative Leader of the Opposition asked the Labour Prime Minister whether he intended to introduce prescription charges for pensioners. As expected, the Prime Minister kicked that issue into this year.

What was surprising was that 200 Labour Back Benchers did not shake or nod their heads; they did not even turn their heads in circles. Before the election, they would have made their views known if they had suspected that the Conservatives wanted to introduce prescription charges for pensioners, but now they wait until they feel a tremble in their midriff to see whether they are told to talk to each other, to put a question or to distract attention from the key point.

If any Labour Member present can tell me whether they are in favour of prescription charges for pensioners, will they intervene? Or, to put it a different way, does any Labour Member believe that the Minister of State wants the threshold for union recognition to be a majority of the work force or a majority of those who vote? I shall give way to any Labour Member who can tell me what he or she thinks is in the Minister of State's mind, having listened to half an hour of his speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] Not one Labour Member is willing to intervene.

Mr. Ian McCartney

rose

Mr. Bottomley

I shall give way to the Minister of State if he will answer my question. He presumably knew what he was saying during that half hour.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

Order. The hon. Gentleman must either give way or not give way. He cannot put conditions on it.

Mr. Bottomley

I shall give way.

Mr. McCartney

It is very nice of the hon. Gentleman to give way. If Conservative Members were serious, they would have had this debate following publication of the White Paper. The Government made it absolutely clear from the outset—it has never been any clearer—that we will publish a White Paper for consultation. Conservative Members chose to have this debate purely for party political reasons. We will not allow party politics to interfere with good employment relations. I will debate this issue with the hon. Gentleman on any platform after the publication of the White Paper.

Mr. Bottomley

So now we know. The issue that the Minister described as a "silly question" is the subject of disagreement between the CBI and the Trade Union Congress. The Minister says that we should not debate this matter until the details of the Government's policy are published. All I did was ask whether there is a Labour Member present who has an idea of the Minister's view. The TUC and the CBI have a view, and their views have been mentioned. The Minister of State, speaking for the Government, is the only person who does not have a view, or will not tell the House of Commons what it is.

Of course we shall wait for the White Paper, and we shall have a debate on it when it is published. Today's debate is to ask the Government to define their own view. I do not believe that they do not have a view.

Mr. Boswell

They have two, actually.

Mr. Bottomley

Yes, they have two, as my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Stott

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bottomley

I know that I cannot set conditions, but I live in hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell me what he thinks is in the Minister's mind.

Mr. Stott

For years, the hon. Gentleman has worn a Transport and General Workers Union tie. He has been proclaiming his membership of that union ever since he came to the House. If a group of people in a workplace wanted to join the TGWU but were prevented from doing so, what would he do about it?

Mr. Bottomley

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is fully on song. In his earlier intervention, he misunderstood the issue, and he now asks what I would do if someone wanted to join the union. I would welcome them, because I believe in trade union membership. Nothing in the law of this land prevents people from joining a trade union if they so want.

I was elected in 1975, shortly before the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) failed to get elected in a by-election because of the effect of trade union action. At that time, some people were not allowed to join the union of their choice because a Labour majority in the House had forced through legislation that allowed people to be sacked if they were not in the union that Parliament had determined they should join.

Mr. Robathan

It was not a matter of whether people wanted to join a union: they had to join a union to get a job. Is that morally defensible?

Mr. Bottomley

No one defends that practice now. The Minister said that that issue would not be raised. Likewise, the Government have said that they do not intend to overturn the other six employment laws passed by the Conservative Government. We should regard that as progress.

Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have plenty to learn about trade unions. Not many Conservative or some Labour Members understand what was required to establish trade unions in the first place. Some hon. Members came to a meeting in the Jubilee Room to discuss Alexander Bowman, otherwise known as the "people's champion", who helped to set up trade unions in Belfast just over 100 years ago. His biography has been written by his great-grandson Terence Bowman. Hon. Members should also learn about people such as Will Crooks, who represented Woolwich, which I also represented.

Many hon. Members do not understand what went into the organisation of people at work in the face of apathy, ignorance and sometimes violent opposition. Many of them do not understand some of the inter-union rivalries, and do not realise how much voluntary time people put into representing their colleagues at work, not just over pay and conditions or health and safety, but in trying to combat prejudice.

Employers may want to take on black car delivery workers, but the predominant group in that trade and in that part of the union say that it must be a whites-only job. Such problems require persistence, courage, sacrifice and service. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) shakes her head, so I assume that she disagrees with me.

The last time I raised a union issue was when I asked the Prime Minister whether he regretted trying to support the challenger to Bill Morris's re-election as general secretary of the TGWU. The Prime Minister told me that I was wrong, and that he had not supported the challenger. I tabled an early-day motion listing the facts chapter and verse—I did not go into what I had heard at Transport house. He has not said that I was wrong.

Ann Keen (Brentford and Isleworth)

The hon. Gentleman referred to me shaking my head. Along with my hon. Friends, I am shaking my head in total disbelief that the hon. Gentleman feels he has to lecture us about the rights of people at work and the difficulties they face fighting for those rights. Labour Members know perfectly well why people have such problems.

Mr. Bottomley

I did not know that I was lecturing: I was trying to share a common understanding of the background to the better side of trade unions. If Labour Members read the earlier part of my speech, they will understand what I mean.

The Government are trying to duck their responsibility. The Minister spoke about a partnership. What will be the majority threshold if union recognition is to be granted by law? Union recognition is not being granted by agreement with the employer. I said that I believe in unions, and I also believe in union recognition, but we must decide on the threshold.

One of the problems with the new, modern, model Labour party is that it does not understand what has been going on in the recent past. Reference has been made to trade union recognition at GCHQ in Cheltenham. The unions were recognised at GCHQ before the election; the difference was that national unions were not going to be recognised. [Laughter.]

Labour Members laugh. In the mid-1980s, we could have asked any Government in NATO—Governments such as those in France, Germany or Italy—"Can your people involved in this sort of work be members of a trade union, and, if so, could they be ordered to strike by their national leadership?" The reply would have been that the question was incomprehensible. First, most of the work that is the equivalent of the work carried out in Cheltenham is done by the services. Secondly, even the most left-wing trade union leaders in other parts of western Europe would not have dreamed of calling for, let alone tolerating, a strike by people in signals intelligence. It is worth remembering those points, and they are worth repeating.

Let us look at the key part of the motion rather than at the Government's amendment, which concludes by referring to the majority of the relevant workforce". That is the dilemma on which the Government are hooked. Our motion asks who will be able to join in the discussions. None of the Labour Members who are in the Chamber will be present, because they do not know what is in the Government's mind and do not know whether they are supposed to agree with what the Government will present.

The White Paper must be difficult to write. In the past, in responding to a serious issue—not a silly question, as the Minister put it—most Ministers would say, "We know the choices." The Minister of State did not even do that. He uttered not a single sentence about the key issue in this debate. That is not because he does not know the issues: he knows them perfectly well.

Why did the Minister not address the issues? It is not just because of union influence in the Labour party, although that is part of it, and it is not just because of the threat of losing money, although that may be part of it as well. It is because the Government do not know how to make the decision, and I do not think that they yet know what decision they want to make. That is why the debate is worth while.

Despite some merits, the Government are full of PR presentation, puff and aggression, and they occasionally raise their voices to above 85 dB. They ought to ask themselves why they have a problem on the issue. The answer is that they do not yet know whom they will offend. My guess is that they will finally come down against the trade union view, and that the unions will accept it. The uncertainty is rather like a Labour Back Bencher standing by the door of the Division Lobby and saying, "I do not want to support you," and the Whip reaching out and pulling him in.

I do not envy the Government their dilemma. They have caused it for themselves, and they should be big enough to talk openly about it in advance of the White Paper. The Minister's words, "It is a silly question," will be tied around his neck as long as the legislation is before the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I call Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

Mr. MacShane

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On page 421 of "Erskine May", under the heading "Declaration of interest in debate", it is made quite clear that an hon. Member should declare any direct or indirect interest at the beginning of a debate, particularly if it is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests. May we have a general ruling for the conduct of the rest of the debate, so that, if a right hon. or hon. Member has a direct interest through being a director of a company that does not recognise unions and which stands to gain financial benefit one way or the other from the passing of legislation, he should declare that interest?

Mr. Collins

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I shall deal first with the original point of order.

First, how Members declare their interests is entirely a matter for them. Secondly, any complaint should be addressed to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, not to the Chair, because such matters are not for the Chair.

Mr. Collins

I was merely going to ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make it clear in your ruling that the same would apply to any hon. Member who is sponsored by a trade union, because he would equally have a clear interest in the matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

There is a code of conduct, and every hon. Member knows how to conduct himself in the House.

Mr. MacShane

Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the light of Madam Speaker's ruling before Christmas in respect of the former Department of Trade and Industry's deputy shadow spokesman on a related matter, can you rule whether the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who has remunerated directorships in an industrial clothing manufacturer, one Faithful Ltd., which does not recognise trade unions, would have been better advised—I put it no stronger than that—to declare or refer to that interest when he opened the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

As I have said, that is not a matter for the Chair. How each Member conducts himself in such matters is entirely a matter for him. The right hon. Member was in order, and that is all that I need to concern myself about.

4.54 pm

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford, South)

I shall start by declaring an interest. I am a member of the Graphical, Paper and Media union, and secretary of its parliamentary group. I can tell the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) that no Labour Members are sponsored.

We know why the Opposition have called the debate. It has nothing to do with serious involvement in trying to develop an appropriate framework for fairness at work. It has more to do with posturing, mischief making and union bashing, which is what the previous Government did for 18 years. The least we could have expected was an apology for the vindictive policies of those 18 years, which destroyed workers' rights and jobs, and left Britain with the worst employment laws in the western world. It was disgraceful of Baroness Thatcher to describe hard-working people in trade unions as "the enemy within". In this debate, Conservative Members have done that again.

One of the major reasons for the Tories losing the election in May was their complete disregard for workers' rights. They reduced the safeguards for working conditions, removed protection, and allowed the exploitation of women and young workers. They cut wages councils and created an environment in which bad employers were encouraged. The new Labour Government are starting to redress the balance, which went unchecked for 18 years.

The Government have started to implement Labour's manifesto commitments. Union rights have been restored at GCHQ, check-off has been abolished, the European social chapter has been signed, a national minimum wage has been introduced, and there have been improvements in the conditions for casual and agency workers. Those commitments were not based on political dogma: they were taken on because they were right.

The Government are committed to work and the work ethic. They are restoring opportunities through programmes such as the new deal, assisting and developing regeneration schemes, and working with social partners to generate job opportunities. Those are key parts in the rebuilding of Britain, which is vital to everyone. Work is undoubtedly vital, and it follows that fairness at work is equally important. The notion of consensus in the workplace is clearly the best way to achieve success, and the Government deserve credit for bringing together the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry. The voluntary arrangements they have agreed are welcome.

As the Minister of State knows, our manifesto commitment to trade union recognition was the result of detailed consultation. We rightly said that people should be free to choose whether to join a trade union. When they decide to join, and when a majority in the relevant work force vote for a union to represent them, that union should be recognised.

Mr. Robathan

The hon. Gentleman is on the crux of the matter. Will he define "the majority" and "the relevant work force", because that is what the motion is about?

Mr. Sutcliffe

If the hon. Gentleman cares to wait, he will hear me speak about that.

Mr. Robathan

Will the hon. Gentleman explain the matter?

Mr. Sutcliffe

I shall do that later in my speech.

We said that such a course would promote stable and orderly industrial relations. We were clear about what that meant then, and we are clear on it now. After the election, the Prime Minister asked the CBI and the TUC to meet to narrow the gap. I understand that there have been a number of meetings recently between Ministers and both organisations. That is right, to ensure that the policy is correct. Recognition is vital if unions are to be allowed to do their jobs properly and effectively. All the Government's positive actions so far on employment will be devalued if we do not get the matter right. It is not a question of the TUC winning or the CBI losing: it is a question of what is fair and will work.

An NOP poll in August showed that 77 per cent. of people agree that employees should have the right to have their union recognised by their employers when a majority want that. The days of macho management are long gone. An NOP poll of senior human resource managers in Britain's leading 100 companies showed that business is relaxed about union recognition law. Three to one, those managers supported dealing with staff collectively, and said that staff were more likely to be committed to business plans and objectives if they were involved.

More than two thirds of employers said that collective arrangements helped in problem solving, in achieving working flexibility and in winning staff support for change. Furthermore, more than five to one, employers said that collective relationships had improved. An Institute of Management poll of managers showed that 54 per cent. backed a union recognition law.

The evidence shows that unionised workplaces are more likely to train staff and to have lower staff turnover, and that they are safer, and more likely to practise family-friendly policies.

Maria Eagle

Is my hon. Friend aware that accidents at work currently cost the United Kingdom £8.5 billion annually, that £4.5 billion of those costs falls directly on employers, and that accident rates are up to 50 per cent. higher in workplaces without union recognition? Union recognition is therefore better for employers and better for employees, as it enables greater efficiency and a safer workplace.

Mr. Sutcliffe

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. She is right to say that small workplaces, particularly those with fewer than 50 employees, have more accidents. A 1994 Green Paper, published by the previous Government, showed that most industrial tribunal cases were brought against companies employing fewer than 50 people.

The Confederation of British Industry and the Opposition—although the Liberal Democrats cannot make up their minds on the matter—say that recognition should be decided by a majority of those eligible to vote, rather than by a simple majority of 50 per cent. plus one of those voting. They think that abstentions should have the same effect as votes against recognition—so that a 70 per cent. yes vote on a 70 per cent. ballot turnout would result in a no vote. If that rule applied to the election of hon. Members, only 14 would have been elected at the general election. Furthermore, no Conservative or Liberal Democrat Members would have been elected. That ballot proposal is absolute nonsense.

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that only about 25 per cent. of the private sector work force are in trade unions—most of which are in the larger companies? Does he agree also that, if trade unions are recognised after approval by only a majority of those voting, there will probably be a campaign of creeping unionisation in all Britain's modern industries that currently do not have unions? Does he want that to happen?

Mr. Sutcliffe

There is nothing wrong with that suggestion—which is why 47 of Britain's top 50 companies recognise unions. Contrary to the Opposition's suggestions, we are moving forwards and not backwards. Staff involved in trade unions will be able to act on behalf of other staff.

A simple majority of those voting should suffice in determining union recognition. There were no trigger mechanisms in the Bills on devolution for Scotland and for Wales. If there is a dispute about "the relevant work force" between an employer and a union, a third agency—such as the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, or a similar body—will have to settle the dispute.

The agency should also be independent, and should facilitate negotiations between employers and unions in agreeing the matter. If agreement cannot be reached, the agency would adjudicate on what comprises "the relevant work force". It would be wrong for either employers or unions alone to decide the bargaining unit.

The CBI proposes an exemption for employers who employ fewer than 50 people. The fact is that 90 per cent. of all companies employ fewer than 50 people. If our manifesto commitment is to be implemented, the right must be given to everyone at work, and not exclude 8 million people.

Employees in small firms need protection because of the stresses and strains of working in small business. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) suggested, most accidents and health and safety problems occur in small companies. Moreover, most industrial tribunal cases involve small companies. I therefore hope that we do not exclude small companies from the provisions.

The vast majority of employers work well with their employees. However, a small but significant minority of employers bully and intimidate their staff. The Trades Union Congress recently ran a "bad boss hotline", which was swamped by 5,000 calls in only one week. We therefore have to be cognisant of what is happening in the real world.

The CBI also wants unions to go through two more hoops—another two-hurdle test—which I think would not only be unworkable but invite unscrupulous employers to put pressure on union supporters in their companies.

As the Minister said, the law's objective must be to create a new climate of industrial relations—and so honour Labour's manifesto commitment to improve employment rights and make stronger economic progress. He has attended many meetings of our Back-Bench committees, and knows the great support among Labour Members for a workable solution to recognition issues.

How many times have we heard employers and human resource managers say that staff are the biggest asset of any company? Now is the time for them to prove it. Union recognition is not a matter of the Government doing trade unions' will, but of employees deciding that they want to join a trade union, which they want to be recognised. Enabling employees to make that decision should be the Government's objective.

Union recognition legislation is not about redressing the wrongs of the past. We are dealing with a new situation in a new world. The global economy has increased competition, stress and pressure at the workplace. Inevitably, we will have to ensure that there is greater communication, involvement and understanding in the workplace. Fairness at work legislation will provide a sound foundation for employment policies to take us into the 21st century. It will also be another manifesto commitment that has been honoured.

It is right to consult on the matter. However, if agreement cannot be reached, Ministers will have the support of the majority of the parliamentary Labour party in doing what is right, in reaching a simple, effective and workable solution. Recognition is not about revenge for spiteful past acts, or for the previous Government's sequestration of union funds. It is also not about seeking favours from a Labour Government, who were elected with trade union support. It is about establishing a modern working environment.

A modem democracy should not set hurdles for some that it does not require others to go through, but should establish a framework that balances the needs of employers and employees. I hope that the Government will succeed in gaining the confidence of Britain's workers—a confidence that was so badly shaken, and lost, by the previous Government.

As John Smith said, if trade unions did not exist, they would have to be invented. Ministers are right to try to facilitate consultation, but Britain will be able to achieve its objectives only if we have conciliation in the workplace. If we cannot reach an agreement on union recognition, the Government will have to set minimum standards to stop workers being exploited.

I am prepared to wait for the White Paper, which I hope will be published in the not too distant future. The Government are getting it right, and they have the support of the vast majority of the PLP.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am very sorry to interrupt the debate, but I should like to raise an issue that relates not to registration or declaration but to advocacy.

You will be well aware of the rules that have been developed after the Nolan recommendations and the reports of the Standards and Privileges Select Committee. Motion No. 1 on today's Order Paper—on trade union recognition—lists the names of Mr. William Hague, Mr. Peter Lilley, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Mr. John Redwood, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and Mr. James Arbuthnot. The motion also mentions the issue of recognition, and the need in a ballot for support of 50 per cent. of workplace members.

Under the rules of the House, as I understand them, the matter of advocacy may arise when an hon. Member who has placed his or her name on a motion on recognition might speak on that issue in the Chamber. The hon. Member will clearly be advocating on the issue. We have already heard one speech from the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), which may well be the subject of a complaint. I do not know whether there will be a complaint, but understand that some hon. Members are already discussing those matters.

I wonder whether you will rule that any hon. Member who has an interest in recognition should consider whether it is right for them to advocate in the matter in this debate if his or her name is on the motion. That basically means that the five other Conservative Members who can speak in this debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have the gist of the hon. Gentleman's point of order. These are matters for individual Members of Parliament.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

indicated dissent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked me to give a ruling, and I am giving him one.

He may not like it, but I am giving it. These are matters for the individual Member of Parliament. Each individual Member knows how to conduct himself or herself. If there is a complaint from any hon. Member, it can be taken up with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take his seat when I am standing. He is eating into the time of a short debate. In fairness to other hon. Members who are waiting to speak, he must give due regard to them.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Is it another point of order?

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Will you then make it clear to the rest of those who are named on the motion simply that they should take advice before they advocate in this Chamber on these matters this evening? That is a matter that rests with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I know what rests with me. Let me repeat: each hon. Member knows how to conduct himself or herself. I have no need to give anyone advice at this stage. They know the rules, and they know how to conduct their affairs.

5.10 pm

Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh)

The Conservative Front-Bench team is right to table the motion to challenge the Government's policy on trade union recognition. I congratulate the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry on his frankness in saying that he was not going to tell us what his proposals are tonight—at least he did the House the courtesy of being honest about it—but he did say that it was a question of how recognition of trade unions will operate, not whether it will operate. That is the question: how will it operate? Sadly, we still wait for an answer.

For far too long, the Government have been prevaricating over that policy, relying on vague promises and even vaguer definitions. To rely on the catch-all phrase . "Trade union recognition shall be a legal right where a majority of the relevant workforce votes in favour

is not enough. Relevant to what? Relevant to whom? The Government have had time to come to the House and to give us a better understanding of what their policy is.

Having said that, I think that Conservative Members are wrong to simplify the case of trade union recognition, concentrating on the single issue of the percentage of workers voting in a particular electorate, however it might be defined. One of the things that industrial relations and negotiations over the past 30 years have shown clearly is that establishing trade union recognition is far more complex than that. Negotiations that have taken into account the character of a company, its management structure and the location and skills of the work force, have been the successful negotiations that have led to trade union recognition.

It is wrong also to suggest, as the motion does, that union recognition will occur only by virtue of compulsion—note the word "compulsory" on the Order Paper—through a majority vote. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, many of the United Kingdom's largest and most respected employers have willingly negotiated union recognition in the interests of good industrial relations and good business sense. All would obviously welcome that.

The issue is the establishment of a legal right for an individual worker to be represented by a union, should he so wish—note "should he so wish"—a right to be used as the last resort where negotiation proves impossible.

Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone)

Is the hon. Gentleman making the point that, although industrial relations procedures have been agreed generally by voluntarism, if a formula is introduced for union recognition that is any different from 50 per cent. plus one, employers would totally unravel the conciliation and consultation procedures that operate in industry now?

Mr. Chidgey

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It was a telling one. I do not think that the issue is as simple as that, although I take his point. I am suffering from a cold, so my speech is not as clear as it would be, but perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will be tolerant of that. As my argument develops, perhaps I can show the hon. Gentleman how those points can and must be addressed by the Government.

It is equally wrong to assume that the law does not need changing to provide individual rights for the individual worker. There are far too many examples of workers' wishes being frustrated by intransigent firms that refuse to recognise or, even worse, that derecognise established unions. I could mention some classic examples, although I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to contribute. I have to say just "Walkers Crisps" and I am sure that that will raise a few points of recognition among Labour Members. Even Railtrack has basically derecognised its white collar staff, despite the fact that some 92 per cent. of Railtrack's white collar workers wish to stay within the union negotiation machinery.

The Government's amendment is a disappointment because it still fails to address the key issue. As has been pointed out, many of the initiatives they list are laudable and already attract all-party support. Certainly, the Liberal Democrats support the broad ideals of adopting a partnership approach to setting decent minimum standards in the workplace; how could any sensible person think otherwise?

We agree that those ideals are essential for competitiveness and business success, but the key issue, which the Conservatives are right to raise, is the mechanism to be introduced to establish trade union recognition. The Government's amendment claims that they should be congratulated on being committed—I must quote this; it is important— to fulfilling the Government's commitment to enable workers to enjoy union recognition where a majority of the relevant workforce vote in a ballot for the union to represent them. That is an awful lot of commitment to an undefined and non-specific formula. That lack of precision creates confusion and concern among unions and employers alike.

I take one example, which is close to my heart because it concerns a local haulier in my Eastleigh constituency. He runs a third-generation family business. He tells me that he employs some 20 drivers, of whom four belong to a union. Most of his drivers have been with him for many years. All are paid on the same pay scale, regardless of whether they belong to a union, as hon. Members might expect from a responsible employer.

That employer knows his drivers very well; they are obviously friends and have worked together for many years. He estimates that, should there be a ballot on union recognition, no more than six or possibly eight of the 20 would bother to vote, such is their attitude to the issue. That illustrates the predicament of relying on a quick and simple ballot to decide on recognition.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

The House is listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman's balanced speech. Does he agree that, from what we have heard from Labour Members, Ministers are willing to talk more openly behind the closed doors of Labour party meetings in this House than in the Chamber? Is that not the difficulty in trying to have this debate?

Mr. Chidgey

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but, as clearly the doors were closed, I cannot possibly comment on what might have been going on behind them.

It is not good enough to hide behind, if not closed doors, then such phrases as

a majority of the relevant workforce". The Government know that that is just a smokescreen for masking what is clearly the complex and potentially divisive issues surrounding union recognition.

It is not good enough, either, to offload the problem on to the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry and expect them to come up with a solution. Although they have done sterling work—they should be congratulated on that—just a cursory glance through the annual reports of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service over the past 20 or 30 years shows that expecting the TUC and the CBI to resolve the problem is not enough. Records of attempts in the 1970s to establish a strategy framework for union recognition through ACAS make it clear that both the TUC and CBI held and still hold totally intractable and different positions.

I am sure that most hon. Members will have received—in fact, it is clear from the contributions so far in this debate that most Members have indeed received—extensive lobbying packages from both the TUC and the CBI, and they are using them according to their views. It is clear that neither the TUC nor the CBI has shifted its fundamental philosophical position on this issue for more than 30 years, so it is totally unrealistic for the Government to attempt to shift the burden of responsibility for defining a consultative and democratic process for union recognition to those two parties, which have held diametrically opposed ideological standpoints.

Mr. Woolas

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Chidgey

Yes, but this will be the last time.

Mr. Woolas

I listened with interest to the example that the hon. Gentleman gave. To my mind, it is a good example of precisely why the Government are correct to consult both sides of industry. If his starting point is that the two sides have irreconcilable positions, surely the Government are doing the responsible thing. Is not the hon. Gentleman falling into the trap laid by the Conservatives? The Conservatives have chosen to debate trade union recognition at exactly the time the Government are consulting. If Ministers were to lay down precisely how to achieve the commitment that they gave, would he not be complaining about the lack of consultation?

Mr. Chidgey

The Government might be consulting the two sides of industry—the TUC and the CBI—but I am interested to know whether they are consulting both sides of the Labour party, let alone the rest of the House.

For Members who believe that union recognition is simply a matter of deciding on a formula, reference to the annual report of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service for 1981 will prove enlightening. In that report, ACAS set out details of its experience of involvement in implementing trade union recognition under the statutory procedures of the Employment Protection Act 1975, with which many hon. Members will be very familiar for various reasons.

ACAS examined some 1,600 cases involving recognition. It is worth noting that more than 80 per cent. were resolved voluntarily. ACAS found that the key issues included: the level of existing union membership—there were often several unions in the same workplace, each hoping to be the recognised union; what agreement there was for one, two or even more unions to be recognised and involved in the negotiating group; the grading of the work force and their skill base—whether they were blue or white collar; the location of the company—whether it was on multiple sites undertaking the same or different tasks, or undertaking a single task on a single site; and the structure of the company—whether it had a centralised personnel department or bargaining was site-specific.

It is worth stressing that, to establish a case for union recognition, ACAS surveyed workers, asking, among other things, whether they were union members; whether they supported collective bargaining in general; and, if they supported representation by the applicant union, whether they would join that union or would prefer representation by another union. ACAS took account of all these factors when it came to its conclusions, but the one thing that it did not do was introduce a ballot to establish the case for recognition. In fact, it took the view that a ballot could be useful in applying a test for recognition but could rarely determine the issue by itself.

In more than 90 per cent. of cases, ACAS received a response rate of more than 65 per cent. On looking more closely at those surveys with low response rates, ACAS concluded that in half there was enough evidence to support recognition. However, in some cases, ACAS did not consider that majority support among respondents warranted recognition, thus showing how complex the issue can be.

It is clear from the report that ACAS was scarred by the experience. Let us remember that ACAS is a tripartite organisation, comprising representatives from both sides of industry, from the CBI and the TUC, and independent representatives. Clearly, ACAS found that its involvement with the statutory process sat uncomfortably with its independent arbitration and conciliation role. It is not surprising that it reported that it was extremely difficult to envisage a statutory procedure for compulsory trade union recognition which could operate smoothly.

It is not surprising that, in a letter in 1981 to the then Secretary of State for Employment, the chairman of ACAS wrote: The experiences of the last three years of operation of the statutory procedures have shown the difficulties of operating without criteria and the damaging effect on industrial relations which can result from the Court's interpretation of the statutes …The Council wishes me to advise you that in the light of the increasing difficulties which it is encountering it cannot satisfactorily operate the statutory recognition procedures as they stand".

It is interesting to note that, when the Government were challenged on their position on union recognition during the general election campaign, it eventually emerged that they took the view that any disagreements about recognition would go initially to ACAS and then to a central arbitration committee which would in future be headed by a judge. ACAS has made it clear that it is not keen to undertake that role.

ACAS clearly tended to favour a voluntary approach, which had been successful in 80 per cent. of cases referred to it, but that still leaves 20 per cent. of cases unresolved. It is to deal with that 20 per cent. that the Government must come up with firm, precise proposals on how they intend to ensure that the individual wishes of workers are not frustrated.

We believe that the rights of individual workers should be protected. Workers should be able to exercise their wish to join or not to join a union. I can understand the Government's difficulties—

Mr. Eric Clarke (Midlothian)

rose—

Mr. Chidgey

No, I must continue.

Clearly, positions are entrenched, and people will not budge. There is a record of increasing difficulty in operating statutory recognition procedures. The Government claim that they believe in consultation and in a partnership approach, so let them bring their proposals to Parliament, and let the House consider, deliberate and decide.

5.25 pm

Mr. Gerry Steinberg (City of Durham)

I understand that I do not need to declare an interest but, for the benefit of the House, I am happy to declare that I am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union and of the National Union of Teachers.

It is every worker's right to belong to a trade union. Trade unions were hounded and vilified by the previous Government. We had 18 years of constant, hysterical attacks, and we heard this afternoon from the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) that the Conservatives' attitude to trade unions has not changed.

In May last year, the Labour party won the election, and the manifesto on which all Labour Members fought that election was clear, certainly to me. The manifesto stated: People should be free to join or not to join a trade union. Where they do decide to join and where a majority of the relevant work force vote in a ballot for the union to represent them, the union should be recognised. Regardless of the huge majority that we won, the Confederation of British Industry, in its arrogance, remains opposed to the principle of recognition. I am well aware of why the Opposition called this debate today, but it seems that not many Conservatives are interested in attending.

It is right that the Government now keep their manifesto commitment on union recognition, which is the cornerstone of protection for workers in employment. There must be no compromises. Why? First, it is a basic civil right for people at work to be represented by a union if they so choose. Union recognition is simply the right to be heard. Secondly, there are many cases of exploitation in employment across Britain, with many examples in my own northern region. I appreciate that many companies treat their staff very well, and some treat them reasonably well, but there are shocking examples of exploitation which have been highlighted by the Trades Union Congress's bad bosses hotline which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) mentioned.

Thirdly, most workers, given the opportunity, would choose to be represented by a union. A TUC-commissioned national opinion poll revealed that 77 per cent. of people make this choice. In such circumstances, employers should be required by law to negotiate with a trade union. I sincerely hope that the rumours are untrue that the Government are backtracking on their commitments after intensive lobbying by the CBI, which has expounded one myth after another.

Myth No. 1 is that unions hold back business. As we have heard this afternoon, most of Britain's top companies recognise unions; 44 of the top 50 FTSE companies recognise unions; 42 of the 45 companies that employ more than 25,000 workers recognise unions; Britain's biggest employer is also the most heavily unionised of the large supermarket traders.

Myth No. 2 from the CBI is that negotiations should be left to voluntary arrangements. Unions prefer to negotiate with employers on a voluntary basis, but why should the management veto the democratic rights of a work force? The introduction of a law will encourage the voluntary resolution of recognition claims. Other laws already require employers to consult and deal with their work force on various issues, most notably on health and safety. That rarely causes a problem.

Myth No. 3 is that union recognition will encourage more industrial action and strikes. That is not true. If an employer refuses to deal with or recognise a union, the only remedy open to the work force is industrial action. A statutory procedure will make it more likely that such disputes can be resolved without industrial action.

I do not have enough time to go into every detail of the CBI's attempts to frustrate trade union recognition, but I shall concentrate on a few of the worst examples.

Mr. Bercow

Go on. Go for it.

Mr. Steinberg

I do not want any comments from the hon. Gentleman, who has a big mouth and should learn to keep it shut occasionally.

The CBI wants abstentions in a recognition ballot to count as votes against. It argues that a majority of those eligible to vote, not of those who cast a vote, must be achieved. The CBI opposed proposals for that requirement in strike ballots, but that is not surprising. There is no justification for having different rules for trade union recognition ballots from those that apply to other ballots, including the election of Members of Parliament. A simple majority of 50 per cent. plus one of those who vote should lead to automatic recognition. Requiring a majority of those entitled to vote would be a recipe for industrial unrest.

If the principle that the CBI is in favour of had applied to the recent general election, a large majority of Labour Ministers and Back Benchers would not have been elected. On 1 May, I received 31,102 votes. My nearest rival, the Conservative candidate, got 8,598 votes. My majority was 22,504.

Mr. Bercow

That was in spite of you.

Mr. Steinberg

I have told the hon. Gentleman what I think of him.

The electorate of the City of Durham was 69,417. I would not have been elected under the CBI's destructive proposals. It is a fair bet that no Conservative Members would have been elected, either. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), who has obviously done some research, substantiated that this afternoon, so I think that I would win my bet. However, looking at some Conservative Members, I am beginning to change my mind. Perhaps it would not be such a bad idea to have that system in the House of Commons.

The proposal is nonsense. A ballot cannot be conducted in that way. Requiring a majority of those entitled to vote would be a recipe for industrial unrest. Workers will accept the result of a fairly conducted ballot under well-understood principles. The CBI's proposals would rig the outcome in advance. They cannot be accepted.

Those on the Labour Front Bench were scathing about the idea when we were in opposition. In November 1996, my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said: What justification has the right hon. Gentleman for the changes he proposes to make in the balloting rules and procedures to deny people a simple majority? Is it not a fact that, on 1 November, on the Radio 4 'Today' programme, he said that he had got the proposal from his local golf club rules? Frankly, that is an insult to everyone engaged in industrial relations."—[0fficial Report, 19 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 846.] That argument promoted by the Opposition Front Bench in 1996 when a Tory Government were in office is equally valid today with a Labour Government in office.

Another area of disagreement is the CBI's insistence on a minimum threshold under which small businesses would be exempt from recognition procedures. Half of Britain's work force is employed in enterprises with fewer than 100 employees. The CBI wants to disfranchise 50 per cent. of this country's work force, excluding them from the protection of legislation on recognition. That is unacceptable.

The last threat to trade union recognition that I want to mention is the definition of the bargaining unit. That is crucial to the operation of a statutory recognition procedure. The CBI wants the employer to have the sole right to define the extent or limitation of the bargaining unit. That would enable an employer to exclude particular sections of the work force—for example, by separating white collar from blue collar workers—or to define the bargaining unit as the whole company when a trade union is seeking recognition for a specific section. Unscrupulous employers would change the definition to suit their circumstances. The union should have an equal right to define the group of workers it seeks to represent. If that cannot be resolved by negotiation or conciliation, an independent representation agency should rule. The employer should have no veto.

Our approach to fairness at work is underpinned by three fundamental principles. Access to justice should not depend on the number of people employed at a workplace or the type of work that is undertaken. It should also not depend on hours of work or length of service. The principles should apply to all employees at all workplaces.

The first principle is the right to representation. Everyone at work should have a basic right to representation in their dealings with their employer. That is a democratic right for every citizen, which should be enshrined in legislation.

The second principle is the right to recognition for collective bargaining purposes. Trade union recognition should be automatic when a majority is in favour. If the issue has to go to ballot, those voting should demonstrate the majority. There should be no exceptions to the collective bargaining agenda. Trade unions and employers should be free to discuss and negotiate on the whole range of issues that apply to the work force. Trade unions and employers must be involved in a partnership to raise the training and skill levels of the work force.

The third principle is the right to consultation. All workers must have the right to be consulted on matters that affect their working lives, including pay, working conditions and their future job security. If the CBI's gerrymandering is accepted, the law will be so weak that it will no longer be in line with the manifesto on which I fought the general election. There must be no compromise.

5.37 pm

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)

I declare that I have no pecuniary interest in the debate, but I have an interest in good industrial relations, good working conditions for all employees and employers and the prosperity of this country, furthered by good industrial and business conditions. That is what the debate is about.

The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) was uncharacteristically discourteous to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). He was also a little off message. He may have to tune in his bleeper later and discuss that with the Whip.

Mr. Steinberg

I do not have a bleeper.

Mr. Robathan

In that case, the hon. Gentleman is definitely off message. However, he is not normally as rude as he was to my hon. Friend.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about myths. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) spoke about the realities of trade union membership. The Minister of State, who, sadly, is not in his place, spoke about progress and said that we must not go back in time. We need to go back a little way and think about the past. Experience of the past colours our view. I fear that we may be going back to the bad old days if we are not careful.

Among some Labour Members there is a romantic notion that trade unions exist to protect the rights of very downtrodden workers from the wrongs of evil Victorian mill owners and the like. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."' I hear the unreconstructed voice of old Labour responding. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) spoke about trade union history. I accept that trade unions have done much good. Improvements in working conditions and pay owe much to their work.

At the same time, however, I have seen many who have regarded union power as almost an end in itself—indeed, a route to political authority. My youth was characterised by such marvellous people as Jack Dash. I recall him well, and how he almost single-handedly whipped up London dockers and destroyed the London docks. I recall Red Robbo, as will Labour Members who were in the House in the 1970s. He did lasting damage to the British car industry. At that time, trade union leaders were in No. 10 Downing street, where it was beer and sandwiches all round. I realise that it will be Chianti and Tuscan wine in future. My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) referred to the White Paper "In Place of Strife". I remember Barbara Castle's dashed optimism on that.

The past winter has been the first that the country has had to endure under a Labour Government for 19 years. I remember the winter of discontent 19 years ago. The Labour Government under Lord Callaghan, as he now is, went into that winter ahead in the opinion polls, but came out of it to find that the country had at last seen sense. The electorate voted in a Conservative Government because of the chaos of that winter. I give Labour Members due warning that, after the chaos of this Labour Government, the people will be electing another Conservative Government.

Mr. Collins

My hon. Friend is giving us a fascinating history lesson. Does he recall that "In Place of Strife" was destroyed by a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, who undermined his Prime Minister by putting first his own links with the trade unions? Does he recall that that Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer subsequently became Labour Prime Minister? Might not history repeat itself?

Mr. Robathan

I must stay in order, so I beware of following too closely my hon. Friend's argument, except to say that I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been making various comments to various union leaders, which have been well reported in the press. Perhaps we shall hear from Government Front Benchers about that matter—although I doubt it.

Mr. Bercow

My hon. Friend has provided the House with some learned reflections on memorable trade union figures of this century. I am sure that he would not want his speech to pass without giving Labour Members the benefit of his confirmation that one of the people who made the greatest contribution in the 20th century to British trade unions was none other than our noble Friend Lord Tebbit of Chingford.

Mr. Robathan

I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that Lady Thatcher did so, too.

Since the winter of discontent, after 18 years of Conservative government, we have remarkable industrial relations. Indeed, they are the envy of the rest of Europe. We consistently have the lowest number of days lost to strikes—certainly in my memory. Does anybody in the House remember the English disease? That has been cured. We remember the closed shop, which has effectively been destroyed.

As a result of that excellent record of industrial relations, we have outstanding inward investment, which is praised by Labour Members. They must ask themselves why companies want to invest in this country. [Interruption.] They say that inward investment is declining; it is perfectly evident that that is because of what happened on 1 May. We have a profitable industry—profitable for employees as well as for those awful Victorian mill owners. The interests of employees are best served by prosperous companies and good industrial relations, not necessarily by trade union bosses.

Maria Eagle

The hon. Gentleman talks about Victorian mill owners. Will he comment on an employer in Liverpool who pays his staff £2.97 for a 12-hour week? The staff have had no pay rise for six years, and their employer charges them 12p each for a tea-bag. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that is good industrial relations?

Mr. Robathan

The hon. Lady raises a case of which I have no knowledge. Nobody in the House would defend bad employer practices. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are."] On the contrary. Nobody defends Victorian mill owners whipping their employees into work. We Conservatives are saying that employees are better off than ever before because of the industrial relations packages that we implemented.

The Government have a manifesto commitment on statutory trade union recognition after a ballot. How many people should have to take part in such a ballot? The hon. Member for City of Durham believes that the majority should be 50 per cent. plus one of those who vote. He must get that bleeper soon. The hon. Member for Bradford, South also said that he believed that. He might like to check his bleeper later.

Now that Labour is in government, we need to know what it is saying about trade union recognition. I asked the Minister of State, but he had nothing to say. The Labour manifesto states: where a majority of the relevant workforce vote in a ballot for the union to represent them, the union should be recognised. Surely we must be told what that means. We do not need the Prime Minister to consult on it. Of course unions and employers have different views. I am delighted that the Prime Minister appears to be taking the CBI's position—but will it hold under pressure from his Back Benchers? That is what we would like the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry to answer.

Mr. Boswell

Has my hon. Friend noticed, as I have, that the Minister of State clearly prefers the company of his officials to that of his Back Benchers who have been contributing to the debate?

Mr. Robathan

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the Minister's officials are excellent company, although I would have hoped that he found the company of his Back Benchers congenial, too.

Following the election, before which the unions gave the Labour party such sterling service and support—much of it reflected in the Register of Members' Interests—the unions want their pound of flesh. In this case, that is statutory union recognition. Although the CBI is not always right, it is on this occasion. Good employee relations are not best served by statutory union recognition. Nobody approves of bad employers, but such recognition would not further good employee relations.

Mr. David Watts (St. Helens, North)

If the hon. Gentleman is so opposed to bad employers, why, following the past 18 years, are there still employers in my constituency and others who pay £1.20 an hour? If Conservatives are so concerned about employee rights, why did not the Conservative Government take action on the matter?

Mr. Robathan

If the hon. Gentleman would like a long debate on the minimum wage, I should be very happy to participate. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) may go into that in his own speech. I am not defending one bad employer; I am defending good industrial relations after 18 years of Conservative government. Why did we have the winter of discontent after four or five years of a Labour Government if Labour's practices were so good?

What is the new Government's real position? They raise in their amendment what is likely to be their real position—although it is clouded by other things. They talk about the minimum wage and the social chapter. When unemployment increases following the introduction of the minimum wage and the social chapter, I look forward to hearing Ministers explain why that has happened.

I urge the House to support the motion. We have prosperous industry, good industrial relations and a well-off work force. Those have been created by not having the form of legislation proposed by the Government. Let us remember the picketing and secondary picketing. Some Labour Members may have been at Grunwick in the 1970s, which I recall, or the Orgreave coking station. Some may have been at Wapping. One wonders whether any Labour Member defended Rupert Murdoch's actions at Wapping, and whether any would now criticise him. I should like to hear Labour Members criticise Rupert Murdoch in later speeches.

I remember the three-day week, under a Conservative Government, but I remember more than anything the winter of discontent, which has coloured industrial relations since 1979. The new Government have learnt nothing from the past 19 years. They hear threats from Bill Morris, who says that there is no scope for compromise. He says that statutory trade union recognition is a defining issue for trade unionists. There is no room for compromise. The Government will not be able to fulfil its commitment to fairness at work by legislation for bad employers, which is what a compromise would mean. We know what the trade unions believe, but not what the Government believe. It is fair that we should know. The Government find themselves impaled on a fork—they do not know which way to go.

I paid a visit recently to a business in my constituency which is the third largest private employer in Leicestershire. I asked employees about their pay and conditions, which they all said were marvellous. Furthermore, each employee has private health insurance—one might say that they should not need it—from the employer, who pays higher wages than his competitors and is more profitable. That is an example to employers and employees. I further believe that good practices by employers lead to profitable businesses, happy employees and no strikes. That is what we are working for, and it is not what recognition will bring.

Share rights for employees have been mentioned in the debate. Asda—of which my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) has been a distinguished chairman—offers every employee share rights. That is the way forward—that is progress. The Minister's proposals are going backwards to the ideologically bankrupt bad old days. He also mentioned falling membership of trade unions. Are the proposals designed purely to bolster that falling membership? I fear that they might be. We have good industrial relations, good working companies and improving pay for employees. We do not need further statutory union recognition and bad industrial legislation.

5.52 pm

Ann Keen (Brentford and Isleworth)

I wish to declare an interest to the House. I am proud to be a member of the GMB, and I am secretary of the GMB group in Parliament. I am privileged to be the vice-chair of the trade union group in Parliament.

In the short time that the Government have been in power, they have made great steps forward to modernise and support industrial relations and social partnership within the world of work. They have produced a significant—indeed, historic—Bill to introduce a national minimum wage, on which trade unions and employers have campaigned for many years.

After the general election in May last year, the Prime Minister asked the TUC and the CBI to "narrow the gap" on trade union recognition. Key areas have been discussed with both parties, and great progress has been made. The expected White Paper, "Fairness at Work", will bring about much-needed legislation to bring Britain's business and workers into a modern, thriving economy.

Sadly, far too many employers do not realise voluntarily that a change of Government means a change of attitude at work. Such a change of attitude is expected. Most employers treat their staff fairly, but too many take advantage of the lack of legal protection to exploit and bully their staff. Without the support of a union, people are often unable to enforce their legal rights.

I should like to say a few words about a dispute that is taking place in west London, affecting the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), who is in his place. Most of the workers at the company, Noon Products, are part of the west London Punjabi community that extends into my own constituency of Brentford and Isleworth.

Noon Products provides chilled and frozen ready-made Indian meals for supermarkets, including Sainsbury, Waitrose and Somerfield. Almost all the production workers at Noon Products approached the GMB and voluntarily joined within a three-week period during October 1997. They wanted the GMB to help resolve the many grievances that they had with the company—for example, low pay, excessive hours, favouritism and an unequal pay structure.

The GMB has continually asked to meet with the company to discuss the grievances, and union rights and recognition. Noon Products continually refuses to meet the GMB, or to acknowledge that more than 80 per cent. of the work force—250 workers—are GMB members. The company has tried to victimise a GMB steward, Rana Hussain, and the pressurise members to leave the union continues. The company has appointed a new senior supervisor to pursue that objective.

More than 15,000 people in one week signed a petition to protest at the way in which the community and the work force at a local company were being treated. Along with my hon. Friends the Members for Southall and for Hayes and Harlington, I am pursuing the matter, and the petition has been taken to Downing street. The GMB has called upon the company to invite an independent body to ballot the workers on union recognition, and has suggested that the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service or the Electoral Reform Society be involved. The company has stated that it will abide by any industrial relations proposals only when they are made law.

Many of the work force are, of course, women, and women at work today continue to have a rougher deal than their male colleagues. There is still a pay gap.

Mr. Dismore

As a fellow member of the GMB, could I refer to the problem of recognition—particularly affecting women workers—in the casino industry, where the GMB has been waging a campaign on recognition? A dispute with Napoleon's casino—where 60 per cent. of the work force are GMB members—has been going on for eight months. The owner, David Allan, and the manager, Kevin Hapley, have been campaigning against union recognition. Through the GMB, there have been two applications to industrial tribunals on trade union victimisation. Is not that another example of bad employers trying to defeat the will of the work force, because there is no law to protect them?

Ann Keen

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. It is obvious that there is still much to do, and trade union recognition is the only way forward.

There is still a glass ceiling for women in many organisations. Too few employers operate family-friendly employment practices that make equal opportunities policies a reality. Without trade unions, life at work for many women would be much worse.

Women make up half the work force. Many work in small businesses or on a casual homeworker or other flexible basis, where they are extremely vulnerable to unscrupulous employers or managers. As has been stated, in 1997—towards the end of this century—the TUC felt it necessary to set up a bad bosses hotline. That revealed a catalogue of exploitation, bullying, low pay, long hours and job insecurity. More women than men who worked for firms employing fewer than 50 staff made calls to the hotline.

The hotline revealed care homes, which are a main employer of women, as one of the three worst industries. More than 500,000 people work in care homes, and 86 per cent. of them are women. I shall give an example from the hotline.

Mr. Bercow

rose—

Ann Keen

I will not give way.

One worker had just had a pay rise—to £2.86 an hour. For that payment, round-the-clock shifts were expected, with no sick pay, pension or holiday entitlements.

Another example of non-union recognition is the cross-channel ferry industry. Alcohol is big business on cross-channel transport, with staff expected to take the consequences when passengers become drunk and abusive. One of the women who contacted the TUC's hotline worked as a steward for a catering company on a cross-channel ferry—a company that does not recognise trade unions. She and her colleagues regularly have to put up with harassment from drunk passengers, yet, while airlines refuse to serve alcohol to passengers who are drunk, that company tells its staff to continue to serve and sell alcohol even though they may feel unsafe.

Trade unions have changed a great deal in recent years. Partnerships rather than adversity now dominate industrial relations. Unions have changed how they work and how they campaign. Through campaigning and negotiation with employers, unions have promoted working conditions that help members to balance work and family responsibilities, which is so important in all families, but particularly so when lone parents are at work. Union recognition is good business practice. Macho, top-down management is long past its sell-by date. Organisations that treat staff as partners succeed, and manage change with the best benefit.

A recent poll of human resource managers in the top companies found that they were relaxed about trade union recognition.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Ann Keen

I am sorry, but I am short of time and cannot give way.

Such managers value the opportunity that trade unions bring for good communication; they recognise that it is an effective way in which to deliver loyalty and commitment, and that it is good for business.

Finally, I want the House to recognise the work that has been done at national and European level by the good partnership that the TUC and the CBI have established. They have worked effectively together to draw up policies and directives to benefit women and men at work. Many new opportunities are opening up in the new world of work.

The new deal for young people had its national launch today. Welfare to work and the much-needed modernisation of the welfare state are encouraging more people to take up work, but some of them are very vulnerable. To help everyone to succeed with new work, we also need new unionism. We have that new unionism. It is emerging at the end of the 20th century, as unionism did in the 19th century, to take up those new challenges.

I hope that the House will take seriously its business as regards the economy as well as the way in which it represents constituents, many of whom we hope are at work. The TUC and the CBI should be given the best wishes of the House for good and progressive debate, as should our Government, to deliver a modern trade union partnership with industry that will advance fairness and justice for Britain's workers and the business community. As we have said, we may not be the biggest country in the world—we certainly are not the biggest in the world of work—but we could be the fairest, which would make us the best.

6.6 pm

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)

I wish to be brief, because I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) an opportunity to speak, as I know he is keen to do so.

During the debate, we have had a fair number of trips down memory lane, with repeated incantations about 18 years of Conservative rule. I wish that I had £5 for every time Labour Members referred to those 18 years. They think that it is some sort of insult to the Conservative party, but, by referring to that long period in which Conservative Governments were elected, re-elected and re-elected again, they are insulting the judgment of the British people who, time and again, saw fit to re-elect Conservative Governments and reject Labour, often because of its espousal of the very policies that the proposed Government measure would reintroduce into industrial relations.

We have heard derogatory references to "the enemy within", as an expression used by Margaret Thatcher. I remember when she used that expression and the circumstances in trade union affairs about which she used it. I remember the events in the Civil and Public Services Association, which was infiltrated by the same Militant Tendency—or Revolutionary Socialist League as it really was—that it took Labour so long to gear itself up to expel from its ranks. I remember when Kate Losinska, a genuine trade unionist, was attacked, beaten and tripped downstairs by the enemy within.

Yes, the Militant Tendency was the enemy within the CPSA, and my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher was right to use that expression. She was right to use it not only about the termites burrowing in from the Fourth International, but about the National Union of Mineworkers and Mr. Scargill and his sponsors—

Mr. Clapham

Does the hon. Gentleman realise the enormous contribution that those who worked in the mines made during the first and second world wars? Does he realise that, before the first world war, there were more than 1 million miners and that enormous sacrifices were made in mining communities? Is he slighting that contribution?

Dr. Lewis

On the contrary: it was Mr. Scargill who slighted those brave miners when, time and again, during those arguments he refused to give them a ballot on whether they should be conducting an industrial dispute. Mr. Scargill would not give his members the right to a ballot while he used them to pursue his political objectives rather than look after their interests. His campaign was funded by foreign communist regimes, which openly collected huge sums of money—there was no voluntarism about contributing for Soviet trade union members, believe me—to help him undermine British industrial relations while the people of those regimes were being incarcerated for political offences.

I also remember how a change came about, so I shall move on to the more positive aspects. The introduction of compulsory secret postal ballots was the reason for that change. The measures were partly introduced in the Trade Union Act 1984 and completed in the Employment Act 1988.

I pay particular tribute to the late Lord Wyatt of Weeford, whose memorial service I had the privilege to attend last week, for his fantastic work to expose communist manipulation in the Electrical Trade Union and to highlight the shortcomings in the Thatcher Government's plan—which did not include making secret postal ballots compulsory until he drew those shortcomings to their attention and the measures were drawn into the legislation. I hope that the Minister will reply to this point, even if it is the only point to which he replies, as even if the Government cannot—

Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington)

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) referred to a dispute in which a number of my constituents are engaged. It is important that we use the House for constructive debate and, if we can, to give constructive assistance in that dispute, which concerns 80 per cent. of a work force who have joined the GMB and request that their employer assists them in organising a ballot to ensure that, as a result, the employer recognises the union.

Will the hon. Gentleman join me in uniting the House to call on the employer to recognise the trade union that now represents 80 per cent. of the work force and, in so doing, assist in the resolution of the dispute?

Dr. Lewis

The issue relates to the point that I was making, so the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I will not pronounce on that dispute without more information; but we may reach agreement on the following point. Does he agree—and, with due respect, more important, does the Minister agree—that, whatever threshold the Government finally decide on for their legislation—whether it be 50 per cent. of those voting or of those entitled to vote, or some other percentage of either—they should undertake today that the votes will be in a tamper-proof, secret, postal ballot?

The 1984 and 1988 legislation, to which I alluded, greatly improved the trade union leadership's representativeness of its members because of the introduction of the secret postal ballot, which stopped ballot rigging and led, for example, in the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union to the replacement of a Stalinist such as Ken Gill on retirement by a moderate such as Roger Lyons.

Mr. Harold Best (Leeds, North-West)

I want to deal with the facts. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Electrical Trades Union, of which I was a member. The villainy inside the ranks of that union was exposed not by Lord Wyatt, but by people such as myself—rank and file shop stewards. In 1962, I was elected branch secretary in Leeds as an anti-communist. It is important that the distortions that Conservative Members continue to pour out are put straight. You need to be corrected on another element—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. No one needs to correct me on the history of the electrical trade unions.

Mr. Best

I wanted to say that the virtues of the postal ballot are not all that the hon. Gentleman claimed. Postal ballots can be manipulated, and I was a victim of such manipulation—1,800 ballot papers ended up at the address of one employer, so that the members of the trade union could vote in the comfort of the employer's offices.

Dr. Lewis

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. With all due respect to his no doubt heroic part in rescuing the ETU, I say that, if we are to give plaudits, we should do so to people such as the late Sir Leslie Cannon, who led that fight. There is no reason to deny the crucial role played by Woodrow Wyatt, whose investigations as a "Panorama" reporter made it possible for people such as, I trust, the hon. Gentleman and, certainly, the late Sir Les Cannon to bring their campaign into the open and eventually to win their court case.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that postal ballots can be rigged. Much of the ballot rigging in the ETU occurred despite the postal vote, which is why I said that postal ballots must be tamper-proof and independent.

Mr. McDonnell

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Noon workers; they have requested an independent ballot, in whatever form is acceptable to the majority and to the employer, on recognition. The dispute is one of the most bitter in west London—it is souring the whole community, and affects the most vulnerable section of that community. I ask the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members to urge the employer to resolve the dispute constructively, so that good community relations can be restored in the area.

Dr. Lewis

I take those remarks in the spirit in which they were meant, and I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in urging constructive moves by both sides in any bitter dispute.

Even if the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry cannot tell us today the Government's intentions on percentages—whether the percentage will be of all the work force or of all those voting—will she at least guarantee that any voting mechanism that is established will be tamper-proof, secret and by postal ballot?

6.13 pm

Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone)

I understand that I need not declare my interests, but I shall. I am currently a member of two trade unions. Before I was a Member of Parliament, I was both regional and national officer of a trade union, and I have worked for trade unions for almost 18 years.

We have heard much about trade unions from Conservative Members, and I certainly shall not go down the route suggested by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who embarked on a union-bashing exercise and added nothing constructive to the debate. I tell him that two centuries of trade unionism in Britain have shown that trade unions are to the betterment of democracy—that argument is accepted by no less a person than Professor Galbraith, who regards trade unionism as a civilising influence. Implementation of trade union recognition will no doubt also be a civilising influence on the shop floor. Trade unions bring great benefits not only to their members, but, as has clearly been shown, to business. I shall expand on that point in a moment.

If we compare the last quarter of this century with the third quarter, we can see that there have been enormous changes in the industrial scene, arising from the different sizes of industrial units and privatisation. Those changes are well documented, and, although I shall have to skirt over them, I want to put straight the hon. Members for New Forest, East and for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on the facts that they misconstrued.

We know that there has been a fall in trade union membership in the past 25 years, but that was brought about not by the implementation of Mrs. Thatcher's trade union legislation between 1980 and 1990, but primarily by unemployment. If Conservative Members had done a little research, they would have come across the evidence given to the Select Committee on Employment—it reported in 1995, I think—which stated that the reason for the fall in trade union membership was the decimation of industry caused by the Conservative Government. Between 1979 and 1994, the proportion of people employed in manufacturing industry fell from 31 to 20 per cent. People were displaced not because of trade union legislation, but because of the Conservative Government's policies.

Mr. Robathan

The hon. Gentleman is being somewhat disingenuous. As I understand it, trade union membership has fallen since 1979 by approximately 6 million, yet unemployment never rose much above 3 million or, at worst, 3.5 million—it is currently under 2 million—so I do not see how he can link those figures. Does he agree that people do not want to be members of trade unions in the way they used to, because times have changed? People certainly do not want membership to be compulsory.

Mr. Clapham

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, trade union membership is well above 6 million. I accept that there has been a considerable fall, but, as I said, that was caused by unemployment. He said that, under Mrs. Thatcher's Government, unemployment was 3 million. Because of the way in which unemployment was hidden at that time, the actual figure was well above 5 million. The hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do.

There is no evidence to suggest that individualism has taken over from organisation in trade unions. From 1987, 40 per cent. of the factories that derecognised trade unions did not put in place any alternative mechanism for communicating with the workers, who have been made that much worse off.

The Tory Government's attitude resulted in companies derecognising. The evidence shows clearly that that created bad management. Workplaces were managed in a way that had a detrimental impact on the economy and was unhelpful to the people on the shop floor.

Bad management leads to bad health and safety; the figures show that 1.6 million people are injured in industry each year. It is estimated that 2 million people are exposed to conditions that make their health worse. The cost is enormous: about 30 million working days a year are lost through poor health and safety, and the cost to the economy is estimated to be between £15 billion and £18 billion.

One of the major benefits of recognition will be the extension of the appointment of safety representatives under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. Hon. Members may be aware that there is a statutory obligation on the employer, where there is a recognised trade union, to set up a safety committee, through which the safety representative can work to ensure that the workplace is made much safer.

Hon. Members have referred to the jobs situation in their various constituencies. Across the Barnsley borough, which contains three constituencies, we need 19,000 jobs merely to bring employment up to the national average. That is because of the massive colliery closure programme that was imposed on the area with no thought whatever for the future.

The local authority, with help from the Labour Government, is working hard to overcome the enormous obstacles that we have to face in the local economy.

Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)

I have no prejudice against trade unions: my grandfather was a shop steward and my father was a union member all his life. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Government's support for the coalfield communities. I am a former Nottinghamshire county councillor, and I know that the shire county rate support grant received by counties such as Nottingham was extremely poor. The money was channelled into urban areas, and not into coalfield communities.

Mr. Clapham

I refer the hon. Gentleman to The Guardian this morning. He will note that the Government are prepared and determined to do something for the coal industry, which the previous Tory Government were not. He should take cognisance of reports in the press this morning.

Because of the general depression in the local economy, wages in the Barnsley borough are only 50 per cent. of the national average. When I met some young people recently, a young woman told me that she was working at a Barnsley factory for £2.80 an hour; that she was forced to work a 12-hour day, because if she refused to work beyond eight hours she would lose her job; that she was not paid overtime; and that, when her first eight hours finished, she was bussed to another factory to complete the latter part of the 12-hour shift.

From what Conservative Members have said, I take it that they would be in favour of such a system and of wages of £2.80 an hour. The situation needs to be remedied, and that will happen only if unions are recognised and can negotiate the best possible wages and conditions for those on the shop floor. In such negotiations, they can move the employer on to partnership by consent. Partnership is better for everyone.

The evidence from my constituency shows clearly that 18 years of Toryism returned us to the Victorian age. The Government are determined to move us on, and trade union recognition is one way of returning empowerment and giving people a greater say, so that they can work in better conditions.

The 15 countries in the European Union all recognise trade unions in one way or another. The three Scandinavian countries—Sweden, Denmark and Finland—have had the kind of trade union recognition that we are discussing in situ for many years, and it is working well.

Mr. Bercow

The hon. Gentleman has just conceded that he would like to return to a pre-1979 position. From 1979, there was a consistent reduction in the number of days lost through strikes, and, by 1996, almost 28 million working days were saved. Does he concede that compulsory union recognition, which he favours, will create a persistent and substantial increase in the number of days lost in British workplaces?

Mr. Clapham

Had the hon. Gentleman been listening, he would have known that I was advocating not a return to pre-1979 but trade unionism in the modern age, which will give people the representation that they need to have a say in their workplace, leading to consent and partnership.

There has been a long dialogue about the formula between the TUC and the CBI, but they have been unable to bridge the gulf. If the formula proposed by the CBI were accepted, it would lead to an industrial relations crisis. The only formula that would work safely is 50 per cent. plus one, which would result in trade unions being recognised in an orderly way.

Mr. Collins

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clapham

Not at this time, as I have not finished making the point. I want to explain why anything less than a 50 per cent. plus one formula would lead to crisis. The first time that the inevitable confrontation between employers and employees occurred, the employer would say that the conciliation and consultation procedures under which the trade union was prosecuting its claim no longer applied, because they had not been validated under the new rules. The result would be that employers would start to unravel the conciliation and consultation procedures. In some circumstances, it could lead to national, regional and local bargaining procedures being unravelled. That would be to the detriment not only of trade unions but of businesses.

Mr. Collins

The hon. Gentleman puts a most sincere and eloquent case against the CBI position. May I take it that, if his Government embraced the CBI position, he would vote against them?

Mr. Clapham

I believe that the TUC position is based on reason and fairness.

Trade unions are as relevant today as they ever were, because workers are as vulnerable as they ever were. The way to deal with that vulnerability is through trade union recognition. The way to implement that is via the TUC formula.

6.30 pm

Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry)

This has been a revealing debate, opened by the honourable and socialist Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). In his characteristic way, after getting unsteadily into the air, he slipped the controls into auto-rant, and stayed there until he finished; so much so that, when he was asked the central question about whether the Government would adopt the position of the TUC or of the CBI, which are incompatible, he described it as a silly question. Some of his colleagues have definite views on it, but he could not answer it. If he has put his controls on autopilot, I hope that they do not fall foul of the millennium bug. It may be triggered well before the millennium, because even this Government will have to make a decision before then.

We had solid, thoughtful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). They pointed out some of the historic record, and some of the constraints on this area of industrial relations. We had an interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) about the experience of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service in picking up the pieces after the last episode of statutory recognition of unions.

We had some most revealing contributions from Labour Members. They may deny it if they wish, but the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) took the TUC's part, and the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) did so explicitly. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) leaned that way, and the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) was a bit that way inclined. Given the present state of the Labour party, I cannot help feeling that the situation is like that shown by the opinion poll once carried out in the staffroom of a well-known school. Twelve male teachers denied wearing long johns, three admitted it, and three did not know.

If Labour Members were not mindful of the Speaker's views on audible pagers, the air would have been thick with wireless messages bringing them back on message. If we had the compression of time that is a characteristic of the theatre, and this was a play, it would be now that we got the final revelation: a pager message vibrating across the thighs of Labour Members saying, "Jump TUC" or "Jump CBI". Then we would know.

This is a defining moment for the Government. Sources as varied as Peter Riddell of The Times and Bill Morris of the T and G have made that clear. As a Minister who still hopes Blair will shift is quoted as saying in the New Statesman: It would be a defining moment that sent out ripples and echoes for a very long time in all sorts of unpredictable ways. In the preceding paragraph, a union leader with impeccable new Labour credentials is quoted as threatening: We would go into internal opposition. Let me repeat in full Labour's election's pledge: People should be free to join or not to join a union. Where they do decide to join, and where a majority of the relevant workforce vote in a ballot for the union to represent them, the union should be recognised. This promotes stable and orderly industrial relations. There will be full consultation on the most effective means of implementing this proposal.

It could hardly be clearer. It was clear to John Edmonds, Bill Morris and John Monks. However, last week, in reply to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the Prime Minister said that he was consulting not on the means of implementation but on the meaning of his pledge. He finds preaching easy but decision making distressing. We concede that consultation is a good idea, but we begin to doubt whether we can get from the Prime Minister the time of day or the day of the week without still more consultation and delay, and no doubt the employment of yet more expensive focus groups.

Mr. Sutcliffe

On consultation, did the hon. Gentleman consult the CBI about this debate, and if so, what was its view on whether it would be helpful?

Mr. Boswell

I took advice from a variety of sources on that matter. It would be useful for the House, which makes decisions on legislation, to be told the Government's position. The hon. Gentleman may be ahead of me, but we seek to find out the truth.

The truth is that, if the Prime Minister ever found the time, or had the inclination, to come here, he would find staked out waiting for him, all wanting their pound of flesh, a group of Cabinet Ministers. Yesterday's newspapers reported it as including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade, who has not returned for the winding-up speeches; doubtless she hovers. It also includes the Secretaries of State for Health and for Culture, Media and Sport and, bless me, the Deputy Prime Minister.

There is also a concatenation of the newer intake. I strain my eyes to see the hon. Members for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), who were all fingered in the Sunday newspapers. The hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) was here for most of the debate as a silent onlooker.

The truth is that, in its manifesto, Labour tried, in this as in many other matters, to be all things to all people. It consciously adopted a studied form of ambiguity, but cannot sustain it, even if it means that it has to give up some of its new-found friends or its old ones. Labour likes preaching at us. It is full of new puritanism, but it must know that its sins will catch it out. The day of judgment is fast approaching.

Meanwhile, No. 10 goes on with its ridiculous, unattributable waffle, trying to split the difference. A source close to the Prime Minister is reported as saying: Both sides of industry will be disappointed. Neither will get what it wants. But it will be a new Labour solution, not an old Labour one.

Conservative Members are not disposed to back any solution to Labour's little local difficulties. Our motion was tabled in the interests of finding out what Labour thought it meant, thus providing a service to freedom of information. We are, sadly, little wiser, but we know that, if it is forced to decide—and it will be—it has a clear choice between 100 years of Labour history or upsetting its new associates in the business community. More likely, it will have to try to broker a sordid compromise, described so characteristically and aptly as a "new Labour solution".

The House must remember that any compromise brings its own problems. As the TUC pointed out, in a work force of 100, if there is a minimum turnout requirement of 60 per cent. and a vote of 58 to one in favour, it will not count. If it is 31 to 29, it will. That is the situation that we will get into.

Possibly in an effort to put us off our stroke, one or two hon. Members started to raise matters of interest, so I can disclose to the House that I am the employer of one employee. There is no specific exclusion in the Labour manifesto for single employees.

I have not the faintest idea whether my employee is a member of a union, but those circumstances would provide a perfect opportunity for Labour's policy, because it would be possible to know whether one constituted a majority and whether the whole of the relevant work force was balloted on the matter. I mention that as an absurdity, because the view from the Conservative Benches is that it is far better not to go down that road at all.

Let us not imagine that the practical problems end there. As the Engineering Employers Federation has indicated, for a start many people join a union for the specific purpose of getting insured. We are familiar with that from the teachers' unions, but there are other examples. Are those people, willy-nilly, to have their bargaining rights fully collectivised? Are they to find that they have, in effect, joined a closed shop without being asked? Would an individual be able to make his own contract with his employer, or would such a contract be nullified? Would employers be able to communicate with the work force outwith the collective bargaining process?

There may also be difficulties where multiple unions are recognised, which would bear closely on the definition of the relevant work force. Different parts of an organisation might vote for different unions, and so take us back to the uncomfortable but familiar days of demarcation disputes and unnecessary industrial disputes. Who is to draw up the definition of the "relevant" part of the work force?

A pledge that Labour tried to pretend was clear was in fact intended to be a masterpiece of ambiguity—I forget who it was who said that there were six different sorts of ambiguity, but no doubt one of my literary friends will remind me—and it is extremely difficult to implement.

Mr. Robathan

I hate to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I do not know about the six sorts of ambiguity, although there is one specific sort of ambiguity about which I want to know. Does my hon. Friend believe that those who criticised Rupert Murdoch's behaviour at Wapping in the early 1980s will criticise such behaviour today, given that Rupert Murdoch is, metaphorically speaking, in bed with the Prime Minister and the Labour party?

Mr. Boswell

The short answer to that is that it all depends on the pager message they receive.

The Government amendment is particularly revealing, in that it makes it clear that they regard the matter as a sort of partnership agenda. There has been lots of touchy-feeliness and niceness emerging, which would not sit very well in the world of Jack Dash and Red Robbo. However, Labour's idea of industrial partnership has about as much relevance to real industrial partnership as people's democracy had to its real equivalent—a forced partnership is no partnership at all.

The CBI, in the shape of Adair Turner, has called for a real partnership. I would welcome that, just as I have no problem with the concept of trade union membership. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) may be interested in this point, because it may have been in the back of her mind when she spoke.

Only this weekend, The Observer drew attention in a positive way to the health and safety record of certain companies where there was recognition, and there is probably some evidence of that sort of positive achievement. However, if it is in the real interests of employers to recognise unions, why do they not recognise them anyway? Why should employers be forced by law to recognise unions? When one brings law into all such areas, the danger is that it will merely reignite the industrial relations problems we had hoped were long behind us.

Maria Eagle

Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House who brought law into industrial relations in this country?

Mr. Boswell

It was not, of course, a Conservative Government. The immunities go back to 1909, and the problem has always been to find the right balance.

It is well known that the number of strikes today is less than 10 per cent. of the figure characteristic of the 1970s. ACAS has just published a good report on industrial relations for the year. However, the strains are already being felt: for example, last week we had irregular action in the postal service and the London Underground, and there was a walkout after a suspension at my local Ford plant. There is real pressure on certain industrial sectors, and it is vital that we do not throw away our competitive strengths. The danger is that the effect of the Government's policy will be to sling another rock at British industry, at a time when it can least afford it.

The Labour manifesto spoke of stable and orderly industrial relations. However, the danger is well set out by the director-general of the Institute of Personnel Development, who says: This is a very good illustration of the sort of irreconcilable nonsense that arises from statutory trade union recognition. The obligation becomes a source of conflict in itself. Our motion probes the Government's intentions, because we fear that they will not deliver stability. We believe that their policies caricature industrial partnership and disturb a delicate industrial balance. At their heart is an ambiguity which the Government know exists, but they cannot go on for ever on the basis of, "Don't ask, don't tell." They will have to stand up and be counted, and Labour Back Benchers could make a contribution by joining us in the Lobby tonight.

6.45 pm

The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche)

This has been an interesting debate and a revealing one, because it has said a great deal about today's Conservative party. What it shows is the reason why they are still yesterday's Conservative party, and will remain so. Although the debate has been interesting, it obviously has not been interesting enough to attract Conservative Members to the Chamber on their own Opposition day. At one point during the opening speeches, there were about 14 Opposition Members present. I know that the number of Conservative Members is small, but I had not realised that they were so small or so pathetic.

As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the Government will produce proposals on union recognition in the first half of this year. Of course, important decisions are to be taken on the details of those proposals, and we are actively engaged in discussions on those issues with both the CBI and the TUC.

There have been two strands to the debate: there are those hon. Members, especially on the Labour Benches, who wish to engage in a genuine debate about the future direction of policy, and we have heard thoughtful and valuable contributions on the balance to be struck between rights and responsibilities of employees and employees, and descriptions of modern business and modern trade unionism.

In that strand, there is a common realisation that the existing balance—or, more precisely, the balance as at 1 May last year—is inadequate. It palpably fails to provide fairness; it fails to deliver a sense of security and mutual trust in the workplace; it also fails to encourage workers to see themselves as partners with employers in pursuit of common business objectives.

That is what this subject is all about—building competitiveness, and an economy in which we can all share. We want to establish a new era of employment relations in this country. We want to break with the past, both from the time when workers and management were constantly at loggerheads, and from the more recent period when many workers have been denied decent standards at work. Our approach is truly a third way. It is designed to achieve flexibility with fairness, enhanced competitiveness with more security, and greater productivity through partnership.

Mr. Lansley

In the absence of a formed Government policy on union recognition, and instead of waiting for a White Paper and talking to the CBI and the TUC, why do the Government not publish a Green Paper and have a wider consultation with industry more generally?

Mrs. Roche

I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I honestly fail to do so. In our manifesto, we said that we would consult. What sticks in the Conservatives' craw is that the Labour Government really do consult with industry—we consult with unions and with management. I remind Conservative Members that that is what we said in our manifesto we would do, it is what the British people elected us to do and it is what we shall do, and we shall not be diverted from it.

Mr. Boswell

The hon. Lady was right to say that that was in the Labour party manifesto. Will she now tell the House, without consulting or conferring, what it means? We want a simple answer.

Mrs. Roche

The hon. Gentleman clearly does not want consultation. Conservative Members like the old days—they like remembering divisions in industry. They cannot stand the fact that we have consulted the C131 and the TUC, which have got together to produce joint documents. It sticks in their craw. They will have to wait for the White Paper and until we have listened to what both sides have to say.

Not for the first time, Conservative Members simply refuse to move with the times. They are in a state of denial. They cannot bear to think of the election result, or to adjust their thinking. They fail to grasp the fact that modern companies need to work in collaboration and partnership with their employees. Managing people by threat or diktat does not produce efficient or profitable business. The intervention and speech of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) are good examples of that.

As my hon. Friends said time and again, our leading firms fully grasp that point. Unlike the Conservative party, most companies already recognise unions and value the importance of establishing constructive, collective relationships with their work forces.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) rightly referred to the recent NOP survey on behalf of the consultancy People in Business, which found that 67 per cent. of managers in top companies thought that good collective relationships were "important" or "very important" in implementing change at the workplace. That is an important message, but Conservative Members could not care less. They want to return to the past instead of looking to the future.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) said, we want partnership rather than an adversarial relationship. The TUC and the CBI are working together to achieve that. It is all about progressive businesses and modern companies with modern trade unions.

Our task is to spread good practice beyond the leading companies, and we know that much remains to be done. We need to ensure that as many companies as possible take that message on board. If we believed Conservative Members, we would think that all was well in the best possible world, and that everything could continue as before. We would think that we had nothing to learn and did not need to progress. We reject that.

Mr. Collins

The Minister says that the Government's task is to spread the word beyond the leading firms. Is she in favour of a minimum number of employees, above which recognition proposals would apply and below which they would not apply? If so, what would the number be?

Mrs. Roche

Although the hon. Gentleman has been present throughout the debate, he clearly did not listen to the Minister of State's opening speech. We are listening and consulting, and we shall introduce our proposals in the White Paper in our time, not in the hon. Gentleman's.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mrs. Roche

I must make progress, but, as the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) is my pair, I always give way to her.

Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead)

I, too, am conscious of the relationship between us, so I shall be careful what I say. The Minister referred again to consultation. When she stood on the Labour party manifesto in last year's election, what did she understand was the definition of "the majority of the work force"?

Mrs. Roche

I appreciate the courtesy with which the hon. Lady has framed her question. I understood from the manifesto, on which my hon. Friends and I stood and on which we were successful, that we would carry out a consultation exercise and then make proposals—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may not like that. They cannot stand the fact that we are not only consulting but listening. They left us with a fractured legacy, and we shall ensure that we deal with it.

It is asserted that workers do not need or want union recognition, but prefer to deal with their employers on an individual basis. We know that that is incorrect. According to the latest British social attitudes survey, 46 per cent. of workers feel that they should have more say at work, 62 per cent. think that management always try to get the better of employees, and 63 per cent. feel that they have little or no influence over decisions that directly affect their work. [Interruption.]

Opposition Members think that that is amusing. They think that it is great for the state of British industry. It is fine for them to be complacent, but the Government want to change things, so that every worker feels involved in the company that he or she represents, and so that management and unions can progress together to help the productiveness of our economy.

This afternoon, we heard speeches that took us back in time. The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) was the authentic voice of the Tory Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that my analysis is correct, and that the hon. Gentleman is isolated. if his really is the voice of the Tory party, this Government are in power for a very long time.

Dr. Julian Lewis

The Minister thinks that I am going to respond to her facile remark, but I am not. I wish to raise a serious point. Will she answer the question posed repeatedly in my speech: can the Government guarantee that, whatever figures they finally light upon in terms of the number of people who must vote for recognition to be made mandatory, the vote will be conducted by a tamper-proof, secret postal ballot? Yes or no?

Mrs. Roche

I should caution the hon. Gentleman to be a little more patient. I assure him that recognition ballots, like industrial action ballots, will be fairly conducted and subject to independent scrutiny. That has come about because of the joint work between the CBI and the TUC. Conservative Members may knock it, but we recognise that it is productive and extremely useful.

Our proposals will reduce the scope for disputes over recognition. At present, unions have only two options if an employer refuses to recognise them: they can give in, or they can take industrial action. A statutory recognition procedure provides a potent alternative for both unions and employers to test the support for recognition, and to resolve disputes without industrial action.

I was a little disappointed by the speech of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), because he seemed to suggest that we were wrong to ask the TUC and the CBI to discuss those issues bilaterally. I thought that that was what the Liberal Democrats stood for, and that they were keen on industrial partnership. The Government believe in partnership, and want to deliver our policy in conjunction with all interested parties.

The Government have listened closely to the views expressed in today's debate, and we shall reflect carefully on what has been said. The White Paper's aim is to present a package of measures that will guarantee decent minimum standards at work. The standards must be sensible, realistic and fair to both employees and employers.

Our proposals on fairness therefore need to be clear, and as simple as possible to implement. We must end the situation in which employers can ignore the wishes of their work force by denying recognition, even though most of their employees clearly want it. At the moment, the power to determine whether recognition is granted rests solely with employers. Workers have no rights or say in the matter. Those arrangements cannot continue.

There are solid democratic arguments in favour of establishing a recognition right. As my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone and for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said, it also makes good economic sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone spoke about health and safety issues as well.

How can commitment and flexibility be encouraged, when employers ignore the views of their employees on such a fundamental issue as establishing a collective voice at work? Clearly we need to move on, and ensure that we progress.

We have already done much in our first year in office to create a more just system of employment relations. We are close to enacting the National Minimum Wage Bill. We have signed the social chapter, and are about to set out our proposals for implementing the working time and young workers directives. The forthcoming White Paper on fairness at work will contain our proposals for completing the process.

Every one of these proposals is resisted by Opposition Members, who have nothing to offer the future. They are stuck firmly in the past, in an age of distrust, insecurity and conflict at work. They talk about the need for businesses to work more flexibly, but, as this revealing debate has shown, it is they and their thinking that are inflexible and outdated.

Our objective is to create a new and modern system of employment relations in this country—a system in which fairness can truly be combined with flexibility and efficiency; a system that actively encourages a greater sense of trust and partnership in the workplace.

I urge the House to support the amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friends.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 316.

Division No. 244]	[7.1 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Jenkin, Bernard
Amess, David	Johnson Smith,
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael	Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Arbuthnot, James	Key, Robert
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Baldry, Tony	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Bercow, John	Lansley, Andrew
Beresford, Sir Paul	Leigh, Edward
Blunt, Crispin	Letwin, Oliver
Body, Sir Richard	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Boswell, Tim	Lidington, David
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Loughton, Tim
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Luff, Peter
Brady, Graham	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Brazier, Julian	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	McIntosh, Miss Anne
Browning, Mrs Angela	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Burns, Simon	Major, Rt Hon John
Butterfill, John	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Cash, William	May, Mrs Theresa
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Nicholls, Patrick
(Chipping Barnet)	Ottaway, Richard
Chope, Christopher	Page, Richard
Clappison, James	Paice, James
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)	Paterson, Owen
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)	Prior, David
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth	Randall, John
(Rushcliffe)	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Robathan, Andrew
Collins, Tim	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Colvin, Michael	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Cran, James	St Aubyn, Nick
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)	Sayeed, Jonathan
Day, Stephen	Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Shepherd, Richard
Duncan, Alan	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Soames, Nicholas
Faber, David	Spring, Richard
Fabricant, Michael	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Fallon, Michael	Steen, Anthony
Flight, Howard	Streeter, Gary
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Swayne, Desmond
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Syms, Robert
Fraser, Christopher	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Gale, Roger	Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Garnier, Edward	Townend, John
Gibb, Nick	Tredinnick, David
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Trend, Michael
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Tyrie, Andrew
Green, Damian	Viggers, Peter
Greenway, John	Walter, Robert
Grieve, Dominic	Wardle, Charles
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie	Waterson, Nigel
Hammond, Philip	Wells, Bowen
Hawkins, Nick	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Hayes, John	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Heald, Oliver	Wilkinson, John
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David	Willetts, David
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Horam, John	Yeo, Tim
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Hunter, Andrew	Tellers for the Ayes:
Jack, Rt Hon Michael	Mr. John M. Taylor and
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Sir David Madel.

NOES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)	Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Ainger, Nick	(Copeland)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Alexander, Douglas	Dafis, Cynog
Allen, Graham	Dalyell, Tam
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Armstrong, Ms Hilary	Darvill, Keith
Atherton, Ms Candy	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Atkins, Charlotte	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Austin, John	Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Banks, Tony	Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Barnes, Harry	Dean, Mrs Janet
Battle, John	Denham, John
Beard, Nigel	Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Dismore, Andrew
Begg, Miss Anne	Dobbin, Jim
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)	Donohoe, Brian H
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Doran, Frank
Bennett, Andrew F	Dowd, Jim
Benton, Joe	Drew, David
Bermingham, Gerald	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Berry, Roger	Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Best, Harold	Edwards, Huw
Betts, Clive	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Blears, Ms Hazel	Ennis, Jeff
Blizzard, Bob	Fatchett, Derek
Boateng, Paul	Field, Rt Hon Frank
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Fitzpatrick, Jim
Bradshaw, Ben	Fitzsimons, Lorna
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Follett, Barbara
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon	Forsythe, Clifford
(Dunfermline E)	Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Browne, Desmond	Foulkes, George
Burden, Richard	Galbraith, Sam
Burgon, Colin	Galloway, George
Butler, Mrs Christine	Gardiner, Barry
Byers, Stephen	George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Caborn, Richard	Gerrard, Neil
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Godman, Dr Norman A
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Godsiff, Roger
Campbell—Savours, Dale	Goggins, Paul
Canavan, Dennis	Golding, Mrs Llin
Cann, Jamie	Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Caplin, Ivor	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Casale, Roger	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Caton, Martin	Grocott, Bruce
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Grogan, John
Chisholm, Malcolm	Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Church, Ms Judith	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Clapham, Michael	Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Hanson, David
Clark, Dr Lynda	Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
(Edinburgh Pentlands)	Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)	Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Hepburn, Stephen
Clwyd, Ann	Heppell, John
Coaker, Vernon	Hesford, Stephen
Coffey, Ms Ann	Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Cohen, Harry	Hill, Keith
Coleman, Iain	Hoey, Kate
Connarty, Michael	Hoon, Geoffrey
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Hope, Phil
Cooper, Yvette	Hopkins, Kelvin
Corbyn, Jeremy	Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Cranston, Ross	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Crausby, David	Howells, Dr Kim
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Hoyle, Lindsay
Cummings, John	Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Humble, Mrs Joan	Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Hurst, Alan	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Hutton, John	Norris, Dan
Iddon, Dr Brian	O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Illsley, Eric	O'Hara, Eddie
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)	Olner, Bill
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	O'Neill, Martin
Jamieson, David	Organ, Mrs Diana
Jenkins, Brian	Palmer, Dr Nick
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)	Pearson, Ian
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	Pendry, Tom
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)	Perham, Ms Linda
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)	Pickthall, Colin
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Pike, Peter L
Jowell, Ms Tessa	Plaskitt, James
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Pope, Greg
Keeble, Ms Sally	Pound, Stephen
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)	Powell, Sir Raymond
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Kemp, Fraser	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)	Prescott, Rt Hon John
Khabra, Piara S	Primarolo, Dawn
Kilfoyle, Peter	Quin, Ms Joyce
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)	Quinn, Lawrie
Kingham, Ms Tess	Rapson, Syd
Kumar, Dr Ashok	Raynsford, Nick
Laxton, Bob	Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Lepper, David	Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Leslie, Christopher	Robertson, Rt Hon George
Levitt, Tom	(Hamilton S)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)	Roche, Mrs Barbara
Liddell, Mrs Helen	Rogers, Allan
Linton, Martin	Rooker, Jeff
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)	Rooney, Terry
Llwyd, Elfyn	Rowlands, Ted
Lock, David	Roy, Frank
Love, Andrew	Ruane, Chris
McAvoy, Thomas	Ruddock, Ms Joan
McCabe, Steve	Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
McCafferty, Ms Chris	Ryan, Ms Joan
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)	Salter, Martin
McDonagh, Siobhain	Savidge, Malcolm
McDonnell, John	Sawford, Phil
McFall, John	Sedgemore, Brian
McGuire, Mrs Anne	Sheerman, Barry
McIsaac, Shona	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary	Singh, Marsha
Mackinlay, Andrew	Skinner, Dennis
McNulty, Tony	Smith, Angela (Basildon)
MacShane, Denis	Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Mactaggart, Fiona	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
McWalter, Tony	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
McWilliam, John	Snape, Peter
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Southworth, Ms Helen
Mallaber, Judy	Spellar, John
Marek, Dr John	Squire, Ms Rachel
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)	Steinberg, Gerry
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Stevenson, George
Marshall-Andrews, Robert	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Martlew, Eric	Stinchcombe, Paul
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael	Stoate, Dr Howard
Meale, Alan	Stott, Roger
Michael, Alun	Stringer, Graham
Michie, Bill (Shef?ld Heeley)	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Milburn, Alan	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Mitchell, Austin	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Moffatt, Laura	(Dewsbury)
Moran, Ms Margaret	Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Morley, Elliot	Tipping, Paddy
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Todd, Mark
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)	Touhig, Don
Mountford, Kali	Trickett, Jon
Mudie, George
Mullin, Chris

Truswell, Paul	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)	(Swansea W)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)	Winnick, David
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Vaz, Keith	Wise, Audrey
Vis, Dr Rudi	Wood, Mike
Walley, Ms Joan	Woolas, Phil
Wareing, Robert N	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Watts, David	Tellers for the Noes:
Wicks, Malcolm	Mr. David Clelland and
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd	Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House congratulates the Government for acting quickly and effectively to redress the damaging culture of low pay, job insecurity and the sweatshop economy inherited from the previous Government by adopting a partnership approach to set decent minimum standards for all workers; notes that good standards at work are essential for competitiveness and business success and that the Government has, as part of its strategy for ensuring decent minimum standards and labour market flexibility, involved employers' and workers' representatives on the Low Pay Commission and in discussions on trade union recognition, and in addition has restored union rights at GCHQ, signed the European Social Chapter and made rapid progress on the National Minimum Wage Bill; and further notes that the Government is also committed, as part of that strategy, which enjoys wide support, to implementing the Directives on Working Time, Young Workers, European Works Councils and Part-Time Work, and to fulfilling the Government's commitment to enable workers to enjoy union recognition where a majority of the relevant workforce vote in a ballot for the union to represent them.