§ 3.22 p.m.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Private Notice; namely, to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the agreement which has been reached with T.U.C. leaders on industrial relations.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON)My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to answer the noble Lord's Question by making a Statement about the meetings which my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the First Secretary of State had yesterday with the General Council of the T.U.C.
Your Lordships will recall that in the previous discussions my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the First Secretary made clear that the Government would not proceed with their proposals for legislation on industrial relations in this session of Parliament, if the T.U.C. took steps which the Government regarded as equally effective, and that while the Government accepted the proposals adopted by the T.U.C. Special Congress on June 5 as satisfactory in relation to inter-union disputes, they had doubts about certain aspects of the proposals for dealing with unconstitutional strikes. In the course of yesterday's discussions the General Council unanimously agreed to a solemn and binding undertaking which sets out the lines on which the General Council will intervene in serious unconstitutional stoppages. In the light of this undertaking the Government 1108 now regard the T.U.C.'s proposals as satisfactory. A copy of the undertaking has been placed in the Library.
In these circumstances the Government have decided not to proceed with proposals for legislation involving financial penalties for those involved in inter-union and unconstitutional disputes. An interim industrial relations Bill will not therefore be introduced this Session. Consultations about the legislation to be introduced in the next session of Parliament will continue with the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and the other organisations concerned.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, but it would be stretching the truth to say that any of us who have followed the record of the Prime Minister and the Government are at all surprised at what has happened. We all knew that when it came to the point they would not stand firm. May I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether the terms now agreed are the same as those offered by the T.U.C. to the Government last week, other than that the T.U.C. are now agreeing that they are entering into a solemn and binding undertaking? I may say, in passing, that I should have thought that the proposals last week would have been very odd if they had not been solemn and binding. If these proposals are the same, what has happened in the meantime to cause the Government now to accept what was unacceptable a week ago and unthinkable two or three months ago? I must tell the Government that by their predictable surrender they have widened even further the credibility gap which stands between them and the country.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, we on these Benches welcome, with a great sense of relief, the fact that coercion and penalties have been dropped as a basis for industrial relations. We have said time and time again that such a system could never work in practice and that the approach was quite wrong. I should like to ask the Minister whether he is aware that the present proposals of the T.U.C. will have no hope of success, unless a great deal more effort is devoted to getting adequate communications between the workers and the trade union officials. The remoteness in this field is quite appalling. Further agreements must be made at plant level, at the level of the firm, and not 1109 at some remote national headquarters. Above all, we would plead with the Government to do everything they can to ensure that the workers are allowed genuine participation in the decisions which affect them in their work.
I would ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether he would use his influence with the Conservative Party to persuade them that their own policy of getting even tougher with the unions is only driving faster along the wrong road, in the wrong direction. Finally, may I ask, in view of the fact that the House of Lords Reform Bill was dropped in order to make way for this epoch making non-measure, what we do now?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, most of the remarks of the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party are more appealing to me than the predictably acid remarks of the Leader of the Conservative Opposition. The Leader of the Liberal Party asked me to do my best to try to make the Conservative Party see sense. I think I have tried to do so. They will just have to stew in their ignorance and their lack of understanding of industrial relations.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I would say that the terms now agreed are obviously similar to those that were discussed last week. But there is a great difference between an interpretative circular letter and a binding agreement. What Mr. Vic Feather said was:
…this is not just a question of rules. It is a question of policy and the policy statements are equally as binding and in many cases more binding than an exposition of rules. —in other words, as binding as the Bridlington declaration.I must at this moment pay a tribute, in the light of the noble Lord's remarks, to the Prime Minister and to Mrs. Barbara Castle. They have given us a very striking example of determination—[Laughter.] My Lords, I was hoping to get that reaction, which reveals once again that in industrial relations it is not possible to proceed by using sledgehammers. That is the Conservative solution. Their proposals are as irrelevant as they would be ineffective. I think that my right honourable friends and Mr. Vic Feather have shown extraordinary patience in a very difficult negotiation, and one that was bound to be difficult. 1110 The fact remains, as has been pointed out, that the T.U.C. have made a greater advance in these matters in a few weeks, than in the previous 40 years.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether he will be good enough to explain one passage in what he describes as "a solemn and binding undertaking"? I am grateful for the fact that the text is going to be placed in the Library, but it has already appeared in some organs of the Press this morning. My question relates to Clause 3 of the undertaking by the T.U.C., which runs thus:
Where it finds that there should be no stoppage of work before procedure is exhausted, it" —that is, the T.U.C.—will place an obligation on the organisation or organisations concerned to take energetic steps to obtain an immediate resumption of work.I ask the noble Lord what is meant by the words, "it will place an obligation". What statutory or common law rower has the T.U.C. to place any sort of obligation on anybody to do anything?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lipids, I find it is almost disastrous to attempt to explain anything to the noble Lord, who will think in precise, legalistic terms. I would suggest that he has a talk with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, who tried to deal with him on a previous occasion. The rules will be binding. There are measures that can be taken within the constitution of the T.U.C. to enforce either its rules or its policies in accordance with its own constitution. I urge the noble Lord to look, if he wishes, at the T.U.C. rules and at the provisions which are set out in Programme for Action. He will see in that that there are certain powers, to which the Statement directly relates, in Rule 13, under which measures can be taken, by due process and under the threat of certain penalties by the T.U.C., to achieve the results that they may consider desirable. It is there laid down that if a union fails to take energetic steps to obtain an immediate resumption of work these powers can be used by the T.U.C. Many bodies, as the noble Lord knows, have rules and regulations which they are able to enforce within their constitution. This does not, of 1111 course, necessarily involve penalties of a kind which would be enforced in a court of law.
§ LORD CONESFORDBut the noble Lord has not answered my question at all. I am not talking about the further steps taken by the T.U.C. I am asking what powers they have to impose an obligation.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I think the noble Lord should study the rules and regulations of all sorts of bodies which are in a position to impose obligations on their members. I must confess that I find it very difficult to understand the noble Lord's precise point. I am sorry if he is on some substantial point that I have missed, but I really do not see it.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMy Lords, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House now tell us which Minister will answer for the T.U.C.?
§ LORD SHACKLETONI suppose that is a witty question.
§ LORD HANKEYMy Lords, did we not understand that the T.U.C. were opposed to the imposition of any sort of sanctions; and are they not now about to impose them themselves?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I think the noble Lord, who I believe took part in our Industrial Relations debate, knows that the T.U.C. objected to the imposition of financial penalties by attachment of wages in relation to unconstitutional strikes, following a process of law imposed outside their own disciplinary powers. Trade unions have had disciplinary powers, some stronger than others, for many years. Indeed, in certain cases—and this is what there has been much argument about—they even have powers to suspend shop stewards or to fine members. It was the particular set of proposals that were set out to which the T.U.C. found objection. We have always reckoned to proceed, where possible—and, indeed, I would argue that this is the way we in this country seek in general to proceed—by allowing bodies voluntarily to undertake responsibilities; and a large part of the Government's relations with industry, including those with the management, is conducted on that basis. If 1112 the noble Lord looks particularly at the proposals contained in Programme for Action and the latest Statement, he will find that there is a significant difference. It is my personal view that the agreement reached is likely, in fact, to be more effective and to yield better results.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, may I press the noble Lord the Leader of the House to give a little more attention to the point, which seems to me an enormously important one, put by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye? We know that the Government have now abdicated all responsibility, so they have said.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONI thought that was exactly what the noble Lord did say in answer to a noble Lord. But Parliament must have some responsibility and some rights in this matter, and surely we ought to be told to what Minister or Ministers questions are to be put as to the progress or failure of progress with these proposals.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I am sorry; perhaps I did not take the noble Lord seriously in this matter. The Government are clearly not able to answer for the T.U.C. any more than they are for the C.B.I., but the Department of Employment and Productivity of course has a wide and important responsibility in the field of industrial relations, and it will still be open, in the event of serious disputes, for Parliament to consider, and for the Minister concerned to answer, any Questions that are put. I must stress that an important part of industrial relations in the future will be handled under some of the procedures which are set out in the White Paper and will, in due course, be set out in the Bill—I mean the C.I.R. and other such bodies. But of course the Department of Employment and Productivity, and the Government, will continue to answer in the field of industrial relations.
§ LORD CHAMPIONMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether these negotiations have not brought about a relinquishing of sovereignty by the unions to the Trades Union Congress which is wholly desirable and which will lead in the future to a very much improved possibility of control of industrial relations by 1113 the body that ought to take the responsibility — namely, the Trades Union Congress?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I think it has been the view of many noble Lords—indeed, I have heard the desire expressed from both sides of the House—that the trade unions should be stronger and should take more responsibility; and many people have all too easily suggested that the T.U.C. ought to enforce discipline where they had not the powers to do so. My Lords, we have made a very considerable advance. Even though it will be for the T.U.C. to decide when to put obligations on unconstitutional strikers, the advantage of securing wholehearted T.U.C. co-operation in this task in my view clearly outweighs any disadvantage in the Government's no longer being able to decide by themselves when a conciliation pause should be imposed.
§ LORD ALPORTMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House, in view of what the Prime Minister has said on numerous occasions during his long controversy, whether in the event of the T.U.C.'s authority being unsuccessful in achieving the objects which the Government and the T.U.C. have in mind, the Government have reserved their position to introduce legislative sanctions at a later stage?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I think it would be unwise, at the moment when we hope we are embarking on an improved era of industrial relations and one in which the new measures will immediately, I hope, start bearing on these problems, to commence discussing future punitive action. I think we shall have to see. A great responsibility rests on the trade unions and the T.U.C.—one that they have accepted solemnly and fully—and we hope to see good results from it.
§ LORD STRATHCLYDEMy Lords, will the noble Lord forgive my interrupting? I find there are some people who do not quite understand what a constitutional strike is. Would I be right in thinking that a constitutional strike is one called by or approved by the union concerned, and an unconstitutional strike is one which happens against the will of the union concerned?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I shall be happy to send the noble Lord a copy of the White Paper on industrial relations and of the debate we had it your Lordships' House. An unconstitutional strike is a strike that is taken not in accordance with the agreed procedures for dealing with disputes. But it is a complicated subject. An official strike might still be an unconstitutional strike. But if the noble Lord looks at the 'White Paper, he will see the explanation there.
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House has not answered one question asked by Lord Byers, and that is: now that the Government have abandoned the Industrial Relations Bill and. the Bill for the Reform of the House of Lords, what do they propose to do with us for the remainder of the Session?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I must apologise for not answering the noble Lord, Lord Byers. I think that the noble Lord, when he sees the business that is coming before us, will find that the Government have all too much for your Lordships' House to do in the remainder of this Session.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House ask the other place to deal with the House of Lords Reform Bill and let us have our Bill back?