HL Deb 28 June 1971 vol 321 cc15-35

3.6 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN rose to move, That this House takes note of the Consultative Document on the code of industrial relations practice. The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the foreword by my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Employment, states, the purpose of the code is to set standards and to give practical guidance for employers, trade unions and others concerned with industrial relations. The principle underlying it is that industrial relations are best conducted by collective bargaining between employers and strong and representative trade unions. The foreword also states that the proposals presented in the consultative draft are initial proposals which are presented for the fullest possible discussion and consultation, in the light of which the final draft will be submitted for the approval of Parliament before the end of this year.

By "industrial relations" I do not mean to suggest that the code covers "industry" only in the narrow sense. It applies wherever people are at work—in large or small establishments and in all sectors of employment. So in framing the code we have been thinking not only of the large manufacturing or assembly plant, but also of all forms of activity in which employment is provided, from the coalmine to the shop on the corner, whatever may be the end product or service—farms, hospitals, orchestras, research establishments, offices and warehouses, to name just a few. Of course it is true that conditions vary widely between different types of workplace and that some detailed requirements which fit one may be inappropriate in another, but the basic principles set out in the draft code—for example, the need for adequate communication and consultation and for effective methods of settling individual grievances and of dealing with disciplinary matters—apply everywhere.

Some people on first reading of the draft code may feel that it is no more than a collection of platitudes; that it contains no new or revolutionary ideas; and that it is likely to be ineffective any way. The recommendations are certainly not platitudes. There are some progressive employers who already do most of what it proposes; some, indeed, who do all and more. But there are a great many who do not. The aim of the code is to raise the general standard to the level of the best. To achieve that will undoubtedly take time. But it would be a mistake to underestimate the longer-term effects of a code which will carry the authority of Parliament and which will set out, in a simple and convenient form, what is generally agreed to be good practice. In that sense I think it would be no exaggeration to describe the code, taken as a whole, as a revolutionary document.

As your Lordships know, under Clause 4 of the Industrial Relations Bill the provisions of the code will be admissible in evidence before the Industrial Court and the industrial tribunals, but it will not be possible for anyone to bring an action on the ground that its provisions have not been complied with. The code can be invoked only in the Industrial Court or the industrial tribunal when applications have been made under the provisions of the Bill dealing with unfair industrial practices or breaches of duty. But where, for example, a complaint is made that a firm or a trade union has engaged in an unfair industrial practice, the extent to which the complainant—or the other party—has complied with the provisions of the code in his own conduct may be taken into account in assessing any compensation to be paid.

While it is important to be clear about the part that the code may play in legal proceedings under the Bill, it would be wrong to give this aspect too much emphasis. After all, the purpose of the legal framework of the Bill is to underpin the voluntary system which must remain the basis of our industrial relations. Many employers, no doubt, will never find themselves before the Industrial Court or an industrial tribunal. The real importance of the code lies in the guidance it gives for day-to-day conduct of industrial relations and, as I have said, as a means of bringing about a progressive improvement in standards.

May I say a word about the structure of the draft code? It is, I think, reasonably straightforward. It starts by setting out the central responsibilities of those concerned with industrial relations—management, trade unions, employers' associations and the individual employee. In the very first paragraph it declares that the primary responsibility for good industrial relations rests firmly on management. The draft then covers those employment policies which are essential to good relations between management and employees. Among other things it emphasises the need for soundly based payment systems, the absence of which is responsible for so many disputes; and it lays down guidelines for avoiding redundancies and for dealing with them if they become necessary.

The next section deals with communication and consultation—both vitally important. Some may feel that it does not go far enough in recognising the right of employees and their representatives to share in the decision-making process. Others will be equally convinced that it is right for management to retain the final decision on the managing of the business. Whatever developments we may see in the field of decision-making, there can surely be no doubt about the need for those who make the decisions to take their employees—whether white collar, coloured collar or no collar at all—into their confidence, so far as is prudent and practicable, and so to enlist and retain their co-operation in a comon endeavour. Section D, on collective bargaining, is of crucial importance to industrial relations. It covers such matters as bargaining units, trade union recognition, collective agreements and procedures for settling disputes, with which we have become very familiar in the last few weeks. The concluding sections deal with shop stewards and with the procedures for individual grievances and disciplinary matters. They take into account the Report of the Commission on Industrial Relations on the facilities afforded to shop stewards—a subject which was referred to the Commission on Industrial Relations in November, 1969.

I do not intend at this stage to go into detail about the contents of the draft code. To do so would take a great deal of time. It would be impossible to deal with it comprehensively, and if one did not deal with it comprehensively one would be accused by one person or another, from their different points of view, of not dealing with matters of great consequence. But I should like to mention some provisions which are relevant to points raised by noble Lords during our debates on the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, raised at Committee stage the question of works councils. He will see that paragraph C7 provides that any establishment with more than 250 employees should have a consultative committee. That committee should discuss the widest possible range of subjects of concern to employees. Since effective consultation depends upon both sides having the right attitude of mind, we feel that it is more likely to be achieved without statutory compulsion.

The noble Earl Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Platt, have urged the inclusion in the Bill of a provision ensuring that a professional employee should not be required to take any action which would conflict with his professional code of conduct. Paragraph A 17 has been inserted in the draft code to deal with this preoccupation. The need to safeguard the position of minorities and, in particular, of professional employees in relation to bargaining units is referred to in paragraph D 5. The question of proof of dismissal was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. Paragraph G 4 requires that both formal or final warnings and dismissal should be recorded in writing and a copy given to the employee concerned and, if he so wishes, to his employee representative or trade union official.

We had a lengthy discussion during the Committee stage of the Bill on workers' participation in management. The initial draft code does not lay down precise guide-lines, for the very good reason that there is no general agreement at present on any system of participation that could be uniformly or even generally applied. But there is a great deal in the draft about joint consultation and joint action, and I think most of us had strong sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Amory said: I believe wholeheartedly in joint consultation, but I go further. I should be disappointed if joint consultation, when practised sincerely over a period, did not lead to participation in management in some ways."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27/4/71; col. 1133.] The problem is to find the appropriate ways in widely varying circumstances. The Consultative Document sets out the Government's initial proposals on what the code should say. We hope that there will be the widest possible discussion of them during the coming months. If people disagree with what is in the document, we want to hear about it. We shall welcome constructive criticism and positive suggestions, so that the revised version of the code, which is to be laid before Parliament later this year, can reflect the widest possible measure of agreement on what should be regarded as the best practice.

I am, of course, aware of the T.U.C.'s initial response to the initial draft. Of course, if the T.U.C. had drafted a code, it would not have been in quite the same terms. There would have been differences of emphasis and no doubt even of substance. In the same way a code drafted by the C.B.I. or the Industrial Society would. I am sure, have differed in many respects from a code drafted by the T.U.C. as well as from the Consultative Document we are discussing. Nevertheless, I cannot help feeling that the T.U.C.'s response is disappointing and less generous than I would have expected. After all, they must have known that the code would be drafted by people who have acquired a profound knowledge and sympathetic understanding of industrial relations in the course of bringing the two sides of industry together and helping to sort out their differences. To anyone who had looked at what the draft code actually says, the epithets, "shabby" and "paternalistic" must seem strange and rather wounding epithets to use about it. The trade unions have much to gain from the code; by helping to eliminate bad management, it can substantially improve the working conditions of their members. I find it hard to understand why a responsible body which places so much store on consultation should not, even in the first instance, be prepared to consider the draft constructively on its merits and to let us have the benefit of their advice, which Her Majesty's Government will greatly welcome. I very much hope that it will be forthcoming.

Our debate to-day really begins the process of public examination and discussion on these important proposals. In conclusion, I repeat that the Government are anxious that they should be debated as widely as possible, and I can certainly assure your Lordships that the views and suggestions put forward to-day will be carefully considered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the Consultative Document on the Code of Industrial Relations Practice.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

3.18 p.m.

LORD DIAMOND

My Lords, I wonder whether I might, a little unusually, preface my remarks by a very short procedural point. Towards the end of last week, one or two of your Lordships approached me with regard to today's debate, obviously under the impression that this was part of our normal debate on the Bill itself, and therefore in the belief that if they wish to take part in the debate all they need do is to rise in their places at the proper time and not put their names down in advance. I assume that it is not against your Lordships' traditions and practice that, in these circumstances, noble Lords should feel themselves free to speak or not to speak, irrespective of whether they have put their names down on a list in advance. I understand that one noble Lord has already done so.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

My Lords, I think it might be for the convenience of the House if I cleared up this point. The procedure whereby we have a list of speakers is purely for the convenience of your Lordships. It does not in any way inhibit any noble Lord from speaking in a debate in respect of which a list has been drawn up. It is merely a guide so that people know when a certain noble Lord is going to speak. That is all.

LORD BYERS

My Lords, may I ask the Chief Whip: it is correct, is it not, that if noble Lords who have not put their names down are going to speak they should speak in what is normally called the gap?

EARL ST. ALDWYN

My Lords, this is the more normal procedure, although by arrangement with the noble Lords immediately concerned, and by informing other noble Lords in other parts of the House, over a period they can come in at a place other than the gap. But the gap is certainly the normal place.

BARONESS GAITSKELL

My Lords, I am not quite clear about what is intended. Does it mean that anybody can jump up at any time in the middle of the list of speakers, or does it mean that they come in at the end?

EARL ST. ALDWYN

There is on the list a gap between the main body of speakers and the two noble Lords winding up at the end, and that is the place where noble Lords usually come in.

LORD DIAMOND

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for helping me on that point, which I thought it proper to raise, very shortly.

My Lords, I am sure that my first duty, and indeed pleasure, is to thank the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for introducing this code in a short speech, and he will understand that I think it entirely appropriate that on this occasion the Government speech should be short and the other speeches not necessarily so short, because the Government are now starting this process of consultation. We welcome that, and we recognise the responsibility that this is the first occasion on which such consultation is taking place. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he said about his willingness, and the willingness of the Government generally, to listen to points which will be made during this debate, and indeed during the national debate which will take place, I very much hope, from now onwards, until the final code is put before Parliament in its revised and, I have no doubt, much improved form. What I want to do this afternoon is first to give a measure of welcome to the code, and to explain why I thought it right to do that; then to offer comments on some of the major principles which are to be read from the code; then to comment shortly on a few individual points which emerge from the wording of the code itself; and then, if I might be so hold, to conclude by drawing attention to what I think the future course might be.

First, then, let me give a welcome—a muted welcome, but nevertheless a welcome—to the code, and let me explain the reasons why I think it right to do this. In the first place, I invite your Lordships who have not yet had the opportunity of doing so to read the Foreword, which seems to me to be written by someone who really understands what industrial relations are about. I cannot praise too highly some of the sentiments incorporated in the Foreword, which of course is written by the Secretary of State himself. I will read only three short parts of sentences. The first is in the first paragraph, where there is a reference to the development of policies to improve human relations in all types of employment ". My Lords, I do not think it could be put more succinctly or better than that. That is what it is all about: it is about improving human relations in employment, and the more we understand that the more we will understand the complexities and the way to approach a solution.

The Foreword goes on to refer to the need for strong representative trade unions ". That I should also like to endorse very much indeed, as I do the comments made by the noble Lord when referring to this. Then, two lines further on it refers to adequate safeguards for the free association of workers…". That is a most important freedom, the freedom of association, whether for workers or for any others of us, assuming there are any of us here who are not workers. I do not include myself in that category for the moment—not while this Bill is on, at all events. It is a most important statement, and one which we have been trying very hard from this side to make sure the Government were fully apprised of—the need not to interfere with this fundamental freedom, the free association of workers. So I say that in my view, at all events, the Foreword is written with full understanding of what the issues are and of what the approach should be. I only wish that the Secretary of State had had time to write the rest of the code. Obviously he could not have done; but, dear me, the rest of the code is a very different document indeed. Still, one gives credit where credit is due, and I think great credit is due to the Secretary of State for that.

Another reason why I welcome the code is that it is written in plain English. I am not making the usual uninformed and rather silly attack on draftsmen who have to draft complicated legal texts in legal language. I have had too many Finance Bills to deal with to be as stupid as that. But it is true, nevertheless, that, whether or not you need a Bill drafted in the succinct but not very easily understood phraseology of the draftsman, in addition you need a document which every Tom, Dick and Harry can understand. That is an essential thing if you are going to have an improvement in human relations among all workers, all employees. Therefore, the fact that we have a document which is written in such plain, clear English is, I think, a great boon; we are very grateful for that, and I welcome it on that account.

Then, again, I welcome this document because I see it as a guide to assisting voluntary co-operation rather than compulsion. Without trenching too heavily on the dispute we have had and are still having on the Bill itself, it is clear to your Lordships that we on this side regret very much indeed that the Bill is framed on compulsion, even though it is compulsion at a late stage. We think it should be free of compulsion. We think that human relations are best encouraged free from compulsion, and that the way to assist is by encouraging voluntary cooperation. This code sets out to do that, and I welcome it, therefore, on those grounds, also.

Particularly I welcome it because it avoids the distinction between registered and unregistered unions. I am bound to invite your Lordships to consider this point most carefully. Of course, that statement is not made in the document itself, it is made in a footnote; and we all know that footnotes and the small print very often contain nuggets of wisdom. A footnote on page 8 reads: For the sake of simplicity "— that is a wonderful term— the term 'trade unions' is used in this code to describe both registered and unregistered workers' organisations ". My Lords, I am not commenting on this because it is a footnote or because of the English. I am commenting on it because the draftsman, and the Government responsible for this code, saw immediately that if you are trying to provide a simple document to help in industrial relations then you no longer attempt any legalistic and unhelpful distinction between registered and unregistered unions. You want to deal with people irrespective of whether the union of which they are a member happens to be registered under a particular Act or under a later Act, or not registered at all. They are human beings at work; and you want to encourage relations among them and other workers and their employers, and the way to do this is to have regard to all of them and not to some of them.

As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, himself made absolutely clear, this document is intended to speak to all. In that sense it suffers to a certain degree from the usual lowest common denominator difficulty, but I do not for one second attack it on those grounds. I share the view that we want to speak to all who are engaged in work of every kind, and the way to do so is to avoid this artificial, legalistic, damaging distinction between registered and unregistered unions. I rejoice, therefore, that the document does so almost immediately—on the second page of the notes—and that it recognises that if you are to have overall appeal, this is how you must proceed.

While I am on that issue, may I ask a question of the Government (this is slightly off at a tangent but only slightly) about their own position as employer, or perhaps I should say as customer? Your Lordships are familiar with the Fair Wages Resolution under which the Government contract only with contractors who undertake to respect the freedom of workpeople to be members of trade unions. I think it is Clause 4 of the Resolution that applies. That document, I believe, was prepared in the time of the Attlee Government—in the late 1940s, I should assume—and therefore it clearly had reference to trade unions as defined before the present Bill was thought of. So I am asking the noble Lord, when he replies, to say how the Government regard their responsibilities in relation to trade unions and how they define trade unions in Clause 4 of the Fair Wages Resolution.

In view of what I have said, I think it follows that the code should have a separate existence from the Bill. I say that because I know that at one time we on this side of the House put forward for consideration, and only for consideration, the view that the code might be incorporated in the Bill as a Schedule, which would provide your Lordships with the opportunity to debate each word and to make amendments, word by word or paragraph by paragraph, as your Lordships might desire. So far as I am aware, there is no other method. The method at present before your Lordships is the usual one of the Affirmative Resolution, under which a Government proposal is accepted or rejected in total, and is not susceptible of amendment. To make it susceptible of amendment, the code would have to be in a Schedule to the Industrial Relations Bill. If that method had been adopted it would have had certain advantages, but I think the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages. The disadvantages are first—I must be quite frank about it—that the code, by being part of the Bill, would in the view of those on the employees' side whose co-operation is sought under the code, be contaminated by the Bill. As I am going to suggest later, I think we can make progress on the code; I do not think that in practice we can make progress on the Bill.

It is therefore, in my view, wise that the Government have decided that the code should be a separate document. I know it was so decided because it lent to ease of adjustment and alteration. But I think, for the reason I have given, it is also wise that it should stay as a separate document and be recognised as such, and so avoid being blighted by the same hostility to the Bill as will be shown by so many of those whose co-operation is needed to put the provisions of the Bill into practice. So I give that fairly full welcome to the code. But I assume that we are in the process of consultation; that the Government really have an open mind on this subject and will listen (I am sure they will, because the words in the introduction give a complete guarantee that they will) to people from both sides of industry who wish to make constructive contributions designed to improve the code for the purposes set out in the foreword.

I wish now to deal, as I warned your Lordships I should, with certain attitudes displayed by the code, and my comments will take the form of criticisms. I underline what everyone I have spoken to has said about this code: that it is "paternalistic". Every discussion I have had and every opinion I have heard pitches on the same word. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, does not like the word "paternalistic"; but the only alternative course I can suggest to him—having regard to the fact that many of the practices promoted in the code were popular and much discussed at least fifty years, two generations, ago—is that we should change "paternalistic" to "grand-paternalistic". But I would not be so stupid as to call this paternalistic without giving examples to show why I quickly reached that conclusion.

That is one main criticism, and my other main criticism—I shall give details of it about the approach of the code relates to the still ambivalent attitude of the Government with regard to trade union interests. The introduction, the foreword, speaks of "strong representative trade unions". We all know by now that the Donovan Commission suggested that the way to improve industrial relations was through increasing the strength of trade unions. We want trade unions to be strong and representative, as the document states. We know also that the Government have said that they adopt that part of the Donovan Report; and their view, as stated by the Secretary of State, is that trade unions should be strong. My Lords, we also know, because we heard the speeches on Second Reading and speeches made in another place, that many of those who support the Government would prefer to see a weakening rather than a strengthening of trade unions; and that the Government are in the difficult and ticklish position of having to express their views in a way which will give minimum offence. This is unsatisfactory, and the code suffers as a result.

We have to recommend very strongly indeed to the Government that they should cease their ambivalent attitude and recognise that if they want to improve industrial relations, the method is by encouraging the growth of trade unionism. The Government must say so; and the code must say clearly, without any possible doubt, that one of the responsibilities of management is to encourage trade unionism. That is to be found nowhere. There is one reference in the code, on page 19, paragraph 14C, which goes a little way; but that refers only to the responsibility of management, after trade unions have been recognised. It does not refer to the responsibility of management to encourage trade unionism before, during and after recognition. That is nowhere mentioned. There is also a reference, a most unhappy reference, very early in the document, on the first page—which everyone reads even if they go no further—where it states Where trade unions are recognised, management should…". My Lords, that is the most unhappy form of words, whatever the view of the Government. The Government could have expressed the same thought, even if they did not want to encourage unions, without trailing their coat in this way. So I suggest to the Government that, whatever happens, they alter those words in their own interest. What I am asking for, in particular, is that it should be made absolutely clear that the responsibility of management is to encourage the growth of trade unionism. The reference which I have mentioned does not help at all.

I said I would refer to the reasons why I conclude that the document is paternalistic in its approach. I distinguish between paternalism and cooperation: "co-operation" means working together, "paternalism" means telling you the way in which you should work. On that basis I want to refer to various paragraphs in the document which I think establish what I am saying. In section A, paragraph 8, there is an introductory sub-paragraph under the general heading of "Trade unions." I think the shortest way would be for me to read the paragraph, which is only six lines long: The principal aim of trade unions is to promote their members' interests. They can do this effectively only if they accept that, in common with management, they have an interest in and a responsibility for the success of the undertaking. This involves co-operation in promoting efficiency and good industrial relations. There is the statement that this involves co-operation in promoting efficiency. My Lords, I do not dispute that. I am suggesting to the Government and to your Lordships that the well-known way of securing co-operation is by offering it first. If you want to secure friendship, you offer it. If you want to secure cooperation, you offer it and get the response. If you do not, you must not be surprised if you do not get a response.

Therefore I am saying to the Government that they must offer co-operation in a number of important respects. I am animated by the thought that what is good for the "boss" is good for the "gander". But this does not seem to have emerged very clearly if one compares the attitude inherent in sections F and G with the attitude disclosed in paragraph 3. If I may now make clear those hieroglyphics, section F relates to individual grievance procedures—most important for the employee—where it says that management should ensure that an effective procedure exists for employees to seek redress for their grievances. It does not say anything about discussing, in advance of the decision being made as to the form of the grievance procedure, with the men themselves, who are concerned, what form that procedure should take.

Section G deals with disciplinary procedures and says: Management should define and make known to each employee the rules of work and the disciplinary action which may follow if they are broken. Certainly management should make these known to each employee, but before making them known and defining them management should work out with employees what the disciplinary procedures should be. That is the normal way to secure co-operation. These two fundamentally important matters to the individual have only a partial, I would almost say a minimal, effect on the essential problem of management in relation to making, producing and selling goods, or whatever the function of the business may be, but even in these areas, which are of such little importance to management and of such crucial importance to employees, the document does not say one word about real co-operation in terms of decision-making before the decision is arrived at. Of course these matters should be agreed upon so far as possible. If they cannot be agreed upon, then I recognise that, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, management has to take the final decision. But how much better to try to agree upon them first! And in the majority of cases agreement will be reached.

If agreement is reached, the employees are involved. They have participated they find themselves involved, and will honour the arrangements. They will understand them and accept them, and the arrangements are less likely to give rise to difficulties, contentions and controversy. We all know this in every walk of life and in the running of a democratic system. I must say that under Sections F and G the Government are to be severely criticised for not suggesting that in areas where management is only slightly affected and the workers are critically affected there should be an attempt in the first place at real cooperation. But when we come to G and E (and I am comparing F and G with E, which deals with shop stewards)—will the noble Lord forgive me? I will complete my argument, and I shall be very brief about it, and then I will give way. Section E.3 says that It is desirable that trade unions and management should agree on the total number of shop stewards— and on other things. So here, where we need co-operation of the unions in relation to the employment qualification of shop stewards—in fact, it is impossible to function without them—it is said not that the trade unions have the right to make their own decisions, as happens under the other headings I have referred to, but that, It is desirable that trade unions and management should agree…". It is desirable that trade unions and management should agree both with regard to shop stewards and with regard to individual grievance procedures and disciplinary procedures. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, wished to intervene.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point on discipline but I only wonder whether in talking about grievances, he has taken into account the provision of D.20.e, which says: the procedures for settling collective disputes and individual grievances are among the things which the procedure provisions should set out. These, of course, will be agreed upon.

LORD DIAMOND

My Lords, if there is another part of the Document which I have not read and which fills in the gap, I am delighted that it is so. I am not criticising the Document on small points, but making clear what I think should be the guidance given to the employer. If the Government are saying that the guidance given to employers with regard to the grievance procedures is of the kind I am suggesting, then I am delighted. I go on to say immediately that I hope that the Government will extend their wise thinking to sections F and G and do the same with regard to disciplinary procedures, which the unions have been seeking for years now to be a joint concern in their establishments. It is for those reasons, among others, that I regard the Document as paternalistic in its approach, because it has inadequate reference to joint participation in decision-making processes.

Incidentally, on this one point may I say that though it appears that there are elements in each part of the document which are repeated in other parts, this is not only essential but, indeed, advisable. I hope that the Government will not hesitate to include under each heading what is relevant to that heading, even though it has already been said somewhere else in the Document: because the tendency for people interested in, for example, grievance procedures is to look them up in the index to see what is there and to say to themselves that that is the Government's view or the view of the code of practice, whereas the noble Lord has just now said that it is not the view of the code of practice—the view is that before the situation gets to that stage, there will be joint consultation and cooperation and if possible agreement with the people concerned. So I hope that the noble Lord will not hesitate, if necessary, to make the Document slightly longer so that every part will speak for itself.

Still on the argument that the document is paternalistic to a degree because it fails to allow for joint participation in decision-making, I would refer to five headings, every one of which is damned by the same argument: manpower planning, a most important area affecting the livelihood of employers and the prospective livelihood of employees; redundancy, training, payment systems and safety arrangements. All these, I suggest, are vital to the livelihood and security and, indeed, prosperity of the employees. In not one of these cases can I find any reference to real co-operation, in the sense of working out between employers and employees how the matters should be arranged, but only reference to telling the employees afterwards what has been decided. That is not the best industrial practice. That is all I want to say on those headings, although with time available I could make speeches on every one of these topics, they are of such importance.

I turn now to a number of individual points of less importance than the two major criticisms that I have made but I should like to refer to them, because this is our opportunity for doing so. I am sure that other noble Lords will have similar and other points to make. Section A,7,d is a reference to supervisors explaining to work groups innovations and changes before they happen. I hope that this paragraph can be clarified to make it clear that there should be no such changes of practice without prior consultation. I repeat that I recognise management's responsibility at the end of the day to make the decision, but I do not recognise management's right to make a decision without prior consultation. That is unwise. It is against the interests of management and good organisation and it is damaging to industrial relations. I hope, therefore, that that can be made clear.

I hope at the same time that the Government will give thought to a point on which the T.U.C. have been keen for a long time now and which seems to me to be common sense—that is, to provide that where a dispute has arisen out of a change the status quo should be restored wherever possible while negotiations arising out of that change are taking place. It helps enormously if one can return to the status quo ante, the situation existing before the change, while negotiations are taking place, without prejudice to the negotiations. That would be a wise guideline to introduce. Then, on page 11, section B,8, I hope that the Government will consider expanding the heading of "Training" and calling it "Training and Education." There is no reference to education and I think it is necessary that there should be.

Again, on the same page, at section B,10,a, there is reference to "a general introduction to working life." That is good. I hope that it will include a general introduction to the functions of trade unions and I hope that such an introduction could be given by representatives of the trade unions. I think that this part on working life ought to be explained in a wholesome way to beginners. Then section B.13 talks about payment systems being introduced, but does not include a reference to the need to encourage productivity and to remunerate it. I think that ought to be included.

Under section B,19,b, there is reference to redundancy. It says: If redundancy becomes necessary management [should]…establish which employees are to be made redundant and the order of discharge. That must be done in advance, because it is impossible to do it at the time. It is almost hoping for the impossible to believe that one could reach such an agreement after the redundancies have become necessary. It is much easier to reach agreements before they become necessary and I should have thought that that ought to have been included as a guide to industrial relations.

On page 15, section C.5, sub-paragraph a, refers to management explaining to employees or providing them with information on the performance or prospects of the undertaking. I entirely agree, but I hope that the word "whole" will be added, so that it will read, "of the whole undertaking". It is very difficult for an employee in an individual section to understand what is going on in other parts of the works or factory or shop, and it is a great aid to understanding if the management take the trouble to explain things in relation to the whole undertaking.

These are small points in relation to the two that I have mentioned but they are not unimportant. I have no doubt that there are many more, and indeed the noble Lord must not assume that, if I refer only to five or six, there are not others to which I could happily refer, if the time were available, but there are many other noble Lords who wish to speak. Therefore, I come now to the most contentious part of my speech; namely, what do we do now? What course do we suggest that the Government should favourably consider? What I suggest is that the Government should rely on the code rather than on the Bill. I believe it is possible and indeed likely that the code will, after consultation and consideration, be implemented and it will receive co-operation, where co-operation is needed and required, if—and only if—the atmosphere is not polluted by having the Bill implemented and working. If we have the Bill we have neither the co-operation required to make the Bill work, so the Bill itself must be ineffective, nor the co-operation to make the code work, and so the code will not produce the good results which it could produce.

The Government should recognise that the way to make progress in improving industrial relations is to rely on the code and not on the Bill. The Bill is still regarded as grossly unfair, irrelevant and impractical by all those whose cooperation at employee level is needed to make it work. Association of the Bill with the code could be only prejudicial to the code.

But I do not think it would be too difficult to devise a way forward. I recognise the position of the Government. I recognise in particular that the Prime Minister has taken the view that he needs to demonstrate his political strength by putting on the Statute Book a Bill of this kind. But I doubt whether he can any longer take the view that such a Bill will help in dealing either with industrial relations or with the current major problem of inflation. There was a time when undoubtedly the Government thought that it would be helpful in dealing with inflation so to regulate and affect the powers of unions that the unions' ability to negotiate high wages for their members would he much reduced. Neither of those ends—that is to say, helping industrial relations or helping with inflation—is possible as a result of bringing in this Bill. On the contrary, it is now clear that steps are needed to deal with inflationary pressures which can be implemented only with the co-operation of the trade unions and employees generally. That is the major problem, as we all recognise. We cannot therefore carry on with the implementation of a Bill which is going further to exacerbate feelings and at the same time to require co-operation in order to serve the needs of another quite major policy.

Honour could be satisfied if the Bill went as far as the Statute Book. What I am talking about is the damage which would come from implementing it, or at all events those parts of it which are highly controversial. The Government have said that they intend to have different dates for the implementation of various parts of the Bill once it becomes an Act. There is therefore no reason that I can see why those parts which are broadly acceptable should not be implemented when the Bill reaches the Statute Book at whatever date the Government decide and then is kept in reserve so that if the code—having had a good chance of working and benefiting industrial relations—is seen not to be sufficient thoughts could be turned to something else, which might even be the Bill.

But that is not what I am suggesting. I am not suggesting that we should ever have regard to the Bill. I am merely saying that from the Government's own point of view there seems no advantage at all in insisting on implementing the Bill. Such insistence would at the best produce a tremendous conflict and at most a Pyrrhic victory. My recollection of a Pyrrhic victory is that it was one which left a mound of corpses and a blasted heath. I am sure that that is not what the Government desire. If the Government want to keep the Bill up their sleeve—I refer now to those unacceptable and controversial parts of it—as a long-stop, they could do so without bringing in and implementing the controversial parts. I am saying to the Government—I know that they will find this unacceptable but I believe it to be the truth—that they no longer have the moral authority necessary to implement such a controversial Bill. That moral authority stems from continuing electoral sympathy and support which have gone. All Governments know that the time to deal with controversial measures of this kind is at the start of their period of office because controversial measures lose votes and they must be brought in while the going is favourable.

My Lords, the Government's honeymoon period has gone more quickly than any other honeymoon period one can recollect. The conclusion to be drawn is very clear indeed. It does not matter whether or not your Lordships agree with what I am saying; what matters is what the people themselves think and feel. They will not observe the law if it is passed by a Government in which they have at that time no confidence and have demonstrated that they have no confidence, and if they believe that the Government are not acting in the interests of good industrial relations but out of preconceived partisan notions.

Therefore, I am saying to the Government that the way forward is of the kind I have indicated, and I hope that they will consider it seriously because I can see no other way forward. I can, of course, see confusion; I can, of course, see conflict; I can, of course, see battles royal, but I cannot see any other way forward if what we are all after in all parts of the House is an improvement in our industrial relations. So I finish by repeating my suggestion that the way forward is to lean on the code and to leave the contentious parts of the Bill in abeyance. In that way industrial relations will be improved instead of damaged; in that way I believe that the nation will be united instead of divided.