PARTICIPATION IN OFFICIAL INDUSTRIAL ACTION (Hansard, 12 February 2002)

§ Mr. Lloyd
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 8—Dismissal and participation in industrial action—

§ Mr. Lloyd
It is interesting that new clause 5 is grouped with new clause 8 in the name of Conservative Members. I think that, once again, we will see a sharp divide. There has been talk of big tents, but there are big marquees on the Conservative Benches and tents on the Labour Benches—we know which interest the Conservative party ultimately seeks to represent in these issues.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) does not seem to understand that it is possible to have the concept of fairness in the workplace. We ought to strive towards that and try to ensure that our legal regime is fair for employees and employers because, in the end, that proper balance is in the interests of individual industries companies and society in general. The hon. Gentleman must accept that an attempt to erode the advances made by the Employment Relations Act 1999 would be not only counterproductive but grossly unfair. The Minister for Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who is in his place, was the architect of that pioneering and transforming legislation. Not only the House but the country owes him a debt, because that measure moved industrial relations a long away from the confrontational view of the world of work that characterised the 18 years of Conservative Government. The Conservative new clause coupled with mine—in fact, I hope it is not coupled with mine—would move the clock backwards.
Among other things, the 1999 Act provided recognition that when a lawful industrial dispute occurred, it was not only unreasonable and unacceptable, but incompetent to allow an employer simply to dismiss the work force. That power to dismiss was used relatively rarely. I am sure that 134 we will hear a lot from Conservative Members about South West Trains and all manner of cases, but the notion that a large organisation like South West Trains would seek to dismiss its work force is ridiculous—a work force cannot be got rid of or replaced overnight from the queue at the benefits office. However, some individual employers used that lack of legal protection for employees on strike and got rid of them to resolve an industrial dispute. There is in such action nothing of the concept of fairness at work, nor of negotiation, nor of trying to find an acceptable balance. It is simple abuse of power by one party—the party privy to all the power.
It is a matter of fact that the right to strike is recognised in international obligations, for example, the International Labour Organisation convention. The legitimate right to strike is accepted throughout the world. Nothing in that suggests that there is a desire to strike, or that there is always a happy conclusion to strikes—industrial disputes can be bitter and difficult to resolve. However, sometimes the only industrial weapon that employees have at their disposal is withdrawal of their labour. The 1999 Act acknowledged the right to strike and provided that an employer who tried to dismiss people during the first eight weeks of an industrial dispute would be deemed to have acted unfairly, so employees would have recourse through industrial tribunals. It is right and proper that there is protection that forbids employers to take arbitrary action during the initial phase of an industrial dispute.
It is also a matter of fact that the overwhelming majority of industrial disputes last for nowhere near eight weeks. Eight weeks is an extraordinarily long time for people to withdraw their labour. I remind the Opposition that people who go on strike do not simply not go to work: they do not get paid, they have no money to support their families, and they get none of the things that take people to work in the first place. To strike is no small action.
The eight-week cut-off undoubtedly reflects some sort of compromise. Those who argue that there is a trade union agenda would say that many trade unions wanted more than eight weeks, but the Government at the time took the view that since the provision was a new one, eight weeks was appropriate. However, since the passage of the 1999 Act, we have gained experience of the practical operation of the legislation.
Let me tell the House about a company in the constituency of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), in which constituents of many of my colleagues representing that part of Wales work. Friction Dynamics was originally part of the Turner and Newell group; it made brake linings and had been in existence for many years. The current owners took over in 1996, and between that time and roughly this time last year, the relationship between management and those who worked for the company deteriorated. Many of the employees had worked there for many years—far longer than Mr. Craig Smith, the current employer, had been at the company.
Contemplation of industrial action was triggered by changes that Mr. Smith wanted to make. Some of those changes affected the company's health and safety regime, others involved arbitrary and swingeing cuts of 15 per cent. in basic pay rates, and cuts in shift premiums. The management proposed those serious changes, and the members of the Transport and General Workers Union in the company balloted on and took industrial action: they 135 went on strike. After striking for one week, those people tried to go back to work, but Mr. Smith locked them out of the workplace—an arbitrary action.
Hon. Members might say the strike and the lock-out were equally arbitrary, but let us not attempt to judge the merits of either. I am not here to discuss the merits of Mr. Smith's stewardship of the company, although there are serious questions about how he got there and how the company got into that position. However, during the period of the lock-out, there was no meaningful attempt on his part to negotiate with the trade unions or his employees, only his insistence that he would make the proposed changes. I mentioned that Mr. Smith tried to change the health and safety regime. During the dispute, someone still working in the company lost some fingers; that was because health and safety protection was poor after the employer reduced it.
At the end of the eight-week period, Mr. Smith decided summarily to sack all the members of his work force who had been on strike for one week and had been locked out for a further seven. If Conservative Members rise to justify Friction Dynamics' actions in that case, we will know exactly what the Tory party is about, but I trust that they will speak to the issue. Hard cases define whether law is good or bad. The case I describe does not represent a romantic retreat into old-fashioned trade union defence. This is 2002, and I am talking about a real work force comprising real people whose rights in the workplace were arbitrarily snuffed out by their employer.

§ Mrs. Betty Williams
At the start of my intervention, I declare that I am a full paid-up member of the TGWU. I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning Friction Dynamics, from which 87 workers were deplorably dismissed during the events he describes. Many are constituents of mine, and they have assured me that they give new clause 5 their wholehearted support. I am sure that my hon. Friends are aware that they brought their case here to Westminster; they lobbied us hard, seeking support for their cause. The 1999 Act gave protection to my constituents for eight weeks—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady appears to be starting a speech. She has made a long enough intervention. I call Mr. Lloyd to continue his speech.

§ Mr. Lloyd
rose—

§ Andrew Mackinlay
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it is to be the habit that everyone declares what they are, I should make it clear that I belong to the TGWU, I am closely associated with the Graphical, Paper and Media Union, and I formerly worked with the National and Local Government Officers Association, now part of Unison. In fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you cut me in half, you will find that I am like a stick of rock, with trade unions running all the way through me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
if hon. Members interests are on the Register of Members' Interests, it is important that they declare them; otherwise, it is entirely a matter for individual Members to decide.

§ Mr. Lloyd
In a way, that is the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge had a little fun suggesting that there was 136 something terribly unpleasant about the relationship between trade unions and other members of society, specifically Members of Parliament. The trade union agenda for the work force at Friction Dynamics was extremely clear. It was explicit. It was felt that the work force had been dealt with atrociously by the management and that they were legitimately seeking recourse to Parliament to persuade Members that an injustice had been done. Parliament was asked to resolve an injustice. There was no Luddite trade unionism; instead, the proper and acceptable use of the parliamentary system was employed.

§ Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham)
I am not aware of the case of Friction Dynamics, but it seems to be an appalling one. Is it not the case that if the employer had refused to negotiate, to seek conciliation and to engage in arbitration, the dismissals that he pushed through would have been unfair, and the unions would have been able to have the employees reinstated through the tribunal process?

§ Mr. Lloyd
They would not have been able to have the employees reinstated because the tribunal would not have that capacity. It is a romantic view to bring back reinstatement. There are many examples of employees who have gone to tribunals following dismissal. The idea of going back to the same workplace would be ridiculous. I do not say that unkindly, but there would not be that possibility.
The hon. Gentleman has touched on a point that I intended to make—

§ Llew Smith
I, too, am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union. I do not apologise because I am quite proud of that fact.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) seemed to imply that there is virtually no difference between a strike and a lock-out in the context of Friction Dynamics. I was staggered. The Friction Dynamics' work force are defending their conditions and health and safety standards. Is it surprising that they would want to do so? Surely going on strike in those circumstances is different from a lock-out, where conditions are removed from the work force.

§ Mr. Lloyd
That is right.
Almost certainly the employer's ambition from the beginning was to engineer an industrial dispute. It is up to the employer now to demonstrate that that was not the case and that he did not sack the members of his work force with a view to eroding the terms and working conditions of those at Friction Dynamics.
As a trade unionist, I would not be prepared to defend that form of industrial relations. I am the chairman of a company limited by guarantee. It does not make profits and I receive no personal remuneration. However, I must take serious responsibility as an employer, and the company's employers are the people. Come the day when I could be accused of abusing other people's employment rights in the way that is alleged of Friction Dynamics, I would be ashamed even as a Conservative Member, let alone a Labour Member.

§ Norman Lamb
I am a member of the Law Society and a consultant to a law firm. I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks while declaring those interests.
137 The case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred highlights what I would regard as a loophole in the provision that provides for an eight-week protected period. I agree that it is ludicrous that locking out the work force for seven weeks after an initial one week on strike enables the employer to take advantage of the provision.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his new clause goes much further than addressing that loophole? It removes entirely the concept of an eight-week protected period for people on strike.

§ Mr. Lloyd
It certainly goes further than addressing the loophole to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
What is the right that Conservative Members will be seeking to erode even within the eight-week period? It is not only the right to maintain employment, although the employer will not be stopped from sacking people; we are talking about the right to go before an industrial tribunal for assessment. I accept that that is much better than nothing, and that in some instances there can be exemplary payments. However, I think that the maximum award that a tribunal can make is £50,000. Someone who loses his job, especially in an area of relatively high unemployment, can lose much more than £50,000, through loss of income and loss of pension entitlement for example. The House should reflect on that. This is not a trivial point.
The right to go to a tribunal is not the equivalent of the right to stay in work to ensure that the process of arbitration is carried forward under ACAS or whatever.

§ Mr. Hammond
I am not familiar with the Friction Dynamics case, but I understand that the hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned plea on behalf of the work force. Will he tell the House something about the economic fundamentals of the business? Is it a hugely profitable business with an avaricious owner who is seeking to make yet larger profits, or is it, as I suspect, a marginal business that is placed under threat of its very existence by competition from abroad? What are the circumstances?

§ Mr. Lloyd
I am not in a position to reveal the company's balance sheet. It has not been shown to me. I can tell the House that Mr. Craig Smith was engaged in a lawsuit in the United States before he bought the company. It is alleged that moneys that he used to fund the purchase of the company were in fact compensation payments to the victims of contact with asbestos. Mr. Smith might want to tell a different story, but not all of Mr. Smith's actions are those of a reputable employer.
If the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is saying that a company in financial and commercial difficulties may arbitrarily erode working conditions, refuse properly to negotiate and then sack its work force, he has a different view of the rights and responsibilities of employers. That is not merely my belief, but the view of the overwhelming majority in this country.

§ Mr. Hammond
Of course I am not saying that. I am saying that the hon. Gentleman must tell us the whole story. What happened before the strike began? If Friction 138 Dynamics is a business that is up against the wall, facing foreign competition and its very existence is under threat, what concessions were the work force willing to make? We need to know all the circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman is to hang his entire argument on a specific case, he needs to ensure that Members are fully informed of the circumstances of that case.

§ Mr. Lloyd
The information given to the House is fairly comprehensive. The actions of an employer who engineers a dispute by imposing swingeing cuts in pay rates and eroding the fabric of the health and safety regime are not those of a high-quality employer who is determined to build a modern Britain.
We are talking of an employer who follows a week's industrial dispute by a lock-out—he is not at the forefront of modern management techniques. He is an employer who then sacks his work force.
There is a little more information, that may be merely colour or emotion on my sad part. The company is the subject of an improvement order that was issued by the Health and Safety Executive because its health and safety standards are not up to scratch. That is the sort of employer about which we are talking. Conservative Members may be delighted to defend such companies, and that is fine. At least we know clearly where the tents begin and end. However, I do not want to be in a tent that defends such companies. I want to be in a world that says that the summary dismissal of employees in industrial disputes is not the way, even after eight weeks, to resolve industrial disputes. We should be moving forward by using mechanisms of arbitration.

§ Mr. Weir
I understand that the work force of Friction Dynamics agreed to a pay freeze for four years. It was not a rapacious work force but one who was willing to help out the company. Yet they have been treated as the hon. Gentleman has described.

§ Mr. Lloyd
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman as I had forgotten that; it provides me with a reasonable answer for the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who may now begin to accept that the company is no employment angel.

§ Mr. Hammond
I am not going to comment on an individual case about which I do not have the facts. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has gone a long way down the line of reciting allegations about an individual; I certainly do not want to follow that route. For the benefit of Members who may not be fully aware of the history, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the item that he is putting on the agenda in his new clause has not sprung from the Friction Dynamics case? It is a long-standing item on the TUC agenda to remove the eight-week limit.

§ Mr. Lloyd
With great respect, that is a silly point. We are talking about Friction Dynamics, which is a real company; 87 people are involved. That may not matter to the Opposition Members, who may simply wish to discuss the new clause as a theoretical exercise. However, the world of work is not a theoretical exercise; it is real and matters enormously to the 87 people who have been sacked, their families and their communities.
The House must make up its mind whether it simply regards the actions of a company like Friction Dynamics as unacceptable or whether it wishes to use its legislative 139 capacity to begin to move the agenda on. It should not seek to tip the balance towards the mythical trade union agenda imagined by Opposition Members, but should recognise that, at the moment, relations are one-sided; an employer who can dismiss employees has too much opportunity to exercise arbitrary power. We do not want a shift so that trade unions can determine working conditions; we are simply asking for equity and justice. It is desirable for employers to get back to the arbitration process.

§ Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire)
Will the hon. Gentleman reflect again on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond)? Having moved a new clause, it is incumbent on him to tell the House its scope because we are legislating. I do not know the circumstances of the case so I shall not comment. A bad employer may well be involved, but it is still incumbent on the hon. Gentleman to explain to the House the full scope of the new clause that he is asking us to accept.

§ Mr. Lloyd
I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was here for the early part of the debate.

§ Mr. Knight
I was here for all the hon. Gentleman's speech.

§ Mr. Lloyd
Had the right hon. Gentleman listened, he would have realised the full scope of the new clause, which aims to remove the present eight-week time limit on protection against unfair dismissal. That would apply to Friction Dynamics, Ciba-Geigy and any company or organisation in the land. All legal protection is bound to be based on real-life events. This is not a game or a theoretical or intellectual exercise; it is not something that we are debating in the learned debating societies of our best universities. It is about real people and real employers; it is about companies and employees. In this case, the employer, instead of choosing to work in harmony with his work force—the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) made the point that the workers had already made significant sacrifices to try to maintain the company's viability—was prepared to abuse the power and rights that, sadly, the law gives him.

§ Mr. Hammond
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he has been generous in accepting interventions. Can he not conceive of any circumstance during an industrial dispute, however long it has gone on, in which it would be appropriate for an employer to dismiss the work force for breach of contract? For example, people may simply refuse to do the job that they have been employed to do. Can the hon. Gentleman not conceive of such a situation arising? Under his new clause, it would never be possible fairly to dismiss a striker.

§ Mr. Lloyd
Holding out for the bad employer is not a rational way of going about dispute resolution. Bearing in mind that taking industrial action involves a real cost to employees, only a tiny number of industrial actions last anything like eight weeks. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at the statistics; he will find that it is all there in evidence.
140 Conservative Members believe that they can score a political propaganda point in this kind of debate. However, if they seek to make cheap politics out of the situation, they should remember that they do so at the expense of people's livelihoods and families. The present law is defective, and does not give protection to employees; it gives too much opportunity for the arbitrary exercise of power by employers, which is why the new clause attempts to move things on.

§ Llew Smith
When we debated earlier amendments, we were accused of merely responding to the demands of the trade union movement. Does my hon. Friend not think it ironic that the Opposition spokesperson appears to be responding to demands of rogue employers, of which Friction Dynamics is one?

§ Mr. Lloyd
I agree, and I invite the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to make his position clear. I have outlined the case; the hon. Gentleman has tried to hide behind the protection of saying, "Well, of course I do not know the details." I have given him the details; if he wants to challenge them, he should do so. But comments on the case should relate to real people. As I said, this is not an empty exercise; it is real and is happening now.
I have spoken for longer than I intended. I know that Opposition Members are champing at the bit because they want to reinvent their version of the class war. I shall therefore conclude my speech and make way for others.

§ Hywel Williams (Caernarfon)
Hon. Members may find it instructive and useful if I give some objective information about the dispute at Friction Dynamics, which is in my Caernarfon constituency. Conservative Members may not wish to hear the facts, but I shall give them none the less.
The dispute has dragged on for 43 weeks, and resulted in the workers being sacked after eight weeks. It is still awaiting resolution, which may not come until next May—more than a year since the dispute started—at an industrial tribunal. The current owner, Mr. Smith, took over in 1997.

§ Mr. Hammond
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do the sub judice rules that we normally follow in the House not apply to employment tribunal cases?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am not aware that the comments of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) affect anything that is sub judice.

§ Hywel Williams
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The current owner took over in 1997 and tried to impose a four-day week without overtime, attendance at meetings without pay, removal of bargaining agreements and a no-strike agreement. The employees had agreed to a four-year pay freeze, as the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) said. They tried to negotiate, but came to the reasonable conclusion that their employer was not interested in agreement. They have a proven commitment to the company and its predecessors; many of them have worked there for 20 or 30 years—all their working lives, in fact. Some trained there as young apprentices.
141 The workers would not act without thinking or without just cause, particularly given their present circumstances. They would have been aware of the consequences of being out for 43 weeks, and perhaps over a year. The union held a ballot strictly in accordance with the law, and the workers initially went on strike for a week. I accompanied them on their first day back and witnessed the employer himself locking them out; that is the nature of the relationship that he has fostered. The dispute continued. As I said, the workers were sacked after eight weeks and are still out after 43 weeks; they maintain a 24-hour picket and have acted with dignity and moderation. They, and the union, have always been willing to negotiate.
The community in Caernarfon is solidly behind the strikers, including, Conservative Members may be interested to learn, the local business community, which has made a substantial donation to the strike fund. It realises the damage that the dispute is doing to local businesses, not least to Friction Dynamics itself. It realises the damage that is being done to investment in business in north-west Wales. It wants to see the dispute resolved, but resolved with justice.
The employer has been enabled to sack the workers. He has been encouraged in his intransigence and unreasonable attitude by the power that the eight-week rule has afforded him. Some hon. Members might say that if protection from the sack is justified for eight weeks, it is justified thereafter. I would agree, but I would also point to the practical and catastrophic effects that have resulted from the entrenchment of the employer's power to be unreasonable.
It cannot be right or reasonable that a strike is dragged out for 43 weeks, and eventually for more than a year. Workers at Friction Dynamics and in the community of Caernarfon cannot understand why that is allowed to happen. They do not want a tribunal. They want their jobs back in circumstances of justice and fairness. They see justice denied and justice delayed. For that reason, I am glad to support new clause 5.

§ Dr. Cable
I shall deal with new clauses 5 and 8 together, as I believe that that is a more helpful way to deal with the issue. The two new clauses pull the existing balance in different directions, and in many respects in extreme directions.
The eight-week rule was a carefully crafted compromise. One new clause seeks to eliminate it entirely, and the other seeks to make it indefinite. Both seem fundamentally unreasonable. A useful starting point—here, I believe, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) was on the right track—is to put the debate in context. We are living through a period in which industrial action is at a very low level. In the last year for which recorded figures are available, 500,000 days were lost, as against an average of 660,000 over the past decade and about 7.5 million for the 1980s, with comparable figures for the 1970s. During the present period of economic boom, one would expect more industrial action.

§ Mr. Hammond
Does the hon. Gentleman agree, though, that we are having this debate against a backdrop of what appears to be a change in trend, with a rising tide of trade union militancy facing the country?

§ Dr. Cable
Indeed, there are specific points that relate to the public services, which I had intended to deal with and which present specific problems. Had new clause 8 been directed to that issue, I would have had more sympathy with it. In fact, the hon. Gentleman's new clause is broadly couched and would withdraw the eight-week rule from all employees in all disputes. I will address the current wave of unrest in a moment.
I agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Central that we are in a period of relatively subdued industrial action. It hardly calls for a major upheaval in the legislation, or one that tilts the balance radically in one direction or the other.

§ Mr. Simmonds
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that new clause 5 would increase industrial discord and strike action above its present level?

§ Dr. Cable
I doubt that new clause 5 would do that, but I do not support it. I doubt that the new clause would make a great deal of difference. Essentially, we are debating a point of principle, rather than its consequences.
The underlying point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central is that the right to strike is a fundamental right and should not be qualified in the way that it currently is. I do believe that workers have a right to withdraw their labour. There should be a right to strike, but it is not an unqualified right. There are conditions: strike action must be reasonable and must take account of third parties. We will come to that when we deal with the issue of the railways, as I am sure that we will.

§ Mr. Lloyd
It is one thing for the hon. Gentleman to interpret what I said, but it is another for him to make up things that I did not say. Of course the right to strike is conditioned. I pointed out that the dispute that I described had gone through the full legal provisions, a ballot and so on. It was a legal strike. A strike is quite a constrained activity in our society. Employees cannot simply walk out or withdraw their labour at a moment's notice. Those days hardly existed, and do not exist now.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the new clauses tilting the balance. Does he seriously believe that the change that would be introduced by new clause 5 would have any dramatic effect, taking into account the fact that the overwhelming majority of strikes—not just 99 per cent., but 99.999 per cent.—last for far less than the eight-week period that the provision covers?

§ Dr. Cable
As I said a few moments ago, I doubt that the new clause would have any dramatic effects one way or the other. The hon. Gentleman raised it as an issue of principle, and I believe that on the issue of principle, he is wrong. If we confined the discussion to the effects on the firm described—the hon. Gentleman told a horrific story, and a rather moving one—I am sure that the facts that he gave are right and I have total sympathy with the work force involved, but the attempt to create legislation around one case seems fundamentally unsatisfactory.
143 As my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said in an intervention, if there is genuinely an anomaly about a lock-out being included as part of a strike, that is a ludicrous situation and the legislation should be amended to deal with it, probably in another place.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Central is in danger of creating a situation in which, say, an entirely different trade union, in a different environment, might embark on a prolonged period of industrial action—which, as the hon. Gentleman said, is difficult and might be costly to the work force—without any regard for its consequences for the industry. The union might refuse to embark on arbitration or conciliation, in which case the employer might well have a genuine feeling of grievance, but there would be no opportunity for the employer to bring the dispute to an end.
Although the hon. Gentleman was correct to say that the right to go to a tribunal is not equivalent to holding on to one's job, the fact remains that after the eight-week period, workers do have protection through the tribunal system. Statute 238A, which is the cornerstone of the Bill, provides a considerable degree of protection. I do not know what happened in the case described, when the 87 workers took the employer to a tribunal, but it provided them with a considerable level of protection, although perhaps not perfect protection. New clause 5 is an excessive response to what was clearly an unjust situation and an unjust action by that employer
New clause 8 goes wholly in the other direction. By allowing a dismissal to take place for a strike without any period of protection whatever, it would effectively withdraw the principle of the right to strike. It would be likely to make many employers use dismissal as a first rather than a last resort.

§ Mr. Hammond
My understanding is that until the Employment Relations Act 1999 came into force, that was the situation. The eight-week rule did not apply, and I do not remember it being a burning issue in this place or outside.

§ Dr. Cable
I remember that there were emotive debates around the 1999 Act, when it was felt that some degree of balance should be restored. I believe that it was, and I would defend the current position.
I would have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge if his new clause were more narrowly drawn. There is a real issue now in the public services, which is quite different from the Friction Dynamics case. In the case of the public services, the victims of the dispute are the general public. We need legislation to deal with that. In some parts of the public services, there are already restrictions on the right to strike. The most obvious and extreme case is the police force, but others are constrained in different ways.
There is an argument for restriction within the public services, and I define public services widely to include the railways, because of the subsidy element. That restriction might well be linked to a willingness to arbitrate. There would be a case for saying that the eight-week protection could be withdrawn in certain circumstances in essential services if the parties to the dispute had refused to arbitrate. The arbitration element in that does not tip the balance towards the employer. If arbitration is 144 compulsory the employer is bound to take the result. The outcome is taken out of management's hands. There is a concession in both directions. If new clause 8 were more narrowly drawn, I would have more sympathy with it. If the Government come under growing pressure from industrial action, perhaps they will amend the Bill in another place. However, the new clause would apply across the national economy, including manufacturing industry, which accounts for only 10 per cent. of industrial action. That is excessive and inappropriate and I cannot therefore support it in its current form.

§ Rob Marris
I shall be brief because we have much to discuss. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) asked whether there should ever be dismissals during a strike. Most, if not all hon. Members would agree that anyone who committed gross acts of violence against the person or criminal damage could be dismissed. However, many of my colleagues and I believe that no one should be dismissed simply for going on strike. Existing law allows that to happen after eight weeks.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) appears to be under the illusion that those who are fired after eight weeks can simply go to an employment tribunal. They can try, but they will not succeed under current legislation. After the eight weeks have run out and the employer has fired the employee, the latter will not succeed in an employment tribunal because the dismissal does not count as unfair under existing law.
I suspect that most hon. Members hoped that the eight-week rule would shorten industrial disputes. However, it can have the opposite effect. The employer can simply sit out the eight weeks. That tends to lead to longer disputes. If employers know that they cannot simply wait for eight weeks, but might have to wait indefinitely, it would be a greater incentive for them to bargain in good faith. Clearly, Craig Smith has not done that.

Mr. Osborne
Those who served with the hon. Gentleman in Committee remember that he tends to talk about amendments, but not vote for them. Will he assure us that he will press new clause 5, to which he is a signatory, to the vote?

§ Rob Marris
I shall give no such assurance until I have extended my hon. Friend the Minister the courtesy of listening to the Government's response. It would be foolish to do otherwise.

§ Norman Lamb
If the Minister does not accept the proposals in the new clause, will the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members press it to a vote? He asserts that the protection ends when the eight weeks have elapsed. Does not he accept that section 238A (5) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 provides continued protection when the employer has not gone through proper procedures to resolve the dispute? Protection therefore does not exist simply for eight weeks. Will he comment on that?

§ Rob Marris
I shall gladly comment on both points. I did not mention proposals; I said that I would listen to 145 the Minister's response. Section 238A (5) simply provides people such as Craig Smith with a fig leaf. It allows them to display a veneer—a noun that was used earlier—of negotiating and going through the motions with no intention of settling a dispute. They then fire people after eight weeks. The eight-week rule tends to prolong disputes, and I do not believe that that is hon. Members' intention. Most of us want shorter disputes that are resolved justly and fairly. Clearly, that has not happened for the 87 workers from Friction Dynamics and their community.
Does the Minister believe that the eight-week rule accords with the United Kingdom's duties under the International Labour Organisation conventions that we have signed? If it complies with their wording, does it accord with their spirit?

§ Mr. George Osborne
As hon. Members would expect, I oppose new clause 5 and support new clause 8. I enjoyed serving in Committee with the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who often makes a good deal of sense. However, I was not familiar with the case to which he drew our attention, and I am not convinced that it shows the need for a change in the law that would affect all companies throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) will speak on anything anywhere, but I hope that other signatories to the new clause will speak in the debate. It is interesting to learn Labour Back-Bench Members' true feelings and moods. Students of new Labour will realise that the Minister is in the ideal new Labour position of being between new clause 8, tabled by Conservative Members, and new clause 5, tabled by old Labour Members. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) probably dreams of being in such a position when he is not dreaming about the Cabinet. As the Prime Minister would put it, the Minister is between Conservative wreckers and old Labour wreckers.

§ Rob Marris
That puts the Minister in the position of fluid dynamics rather than Friction Dynamics.

§ Mr. Osborne
The hon. Gentleman has redeemed himself by making a good point. When the Minister rejects the new clauses and says that the principle of fairness, not favours means that the Government have to be somewhere in the middle, he will adopt the ideal third-way position, although Ministers no longer use the term, which has been dropped from the lexicon. Anyone who examines the Government's record will realise that they have handed over a stream of new powers to trade unions, including statutory recognition, protection for strikers, which new clause 5 would extend, and easing rules on strike ballots. Trade union recognition agreements have increased from a little over 100 a year under the Conservative Government to 450 last year. A huge expansion in trade union power therefore took place even before the Bill was introduced.
The Bill grants further powers to trade unions. We have discussed the explosion in the number of union learning representatives and the example of union pressure paying off when the Government dropped the modest charging regime that they planned to introduce for employment tribunals. That miraculously happened a few days before 146 the Prime Minister was due to speak to the Trades Union Congress. The fixed-term European directive has been gold-plated and Conservative Members are left wondering why all that has happened. We therefore delve into the Labour party's accounts and its constitution. People who listened to our proceedings today would have been struck by the fact that almost every Labour Member who spoke voluntarily declared trade union involvement.
The Labour party's accounts show that trade unions gave them £9.5 million in the election year. Anyone who has been involved in politics knows the indirect help that trade unions provide through advertising, manpower and so on. One does not have to be a cynic to perceive a connection between the enormous extension of trade union power under this Government and the great provision of trade union money and manpower to the Labour party.

§ Mr. Weir
I have no connection with a trade union, but I am prepared to support the new clause. The hon. Gentleman's speech is interesting, but new clause 8 would remove any protection from workers who are on strike. They could be sacked the day after a strike began.

§ Mr. Osborne
New clause 8 would simply mean reverting to the position under the Conservative Government. Most people who consider that Government's history will probably regard their greatest achievement as curbing trade union power.

§ Norman Lamb
New clause 8 proposes that: Subsection (2B) of section 238"— of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992— … shall cease to have effect. That seems to go back beyond the position that existed through the last years of the Conservative Government, and to provide less protection than there was pre-1999. Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether that is the case?

§ Mr. Hammond
Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I hate to say this to the hon. Gentleman, but he cannot intervene on an intervention.

§ Mr. Osborne
I shall be happy to take my hon. Friend's intervention.

§ Mr. Hammond
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hesitate to say this, because I know that the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) is an employment lawyer, but if my memory serves me correctly, the Employment Relations Act 1999 inserted subsection (2B) into the 1992 Act to which he referred.

§ Mr. Osborne
My hon. Friend anticipated what I was about to say. Perhaps I should quit while I am ahead by saying that the result of the Government's actions has not been fairness, not favours, but favours, not fairness. There has been a string of new trade union powers, and we all know the reason for that. As I said earlier, the Minister is 147 in an ideal position to do the new Labour trick of saying that he is neither one thing nor the other and that he is in the middle, but we should not be deceived.

§ Norman Lamb
I shall deal first with the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who spoke of his concerns about a very real case. That highlights a potential loophole, and I invite the Minister to comment on the possibility of considering a narrower amendment to the Bill to close that loophole. It seems extraordinary that workers can go on strike for one week, which is followed by a seven week lock-out, and then be fairly dismissed because of the original one-week strike. That is unacceptable, and there is certainly unanimity among the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Back Benchers tabling that new clause. I invite the Minister to respond specifically to that point.
The new clause goes far beyond addressing that particular mischief, however; and to destroy the delicate balance created in the Employment Relations Act 1999 would be a retrograde step. Subject to this loophole being closed, it makes sense to have a protected period in which the right to strike exists, and to have a period after that date in which that right continues to exist if the employer does not go through the proper procedures. Throwing all that out would be throwing the baby out with the bath water and going way beyond addressing the mischief to which the hon. Member for Manchester, Central referred.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) in relation to urging the Government to consider the position of public services and to examine the possibility of introducing arbitration as an alternative to the right to strike which exists outside the core public services.
New clause 8 seems to go back in the wrong direction and to be extreme on the other side. The delicate balance that was created by the 1999 Act appears to have worked reasonably successfully, notwithstanding unusual cases such as that of Friction Dynamics. It has not lead to an enormous growth of strikes. Strikes have increased of late, but there is no suggestion that that is because of the reasonable and limited protection that the 1999 Act provided in terms of the protected period. There is not a case for going back to the pre-1999 period; there is simply a case for addressing the mischief that has been highlighted by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central.

§ Mr. Hammond
This has been an interesting debate. The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) is to be congratulated on having introduced his theme oozing reasonableness under the smokescreen of a specific case, the details of which I confess I do not have. Other hon. Members have also alluded to that case. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) have made the point that we cannot base such far-reaching legislative proposals on a single case. The hon. Member for Manchester, Central will just have to accept that we will never be able to deal with every situation in society that might give rise to a potential injustice.
We must consider the background to the two new clauses. Legislation has followed legislation—including the Employment Relations Act 1999—since the Government came to power in 1997. Further employment 148 legislation is in the pipeline that will tilt the playing field still further in favour of the trade unions. The result of all this is an upsurge in trade union activity. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton quoted figures for the dramatic increase in recognition agreements. Mr. John Monks is on record as saying that the trade unions were back in business. Who would expect them to be anywhere else, when they have just paid the party that now forms the Government £9 million to fight their last general election campaign?

§ Mr. Kevan Jones
In regard to trade union recognition, do not individual workers and members have to vote for that recognition? It is not the trade union bosses or the trade unions getting the recognition; it is individual workers demanding representation at work by trade unions.

§ Mr. Hammond
All that we are talking about here is a change in the mood—a change in the tilt of the playing field—and a perception that there is now an agenda to concede some of the points that the trade unions have been arguing for a number of years. My perception is that industrial relations during the 1990s—let us not go back to the 1980s—had stabilised at a generally constructive level. Since 1997, we have had a Government who have been determined to tilt the situation in favour of the trade unions, making life more difficult for employers at a time when they are facing significant economic difficulties themselves.
Part of the backdrop to these issues is that the trade unions are acting not as economic guardians of their members but as political pressure groups, apparently determined to wreck the Government's agenda of public sector reform—an agenda on which the Government were elected in 2001. There is a resurgence of militancy in the public sector unions threatening chaos across the public transport system. Many of our constituents in the south-east have to face that chaos, with the strikes by South West Trains. Other train companies face a similar situation in constituencies further north.
Against that backdrop of a rise in union militancy and an increase in disputes that have less to do with employee-employer tensions than with internecine warfare and power struggles between different would-be trade union barons, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central wants to send a signal that we wish to move further away from the status quo that was working well during the last Parliament, and to move back to a situation that would be more akin to the 1970s if the hon. Gentleman's new clause were taken to its logical conclusion.

§ Mark Tami
Did not the Conservative Government privatise the train system? We now have a vast number of companies, which encouraged the end of national bargaining and got rid of a lot of train drivers. The market is taking hold. Does not the hon. Gentleman support the market?

§ Mr. Hammond
To be honest, I am not sure of the import of that intervention. The rail disputes are being presented as an old-fashioned disagreement about differentials between train drivers, who are in extremely 149 short supply and have to be paid good wages, and other workers, who are in less short supply. Inevitably, differentials are opening up.

§ Mr. George Osborne
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister unreservedly condemns the strikes? Interestingly, Labour Back Benchers do not.

§ Mr. Hammond
I suspect that there is a large gulf between the Prime Minister and some of his Back Benchers, some of whom may even support the wreckers, who the Prime Minister condemns regularly and vociferously.

§ Rob Marris
My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) merely made the point that when the hon. Gentleman referred to the public sector he should have referred to public services. The railways are a public service, but they are not in the public sector. They were privatised by the Conservative Government.
I shall explain to the hon. Gentleman what happened with a number of train operating companies, because he clearly does not understand. After being privatised, they laid off loads of train drivers, causing them to be in short supply, and there was leap-frogging between the privatised companies, which needed to hire drivers. Train drivers are in short supply because the companies caused them to be in short supply.

§ Mr. Hammond
The disputes are not about train drivers. We all understand that drivers are extremely scarce, which is why they are cutting good deals with their employers. That is the marketplace working, and I have no problem at all with train drivers achieving good settlements. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I have no problem at all with people who have valuable but scarce skills cutting good deals with their employers—that is bound to happen.
The events in the railway industry are being presented as an old-fashioned differential dispute with people in a different labour market demanding that some magical differential between them and the more highly paid train drivers be maintained in the face of the market evidence.

§ Mr. Lloyd
rose—

§ David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire)
rose—

§ Mr. Hammond
Before I give way, let me point out that it is not too cynical to observe that the real issue behind the rail strikes plaguing this country has nothing to do with the pay and conditions of guards, but everything to do with the ambitions of different would-be union barons to control the RMT and its extended and improbable election process.

§ Mr. Lloyd
I hope the hon. Gentleman will concede that his remarks are totally irrelevant to new clause 5. I can only assume that, as his new clause would remove any recourse to unfair dismissal procedures following industrial action, he wants employers to use the method of the sack to resolve industrial disputes.

§ Mr. Hammond
To get to the point, new clause 5 would make it always unfair to dismiss a person who 150 breached his contract by striking. New clause 8 would return us to the pre-1999 Act position, which I submit worked very well. The hon. Gentleman said that dismissing a work force is unlikely to be a practical solution in an industrial dispute. Employers are not in the business of dismissing their work force, as their companies and livelihoods depend on them.
To put it bluntly, we are talking about sending signals, and the hon. Gentleman wants to send a further signal that the playing field is tilting in favour of the trade union agenda. We are moving steadily and further down that line. His Government imposed a solution only two years ago, but the matter is to be reopened and pushed further in the direction of the TUC's long-standing agenda. New clause 8 would send the signal that, in the face of increasing militancy, increasing disruption of public services and increasing chaos for our constituents, we shall not return to the industrial relations chaos over which the Labour Government of the 1970s presided. We turn our back on that. New clause 8 sends the signal that we would return to the status quo of the late 1990s, which was workable and coherent.

§ Mrs. Betty Williams
Will the hon. Gentleman at least concede that the catalogue of events highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) shows the true picture and what happens on the ground with ridiculous employment practices that take us back to the 19th century? Will the hon. Gentleman please agree with us on that point? We have an opportunity to put things right.

§ Mr. Hammond
It would be wrong to comment on the individual case, because I do not know the facts, and I certainly do not know the broader facts surrounding it. I hear what the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Manchester, Central have to say. On the facts presented by the hon. Gentleman, I agree that we have not heard about a model employer and his conduct towards his employees, but I tell the hon. Lady that if we in this place set ourselves the task of framing legislation that makes every injustice and every bad practice impossible, we shall fail.
The hon. Gentleman's solution—making it always unfair to dismiss a person who breaches his contract by going on strike and refusing to work for his employer as he is contracted to do—is totally disproportionate. He has not adduced a single example of the benefits of his new clause, other than in respect of the case from north Wales. He is sending a signal that must be examined in the context of where we are at this point: the Government, who are relatively newly elected, have a mandate to bring the public sector trade unions to heel and to deliver reform of public services that they have publicly rejected. That was always going to be a tough task for a Government who got themselves elected by taking £9 million of union money.
We face increasing chaos in our public transport system and the threat of a Post Office strike that will bring what remains of our postal services to their knees. I suspect that Consignia will never be able to recover, thus precipitating the collapse of postal services and the post office network which the hon. Gentleman predicted from the other side of the barricade in 1994.
That is the background and that is the situation: the Government are introducing Bill after Bill and moving in the direction of the trade union agenda. We are all aware 151 that there is more in the pipeline—legislation from Brussels and from the Government's own agenda. In response to that, the hon. Gentleman wants to send the signal that the Government are not going far enough and not going fast enough: "We'd like more, please."
The hon. Gentleman cited one case in defence of his argument that we should make it always unfair to dismiss someone who is on strike, breaching his contract with his employer. There are two points of principle here. Yes, a person has a right to go on strike, but, equally, an employer must have a right to dismiss a person who has broken his contract and has decided to go on strike rather than working as he is contracted to do. Of course employers will not usually resort to that, because it would be absurd and would not be in their interests to do so, and of course employees and trade unions will not usually resort to strike action in pursuance of disputes and discussions with employers. We are talking about extreme cases.
8.30 pm
The new clause has been presented as framing a point of principle. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman, who asked me about the eight-week rule, that I could not defend that as a point of principle. When a point of principle is involved, it should be argued either that it is always unfair to dismiss a striker—that is the hon. Gentleman's argument—or that once a contract of employment has been broken, it is fair to dismiss the person who has broken the contract. No argument can be made in principle for the eight-week rule.

§ Norman Lamb
I agree that the extreme view that it is never lawful to dismiss people on strike, however long the strike and whatever the circumstances, is unacceptable and that a balance needs to be struck between the competing rights of the parties. But is it not also wrong to go to the extreme that the hon. Gentleman seems to be proposing? Is he really saying that it is reasonable for a group of workers who go on strike lawfully for one day to be sacked with no recourse against their employer through tribunals?

§ Mr. Hammond
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will leap up to correct me, but as far as I know, until the 1999 Act came into force we were not plagued by outrageous dismissals of work forces who had been on strike for one day. That simply did not happen, for all sorts of practical reasons.
I suspect that neither new clause 5 nor new clause 8 would make a huge practical difference to disputes on the ground. Our aim is to send a signal about climate, mood, balance, and the direction in which the Government are travelling. I am astonished that, in the 21st century, such issues still appear to be at the forefront of some people's agenda. I should have thought that most trade unions—let me qualify that and say "most trade unions in the private sector", which brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)—had long since adopted a much more constructive approach to achieving what was best for them. It staggers me that, in the 21st century, it should still be thought that conferring the ability to strike indefinitely without being dismissed fairly is the way to pursue the interests of workers—employees and trade unionists. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Manchester, Central and his co-signatories fall within the Prime Minister's definition of "wreckers".
152 Whether or not new clause 5 is pressed to a Division, I hope that the House will divide on new clause 8.

§ Alan Johnson
The new clauses concern the protections against dismissal for those taking the protective industrial action introduced in the Employment Relations Act 1999. New clause 5 seeks to extend the protections, while new clause 8 seeks to remove them. The Government consider both unacceptable.
New clause 5 aims to amend the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to ensure that it is automatically unfair to dismiss an employee for taking part in protective industrial action at any time, whether during or after that action. The Employment Relations Act 1999 significantly strengthened the protections against dismissal for those taking lawfully organised official industrial action. It made it automatically unfair for an employer to sack employees for taking part in industrial action, either within the first eight weeks of the beginning of the action or after that, if it ended within the eight weeks. Most industrial action is short-lived; the rules therefore protect employees in the overwhelming majority of cases involving industrial action.
The 1999 Act also makes it unlawful to sack employees for taking industrial action after it has continued for more than eight weeks where the employer has not taken reasonable steps to resolve the disputes. "Reasonable steps" include the following of disputes procedures and the involvement of third-party conciliation or mediation. That is an important part of the Act.
It is important to recognise that the Act did not amend some dreadful piece of employment law legislation introduced under the Thatcher regime. For students of these matters, it is the 101st anniversary of Taff Vale, another Welsh dispute. Since then, it has always been the case that workers could be sacked from day one of an industrial dispute. In 1999, we provided protection for the first time for eight weeks, and beyond that if no attempt had been made to resolve the disputes.
The Government believe that those changes represented a major advance in protecting individuals who exercised their fundamental freedom to withdraw their labour. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) says that these things did not occur before. Conservative Members are so wrong about this it almost hurts. One reason why they were swept out of power in 1997 and lost again by a landslide last year is that they refuse to understand the difficulties of people at work and continue to be hostile to free, independent trade unionism. I find it reassuring to know that that gap is still there. [Interruption.] "Absolute rubbish", say Conservative Members from a sedentary position. Yet the Leader of the Opposition has suggested that the solution to the RMT dispute—and no one was more disappointed than Conservative Members when the dispute this week was called off—was to sack the workers from day one. The Leader of the Opposition said on television and is quoted as saying in print that one of the dreadful things that the Government have done was to introduce protection for eight weeks. That must mean that the solution to these industrial problems, according to the right hon. Gentleman—the human resources manager from hell—would be to sack the work force from day one.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge says that this was not the case before the 1999 Act was introduced. It was—these things happened all the time. 153 I can think of several high-profile disputes in which such things happened. Indeed, I was involved in a low-profile dispute at Critchley Labels in south Wales. It had a work force of 36, 99 per cent. of whom were unionised. Job numbers had to be reduced, to which the union agreed. Management decided that the four people to lose their job were the branch chairman, the branch secretary, the treasurer and the committee member of the local union. The work force took balloted industrial action to protect those four people who were disgracefully earmarked for dismissal. The management then derecognised the union. The work force had a 100 per cent. yes vote for industrial action and were all promptly dismissed on day one of that industrial action.
Conservative Members need to carry forward Letwinisation and understand that what we did in 1999 helped to resolve such disputes. Union recognition did not have to be fought on the picket lines and in the trenches. People who wanted their union to be recognised and were prepared to take official, legal, balloted industrial action for that to happen were no longer forced to go through a recognition procedure that involved a dispute. Instead, they had a sensible procedure to follow.
Conservative Members seem to find it disgraceful and disappointing that unions are picking up members again. I suppose that it is ironic. Who would have thought, 10 or 15 years ago, that at the beginning of the 21st century the trade union movement would be in a better position than the Conservative party? I understand Conservatives' disappointment in that respect. It should not be a matter for disappointment that people can follow a properly regulated procedure under which they vote to have their unions recognised and avoid the kind of dispute that we had at Critchley Labels.

§ Mr. Hammond
Before the Minister gets too excited about the increase in trade union membership, will he confirm that union penetration in the private sector is 19 per cent. and in the public sector, 63 per cent.?

§ Alan Johnson
I try not to get excited about these issues. I am merely pointing out that the trade union movement in this country has increased its membership. There have been more recognition deals, including at Honda. Conservative Members seem to view that as the collapse of civilisation as we know it.
As for how such disputes begin, the Employment Relations Act sorted out the problem with union recognition. It also solved the problem caused by the fact that, having held their ballot and got a mandate, union members had to take industrial action within 28 days or the mandate would be lost and they would have to reballot.
That was sensible, and I hope that it may be the solution to the dispute currently predicted at Consignia. These days, if both sides are in constructive discussions they can agree to decide that there is no need for the union to be put in the ridiculous position of having to take industrial action—albeit token action—to keep its mandate. The mandate can be extended by another 28 days so that there is a chance of resolving the dispute through arbitration. That is another of the sensible solutions introduced in the 1999 Act that has helped to resolve disputes.

§ Mr. George Osborne
I seem to remember that when the Minister was a union leader, he found it more useful 154 to employ Lowe Bell than to take his members out on strike—but that is another matter. [Interruption.] Apparently he did both. So that I know where he stands in the spectrum of Labour party opinion on the dispute at South West Trains, will he tell me whether he joins the Prime Minister in unreservedly condemning the strike? Yes or no?

§ Alan Johnson
I am not interested in that sort of silly question. I am dealing with what I thought was an important debate on how employment relations are to go forward in this country. I was shunted into a siding for a second, but let me come back to new clause 5, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd).
The changes to the 1992 Act that came into effect on 24 April 2000—they have now been in place for about 22 months—were an important step forward. I am making that point—and I know that my hon. Friends agree with me—because some of the criticism that we have received implies that we did something terrible to undermine trade union rights and the rights of workers in dispute when we introduced those measures in the 1999 Act.
There is no evidence that employers are increasingly trying to sack strikers; they have not taken the advice of the Leader of the Opposition yet. In fact, sackings and threats of sackings are rare. However, I have listened to the debate and I recognise that the new clause has direct relevance to the dispute at Friction Dynamics in Caernarfon. That case has caused much distress to the workers concerned and to their local communities in north Wales. I am probably one of only three people in the Chamber who have met the striking workers at Friction Dynamics, and I have received many representations on their behalf. I know and understand their plight.
Some of the sacked workers have made applications to an employment tribunal claiming unfair dismissal. The first of those cases will probably be heard soon. The Friction Dynamics example is the first known to Government in which sacked strikers have invoked the new law and taken an employer to a tribunal. Obviously the outcome will be instructive, but we will not know the result for some time.
One of the questions asked by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) was whether the lock-out that has turned into an eight-week strike was allowable under the 1999 Act. In our view it probably is not—but I understand that that is exactly what the employment tribunal is considering.

§ Norman Lamb
Will the Minister give way?

§ Alan Johnson
In a little while.
I believe it would not be right to amend the legislation on the basis of one case, in advance of a considered approach to any changes after full consultation with all interested parties. The Government believe that it would be wrong to use the Bill to change the law in that area on the basis of one unresolved dispute. It would be much better to address the issue in the round in the forthcoming review of the Employment Relations Act.
Does the hon. Member for North Norfolk want to intervene now?

§ Norman Lamb
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me now, but I think that he has already answered my 155 question. I wanted to ask him whether he would seriously examine the outcome of the tribunal case and consider a possible narrow amendment, if necessary, to address the mischief that appears to have arisen in this case.

§ Alan Johnson
The House will know that we are committed to reviewing the whole of the Employment Relations Act 1999 including the provision discussed in new clause 5.

§ Mr. Lloyd
It is very important that my hon. Friend the Minister tell the House how the proposal will work in practice. I do not expect him to anticipate the results of the review, but he has made it clear that there is a commitment to making the eight-week rule workable and practical. Obviously, other matters—including the question concerning lock-out raised by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb)—will have to be considered in the review of the 1999 Act.

§ Alan Johnson
Yes, we are committed to reviewing the whole of that Act. The review will include an examination of the law on the dismissal of strikers. We are committed to introducing any resulting legislation within the lifetime of this Parliament.
I understand the concerns felt by hon. Members on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) has raised the matter with me several times, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central. However, I think that it best to channel such concerns through the imminent review of the 1999 Act, not least because new clause 5, if it were agreed tonight, would do nothing to resolve the dispute at Friction Dynamics. No such provision could be applied retrospectively, as the members of the work force understood completely when I spoke to them a couple of months ago. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central to withdraw the amendment.
I turn now to new clause 8, which I believe would turn the clock back. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was blatant about that. As with so many things, the new clause shows the inability of the Conservative Members to adapt to change. The world of industrial relations has moved on, and has apparently left them behind
New clause 8 would repeal all the additional protections for those taking official, lawfully organised industrial action which were introduced in the Employment Relations Act 1999. It would take us back to the law that preceded it, under which there were only modest protections against dismissal for strikers.
It is also important to recall that, under the previous law, tribunals could not hear complaints from workers dismissed during a strike if all of them were dismissed. They could hear complaints from strikers only if they were dismissed selectively, or were offered re-engagement selectively, within three months. Even then the strikers might not win their case. Such workers could not even take their case to an employment tribunal. That is the law that Conservative Members want to reintroduce
The protections remain in place for those dismissed during action that is not lawfully organised, but we recognise that they were incongruous in relation to 156 lawfully organised, balloted industrial action. They gave completely free rein to employers to sack everyone taking industrial action. So if 100 people were taking action, it was completely lawful for the employer to sack them, as long as he dismissed all 100.
We therefore changed the law with the 1999 Act to give important extra protections to everyone taking lawful industrial action—that is, official action that has been organised in full accordance with the law. Once unions have met the many demands of the law when organising action, we believe that their members should enjoy a measure of protection when they take such action.
The new law has been in place for a little under two years. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge wishes to imply that there has been a significant upturn in industrial action as a result. That is simply not the case. In fact, it is absolute nonsense. There is no evidence that the number of stoppages has increased since our legal changes took effect. The number of stoppages in the year to November 2001 was just 190—the lowest since records began in 1869. That total was 20 fewer than in the preceding year—

§ Mr. Hammond
rose—

§ Alan Johnson
I anticipate that the hon. Gentleman wants to ask what has happened since November, but I assure him that I shall get around to that in a second.
The number of stoppages in the year to November 2001 was 20 fewer than in the preceding year, and 40 fewer than the average annual figure for the 1990s, up to 1997.

§ Mr. Hammond
Like the members of his Whips' Office, the Minister has wrongly anticipated my intervention. I was going to ask him whether it had occurred to him that 2001 was a general election year. The trade unions financing the Labour party's campaign were hardly likely to pull the rug from under the party's feet by going in for a massive increase in industrial disputes in the run-up to the general election.

§ Alan Johnson
I feel the need to take the hon. Gentleman, whom I very much like, out for a gin and tonic, and sit him down and go through all of this. [Interruption.] Well, perhaps I will stretch to a half of lager. I have not heard this stuff about a huge conspiracy for some time. He should have talked to my mob half way through the election, because they were coming out quite merrily. The idea that industrial action just disappears when we snap our fingers and hold a general election has me holding my sides.

§ Mr. Hammond
Will the Minister give way?

§ Alan Johnson
I can take a bit more entertainment, so yes.

§ Mr. Hammond
Frankly, I find it astonishing that the Minister is suggesting that the trade union movement, which supports the Labour party financially and morally, would not attempt in the run-up to a general election to avoid any action or any questioning of Government policy, however violently it might disagree with it, until after the election was over. Is not that precisely what we 157 have seen: utter silence in the run-up to the general election and then an immediate exercise of the unions' veto over public policy once Labour is in office?

§ Alan Johnson
I ought to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the majority of the unions affiliated to the TUC are not affiliated to the Labour party. In terms of the figures, he just cannot get away with it. In the last year to November, a year in which there was a general election, we had the lowest level of industrial action since records began. This year, even with the regrettable and high-profile disputes that we have seen—incidentally, they are high profile because there are no disputes anywhere else—we will have the second lowest level of industrial action since records began.
The number of days lost to industrial action is minuscule by historical standards. In the twelve months to November 2001, an estimated 473,000 days were lost due to industrial action. This compares with 1.3 million days lost in 1996; not the 1980s.

§ Mr. George Osborne
The Minister had something to do with that.

§ Alan Johnson
I fully accept that, in another capacity, I had something to do with that. But Opposition Members are suggesting that the problems of industrial disputes and industrial action lie with the Government. In that case, what do they say about the 1.3 million days lost in 1996? In the 1980s, the annual average was 7.3 million days lost each year—a decade in which the Conservative party ruled entirely. I shall emphasise those figures: 7.3 million days lost on average each year in the 1980s compared with 473,000 under this Government. And we are told that we are having some kind of 1970s revival night.

§ Mr. Prisk
I will allow the Minister to calm down gently. Does he expect that, over the next quarter, the number of strike days will rise or fall?

§ Alan Johnson
With the measures taken since the Employment Relations Act 1999, we have everything in place to deal with disputes in the proper way, either through arbitration—

§ Mr. Prisk
Will it go up or down?

§ Alan Johnson
We certainly have a better way of dealing with disputes now, whether they are about union recognition or anything else, than we had prior to the measures that were introduced in 1999. If the new clause were accepted, it would do nothing to meet the problems that we have seen in industry over the last few months.
There is no case for repealing this law. It has not created a new wave of industrial militancy. Instead, it underpins a basic freedom: the freedom: to take industrial action, which is part of a mature democracy. The law is balanced and provides real incentives for both parties to resolve their differences. Opposition Members obviously do not value such provisions. In place of negotiation, they presumably favour heavy-handed tactics, with employers sacking anyone who takes action.
158 New clause 8 is a desperate attempt by Opposition Members to resurrect "Back to the Future". As always, they attack not just trade unions, but their members. The new clause has no place in this Bill and we will have no reservations about opposing it if they have the temerity to push it to the vote.

§ Mr. Lloyd
This has been a fascinating debate, partly because of the illusions and myths about the reality of industrial relations that have been mentioned. Although the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) makes a good point about the lock-out, I ask him to reflect seriously on the fact that all the protection that exists, even now, is that the sacked worker can go to a tribunal. An employer could show that the sacking was fair, even during the strike, if other factors were relevant. So the new clause is no strikers' charter. The most important point—this has totally escaped Conservative Members—is that we are talking not about a massive trade union agenda, but about a rare set of events. I suggest that they grow up a little, please. The Friction Dynamics dispute is the only one that I am aware of since the Employment Relations Act 1999, but it matters to the people in that company.
It is obvious that Conservative Members wanted to adopt a different agenda. They wanted to talk up the concept of industrial strife, not because they have any interest in industrial justice or industrial peace, but because they want to talk about what they regard as tough Tory politics. My hon. Friend the Minister hit the nail firmly on the head many times in exposing them for what they are. The very idea suggested in new clause 8, under which day-one sackings are proposed as the solution to industrial disputes in this country, is ludicrous and childish. That is why it will not gain the sympathy of the House.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister recognises the strength of feeling behind the Friction Dynamics dispute and the more general issue. The dispute has not merely popped up in recent days; it is now in its 44th week. People are enormously troubled that the legal balance is not right. My hon. Friend has made it clear that the review of the law will take account of the process. On that basis, it is genuinely in the interests of the House not to vote on new clause 5, but to vote against new clause 8, proposed by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), and I very much look forward to voting in the opposite Lobby to the one in which he votes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion