INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: CODE OF PRACTICE

HL Deb 28 June 1971 vol 321 cc46-116

4.35 p.m.

Debate resumed.

LORD BYERS

My Lords, in resuming the debate on the Code of Industrial Practice, I can assure the House that it is not my intention to take 48 minutes, as was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I do not want your Lordships to feel that we have not a great deal which we would want to say on this particular code, but in deference to the many speakers who are to follow I will try to confine my remarks to a short time.

We on these Benches, as the Industrial Relations Bill has progressed through this House, have been impressed with it as a potential base upon which we can build an industrial relations system in this country; it is not the sterile measure which I expected, if I may say so, when it was first trailed by the Conservative Party before and during the last Election. There is a great deal wrong with it, but I believe it is a potential base, and we have always set great store by having a code of practice. We believe it to be a very important part of industrial relations. Therefore, we cannot conceal our disappointment at the flatulent and wishy-washy nature of the document that has been put before us. I can promise the Government that we will do all we can to strengthen it, because we feel a great opportunity has been missed to give some backbone to the Industrial Relations Bill by asserting in forthright terms what employers, trade unions and employees must do if good industrial relations are to be achieved.

Instead of this, we have been treated to a filleting operation. Rather than strengthening the Bill, this code weakens it in a number of respects. The best one can say at this stage—and I emphasise at this stage—is that I do not think it will do any harm, but it is difficult to see how this spineless language can do much good. As the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said, it is a very old-fashioned document. One authority on this subject said to me: "It might well have been written by Whitley." That is no disparagement of Whitley, but it ignores all the work which has been done in the sociological field over the last ten, twenty or thirty years; and I think the phrase which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, used, "grand paternalistic", has a lot to commend it. However, the code abounds with do gooding "phrases and weak phrases. The phrase," should take all reasonable steps ", et cetera, occurs a dozen times in the document. The terms "as appropriate" and "when possible" stamp the document with the hallmark of compromise and cowardice.

Much has been said of the analogy of the Highway Code. Just imagine if the Highway Code had been written in the same sort of language. Take section 42, a very important one, in the Highway Code. It says: When coming to a zebra crossing be ready to slow down or stop to let people cross. You must give way once they have stepped on to a crossing. No doubt about that. In the language of this code of practice, this provision would read: When coming to a zebra crossing you should take reasonable steps to try to slow down or where possible to stop to let people cross, and if possible you should give way once they have stepped on to the crossing. Your Lordships can imagine the sort of chaos which would result if that were the language in which the Highway Code were to be written. Again, we have many statements of the obvious. It says in the code: Soundly based payment systems are essential to good relations between management and employees. But of course they are. What we want to know is what are the rules for getting soundly based payment systems.

However, it is in the part dealing with works councils that we particularly feel that there is the worst sort of feebleness. I One has only to read this section. It starts off by saying that institutions or organisations of more than 250 employees should have works councils. We feel that this is the area in which the real development of industrial relations over this next decade should and could take place—in strong, representative works councils. This is certainly the Continental experience and particularly the German experience. The works council system, in our view, is at the heart of the matter, and this was recognised by Donovan when he wanted to get as close to the plant as he could. If it is to work and succeed it must become the forum where the inevitable conflicts are ironed out between management and employees, and where realistic procedures are established. In Germany this system is a success because the rights and obligations of workers are established and guaranteed by law. There is no question of "should have" or "where appropriate" or "if possible". The provision is there and it is mandatory.

Above all, works councils should in our view be entitled to basic information as of right, and not in the weak and circumscribed way envisaged in this code. Unless you can lay the information on the table of a works council you will never get the communication and intercommunication which is so vital if human relations are to be improved in industry. I am told that even the Weimar Republic gave legal rights to works councils; even the United States goes further than this code. I believe it is not enough to say that employees are entitled td the same information as shareholders: they can get that, anyway. There are many other things which they should know and are entitled to know if we are to get the industrial relations we want. Probably one of the tests is that all information, short of information the disclosure of which might affect share prices and lead to speculation, should be given and made available to works councils.

I believe one can get over the problem of giving information which is of a highly confidential nature by doing what they have found to be successful in some parts of Germany, where the works council elects three or four of its members to act as a confidential panel to whom the information can be disclosed, and one is never let down because they appreciate the confidentiality of it. They are given that information, they are consulted, and they can advise on the way in which mergers and takeover bids go forward. I believe that is the way we must develop. I can see the objection to giving highly confidential information to 25 to 40 people, but we ought to be in a position to-day where we can trust representatives of the workers and ask for their advice before major decisions are reached.

As I understand the position, the Commission on Industrial Relations will have a lot more to say about the disclosure of information. I believe this matter is something which the Commission should take into consideration and see whether it cannot go a great deal further than anything that is contained in the Bill at the moment. Having said all this, I want to make it clear that we prefer the code to no code at all, and in particular we welcome the provision which recommends the setting up of works councils on the basis contained in the code. But we want to make it clear that we shall press for much more strength in the code. We want to get rid of a lot of the feebleness in it, because we believe that, based on the works councils and really good industrial practice, it could have quite an effect on British industrial relations.

4.42 p.m.

LORD DAVIES OF LEEK

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for speaking briefly. I will take my cue from him and try not to speak for more than about five minutes so that other noble Lords may have the opportunity of making their points. Consequently, I will eliminate from my speech things which have already been said.

First, let me reiterate that I endorse entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said about works councils. There are other points that I would endorse about which my noble friend Lord Diamond spoke in depth. I hope that people throughout the country will obtain copies of this Document and will do exactly what they are asked to do on page 27: I will not read it as that would waste time, but I hope that national organisations and others will send in their proposals to the Industrial Relations Division or to the local representatives so that some improvements can be made and such improvements may then come from the grass roots.

On page 3 of the Document, in the Foreword, it says: Collective bargaining requires a reasonable and constructive approach by both sides "— That is axiomatic. It then says: Both must be prepared to co-operate in working out solutions to their problems to make a real effort to understand each other's point of view and to abide by agreements which have been made. It then says that the code must apply to establishments of all sizes. I should like to see, in connection with the modernisation of agriculture, and especially if we are going to rush into the Common Market, a realisation that modern agriculture is as mechanised—indeed in some cases more so—as small factories. Codes of practice are essential on farms today, with the massive, complicated machinery that is used in farming. A farmer is no longer just a milkman: he also has to be a mechanic, and as well as knowing the whole gamut of ancient crafts he has to keep abreast with modern industrialisation. Therefore, when this code is being written I hope that one or two countrymen with understanding of agriculture will be able to put forward their points of view.

It is a terrific strain on me not to say a great deal, but I am trying to discipline myself, so I hope noble Lords will bear with me. I will not say what I had in mind to say in criticism, but I think it is worth taking note of the Trades Union Congress. My source, as with most people, is this document on the facilities available for shop stewards. I will drop it now, to stop myself for the sin of expansive quotation, but I sincerely hope that note will be taken of that booklet, particularly when the Government are looking to the section on stewards. The facilities for training a modern shop steward form one of the key points. I am going to give the history of this, right back to the 1914–18 war, and here, sitting near me, is the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who knew all about the efforts of the Clyde engineers in that First World War when prices in one year jumped 25 per cent. while wages in that area rose by only about 5 per cent. The shop stewards movement grew, but the modern shop steward must he a scientific individual, and I hope that the Government will see their way to help the trade union movement. Many members of the public do not know of the marvellous weekend colleges and schools that have been established by the trade union movement, out of the trade union members' money, to train their shop stewards. I hope that more attention will be given to the training of shop stewards.

Finally, while praising the Foreword to this Document at least I will give some credit to the Government that they are willing to accept constructive criticism from various parts of the country, and I hope that the words of my noble friend Lord Diamond will be listened to when the day is done and we come to the end of this so-called tunnel through which we are working our way. When the Bill becomes an Act the code will be much more important than the Act. Now, my Lords, I will resist temptation and sit down.

4.48 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BLACKBURN

My Lords, I shall try to emulate the example of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, in limiting my remarks. But first may I say how greatly I wish to welcome in general terms this Code of Industrial Relations Practice. I must admit that I have not yet had the time to study it in depth, but what I have read encourages me to believe that the Secretary of State is to be congratulated upon the production of a broadly based and comprehensive document for consultation. From it will emerge, we hope, an agreed statement from the Government, management and trade unions which will promote what we all look for, namely, better industrial relations, which are so essential to the solution of our current problems.

While I wish to refer to one or two points of detail, I should like first to make some general observations. Like the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, I particularly welcome the Foreword and I think we shall all wish to congratulate the Secretary of State on that admirable Foreword, with its clear definition of aim and the Government's policy to set standards, to give practical guidance on the conduct of industrial relations and to improve human relations. To set standards: I am sure that it is these which most need definition. One of the biggest questions with which we are confronted is that of authority and where power ultimately resides. I have just come across some words of a certain Mr. Clarke Kerr: The old struggle was seen by Marx as being over the ownership of property, since property determines power. The new struggle is directly over power almost regardless of the ownership of property: power to set the rules, to fix the rewards, influence the style of life. There are thousands of battles, not one; but they are over authority, not over ownership. I think this is one of the great questions that has got to be faced in this whole question of the code.

Secondly, the aim to improve human relations. We should all be grateful, and I am sure your Lordships are grateful, that in the very first paragraph this is clearly enunciated and spelled out. It is human relations that matter. The boss is more than an executive; the men on the shop floor are more than hands: they are human beings who are brought into contact with one another—no, more than that, they are brought into partnership to produce goods and to serve the community. And it is here that we have to build up trust, even though there are points where we may disagree. I agree that, in the end, no law can produce trust. But what will produce trust is the desire to serve the community, and it is this thought of the community which I believe should be uppermost in our minds. It is very much in our minds at the moment as we think upon the European Community and the European Common Market. There is the community spirit to be built up in the life of industry and commerce, and this is precisely what this code is designed to do. There is the general community which industry exists to serve, but it is this community which pays the wages of those who are engaged in industry.

I am not at all sure that we have given sufficient thought to this whole idea of community. Perhaps I might remind your Lordships that if you break down the word to its two Latin constituents—"cum" and "munis"—a rough translation is. "ready to work together". It is that spirit which we need to secure in any code of practice, a readiness to work together. I grant that there are the inevitable two sides in industry, but they must learn to work together in community for the sake of the community. I believe that this is what this code sets out and, if I read it aright, this is the aim and motive that lies behind it. It is in this spirit that we in your Lordships' House should receive, comment upon, and where necessary improve, this Document.

I shall welcome, as the Secretary of State says, the fullest possible discussion and consultation. I hope that this is going to be very widespread. My only fear is that we shall not complete our consultations by the date in October that he has named. I confess that I am surprised by the attitude of some trade unionists who have adopted an almost indifferent and sometimes cynical attitude to this Document, although I should like to say how much we welcome the praise it has received from Members of your Lordships' House who speak on behalf of the trade unions. Surely they will indeed agree that we must have a code of practice. But the Document has been accused of paternalism. "Paternalism" has become a sort of dirty word. I wonder whether it is as bad as it is made out to be. I can understand its being used as regards university life, but surely here it is unfair to label almost the whole of this code as suffering from paternalism, because there is the attitude, which is right, that the boss, if you like, should take a fuller measure and a personal concern for those he employs. I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is not in his place, because in several instances, in one instance particularly, which he quoted on redundancy he missed the earlier sentence which says that there should be the fullest cooperation between management and employees. Do not let us toss this word "paternalism" about too much: because there is still something good in a paternalistic attitude.

The Document states an all-inclusive purpose that must commend itself surely to all parties; namely, …industrial relations—are best conducted by collective bargaining "— the whole of the Industrial Relations Act rests upon this factor, and indeed this code of conduct— between employers and strong representative trade unions supported by orderly procedures— What more could we want than that! I tire sometimes of people who say that the concern of the Government is to weaken the trade unions. I personally believe that their intention is to strengthen the trade unions—representative trade unions—and that they shall follow orderly procedures. The references throughout this Document—I will not go through them—again and again come back to orderly agreed procedures. These references are almost too many to be counted.

Another matter emphasised throughout the document is training. All from management down to shop stewards must engage in training. This has been sadly neglected in many of our industries; there has not been enough training. The Document makes collective bargaining, as one understands it, the keystone on which sound industrial relations can be built. It states that collective bargaining requires a reasonable and constructive (not destructive) approach by both sides. There is still discernible in some quarters a failure to be constructive, the threat of a refusal to co-operate. I was very grieved to hear some of the things the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said about a threat that there will he no co-operation. I have stated before and I venture to state again, that this failure to co-operate is destructive of progress. I believe it is utter foolishness to fail to make representations which it is the bounden duty of those concerned to make on behalf of their members, many of whom have elected them.

Perhaps I may be allowed to quote this sentence from the foreword: —both must be prepared to co-operate in working out solutions to their problems to make a real effort to understand each other's point of view…"— Oh, that we could do this on either side!… and to abide by, agreements which have been made. There is great wisdom in those words which I solemnly applaud. My reading of the Document convinces me that what is proposed is an expression of these aims.

There are points that need to be adjusted, maybe amended and expressed more adequately, and they will be as we have full consultation. I will deal with only one, in paragraph 16 on page 12, relating to the status of white collar workers in relation to other employees. As I understand it and see the situation in my own diocese, the difference in attitude shown by management to the white collar workers and other employees is a burning issue. But all this code of industrial practice can do is to make some rather vague reference to facilities being related to responsibilities. That is far from adequate, and I hope that this particular problem arising from the code will have fuller treatment.

I would plead with the utmost vigour that this code of practice should be taken with the greatest seriousness and should be fully and widely debated up and down the land. I believe that it has within it the germ, as it were, the consensus, of a most valuable and practical document, which obviously can be further improved. It is encouraging to know that, while the Government have sometimes taken up a very stubborn attitude about certain Amendments that were placed before them because this is a matter of law, we can look for a great deal more flexibility from the Secretary of State and his Department in relation to this code of conduct. It can produce a charter—in fact, I can say a Magna Charta—for those engaged in industry and commerce which, if it be accepted and implemented, can do much to establish industrial relations on a sound and secure basis such as can bring satisfaction, security and success, to employers and workers, and produce that profit for all that we seek.

I believe that primarily there are two things that matter, and of which we should never lose sight: first, people and human relations; secondly, that people must live at a decent standard of living. In order to live at that standard, productivity in goods must increase. That will only happen through co-operation between union and employer, and that is what the code of conduct aims to achieve.

5.2 p.m.

BARONESS GAITSKELL

My Lords, I wish I could go all the way with the optimism of the right reverend Prelate on this code, although I agree with him on one or two points that he made. To go from the tight legal maze of the Industrial Relations Bill to the industrial relations code is quite an experience. There is a dramatic drop in temperature both in drafting and in the psychological approach from the Bill to the code. In fact, after our experience of the Bill, the conciliatory tone of the code is really unexpected. Unlike the Bill, the code is written in such simple English that any child could understand it—and here and there it reads as if any child might have written it. But no matter: it has some very good things in it; and seeing that the Bill is about to become law one should, through the code, clutch at any straw which might improve the working of the Bill. I believe that the code will prove something of a lawyers' dilemma. I am not a lawyer, but I can see places where the code will trip up the Bill, and vice versa.

I can understand Mr. Vic Feather's impatience with the Consultative Document, but personally I should like to see diplomatic relations between the T.U.C. and the Government resumed, however much the T.U.C. looks back in anger at the Bill. How will Mr. Feather make his voice heard without consultation? I can also understand Mr. Feather's impatience with the beautiful sentiments in the code, and its ambitious claim to set standards and give practical guidance for good industrial relations. The sentiments are so far removed from the tough and intricate day-to-day practice of industrial relations at plant level. However, there are some proposals in the code which are good, some obvious and unexceptionable; but the code cannot claim to be practical, because the way of achieving improvement remains suspended.

From the trade union point of view, there are some glaring omissions of principle, which stem from the paternalistic attitude of the management. Here I take issue with the right reverend Prelate. I do not think, if I may say this—and I say it very humbly—that the Church can really pronounce on paternalism, because I think the Church believes in it. Therefore, if we are to pronounce on paternalism we must go to the trade unions and get their point of view. The Government, however, cannot get away from this paternalistic attitude. The code makes amends to Donovan by again placing on management the primary responsibility for good industrial relations. Some critics of the code have objected to the abstract word "management" throughout the code. It has a caste aura about it: management—the "untouchables". Surely it would be more correct to speak of "managers", particularly as they are often employees as well. There is also a welcome come-back of the shop steward, the prodigal son. The proposals for full recognition and status of his services are very welcome, although the facilities outlined for him are not so good as those set out in the T.U.C. document.

The code is full of good intentions, but I can see that there will be stormy weather between the Bill and the code when dealing with unfair industrial practices. Somehow, the code, with its emphasis on common sense, and the Bill, with its emphasis on the law, do not match up. I myself am very sceptical about common sense as an instrument to deal with complex human behaviour. It is a very superficial instrument. Among the recent recommendations are a few new good ideas, such as the one recommending the abolition of the class distinction between white collar and manual workers. This is a real advance, and I think that the right reverend Prelate underestimated it.

Overall, I agree with my noble friend Lord Diamond, that the Document still has an out-of-date flavour about it. Nowhere are the rights of trade unions spelled out or stressed. The code shrinks ultimately from the idea of a real partnership between employers and trade union employees. It urges involvement, it is true, for the workers; but it simply by-passes participation. The Government do not seem to realise that mutual responsibility is the key to good industrial relations and that this can never be achieved without workers' participation. Collective bargaining must be based on this, and this means collective bargaining between employers and strong trade union representatives on all aspects of employment, as well as on earnings. I agree with Mr. Feather that this is a glaring omission.

The trade unions still feel aggrieved, and are still smarting, about the Industrial Relations Bill, but it would have been more productive if Mr. Feather had collected a few smart lawyers, put the code side by side with the Bill, and shown which proposals cancel out, which can be improved, and which should be scrubbed out. This would lead not only to a compendium of common sense, but perhaps to a compendium of the snags. It is really not enough to say that the trade unions are not going to play. The Government have said that they welcome consultation and criticism. Why not take them up on that? Why not take them at their word? The industrial relations code has often been compared to the Highway Code. I myself think this is a pretty silly comparison, but because the code is full of good intentions—even if it is not a practical document—it is up to the T.U.C. to show the way ahead.

5.10 p.m.

THE EARL OF BALFOUR

My Lords, the Secretary of State for Employment, the right honourable Robert Carr, my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn and their assistants should be congratulated on the care and thought that has gone into preparing the code of industrial relations practice. The foreword, to which many of your Lordships have referred, indicates immediately that the Government realise the importance of good unions and good management and shows that they are "with it", to use the modern expression. The code begins by describing responsibilities, and in the first section naturally places the main responsibility on management. It next describes the unions' responsibility—and I refer in particular to paragraphs 9,c and 11,c—to encourage officials and members to take all reasonable steps to observe agreements, and to encourage their members to take an interest in activities not only at union meetings but also at the firms in which they work. There is no future in enforcing wage claims which result in a firm's going out of business. The code then goes on, in paragraph 15, to describe the responsibility of the individual employee. Although paragraph 17 does not strictly refer to ordinary employees, I feel it will be encouraging if all employees who belong to a profession with a code of conduct have an obligation to comply with that code. They all have a duty and I hope that they will all take an interest. In other words, it should be the object of all concerned to see that when a product is marketed it is never found faulty. This will get Britain a good name in any market in the world and people will invest their money in the pound sterling.

I come next to Section B, dealing with employment policies. Management and, I believe, Government are responsible for developing soundly based payment systems, which are essential to good industrial relations. That is the principle, but care should be taken by all concerned not to commit the mathematical crime of comparing percentages. I shall give your Lordships one example. Let us suppose that a fitter earns £10, and an engineer on the same enterprise earns £20. The trade unions negotiate a 10 per cent. rise in wages, which means that the fitter will be getting £11 and the engineer will be getting £22. Here is the danger. The pay differential, which so often breeds discontent, has widened, and instead of there being £10 difference in that case there is now £11. Planning and use of manpower is dealt with in paragraph 2 of Section B. Unions, as well as employers, must be aware that the sound planning and efficient use of manpower are important for the success of an undertaking. In this highly industrialised country, managements and unions often forget the importance of maintaining a system by which workers are transferred from one job to another within an undertaking—and I feel that the word "undertaking" should be looked upon from a pretty broadminded point of view. If an industry is not developing, then time is leaving it behind. Here, again, the code has laid down the principles and I shall illustrate their importance in three examples.

First, let me take the trade of stonemasonry which existed in every city in Britain a hundred years ago. To-day, I know of only one lodge of stonemasons in Scotland, and that is in Aberdeen, where a man still serves a five-year apprenticeship. The stonemason has disappeared from most building and his place has been taken by three new trades—the bricklayer, the plumber and the electrician. Secondly, to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, said, there is the case of agriculture. On a 500-acre farm in 1930, four men and four to five women would have been employed. To-day, there may be only two men, but connected with agriculture there are the agricultural engineer, the tractor maker, the shed maker, the combine harvester maker, the fertiliser firms, et cetera; and there are more people connected with agriculture to-day than there were in 1930.

Thirdly, there is the case of shipbuilding. Before the war there were five men in a gang of riveters—two hammering, one holding the rivet, one tending the fire and one thrower; and to be a skilled riveter took five years or more. During the war, girls were brought into the industry, but although a girl can weld she cannot rivet. To-day, there is only one welder doing the job of the gang of riveters. To-day, ships are larger and the plates are larger. There is the firm making the welding rods and the welding machinery, and the ships' plates have to be cut more skilfully. Therefore, just as many men are employed. But the son of the riveter may now be a welder, the son of the carpenter may be a shipwright, the son of the fitter may be an engineer and the son of the rigger may be a pipe-welder. This is progress—progress which leads to greater efficiency.

This illustrates the importance of training. Training is dealt with on page 11 of the code, and status and security of employees is dealt with on page 12. As I have tried to illustrate, trades and skills can become redundant. The Department of Employment has a wonderful system, through the Labour Exchanges, of training disabled people to find new jobs in new fields. If only management and unions would recognise the importance of providing new jobs in completely new fields for men of 45 who have become redundant, a great step forward could be achieved. I fully realise that this cannot be done immediately, but it can be done. Rather than receive redundancy pay and have no prospects, a redundant shipyard worker could with training become a pylon erector, a redundant coal miner could become a bricklayer and a naval draughtsman could become an architect. Union leaders should never be disheartened if men leave their union, provided that they go to another union. Every industry in this competitive world must constantly develop and improve. This will often mean creating redundancies in one field, although there may be a shortage of manpower in another.

Certainly, industry needs money to develop, and that is the main reason why corporation tax was reduced. Money is needed to recruit, train and retrain staff in new and improved methods of production. It is here, if the code is observed and co-operation exists, that much can be done. As the code states under "Collective Bargaining" in Section D on page 17, paragraph 5, the need is "to safeguard the interests of minorities". My Lords, this is important, because the minority of to-day may become the majority of to-morrow. It is to be hoped that in future this code, as in paragraph 14b, on page 19, will be noted by officials with company time (to use the expression) in which to hold their most important meetings, and will encourage employees to join and play an active part in the work of their union. Your Lordships should feel confident that if the Government, management and unions follow the principles laid down in this code, the depression of the 1930s will never happen again and the ordinary member of a trade union will cease to be so apathetic towards his employer and his union. This code states a principle by which men and women should be proud of their work, proud of their union and proud to work with their employer.

5.22 p.m.

LORD POPPLEWELL

My Lords, all those noble Lords who have spoken so far have paid tribute to the essential characteristics of this code, and in my opinion those tributes have been well justified, because they express the desire of noble Lords to get on to some kind of plane on which both sides of industry may join together to make industry more efficient and to increase productivity. I think these are very interesting observations. It is a very interesting foreword that has been written by the Secretary of State. Most noble Lords who have spoken have subscribed to that, as I do myself; and I am sure industry subscribes to it, too. The difficulty that I find in connection with this code is the strong tone of paternalism which flows through it. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn welcomed this type of thing. Theoretically, I can understand a welcome being given to paternalism, but in practice I think it destroys much of what is in the code itself. Trade union leaders, workers and such like do not seek paternalism from anyone. They are seeking collective bargaining arrangements, and they are prepared to stand equal and discuss all matters affecting the industry in which most of them are proud to be employed.

This, in effect, means that trade unions and collective organisations of workers must be brought more into decision-making. Various schemes are outlined in the code to meet this requirement, which is necessary in order to make effective the decisions that are being taken. To-day, with the higher standard of education of our people, more and more requests are being made that as they are very influential partners in any job that they are undertaking they should be informed and allowed to take part in decision-making. Many enlightened managements are doing this now, and are proving the usefulness of it. But there are some managements who stick firm to their idea that they are the executive, that they are the managers and that the workers must obey the law that they have laid down. To-day, manpower cannot be dealt with like that. That type of attitude quickly arouses anger or suspicion. Enlightened management, particularly of our nationalised industries as a whole, have realised this and are working on it. Manpower is something that has been negelected through the ages. That is why the trade union movement has come into existence and is now occupying a powerful position in our way of life.

With that background, I would say that much of this code could have been improved. Seeing that it is a consultative document, I sincerely hope that the Government will now discuss it with those who are prepared to discuss it with them, and, arising from that discussion, I am sure it will be brought home that more facilities ought to be provided in industry for the shop steward and for the union official. Manpower must be considered from this point of view. If we take the evidence that was given to the Donovan Commission we find it was stated that a shop steward is normally responsible for about 60 workers or so. On the basis of a 40-hour week for each of the 60 employees for which the shop steward is responsible, the evidence given before the Commission was that the time of that shop steward would occupy only one-sixth of 1 per cent. of the man-hours of those for whom he was responsible. That is something of which more note should be taken.

It is interesting that all through this document the Government seem to speak about collective bargaining, but nowhere in the document, so far as I can see, is encouragement given for trade unions effectively to organise a particular shop, factory or whatever it may be. It seems to presuppose that the trade unions must get organised themselves first and the workers within the factory, before any of this code can become operative. Here is a genuine weakness, and I sincerely hope that during the discussions which will take place this may be pinpointed and highlighted, and that something will be written into the code that may bring it about.

The code as it is could be made very welcome: what makes it not acceptable are the suspicions about the awful Bill with which it is connected. If the Bill could be quietly burnt and we could hear nothing more about it, and if we could work on the lines of this code, it would be all right. We should then have free trade unions at work, as distinct from there being, when the Bill becomes operative, only licensed trade unions. That indeed is a blow to our freedom. Instead of workers organising themselves into a trade union, they are not acknowledged as trade unionists unless they apply for a State licence. I think this deplorable and I sincerely hope that it will be changed.

The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that the best results were achieved by strong collective bargaining. I would ask the noble Lord to discuss with his colleagues in the Government the need to improve the code in order to encourage workers in industry to join a trade union and so secure collective arrangements. Only by the provision of responsible trade union arrangements shall we manage to avoid the kind of unofficial disputes which have troubled us in the past. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that the code contained revolutionary proposals, and so it does. We should not destroy those proposals by the introduction of the provisions in the Bill; let us scrap the Bill and have the code.

I was very proud when at one period in my Parliamentary career I was known by workers in Newcastle as their "shop steward in Parliament." I considered that a tribute. The work of shop stewards is not being done in a constructive fashion; there are no provisions for shop stewards to do their work efficiently. They should be provided by management with accommodation, a telephone and other facilities; but no management provides these things. If such facilities were provided an atmosphere would be created in which a shop steward would be on top of his job and able to resolve difficulties. Therefore any expense involved would be worth while. If such conditions were created for shop stewards it might influence their conduct; they might not take the law into their own hands, as many do from time to time, with consequent difficult circumstances resulting.

In giving a general welcome to the code I would say that it contains many good features which ought to be expanded. I hope that it may prove possible for the trade union movement to co-operate with the Government. But the trade union movement so detests the Industrial Relations Bill, and the difficulties which its implementation would impose on trade unions, that trade unionists are not on speaking terms with the Government. The T.U.C. has decreed that no trade unionist should take part in discussions on the Bill. I wish that the Government had accepted the offer made originally by the T.U.C. to enter into discussions to see whether some tripartite agreement between employer, employee and the Government might be made to ease the difficulties resulting from unofficial strikes. Such discussions must be initiated, and I hope the Government will make endeavours in that direction rather than seek dates for the application of various provisions in the Bill.

5.35 p.m.

LORD BROWN

My Lords, I support the idea of having a code; indeed, its introduction has enormous potentialities for good. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, treated the code pretty roughly, but in general he was fair. I can say in different words what he said. The Bill is sociologically imprecise; it deals with a series of institutions but does not define them accurately, and so I do not think it brings the pressure to bear on management or trade unions that it would were it more precise. I do not propose to comment on the good parts of the code—and there are good parts—but rather shall confine my remarks to criticisms, which I hope will be accepted as constructive, about the parts which I think need alteration.

Section A,4,a emphasises the importance of the responsibility for each group of workers being clearly defined. At A,7 it says that the supervisor is a key member of management. At A,15 it states: The basic relationship between employer and employee is defined in the individual contract of employment. My Lords, I submit with respect that, so long as the employee does not move into another role, either as a trade union member or a shop steward, the basic relationship between employer and employee is that of manager to subordinate. There is no hope of this being defined in the contract of employment as is called for in A,15, unless the code sets out a definition of the term "manager".

My Lords, this has been lacking from industry for years. In a company employing 1,000 people there are 999 managerial-subordinate relationships and this, surely, is the key relationship in employment. But the code shrinks from a definition. Nowhere is a definition more necessary than on the shop floor. I once calculated that there should be more than half a million foremen managers in British industry. But what do we find? We find a nightmare confusion: charge hands, leading hands, supervisors, assistant foremen, foremen and the rest; shadow managers, half-managers and so on. In the majority of companies their degree of authority is unformulated. The policies which they are supposed to implement are unwritten, and inconsistent from one section to another. The result is a lack of authority, confusion, indiscipline, unfairness and inconsistency, and bitterness on the part of the subordinates. There ought to be a clear right of access for every subordinate to his manager. The manager should be the man who allocates the work, and knows about the performance of his subordinates, and is responsible for assessing it.

This shop floor confusion of accountability usually means that the supervisor who knows about an individual employee has no authority to make vital decisions affecting the employee. Higher up the management hierarchy are managers to whom the employee does not have access, and it is these higher managers who make the vital decisions about individual employees, without personal knowledge of them, or knowledge of their past careers or current work performance. This is a recipe for real trouble. Your Lordships may think that I am exaggerating, but I have visited many hundreds of factories in my time, and I assure you that I am not exaggerating.

I would define a manager, briefly, as one who minimally has the following degrees of authority: first, a veto authority on appointments to roles immediately subordinate to him; secondly, authority to decide what work a subordinate shall perform and to assess the performance of that work; and, thirdly, authority to insist (subject to warning and to right of appeal to higher managers) that an immediate subordinate should be removed from that role if the management thinks that he cannot do the work allocated to him. This does not mean that the manager has the right to dismiss an employee from the firm, but that he has the right to dismiss him from a particular role. In Committee, I drew attention to the fact that the Government have failed to distinguish between dismissal from a specific role, with the possibility of transfer to another role, and dismissal from the company: dismissal may mean either of those two things. That is a grave defect which I still hope will receive attention. The definition I have given is strictly defensible on the grounds of logic. I shall not defend it now: I have done so often before, and I have done it in writing.

Using that definition, by asking three questions one can discover rapidly whether a person is or is not a manager. I doubt whether more than 20 per cent. of British supervisors and foremen are managers in that sense. If they are not, someone higher in the hierarchy carries managerial authority, but employees do not have the right of access to those higher in the hierarchy. The code should seek to put that matter right. I suggest that the code should set out a definition of "manager". It should give every employee the right of free access to his manager so defined and lay on management the duty of agreeing with representatives policies about conditions of work and pay. It should publish those agreed policies and teach new employees and all managers what their true meaning is. It should make clear the authority which managers derive from the fact that those policies are agreed by representatives. It should lay on management of companies accountability for ensuring that all managerial decisions about employees are kept within the confines of agreed policies. It should provide an agreed appeals mechanism, so that any employee who believes that a manager has breached those principles can argue his case before ever-ascending higher levels of management.

Finally, the code should make clear that any management which fails to move rapidly in this direction is failing to conform to the code. The code as it stands makes little contribution towards clearing up the disastrous shop floor management situation which prevails in most companies. A great opportunity will be missed if it is not drastically improved in that respect. Those who wrote the code have failed to realise that just as the source of authority of the executive arm of Government derives from Parliamentary law, so the only source of authority by managers vis-à-vis their subordinates derives from the policies agreed between management and representatives. We are in the presence of that situation, and the code should say so quite clearly. I know from long experience that if the ideas I have put forward are followed, not only will employees achieve a deeper sense of participation, which is the wish of many managements today, but management will achieve greater authority than they have had heretofor.

I now turn to Section C, dealing with communication and consultation, and Section D, which deals with collective bargaining. These words "communication and consultation" have been overplayed. They have dogged discussions about industrial relations for more than thirty years. They serve to take the emphasis off the crux of the problem, which is the setting up of institutions within which managerial/representative negotiations can take place concerning agreement about all matters of concern to employees. I prefer to call these quasi-legislative institutions, because that is what they are. This brings them within the ambit of language which is familiar to our citizens as citizens. Properly used, they set up the framework of internal company laws within which the company is managed. It is not good enough to have negotiating procedures brought into play only when trouble or pay claims arise or when redundancy has to be declared. There must be these quasi-institutions within industry which meet regularly and devote time to agreement on procedures and policies governing matters such as pay, promotion, redundancy, sick pay, pensions, holidays, night shifts, shift working, disciplinary measures, manning, work methods and so on.

Section C,7 of the code says: Any establishment with more than 250 employees should have a consultative committee "— I emphasise the word "committee"— representing all sections of the establishment. We all know what a committee is in this House. It is a body which carries corporate responsibility, and in the last analysis it makes decisions by majority vote. Is it seriously contended, as the code implies, that the consultative committee should decide matters by majority vote? If not, why is the word "committee" used? If this is to be the case, each such committee will perforce be composed of equal numbers of management and representatives of employees. That is a recipe for deadlock, creating two sides, one for and one against every proposal. There is ample history of committees set up in industry like that in the past. They have not succeeded in working out agreed policies. If in such a situation one representative voted with management to produce a majority for some proposal, is it seriously suggested that the others would accept a decision arrived at in that way? Of course not. This is a matter for negotiation, not for committee work.

I have explored the use of the term "consultative committee" at some length to illustrate the naïveté of the proposals not only about consultation but also about negotiation as outlined in Section D of the Document. Whenever representatives of different departments, different strata of employees or different trade unions negotiate with management, either agreement is unanimous or there is no agreement. If one trade union disagrees and management attempts to force the issue, the establishment will have a strike on its hands. Note that the settlement of that strike will have to be based on unanimous agreement. Why not come to it before the strike, instead of after?

I am not aiming this shaft particularly at the present Government. Why is it that Governments in general which are so familiar with the need for unanimous agreement when representatives of different nations meet at The Hague, for example, to discuss all the multifarious agreements which affect safety at sea, or the International Air Traffic Association, or the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade at Geneva, or within the Common Market, continue to be blind to the operative basis of agreement arrived at between management and industry? We need explicit quasi-legislative institutions in industry based on the unanimous votting principle. In any case, they exist hidden in industry. To put it in another way, we need institutions which recognise that each representative of different associations and managers concerned, whether we like it or not, has the right of veto. We are not advocating something new. These things exist and should be explicitly recognised in the code.

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Section D are concerned with bargaining units. Paragraph 3 implies that management will bargain separately with all sorts of different groups within the same establishment according to criteria set out in subparagraphs a to f of the code concerning training qualifications, location of work, hours of work, and the subject matter of the bargain and differing bargaining units should be dealt with according to which subject is under discussion. These paragraphs ignore the whole problem of differentials. Every experienced manager knows that if he has to argue separately with different groups in the same area he is in serious trouble. A bargain with one group disturbs the differential relationship of that group with another. Change in one group is likely to lead to an endless series of negotiations with each other group in turn until each group of representatives feels that the disturbed portion of differentials initiated by the first group has been re-established in accordance with the status quo. That is what happens in industry. This fractionation of bargaining units is stimulated directly by Clause 49, the renumbered clause of the Industrial Relations Bill on which the Government have proved so unyielding. I think the Government have failed to appreciate the necessity of having bargaining units embracing all employees' representatives who work on the same geographical site. Both the Bill and the code encourage fractionation of bargaining units, which will place the trade unions and employers, I think, in grave difficulties. If the Bill cannot be changed, then at least the code should be amended to show more realism in this respect.

Section F of the code sets out guide lines for the establishment of what are called "Individual grievance procedures". I am a little disgusted because the words "grievance procedures" still appear. They have a connotation of triviality. I think they should be called "appeal procedures." I made this point during the Committee stage of the Bill and I hope that the name will be changed.

Section F, paragraph 2, envisages appeals becoming transformed into the subject of negotiation apparently at any stage of the appeal procedure. This is sufficient to destroy the integrity of the appeal procedures themselves, if it is not changed. It is essential, in my view, that appeals should be heard by successively higher levels of management up to the chief executive of a factory or of a geographical area in which the appeal takes place. Then, and only then, should the issues become the subject of negotiation, if it is necessary, and if there is sufficient feeling of residual injustice among representatives to cause them to decide that further discussions with the management are required.

Section F, 3, b, would allow appeals to go to the chief executive but only "where practicable." But this is not good enough. Every chief executive in a factory should be prepared to hear appeals about felt injustice where they cannot be settled by his subordinate managers. In my view, it is essential that chief executives should personally explore an issue before it becomes the subject of negotiation with shop stewards or union officials. I am quite sure that well-constructed and well understood and explained appeal procedures could eliminate many of the unofficial strikes which have caused so much trouble in the past. Though I welcome the fact that the code lays a great deal of emphasis on appeal procedures, I think that in some respects it is still technically imprecise and needs amendment.

There are many other detailed points in this code which need amendment, but I have already taken up too much of your Lordships' time. I would end by saying that I am very much in favour of the code. Some of its aspects are excellent. But its real value will be to emphasise the need for the existence of a range of explicit institutions in industry, so that everybody knows where they stand. We can be polite and discuss controversial things in this House, because this is a great and time-honoured institution with rules and we know what our relationships are to each other. This is very far from being the case in industry. It is a primitive place. It is unsophisticated. It is using institutions whose shape it does not even know. There is a lack of definition. Institutions properly thought out and precisely formulated can have enormous effect on human behaviour. I hope that the code can be looked at in this way.

LORD HANKEY

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down after his fascinating and most interesting and constructive speech, may I ask him to elaborate a little his thoughts about the institution which could be used for consultative purposes? He said that he favoured a process of continual contact, with which I could not agree more, but he said that he did not like the idea of the consultative committee. What institution does he feel could fill the role? He thought there could be one, and if he could explain what sort of institution he had in mind I believe that his speech would be even more interesting than it was.

LORD BROWN

My Lords, if the House will spare me another minute or two, I will describe something of which I have great personal experience. In the company I used to manage in 1941, we set up an institution which consisted of representatives of every sort of employee and a manager supported by others who could give him advice in the course of proceedings. That institution had the singular characteristic that it could not come to a conclusion without the agreement of the managerial representatives on the council and all and every representative of the workers. It required a unanimous vote.

That institution has existed now for 30 years. It has never failed to agree on important things. It is regarded by the shop stewards—and some of them are very militant—as being an enormously important institution, and throughout that period it has produced a wide range of agreed internal laws for the company, which are looked up to and valued and obeyed by managers, employees and shop stewards alike. I have written at great length on these matters and published books, which I am glad to say sell in large quantities. I am sorry that I have advertised myself in this way, but I have been trying to get the idea of this sort of institution into the minds of industrial people for 25 years and I seize this opportunity. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for putting that question to me.

LORD SHINWELL

My Lords, so much harmony has prevailed in your Lordships' House that only with extreme reluctance and diffidence do I venture to offer a few observations. The Government were responsible for an egregious blunder—am I out of order?

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, we have a list, and the next speaker on the list is the noble Lord, Lord Platt.

LORD SHINWELL

My Lords, I apologise and do not propose to proceed. The Government Chief Whip said earlier on that it was possible for a Member who had not put his name down to intervene. I took no opportunity of intervening before now. Besides, I was not aware that on a debate on the code of practice it was essential to put one's name on the list.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord that there are another three speakers who are down and one who added his name to the list. The gap referred to by my noble friend is the gap before the winding-up speeches, and if the noble Lord wishes to come in there, I am sure that we shall all be delighted.

5.59 p.m.

LORD PLATT

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, can say something particularly relevant to what the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has just said, I would gladly give way, but unless that is the case, I think that I should take my place. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in his opening speech from the Opposition Front Bench, said that he could not speak too highly of the Foreword to the code, which of course was written by the Secretary of State and which states objectives with which we are all agreed, about improving "human relations in all types of employment." But I am bound to say that with the exception of two somewhat fragmentary and (I have some reason to believe) last-minute acknowledgements to the professional people in the community, not in industry, the Document is about as relevant to their professions as is the Bill itself. How you improve industrial relations "in all types of employment" when one important type of employment is almost completely ignored is beyond my comprehension. At best, it can hardly be considered a really good start.

Until now professional people have been held in some esteem. They have had a certain professional pride, and have been accorded certain privileges, not because of some arbitrary assessment of their value to the community—though I see no reason why that should not be taken into account—but because of the degree of learning and training which they require, the codes of ethics which govern their behaviour, because they make decisions, they are consulted, they carry a load of responsibility not usually required of workers in industry, and they owe that responsibility not solely to an employer, but to their clients and patients.

In the Bill it is made clear that the few concessions now made to the professions are merely in respect of their being in a minority, and not because of their particular work or value. The code goes one minute step in the better direction, in that one of its two brief references to the professions is actually an acknowledgement of the code of practice of the professions. For this, we in the professions, hat (or should I say cap?) in hand, are duly grateful. Why do the Government choose to ignore the professions in this way? It is quite clear that they are terrified of incurring the wrath of the unions. Some words which have been used in discussions on the subject make this plain. I should like to quote from a document which says: Even if a concession were limited in its effect to professional workers, however these may be identified "— and I admit the difficulties there— there would still be the danger of excessive fragmentation, and additionally this would of course tend to be regarded as a special privilege for a particular class of persons which would be sharply attacked and cause much resentment. I do not believe it. I do not believe that my trade union friends—and I hope that I have many—want their doctors, lawyers, professors, professional engineers and the architects to be forced into a mould that was not made for them and into which they do not fit. I think this is the first Government who are afraid of making any distinction between doctors and dustmen. The fact that there are a few outstanding dustmen of great merit and a few doctors who are rogues is no answer to the general case.

That being said, I should like briefly to allude to the code itself, though I have little to say about it because it is almost entirely irrelevant. I have said something about the Foreword. The first part, about management, is wholly applied to industrial practice; and the next part, about the trade unions, is again wholly concerned with industrial practice. There is in fact a footnote which defines an "establishment" as an individual factory, plant, office, shop, et cetera in which employees work ". This again is not very relevant, at any rate to my profession.

On page 9, paragraph 17 is the one to which I have alluded, and for which I am grateful. I should like to say, because of this paragraph, that I have absolutely no quarrel with what I know the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has tried to do to acknowledge that the professional people have a particular case to make, which is not very clearly provided for in the Bill. What I would say about paragraph 17 is that it ought to be in the Bill, and not in the code. It says: An employee who belongs to a profession with a recognised code of conduct has an obligation to comply with that code. He should not be called upon by his employer or by any trade union of which he is a member to take any action which would be contrary to it. Pages 10 to 16 are irrelevant for my purpose. On page 17 we have the other mention of the professions as a minority group. Pages 18 to 19 are all about trade, industry, shop floors, shop stewards and so on. On page 20 there are some minor points which with difficulty might be applied to the professions, but I will not delay your Lordships by dealing with those. On page 21 there is Section 25d, about conciliation and arbitration. Paragraph 26 says: Arbitration can be used to settle all types of dispute if the parties concerned agree that it should. I hope that the Government will not mind my reminding them—though it did not particularly apply to this Government—that in the medical profession there is a kind of permanent body, the Review Body, which arbitrates on earnings for doctors and dentists. However, its findings are not necessarily accepted by the Government if they are inconvenient to the Government's purpose. Paragraphs 22 to 27, which is the end of the Document, seem to me to be irrelevant to the professions.

In his opening address, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that the code of practice might be different had it been written by the T.U.C. or the C.B.I. It might also be different had it been written by the medical profession or by the Royal Society. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, criticised the code for being paternalistic and for failing to emphasise the importance of participation. I think we cannot expect the professions to welcome a Document which has those two defects.

6.8 p.m.

LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND

My Lords, I wish I could share the respect that has been paid to the foreword by a number of my noble friends to-day. The foreword states, as has been said more than once, that the Government want strong and representative trade unions. What in the history of this Government would justify that particular statement? What in the history of most industrialists would justify that statement? In all my experience, I have had practically no help from employers, nor did I want it. If a trade union cannot organise itself without the help of the employers, it will not do much good for the workers. I do not want this help from the Government; I do not want help from the employers. This foreword looks to me very much like the boy who prayed to the good Lord: "Please make me good, but not to-day ". When one reads the whole of the Document following it, it is merely repetition, delving into the archives of the National Joint Advisory Council on Industry, on which I sat with so many noble Lords opposite for years. We churned out the shibboleths by the yard, and at the end of the day the Labour Government said: "This is not the machine which is going to be effective in industrial relations". I think there was some justification for that. It had been a machine for providing argument, debate and advice. But the Labour Government felt that we now ought to go further, and they supplanted that body by the National Economic Development Council.

The Document goes on to talk about consultations. Has this Document been before the National Economic Development Council? Has there been consultation with the employers and with the trade unions in the machine set up specifically for this purpose, right at the top representing all sections of industry? No, no consultation at all. Has there been consultation with the T.U.C. about it? No. The Government have the effrontery to go on in the Document to talk about consultation at all levels when they neglect consultation at the very level at which it should have started. The Government's intention is to emasculate the trade unions. Let us have no illusions about that. In my own industry, where we had strong trade unionism and good relations with the employers, I never knew the employers to want a strong trade union. The trade union was going to interfere with what they wanted to do. That is its purpose. There is no point in a trade union unless it interferes with what the employer wants to do. It cannot operate unless it interferes. It has a different opinion from the employers—a different opinion as to how money should be shared out, a different opinion as to how the industry should be run.

In one place the Document says quite pointedly that after the rather honeyed foreword, the ultimate size of the manpower shall be decided by the management. It is 40 years since, as a callow youth, I disabused a management of any opinion like that. Those are not the rights of man; those are the rights of property—that "because I own the property I should tell the men what to do". Is this how we are to get good relations in industry? These honeyed words get us no further with our industrial relations problem. Trade unions have to fight the same people as the management have to fight—those who would disrupt industry. The only way they can fight those who would disrupt industry is to know what the management is going to do and intend to do, and to criticise where it is necessary and to come to some agreement. If there is no agreement at the end of the day, there is no point in consultation. You may well say that you cannot get agreement. This is probably true. I, as a representative of the General Council, have many times met representatives of a Tory Government, Cabinet Ministers, the Minister of Labour, and we never got agreement, for at the end of the day the Minister said, "Certain things have to happen because we are the Government "—not "because we are the management" but "because we are the Government". Many were the fights we had with the late lamented fain Macleod when he was Minister of Labour; far into the night we argued. But he was a man who would see our point of view. He never said, "I want strong trade unions", but "When you have strong trade unions I want to talk to you". That we had differences of opinion made no difference to the fact that problems were discussed, and many of them settled. They were settled because we had a sincere man speaking to the trade unions.

If the trade unions to-day have been difficult in any way it is because of insincerity which is creeping into negotiations. I am not by any means claiming that the trade unions are perfect. I have good reasons to know that they are not perfect—I have had to fight the imperfections for a long time. I remember the present Minister of Employment—I think my memory is right in saying this—coming back from a trip to Italy and eulogising their works councils: "Here you have a body at the top, elected by the workers, meeting the management, thrashing out agreements—not necessarily run by trade unionists but representative of the workers; and these works councils are a good thing".

In this month's Economist you find the result of that set-up; and I make bold to say that in this House I forecast it some time ago. Anarchists are now working with abandon in Italy, and the Economist is saying that the management are now looking for co-operation with the trade unions in order to defeat the anarchists because the trade unions are responsible. There are three sorts of trade unions in Italy: the democratic trade union similar to the unions we have in this country; the Christian trade union which is in the main Roman Catholic, and the Communist union, but the Communist union has become respectable in the light of the anarchy which is taking place in Italy at the present time. The Government are looking to the trade unions there to help them.

Just as it has happened in Italy, so it will happen here if the trade unions are emasculated and the power that they have at the present time is taken away. I said in this House when we were dealing with the closed shop question, that it was immaterial to me whether it was decided that we should have a closed shop because the trade unions would find a way of obtaining it, and that it would be the dirty way they would find. In this Bill the trade union is like a hare that is being coursed by the Government; when driven to the hedge it will go through the hole that is available to it. If you close up the holes which are honourable it will find dishonourable ones. That happened in Italy, and it will happen in this country if the Bill goes forward as it is at the present time and if the Government do not find a better way of dealing with industrial relations.

I have looked at some of the clauses. In Section A, paragraph 6,c, says that where trade unions are recognised—and this point has been made by previous speakers—the employer will encourage workers to join a trade union. I put this question to noble Lords opposite: how will you encourage them? In the past they have been encouraged in this way. Every national agreement we have made with the trade unions has been applied to the non-unionist. He has got holidays with pay and redundancy protection. Legislation was brought in to give him rights under redundancy. He has the advantage of all sorts of national agreements; locally in the branch, where piecework benefits have been negotiated, he has the benefit without contributing "a sausage" towards the agreement.

Is this the way it is intended to encourage men to join the unions? If it is not, you are bound in honour to tell us this afternoon what you are going to do to encourage trade unionism where there are weak trade unions. Indeed, if you are going to give encouragement where there is weak trade unionism, or where there is strong trade unionism, you are bound to give encouragement where there is no trade unionism at all. There is no sense, no morality in the argument. I want to know how the Government are going to help us to organise trade unionism; how the employers are going to do that which is in this Document. The Government are making the people sceptical—sceptical about strikes, sceptical about agreements, sceptical about trade union officials. Their lack of sincerity is permeating all sections in this country, and unless we get back to something more sincere the various ideas put forward today will come to nothing.

Why is there not a lead given in this Document? Why does not somebody put a heading about the sanctity of agreements? Go to the T.U.C. and ask, "Do you support broken agreements?" The Government have their ideas on supporting this Document by legal means. The unions will find a way round those legal means. Here the Government have to cater for the trade unions. In many cases—and too often it has been stated—the power of the unions now lies with the shop stewards. So it does, and so it ought to do. They are the people who are making agreements on the shop floor. The shop stewards have a responsibility to their executive councils, and the sooner the Government get working on that the better. No trade union will be able to deny its responsibility in that respect, and there will have to be consultation. It is a fit subject for the National Economic Development Council. Let us find out what is happening.

Another lesson we are learning from Italy at the present time is that the men are getting tired of going on strike at the behest of the anarchists. That is why the employers should work with the unions. In recent strikes 80 per cent. of the men walked past the picket lines because they were sick, sore and tired of those irresponsible anarchists who were running the industrial side of the country. The trade unions are right in considering this matter at the present time, because unless they do so the trade unions themselves are going to be weak. If your Lordships think that statement out, contradictory as it seems, you will find that there is something in it. Why did two big unions, one of which was the Transport and General Workers' Union, go down to Ford's and make an agreement above their shop stewards recently? Is there a trace of the Italian history catching up with us in this country? Those two representatives, important and militant as they are, went down to Ford's and told Ford's that they would make an agreement above the shop stewards. Do you not think that the trade unions want to get into line so that they can have a considered, correct approach to all the problems; so that they can talk to management in such a way that they can get high wages and provide managements with the opportunity of getting these wages? Are we afraid to talk of these things to-day? Must we constantly talk about the small things in life, like the professional workers whom the noble Lord, Lord Platt, mentioned?

When you tell me that professional workers are not to be compelled to take trade union activities, I want you to define "professional workers". I am on good ground, because I was on the Monopolies Commission when we were trying to define them, and we could not do so. They can be defined well enough, as the noble Lord, Lord Platt, said when they are doctors, lawyers, parsons and people who are recognised as professional people. But how many of these people are now forming associations to call themselves professional people for commercial purposes? If you go into the engineering industry, where do you stop with a profession? Is a fitter who has served five years not a professional? Must he have a degree to be a professional? If so, what degree must he have? How do you define "professional"? Who would put a stupid thing like that into a document and expect to gain the confidence of the trade unionists throughout the country? These are the foolish things that we are doing. Let us demonstrate what we want, give a strong lead on what we want. I have never known a strong lead that was a sensible strong lead that was not followed.

Section A 15 says that a contract of employment should be clear and definite in its terms. A legal contract of employment has existed for years. The Bill says it should be clear and definite in its terms. Come and sit with me on an arbitration court, where I frequently sit, and you will find a number of contracts of employment which are absolutely worthless, and are intended to be so. One can make nothing out of them at all. Noble Lords have been talking about doing something in the future which was a proved failure in the past. How do you expect to solve these problems by dealing with them in a way that has been a failure in the past? What are you going to do about contracts of employment? Give us some clear indication of what is going to be done. It looks as if this matter of contracts of employment has just been thrown in to make some extra meat in the pie—and even the meat is going bad.

The noble Lord, Lord Byers, talked about a soundly-based pay system; he talked good common sense. What is a soundly-based pay system? In the motor industry they tell you that it is not soundly based if it is piecework; it has to be measured day work. I am not criticising them; they are probably right from their experience. In the iron and steel industry we have piecework from top to bottom; we do not have measured day work at all. In the American steel industry it is all piecework. The car industry said that that was not a sound basis. The steel industry said that measured day work was not a sound basis. What do you mean by a "sound basis"? Do not be so ambiguous; do not be so coy (if I may put it that way); let us know what you are really talking about in this code. Up to now the code is more indefinite than the Bill, and, God knows!, the Bill is difficult enough.

Section B 16 says that we must give the manual worker the same advantages as the white collar worker. That is really the climax! At a time when white collar workers are joining trade unions by the thousands to get the same benefits as manual workers, you say you are going to give the manual workers the same benefits as the white collar workers have. This can lead to all sorts of trouble that cannot be foreseen. This is the system which in the past has led to a lot of leap frogging. Out of this, on the Government Statement, white collar workers will be leap frogging the manual workers, because you say that they ought to do so, and the manual worker is leap frogging the white collar worker because this is the order of the day. That is how leap frogging goes on. And you are asking for it in the code. I beg of you to give another thought to that section and at least make it sensible, if you do not make it workable.

I have told your Lordships about the ultimate responsibility for the size of the work force. Make no mistake about this. Trade unions are going to decide how many men go on each machine—I am sorry; I mean they are going to negotiate how many men shall go on each machine. I nearly made the same mistake as the employers make there, in saying that the trade unions "are going to decide". They are going to negotiate. But neither the employers nor the trade unions are going to say, of their own volition, what the manning of any particular plant shall be.

In one part of the code it is said that where short time working is temporary, work should be shared. I have been fighting employers all my life to get this established and I welcome the Government's putting it in. The excuse the employers had when I was insisting that work be shared (and we did this for five years, one week in three) was that the cost of the insurance stamps was so big that they could not afford it. I want workers to be allowed to share work. With the social benefits we have at the present time we should be on a very good thing in this country on many occasions. We should prevent men from moving from the area in which they were working. When we first went on to "Neddy" we said, "we have to train men to move from the obsolete plant in which they work to the new plant". The Government are asking us in the code to share work where workers are temporarily unemployed. I welcome this. But I wonder if we really know what it means. Can your Lordships tell me what a "temporary" shortage of work is? With me it meant a period of five years. Indeed, it went on longer afterwards—ten years. You may think that three months is "temporary". The Government drafted the code; let them explain to me what "temporary unemployment" is. It seems to me that this code is padded with detail that was culled by an office boy from some of the National Joint Advisory Council documents that I have spoken about. I wonder whether you are going to put any meat into it.

I have overlooked one point and I hope that somebody will tell the noble Lord about this because I want him to answer it. There can be problems in collecting trade union contributions when plants are a mile long and may be a quarter of a mile apart. Are the trade unions going to be helped by the operation of the check-off system? I want an answer to that point; I want something practical, not something which is ambiguous. I want to know where we are going. Section A,11,b says that the trade unions should have enough officials to maintain contact at all levels. Trade union officials cost money. I am not quite sure what is meant by "all levels" or by "trade union officials". Are the officials full-time or part-time? But how can you ask us to ensure that we have these communications at all levels at a time when you are going to emasculate the trade unions and deplete the funds? Is it deliberate chicanery, or is it simply being naïve? I do not know, but surely we want some answers to these questions.

It almost seems to me that what you are asking us to do is to act like a shopkeeper, and to provide the right goods at the right price and of the right quality, but if somebody wants them for nothing we must give them to him. If that is the intention of this code it is not going to gain much credence in the country, and if it does not gain credence it will not work. It does not matter what is done in Parliament; it must be operated down below. The last few by-elections have given a pretty clear indication of what people are thinking. If you have this code, and this Bill, I do not think you will be allowed to go the full course. It is time we had more thought on this. At the present time we have had nothing that has been constructive, nothing that has been co-operative. Everything has indicated that the employers and the Government have decided they can now put the trade unions in their place. Well, let me tell your Lordships this before I sit down: you have got to find where that place is. In Germany, where there is the best growth in Europe, there is co-determination and the workers really participate in what is happening in industry. They sit on the top board of directors and decide policy. There is no participation envisaged in this document, nor even co-operation. I say this to your Lordships now with regret.

When I left my industry it had the best record for being strike-free of any industry in this country, or any industry in Europe. It had that record only because we were firm in our contentions and fair in our argument. If we are going to have unfair argument, as we have under this Bill and this code, then this country is not going to be successful, and responsibility for the lack of growth that will follow will be firmly placed on the shoulders of those to whom it belongs—first, the employers (my noble friend Lord Brown mentioned a number of points, and your Lordships will need to think a lot about what he said) but principally the Government. My Lords, I end as I began. How can the Government introduce a Paper like this? As to co-operation and consultation, they have not even discussed with the National Economic Development Council any of the matters in either the Bill or the code. The position is impossible.

6.33 p.m.

THE EARL OF COURTOWN

My Lords, I do not intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, in his arguments—no doubt others will answer them—except to point out that this document is labelled as a Consultative Document. That is presumably what it is for—for consulting with various institutions and bodies concerned with it. I, unlike Lord Douglass but like most speakers this afternoon, welcome this code. It is in effect a statement of many of the principles of good man-management. Possibly it sounds "old hat" to some of us. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Byers, who said it sounded old-fashioned, and he also referred to the fact that it was not in line with—or did not show it was in line with—modern sociological thinking. I have been exposed to all the modern sociological thinking. I am one of those who have read the books of the noble Lord, Lord Brown (I see he is not in his place at the moment), and I would pay tribute to the work he did in the company he managed for so many years. Nevertheless, what most of this modern sociological thinking is directed towards is the improvement of management and improvement of industrial relations, and human relations generally. All this code can do, and actually does—and all it should do—is to set out, in fairly general terms, the factors which affect the situation, and which must be complied with and taken into account if we are to get good management and good industrial relations.

It is important to avoid being too dogmatic. The document is read to apply to the whole of industry and, beyond industry, agriculture and the like. Therefore, it must be couched in simple language, which it is, and must avoid dogmatism and jargon. It does this. I will not say that I agree with every word in it. There is a good deal to be altered after the consultation period and I have no doubt that that will be done. The objections of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, seem to be, first, that the document is paternalistic. I have difficulty in knowing really what this word "paternalistic" means. If the unions think that it is paternalistic, equally management would think it paternalistic because it tells management, as it tells unions, many things which they know, or think they know. It is almost inevitable that such a document is going to do this. The noble Lord's other objection was the ambivalence of the document towards unions, in that there is in the document no encouragement to management to enable unions to secure recognition, and where it refers to relationships with unions it speaks about "after recognition". I would say in this respect that if the unions wish to absorb (I think "organise" is the expression) all the white collar workers, it is up to them to make themselves acceptable to the white collar workers. This point relates to the objection which the noble Lord, Lord Platt, had.

Fairly recently there have been cases where white collar workers in certain industries and certain large companies have voted against belonging to a union. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite expect the Government to say that management should instruct people to join a union when they do not want to do so. In due course maybe more and more white collar workers will become unionised. That may be inevitable; I do not know. But I do not think this document should put too much emphasis on the point that management should try to encourage their workers to join a union if they do not want to.

Apart from setting out the general principles of man-management, which is a useful exercise, the document certainly fills in various gaps in the Bill for me. In particular, I was interested in the part about bargaining units—Section D of this document. The Bill rather gave the impression that each location was going to have its own bargaining unit, whereas a large number of works in this country belong to an organisation which is bigger than just the one works. Section D of this Consultative Document clearly puts emphasis on that point, in that it expects the bargaining unit to be much larger than covering one works or one location where there are more than one works or one location in the company. Here again, I would query something which the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said when he implied, I believe to avoid multiplicity of unions, that everyone in a particular location or works should be encouraged to join the same union. That would cut across the idea in this Paper that specialist knowledge, qualifications and the like of various specific groups of people should be taken into account in the founding of a bargaining unit. Also it seemed to me that the noble Lord, Lord Brown, did not take into account the situation where there is more than one works in a company.

When this code of practice is revised and put into operation it is going to be used as evidence in cases coming before the Industrial Court, and I find it difficult, being a layman, to envisage how this will work and what effect it will have. I should have thought that it would be a stimulant to thinking out management systems and would develop a demand for mare management education. I regard this as desirable, and management education is not something that can be done entirely on the shop floor or in the office; nor can it be done entirely in the classroom. It is a matter of integrating training on the shop floor, in the office and in the classroom; and in this I believe there is a considerable use to be made of the training facilities that are available not only in the universities but in the technical colleges and other institutions concerned with management education. Recently, certain regional management education centres have been designated by the Government. In the past I have been connected with a number of management education institutions, and since I retired from full-time work in industry I have recently become more closely connected with one of these regional management education centres—the one in the Polytechnic at Portsmouth. I have been extremely impressed by the standard of the work that is being done in these centres, and by the skill, the knowledge and the devotion to the cause of management education that exists there.

It seems to me that when businesses get down to considering this document a great many companies will realise that there is a lot in this which they are not at present doing and which they ought to be doing, and if it is going to be cited as evidence against them in cases coming before the Industrial Court it will be greatly to their advantage to look well to their management systems and their management development generally. I believe that many of them could do much worse than get alongside one of these regional management education centres, which will provide, if necessary, not only in-house courses but also excellent advice as to the way they should be organised and how they should be integrated into the whole pattern of the business.

To sum up, I welcome this Code of Industrial Relations Practice. It certainly needs amendment, and I think that certain things have been left out. I will not go into detail now, but I believe that the Government could reduce some of the opposition to it which exists at present by bringing in more reference to participation. I do not think it has been intended that participation should be left out of this document—if indeed it has been left out—and in fact I think there is something in what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said, in regard to repeating some things, because people will look up sections of the Document and will go by what is in that particular section, whereas if something is mentioned in another section it may be ignored. I think it is quite possible that this code, when it is finally issued, will be a really significant feature for the improvement of the standard of management in this country as well as that of industrial relations.

6.45 p.m.

LORD STOW HILL

My Lords, I approach a debate on the code with considerable trepidation because so many of your Lordships are so much better qualified than I am to speak upon it, having extensive experience on both sides of industry which I personally lack. But there is one aspect of the code, in particular, to which perhaps I may usefully invite your Lordships' attention. I refer to the part of the code which deals with the imparting of information by managements to unions, which is necessary for the purpose of negotiations between them. I suppose that a very important feature of the Industrial Relations Bill, which we are discussing, is that which centres upon the provisions contained in Clauses 56, 57 and 155—laying on management an obligation to furnish such information. That obligation goes somewhat far back in the history of the thinking on this Bill. It originated in paragraph 184 of the Report of the Donovan Commission; it found its place in the Bill introduced by the last Government, and the clauses in the present Bill to which I have referred are closely based upon the last Government's Bill—indeed, the relevant wording in those clauses is identical with wording used by the last Government.

The submission I would make to your Lordships is that it is disappointing that the code does not deal with that aspect of the changes which are being brought into the field of industrial relations. If one looks back to the Bill (I am conscious that we are discussing the code, but I think this is relevant) one finds that it is expressly provided in Clause 2 that there are two major topics with which the code is to deal. The second of those two major topics is just that topic to which I have referred—namely, the disclosure of information by employers necessary for the efficient and effective conduct of negotiations between both sides of industry. The rationale of that is obvious. When the union side present a claim for an increase in wages they obviously do so in the firmly held belief that management can afford to pay it, or something like it. Management take the opposite view and say that they cannot afford it. The information which would enable that question to be resolved is, in the nature of things, as to nine-tenths of it, at least, in the possession of management and not accessible to unions. I think I shall not be exaggerating when I say that if it were well understood as an obligation on management to furnish all necessary information to the union side of the table, to enable them to arrive at a just and accurate evaluation of the capacity of management to afford the claim put forward against them, that would contribute substantially towards orderly and useful negotiations in the future.

I submit that that is an extremely important part of the Bill. It was obviously thought so to be by the last Government, and the present Government have followed in introducing into their version of the Industrial Relations Bill what the last Government proposed. That being the situation, one looks to see in the code what is to be found which could be regarded as a fulfilment of the obligation contained in Clause 2 of the Bill to lay down principles with regard to the imparting of such information. My noble friend Lord Diamond called attention to the fact that at page 15 an obligation is referred to to impart information about "the performance and prospects of the undertaking". That, of course, is very vague and does not give any practical guidance to those who want to know what information they should impart. But it is paragraphs 27 to 30 of the code that really deal with the actual problem itself.

I should like to go back to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, who particularly dwelt upon this question of imparting information. He informed your Lordships of the experience in Germany and told us about the system there of confidential panels; he said that they worked very well. Whether or not they would do so in this country, I do not know, and I do not express a view about it. But, basically, the problem with which the Legislature and the Government are faced is that posed by the wording in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of Clause 155, which says what information the employers are not under an obligation to disclose. They are not under an obligation to disclose: any information the disclosure of which would be seriously prejudicial to the interests of the employer's undertaking for reasons other than its effect on collective bargaining. The big question that emerges from that language is, if you have a situation in which the trade union side need, for the purpose of negotiation, information which competitors of the undertaking would be delighted to have, where are you to draw the line? In those circumstances, the object of my intervention in this debate is to ask the noble Lord who replies to indicate what is the Government thinking on the matter, because it is not set out in the code where one would expect to find it.

The reason why it is not set out in the code is perfectly clearly stated at page 21, paragraph 30, to which I have referred. Under the general heading "Disclosure of information" there are some very general precepts set out. One is that the trade union side should have the substance of information which is supplied to shareholders or published in annual reports. For the purposes of negotiation, that is nothing like enough. If you merely read the trading experience of a company contained in its trading and profit and loss account for the year, and look at the balance sheet position for that year, that will not in ordinary circumstances give anything like a reliable guide to what the company may be able to afford to pay in the way of increased remuneration to its employees. That must depend on a great amount of information which is privy to the board and which they will wish to withhold from the cognisance of their competitors, who would be delighted to receive it. But it ought to be at the disposition of the trade union side if it is to negotiate effectively and make claims which can reasonably be accommodated into the general framework of the economy, and particularly the capacity of the undertaking against which the claim is made.

The question is how do you reconcile those two. Where do you draw the line? the company's competitors want that information, and the trade union side need the same information. How, then, are you to say what the company is to disclose and what is to be withheld? The very general language used in Clause 155 of this Bill, and equally that in Clause 22 of the last Government's Bill, does not give an answer to that question. What Clause 155 says is that the line is to be drawn, in effect, in the light of the guidance given in the code; and that is equally clearly set out in Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. There one is told that management must disclose some information, need not disclose some other information, and that if you want to know where the line is to be drawn you must look at the code and that will probably tell you. But the code says simply that the trade union side must have the information available to shareholders and annual reports; and that is nothing like enough.

Then the reason is stated why the full guidance for which Clauses 1 and 2 and 155 provide is not set out in the code. The reason given is that This part of the code "— namely, that dealing with imparting of information— will be amended to give fuller guidance about the information which should be made available for purposes of collective bargaining when the Commission on Industrial Relations has completed the inquiry on disclosure of information on which it is currently engaged and there has been opportunity to consider its report ". Prima facie, if I may say so, that is perfectly reasonable. But the unfortunate thing is that this is the last opportunity we shall have of discussing the code before the Bill is enacted. I realise—and I rely upon the fact that, under the terms of the Bill, within one year after it becomes law a further draft code has to be framed by the Secretary of State and has to be submitted to the Commission for its advice, and it is only after the further draft code has been considered that a final code is enacted. As I say, we are now using our last opportunity of considering the terms of the code. By the time the next draft is published, the Bill will be law, and we shall then be under the disadvantage that we shall not be able to make any change in the Bill if it seems to us the code is unsatisfactory.

The Government surely must have thought about the dilemma posed by Clause 155 as to what must be disclosed and what need not be. I am quite certain that the Secretary of State has given a great deal of attention to it, and even though he has not got the Commission's report he must have formulated some general conclusions. I would submit to the noble Lord who is to reply that it would have been more satisfactory if at any rate those tentative conclusions had been included in the code. They could have been altered when the Commission's recommendations were to hand after this Bill becomes law, and in time for the draft code, which is to be published after the Bill becomes law, to be converted into its final form; they could have been taken into account at that stage. But here we are left completely in the dark, simply with the statement that there will be further amendments, as to the form of which we are told nothing, but simply that they will be made after the Commission's recommendations are available.

It is in those circumstances, this being one of the most important aspects of the legislation we are considering, that I would respectfully submit that the House is entitled to some fairly full answer from the noble Lord who will reply to this debate as to exactly what, up to this stage, the Government's thinking has been on the nature of the information which must be disclosed and that which may be withheld. It is quite impossible to suppose that the Government have not given a lot of thought to that, and have not been able to arrive at some conclusions. I would submit to the House that it is not really an adequate justification for leaving us completely in the dark at this stage that the Government are expecting advice. Of course they are expecting advice, and they must take into account that advice when available. There will be every opportunity to do so in time for the next draft after the Bill becomes law.

In those circumstances, I would press the noble Lord to give something in the way of a detailed account, or as detailed as is practicable in the circumstances for him to give, of what he would envisage as being the appropriate entry in that part of the code with regard to that information, subject always to such Amendments as may be necessary. I submit to the Government that it is not really fair to the House to expect us to form a conclusion on the code in the absence of such knowledge. That is the submission I would put. I do not wish to dilate on other aspects, but on that point I would press the Minister here and ask for a fairly full account of the Government's thinking on that aspect up to this stage.

7.0 p.m.

LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE

My Lords, may I follow up the last point the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, made and seek further elucidation, because I had been under the impression—it may be wrong—that the draft code as we have it now, after the consultation has been completed, will be subject to debate by both Houses of Parliament. I hope that the Minister may have an opportunity of confirming that.

LORD STOW HILL

My Lords, as I meant to make clear—and I thought I had—there are two stages; this draft is a kind of preliminary run before the Bill becomes law. Then, if one looks at Clause 3 of the Bill, one finds that after the Bill becomes law a further draft has to be prepared. That further draft is, of course, open to debate, and will be debated, but this is the last opportunity that we shall have of discussing the code before the Bill becomes law. That was the point I was trying to make.

LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I have listened to practically all the speeches this afternoon and I think, with one impressive exception, the majority of them have been, in greater or lesser degree, in favour of the code, and have recognised the purpose and the usefulness of it. I have had reason in the past to appreciate the very great service to industry which has been rendered by the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland—to the steel industry in particular—and I have had good reason to respect and admire his sincerity. I think, if he will allow me to say so, he slightly tarnished that reputation in the doubts that he cast on the sincerity of what the Secretary of State said in the introduction to this document. I believe that this very carefully phrased introduction to this document—I would suspect written entirely by the Secretary of State himself—has shining through it complete sincerity, and a desire for the better understanding which all who look for improvement in industrial relations in this country want to see achieved.

As I tried to say once before in your Lordships' House, I think that the best way of achieving the result that we all want to see from this code is by having complete and free consultation between both sides of industry, and between them and the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, when he spoke earlier this afternoon, said that if you want cooperation you have to offer co-operation. I can assure your Lordships that the C.B.I. are anxious to have the fullest possible consultation both with the T.U.C. and the Government, and they have made that very clear. The offer is open, as far as they are concerned, and I very much hope that the T.U.C. will respond to that offer, because that is the best way in which the object we all desire can be achieved.

7.5 p.m.

LORD DELACOURT-SMITH

My Lords, the code of practice is a lengthy document, and many individual points have been touched upon by noble Lords in speeches during the debate. I believe that this has been an important debate. As my noble friend Lord Stow Hill pointed out, it is the last opportunity that we shall have to debate the code of practice before the Industrial Relations Bill receives the Royal Assent, and is presumably brought into operation. If I might go a little further, it is the last occasion when we shall have the opportunity of debating the subject matter of the code in an atmosphere where we can hope that our observations will lead to amendment, because, if I understand the situation aright—and the noble Lord will no doubt confirm or correct me in this respect—the next time a document of this character will be before us will be when the draft code is submitted to the two Houses, and on that occasion it will be a question of a vote for or against, with no opportunity for making amendments of any sort.

I think I would not be unfair in saying that, although many noble Lords who have spoken in this debate have welcomed the concept of the code and have praised particular aspects of it, there has run through the debate to some degree a sense that the code is, in major respects, inadequate and disappointing. It certainly contains some passages which, taken in isolation, are valuable and to be welcomed—certainly welcomed from these Benches, and I would think welcomed in all parts of the House. For example, in Section A it refers to management; and the reference to its responsibilities in industrial relations, and the necessity for those responsibilities to be matched by adequate training, are points which are valuable, and to which I think we should all assent. It is valuable, too, to see the emphasis given to communication and consultation in the early part of Section C of the code. It is, of course, useful to have the concept of the code. Many of the ideas in it are in advance of the practice in a good many of our industries, but I am afraid that is because in many firms the outlook of managements on industrial relations is exceedingly primitive. I think, on the whole, the code really must be put down as a disappointment for there are respects—and they become more prominent the more one actually looks at the detail of the code—in which it will impede progress rather than stimulate it.

My noble friend Lord Diamond, and I echo him entirely in this respect, praised the terms of the Foreword. It is in no way casting any doubts upon the intentions of the Secretary of State to say that the Foreword, to many of us, does not seem to be matched by the detailed provisions of the code when one comes to look at them. The Foreword talks, and talks rightly, of industrial relations as being best conducted by collective bargaining between employers and strong representative trade unions; but, like many other aspects of the Government's industrial relations policy, the admirable general principles announced are in a great measure contradicted by the actual provisions when one comes to examine them in detail. I do not intend to be as brutal as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, was in talking of the language of the code. I think he suggested it was generally flatulent and weak. I would agree that weakness and imprecision do characterise many of the clauses. I hope, in particular, that we are going to have a full reply to some of the detailed points which have been raised on this aspect. I have in mind some of the detailed points raised by my noble friend Lord Stow Hill.

But my own criticisms would not run along those lines for, of course, one could answer that to some degree by pointing to certain sections of the code which contain admirable sentiments, well expressed. We need a better wage structure, we need better procedures, we need to get rid of out-of-date distinctions between white collar workers and manual workers, and all sorts of admirable sentiments of that sort. But those sentiments, admirable though they may be, are by no means new. For years, courts of inquiry, academic commentators, Ministers, institutions such as the Institute of Personnel Management, the British Institute of Management and other organisations which do good work in this field, have been saying precisely that. Indeed, may I be so bold as to venture to point out that trade unions have been saying them in respect of many industries. For example, I recently saw a remark attributed to Mr. Hugh Scanlon. Somebody asked him, "What is wrong with the engineering industry?", and he replied, "A crazy wage structure and an inadequate procedure" That is what the trade unions have been saying for a pretty long time.

The question, really, is whether these splendid sentiments which are in the code are going to be brought any nearer practice. For example, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will tell us—and I am taking up a question asked by my noble friend Lord Diamond—what are the intentions of the Government in respect of observance of the code by those who perform Government work on contract; those whose industrial relations behaviour the Government have a means of influencing very directly? But of course the major way by which these improvements in industrial relations are going to be made, the major way by which these excellent sentiments will be brought nearer reality, will be, as the Secretary of State suggested in the foreword, by strong trade union organisation. It is here where the gap between the principle and the detail is so striking, because when one examines the code it is hard to find what it is that is going to strengthen trade union organisation and representation. The trouble with the edifice which the noble Lord has been defending and which the Secretary of State has put forward is that it is magnificent wallpaper, but it does not have very much in the way of walls.

When one looks at the code in detail one finds that it plays down the role of trade unions. To take one example in the section on training, I can see no reference to trade unions nor even a reference to the industrial training boards, in the organisation and running of which the trade unions play such a part. Similarly, the reference to consultative machinery in Section C,7 does not give the trade unions anything like the key role that it should do. That is why in this debate many people have used the term "paternalism", and almost always with understanding of its application in this context. Nobody will fail to welcome the emphasis on the responsibilities which management have towards the community and those whom they employ. Of course the underlining of those responsibilities is welcome. But when we say that this gives a paternalistic impression, what we mean is that an atmosphere of equality between the two sides in industry is lacking.

That equality can be achieved in one way, and in one way only; that is, by the economic power of the employer being balanced by the collective organised power of those whom he employs. The trade unions represent the workers' self-respect, and for that reason there is no substitute for trade unions. That is why, with all their failings—of which those of us who have been in the movement are as conscious or more conscious than those outside—the trade unions command such great respect from millions of workers. They are institutions which, with all their imperfections, represent the workers' point of view and they are felt to be the possession of the workers in a way that no other institution is. The lack of a sense of equality between the two sides in industry is intensely bound up with this, and that causes the term "paternalism" to be used.

May I illustrate this point by looking in a little detail at the section dealing with trade union recognition? One sees the shortcomings of this code most clearly if one looks in detail at a certain part of it, rather than if one looks at it in general terms when one can be a little mesmerised by some of the excellent sentiments which stud its pages. There is no general statement anywhere in the section dealing with trade union recognition to indicate that it is important to encourage workers to join trade unions. It is hardly surprising that this should be lacking, because the Government have had to put a special clause into their Bill to make it clear that it is not actually an offence for an employer to encourage workers to join a trade union. That is a concept which might be embodied somewhere in the code or somewhere else, in a rather more positive way. It is patently clear that recognition of trade unions is in itself an important aid to recruitment of workers to them and to building up the strength of the trade union movement. But nothing is said about the facilities that should be made available when a union is seeking to recruit groups of non-unionists. No guidance is provided to deal with the situation where existing unions have recognition and a third union seeks to secure it.

VISCOUNT AMORY

My Lords, the noble Lord is making a quite interesting speech and is making a number of useful and proper points. But the code states on pages 18 and 19 under "After Recognition": Where a union or unions have secured recognition management should: encourage employees to join a recognised union and to play an active part in its work.

LORD DELACOURT-SMITH

I appreciate that, my Lords, but the noble Viscount will appreciate that that is after recognition has been secured. I am seeking to emphasise the lack of any encouragement to workers to form a trade union, and the lack of initiative by the employer to assist that process and bring a union to the point at which it is a recognised organisation. The list of matters to be taken into account when one is discussing the granting of recognition also fails to provide any guidance to a minimal standard of industrial relations practice. It is the gaining of recognition which I particularly want to elaborate as my theme. It is said, for example, that management is entitled to know what number of its employees are members of the union or unions making the application. This is in paragraph 9 on page 18. But I do not see anything said about management having a responsibility to encourage unionism, or, at the very least, to respond to tentative attempts to bring a recognised trade union into being.

Here, I think, it useful to look at the experience of the Commission on Industrial Relations. I am bound to say that paragraph 9 seems to me to represent a major step backwards in the formulation of this problem compared with the approach which has been established by the Commission on Industrial Relations. The Commision on Industrial Relations is not an old or long-established body, but it has in its relatively brief history already accumulated a considerable amount of valuable experience, and it has done so particularly in the field of recognition. For in the early programme of references to the Commission it was very clearly demonstrated that intransigent employer resistance to trade union recognition was by no means exceptional. Of the first 8 references to the Commission on Industrial Relations, no less than 7 were references on recognition issues; and it is interesting to note that, of those 7 references, 3 were references which applied to manual workers in manufacturing industry—an important point, because there is a tendency to think that union recognition problems arise predominantly, and indeed sometimes it is suggested almost exclusively, in the "white collar" field.

A study of these references does not support that view, and shows how difficult it has proved in many cases to get employers to accord recognition to trade unions. In one firm, 50 per cent. of the employees concerned were actually on strike for 10 weeks to secure union recognition. In another firm, with 400 workers, 20 to 25 per cent. were paid-up members of the union although the firm refused to grant recognition, and the Commission on Industrial Relations made a survey which showed that if trade union recognition were accorded the membership would at once rise to 70 per cent. In other words, something like one-half the workers concerned for one reason or another took a rather negative attitude, but were quite prepared to say, "If the firm is prepared to recognise the union, we will join straightaway". A further one-quarter of the workers were determined to be trade unionists and, if necessary, to struggle for recognition. I believe that this firm actually found itself in some difficulty in believing that the C.I.R. Report was correct, and finally they had a ballot which indicated that 70 to 75 per cent. of the workers concerned were prepared to join a trade union and desired union recognition, and would join the union if recognition by the employers were to be forthcoming.

We can take a third example from this group of C.I.R. references, concerning a case where the General and Municipal Workers had built up 50 per cent. membership at one plant despite the fact that the management would not recognise the union. I ask the noble Lord who is going to reply: does the code make clear to management that they should not resist recognition until the last worker has joined; that they should not resist recognition in cases of that sort, where 50 per cent. of the workers have in fact joined the union? It is rather interesting that in their Report on this third case to which I have been referring the Commission on Industrial Relations describe the management view as follows: The management's view was that labour relations should be based solely on direct contact between individual employees and factory managers. I think that, in fact, if somebody who had that attitude of mind read this code and was in the position of not having accorded recognition to workers in his firm, he could find a certain amount of support in the code even for that extreme viewpoint, although most of us would now think it a rather out of date viewpoint.

I therefore want to put to the noble Lord who is to reply: what really is there in the code or the Bill, if he likes to widen it—and the two stand very much together—that is going in practice to make it easier for unions to obtain recognition from employers than it is at the present time? At the moment, there are various sorts of pressures which trade unions employ—sometimes directly, sometimes to assist each other—which will become unfair industrial practices under the Bill. Will the Bill or the code make it, on balance, easier for unions to get recognition than it is at the present time? I believe that it would be valuable if the noble Lord could reply to that question in a perfectly emphatic way and could demonstrate (and I am bound to say that I have not been able to find the justification for this point of view) that it will be easier, appreciably easier, for unions to get recognition from a somewhat recalcitrant employer; and, better still, if he would say, if it is not sufficiently clearly in the code or the Bill, "We fully accept that one of our purposes, as the Government, is to see that it should be easier, appreciably easier, for unions to get recognition than it is at the present time, and we will try to find ways and means in the code and in the Bill to bring that about".

Now I want to turn, as my second and last example of where I think many of us find this code sadly inadequate, to what is one of the most vital and crucial aspects of industrial relations at the present time—the necessity for prior consultation about changes in organisation of work and in working methods. I am not thinking now of cases where the changes lead to redundancy; I am thinking of cases where changes, of one kind or another, in the way that work is organised have an effect upon the working life of the individual because he has to work in a different way or more rapidly, or has to accept some substantial measure of redeployment. One of the most contentious features in industrial relations to-day is that management, in general, claim the right to make changes first and to consult, if at all, after the event, when the change is in operation. I am not suggesting that this is the practice of all managements, but, as I sought to point out to your Lordships in the course of our debates on the Bill, the doctrine of managerial prerogative is much treasured by many managements and is often the cause of very bitter disputes.

Where do the Government stand, and where does the code stand, upon these related questions of prior consultation on changes in work organisation and of managerial prerogative? I agree at once that they are not precisely the same thing, but in practice they are closely related. If there is to be any real improvement in industrial relations—not only a raising of standards in those areas where at the moment the standard of industrial relations is very low, which is of course desirable, but also where there is already a great deal of industrial relations activity, where trade unions are recognised, and so forth, but where relations are not good—then the practice of prior consultation is one of the most vital things of all.

A series of consultations over a wide range, on the basis that consultatior precedes change, is, in my view, the beginning of workers' participation in the control of industry—and let there be no mistake about it, in the 1970s the great issue in industrial relations and the one on which everybody concerned with industrial relations has to take his stand is whether we are going to accept a measure of erosion of the managerial prerogative to give to the ordinary man at the bench or on the building site, in the pit or on the docks a greater measure, a general sense, of a degree of control over the job he does and over the industry in which he works than he has at the present time. I ask the noble Lord to answer this point also. What is the position of the Government about prior consultation, not only in redundancy situations but in changes of work arrangements; and where do the Government stand on this contentious issue of the status quo, whether arrangements should remain unchanged until the consultation about their changing has taken place or whether, in general, the employer should have the right to make all the changes first and then to meet the criticisms, then to have the consultation and in many cases then to have the unofficial strike? This is the second major point to which I should like the noble Lord to address himself. There are many other questions which other noble Lords have raised and to which he will no doubt wish to reply. I do not wish to trespass on the time of the House for more than a moment or two.

VISCOUNT CALDECOTE

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that he has made a very important point about workers' participation? I agree with him about prior consultation; but I think he is confusing us a little about workers' participation. Does he mean workers' involvement in the sense that they should be consulted before changes are made, and attempts made to get agreement as far as is humanly possible? With that I agree. If he means participation in management, then the employees become a part of management and must be concerned with and take on not only the authority of management but also the responsibilities of management, in the sense that if decisions are wrong they take the responsibility. Does he mean involvement or participation in that latter sense? I believe that this is a very important point.

LORD DELACOURT-SMITH

My Lords, may I say first that the worker, whether he wishes it or not, already takes on the responsibilities or shares the responsibilities of management, in the sense that if management makes a series of bad mistakes the worker is out of a job. But I think, with respect, that the noble Viscount poses this issue more sharply than I see it. It would take a long time to answer his question fully. Let me try to do so briefly by saying that I believe that basically we ought not to draw sharp distinction, either in our minds or in our machinery, between consultation and negotiation. It is desirable that they should be conducted through the same machinery by the same people. I believe, further, that if management approaches the problems in the belief that these are basically common problems it will be possible, in the vast majority of cases to reach agreement. There will be a residue of cases where agreement cannot be reached, but I believe that if the discussions have been genuine and if agreement is the order of the day, the workers will be prepared to accept the limited number of cases in which they find agreement cannot be reached, because they will be completely convinced of the bona fides of management and of the approach which management has brought to the negotiating table.

I genuinely believe that a great deal of the difficulty arises, not from the problem of finding a very substantial measure of agreement but from the fact that there is in the minds of too many managers, and certainly not always those at the top (and I believe the noble Viscount will confirm that this is so) a feeling that they must always insist on their rights, always insist on their prerogative. I believe that it is this concept—and its roots are very deep in our society—much more than any real difficulty in reaching a much larger measure of agreement than is normally reached in industry, that is a major cause of our difficulties.

VISCOUNT CALDECOTE

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I do not think there is much between us. Perhaps we could discuss the point about participation and involvement outside the Chamber.

LORD DELACOURT-SMITH

My Lords, I should be delighted to do so. I think that these words "involvement", "participation" and "workers' control" often confuse and divide people beyond the necessities arising from the realities of the situation.

I was coming to my concluding remarks, which arise really from the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that he found the attitude of the Trades Union Congress hard to understand. I have no right and I am in no position to speak for the T.U.C., but I do not find the attitude which has been expressed upon this code of practice difficult to understand. I think that a very sad situation has arisen. If the noble Lord finds the attitude of the T.U.C. on the code of practice hard to understand, I can only conclude that he has not realised the degree to which the code, with its virtues and weaknesses (whatever those virtues or weaknesses will be) is hopelessly prejudiced in the eyes of the vast majority of active trade unionists by its association with the Bill.

The Government—and there is no use trying to hide the fact from ourselves—have created an atmosphere of antagonism between themselves and the trade union movement. They must not therefore be surprised at the lack of cooperation which they are receiving and which they will receive from the operation of the Industrial Relations Bill. This is not the habit or custom or normal frame of mind of the trade union movement. The trade union movement has always, within very broad limits, co-operated with the Government of the day, the Government which the people have elected, whatever may be the feelings of individual trade unionists or whatever may be the general character of the Government. But, as has been said by spokesmen of the trade union movement, if the trade union movement feels—and it does so feel, rightly or wrongly—that it is under attack in the Bill, then it is hardly likely to offer co-operation in operating the Bill or in considering and improving a code which is so inextricably bound up with the Bill.

Frankly, my Lords, I am surprised at the apparent complacency with which the Government have received the announcement of the very comprehensive programme of non-co-operation by the trade union movement following the Special Congress at Croydon. I think I am right in saying that this is a situation without parallel in this country, certainly in recent times. As I have said, it is quite out of character and outside the normal frame of mind of the trade union movement. I really wish that noble Lords opposite would grasp the depth of feeling which exists throughout the trade union movement about this Bill. I am bound to say that, to the trade union movement, the tendency of the Government appears to be towards making the division deeper and deeper. I wish that they could find a way to escape from the weary sterility, as I see it, of their policy towards the trade unions. I most earnestly hope that they have considered what effects the development of non-co-operation will have, and how in due course they are to get back to an atmosphere more consistent with that which existed over the last quarter of a century, irrespective of what Government were in power.

My Lords, nobody, least of all the trade unions, seeks to challenge the right of a Government to pursue policies which they think proper. But there are measures of consultation which could take place; there are points about which the trade union movement feels strongly and which have not been appreciated by the Government. I get more and more concerned at the number of people who feel that, with the Industrial Relations Bill reaching its final stages, there are still a large number of points of considerable importance which are unresolved, which are unclear, about which one can obtain completely conflicting views from lawyers of equal eminence—and almost identical political and social viewpoints. There is, I think, a responsibility on the Government to listen to the criticisms being made, and to try to find a way to restore a more normal attitude of dialogue between themselves and the British trade union movement.

7.42 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, may I say at the outset that I think the Government should be well satisfied with the debate which has taken place to-day. I think I ought straightaway to make clear my own position. I have been invited to explain certain things and to state what is the Government's position. I do not want to evade any of the issues which have been raised, but I am sure noble Lords will recognise that the purpose of this debate is to hear the views of the views of the House. If, in answer to the various suggestions made, I were to come down flat-footed on this, that and the next subject, no doubt I should have to eat my words later and take back many of the things that I said.

LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND

My Lords, could the noble Lord attempt it on tiptoe?

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I can tiptoe with the best of them, but I think I can best serve the House simply by trying to sum up in general terms, and not dealing with particular points actually in the code.

First, may I say one general thing about a code? Inevitably, a code is something which imposes moral obligations, and in that respect it is, of course, distinct from a statute. This code is intended, and is designed, to help to make things go right in industrial relations. This will involve all those concerned adhering to the spirit of the code. As we live in an imperfect world, from time to time this group or that will not do so, and things will go wrong. What I do not think has yet been put over sufficiently, even to noble Lords in this House, let alone to the public, is that the Bill is concerned primarily to deal with the situation when things go wrong. The code is here to encourage things to go right. The Bill to deal with them when they go wrong, though this is, of course, a very general statement—

LORD DIAMOND

Very general.

LORD DRUMALBYN

—and I would not fill it out in every detail. But I suggest that that is the way noble Lords should look at I his. To take an example, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in a fairly forceful speech (the noble Lord is always forceful, and perhaps on this occasion he was even a little brusque) condemned the code because of its weakness. He pointed to tile fact that the word "should" was used. But "should" is the appropriate word to use when dealing with moral obligations.

LORD BYERS

My Lords, may we get this right? A code is not necessarily a collection of moral obligations. The Highway Code uses the word "must" in a number of cases. This code uses the word "should". This is feebleness, and there are many cases where we could substitute "must" for "should" and make it a much better document.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, the reason why the word "must" is used in the Highway Code is because there is reproduced in the Code what is already in the statute.

LORD BYERS

Not always.

LORD DRUMALBYN

That, my Lords, is the case when the word "must" is used. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, referred to zebra crossings and I think that he will find zebra crossings are referred to in the statute. The point still stands. What I have said is right: we seek to lay down in the code ways in which people may be expected to behave, and ways in which we hope they will behave. It is not saying that they must behave in that way in every case. As the noble Lord, Lord Platt, pointed out, so far as his profession is concerned, not everything in the code—perhaps I could go so far as to say not a great deal—is directly applicable. But the fact remains that there are doctors who take appointments, in a research establishment, or a place of that sort, where they enter into an atmosphere of industrial relations.

That is the first thing I wish to say generally about the code. I hope that to some extent it will make people realise that what is in the code is precisely that which it is not desirable to back by statutory requirements. For one thing, they will not always be applicable. In a statute you have to lay down what people will have to obey in all circumstances, and if they do not do so, it may be that there are mitigating circumstances or something of that kind. The noble Lord referred to "works councils" which he had attempted to put into the statute and which we resisted. That is something which might not be applicable in all circumstances; but it could still be inserted in the code, and it has been.

The second major point that I should like to pick up is the very general reference which was made to paternalism. I think this was used as a term of abuse.

LORD DIAMOND

No.

LORD DRUMALBYN

But it was used in the reference to the statement on the code by the Trades Union Congress. Even if it was not a term of abuse, it was at least a criticism.

LORD DIAMOND

A very valid one.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I do not believe this is a valid criticism. It depends, I think, on the point of view from which one looks at the code and what point of view one has in mind. I think that as noble Lords become more familiar with the code and its different sections, and the way they join together (the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, may be right in suggesting that we should cross-reference it a little more and, where relevant, repeat what is said in one part in another; but we have tried to be precise, and if we had been more detailed we should have been criticised for that), they will see that it is not written in any sense of paternalism.

One can, of course, get into difficulties straight away when we come to the question of decision-making. The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, has referred to participation, but here I think the real basis is the recognition of function. One cannot have any kind of organisation without allocating functions, and no organisation will be successful unless people do their jobs within those functions. Undoubtedly there is a function of management, and management must be allowed to fulfil that function, if only because it holds a direct responsibility to the board to do so. I agree that from time to time management may become over-anxious about fulfilment of its responsibility and about the obstacles which it feels are being put in its way.

I think I should refer to what is said in the Foreword, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn also referred—the sentence which says: Collective bargaining requires a reasonable and constructive approach by both sides; both must be prepared to co-operate in working out solutions to their problems to make a real effort to understand each other's point of view and to abide by agreements which have been made. The basic element in any successful enterprise involving a number of people is trust and confidence. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, when he says that it is up to management to make the first move in co-operation. I dare say that the very opening sentence is some indication that this is what the code expects.

I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, and the success story he has had to tell in his writings, which I have read—some of them, at any rate. I could not help reflecting that the basis here must have been that the management have succeeded in getting the confidence of the workers. If that is done, then of course things will run relatively smoothly.

LORD BROWN

My Lords, the basis is that you construct your institution in a quite clear form, so that everyone understands what the institution is. I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord for too long, but there is a great failing in British society, in spite of our long history and our wonderful institutions, to build new ones and to make them explicit. These are the things which give trust and confidence. It is no good saying that we must have trust and confidence unless we get them through institutions.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I would put it another way: that one would not get there without precision as to the institutions and the way in which they work. I do not want in any way to underestimate what the noble Lord has done in institution building, but there is something behind that which is of far more importance—the personality of the people concerned and their will to make the thing work. This is absolutely basic. This is what the Foreword says, and this is what the code requires. I say "requires" deliberately, because it is all in the form of recommendations. It is basic in the code that only if one gets confidence on both sides will this thing work. Before leaving that point I should say that I do not regard this as paternalism. The mere fact that the first approach has to come from management is not an aspect of paternalism. There are occasions, and we can all think of cases we have come across, where it is difficult because of past history for management to take that first step and a catalyst is needed. We have in the Bill the conciliators and the Commission on Industrial Relations, all of whom can help.

Then there is the question of recognition. The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith challenged me and asked, where do we in any way show that management is required to recognise? Of course he was quite right in saying that in the code itself there is no requirement to recognise, but the indications are that where there are a considerable number of employees who are already members of a trade union it would be reasonable to hold a ballot. Under the Bill the union itself can apply for recognition through the Industrial Relations Court, under Clause 45. That is one answer to the noble Lord. If the management act unreasonably in not according recognition where there is already a trade union in being, application can be made under Clause 45.

LORD DELACOURT-SMITH

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for giving way. Is he prepared to say that, taking everything into account, he believes that it will be easier for trade unions to secure recognition from employers generally under the operations of the Bill than it is at the present time? If it can be demonstrated to him that it will not be easier, is he prepared to say that it is so much the Government's intention that it should be easier that the necessary amendments to the Bill or to the code, or to both, will he presented?

LORD DRUMALBYN

I would be extremely surprised if the noble Lord could demonstrate that the Bill will not make it easier. This part of the Bill dealing with bargaining is specifically designed to make it easier for trade unions to be recognised and to compel employers to recognise them. Once the employer has been compelled to do so the implication is, of course, that the employer will accept the fait accompli and do his best in the circumstances to develop industrial relations in the way in which the code provides. I would be very surprised indeed if in his own interests and in the interests of his undertaking he would not be prepared to do so. I think it very unlikely that the noble Lord would be able to demonstrate to me that the Bill will not improve matters from the point of recognition in that respect.

LORD DELACOURT-SMITH

With the greatest respect, this noble Lord is under no obligation to do that. I put the question to the noble Lord, asking if he could give an assurance that it was his view that it would be easier, and I asked whether if it were demonstrated that it would not be easier the noble Lord would be prepared to say that the Government attach so much importance to is being made easier that any necessary amendments to the Bill or the code would be presented.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I can only express my personal belief that it certainly will be easier, and add the assurrance that it is certainly the intention of the Government that it should be easier.

The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked a question about the fair wages resolution. As he said, that resolution applies to trade unions as at present understood, and the Bill restricts the definition of a trade union to registered organisations of workers. I understood the noble Lord to ask how the Government would view their responsibilities under Clause 4 of the resolution, in the light of the change of definition. I should like to make clear that the Government intend that the resolution will continue to be applied in accordance with the spirit in which it was passed. Contracts will therefore not be awarded to employers who interfere with the employees' right of association. If the changed definition of trade union is thought to be likely to create any difficulties in this respect, then the Government will make a statement during the Report stage of the Bill.

The noble Lord said something about the status quo. Let me say frankly that this position is of such difficulty, as the noble Lord well knows, that it is not possible at this stage to put anything into the code. But let me say that the Secretary of State will be glad to receive suggestions and consider whether the code in its final form should contain some reference that will be helpful on this matter.

LORD DELACOURT-SMITH

My Lords, while I appreciate the difficulty that is inherent in the presentation of such a code as this, once it is presented then it becomes accepted not only as a spur to those falling behind but also by many as perfection, containing all that is necessary for their salvation. Will the noble Lord at least consider putting in words which will ensure that people recognise that what they are required to do under the code in respect of consultation is the minimum and should not be regarded as a limit to which they should be prepared to go, if urged by the trade union representatives and the workers to go further.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord has said but, of course, the main point here is simply a question of managerial responsibilities. I think that it is in this context that we shall have to consider what, if anything, has to be put into the code.

May I turn to what the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said on the question of information? What is said in the code about the inquiry that the C.I.R. is at present conducting is what the Government mean to do. It would be irrational to hold up the code because the C.I.R. has not yet reported. The noble Lord knows from the Bill that it is the intention to introduce a revision of the code whenever it is required, and the code makes it clear that what appears in the information section at the present time is only provisional and temporary and obviously a matter which will be put right after consideration of the C.I.R. report. I do not think I can say more at the present moment, but if we were to put tentative things into the code and then change them a short time afterwards we should be much more likely to confuse people than to give any improvement. I think that this is something on which we have to wait. I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, and I should like to thank her for the attitude she took. I found a great deal in common with her. I do not believe that the conflict between the code and the Bill, which she fears, exists, but it is certainly something which will have to be looked at in the course of the preparation of the final code. At any rate, I am glad that she recognises that it has good intentions.

I should like to refer to one other point of the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith. Talking about trade union recognition, he deplored the apparent encouragement in the code to employees to join trade unions before they were recognised. I wonder whether he could look at it from this point of view. The code says that the employer should encourage employees to join recognised trade unions. If we were to say that the employer was to encourage employees to join a trade union and to form trade unions, though in certain cases there would be no particular difficulty because there would be only one union, presumably it would mean that the employer would have to decide the trade union to which he should encourage employees to belong. There is a real danger here. I think we have to be careful not to put anything in the code that would suggest to people who are not looking at it from exactly the same point of view as the noble Lord that employers should in any way encourage the formation of a particular union under, so to speak, the ægis of the employer. I think that we should run into considerable criticism if we had ourselves made the suggestion. Surely it is a matter for the individual employee to decide whether or not to join a union and what association to form along with those he is working with, and it would be wrong at this stage for the employer to encourage the formation of a particular union. These are circumstances quite different from those which exist in Germany, where there are big industrial unions and one suitable union for a factory. May I also say that encouragement to join a recognised union is a very considerable safeguard for the recognised union itself. It is not encouragement to join a splinter or breakaway union. So I think that the noble Lord can take some consolation from that.

LORD DELACOURT-SMITH

My Lords, if that is the only difficulty it can be easily overcome. There is no difficulty about anyone ascertaining what is the appropriate union to join. A letter to the T.U.C. will always remove from anybody's mind the possibility of doubt on what is the appropriate union or what is the range of appropriate unions in any case. My particular concern is the situation in a factory where there is already a handful of trade unionists, who in nine cases out of ten are no doubt members of the union appropriate to their work. It is at that point that we need the goodwill of the employer towards unionisation of the workpeople by giving a clear indication that he is ready to accord recognition. This is the attitude of mind we are anxious to secure, and it is one which with the best will in the world, I cannot find embodied in the code.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I really dealt with that point earlier on. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that it is intentioned that in order to secure orderly collective bargaining, recognition will be accorded by the employer on a voluntary basis in all reasonable circumstances, and the criteria are there in the code. Where that is not so, then under the Bill an application can be made for compulsion to be brought to hear on the employer. I think that that is a great improvement on the present situation.

My Lords, I could deal with a number of other separate points, but in view of the hour I think it would be desirable for me to write to those noble Lords who have raised them. I would just end by—

LORD DIAMOND

My Lords, before the noble Lord ends (he has been extraordinarily good about giving way, and I am sorry to interrupt), may I put two questions, to have the point on the Record. The questions both arise out of his speech. The first is about giving information. The noble Lord will recollect that the whole purpose of asking (the Government have conceded this, and we are grateful) for the code to be published before the Report stage was so that we should know, before parting company with the Bill, where we stood. On one issue, as my noble friend Lord Stow Hill has made absolutely clear, the Bill depends entirely on the code; namely, information. We shall be reaching that on the Report stage shortly. May I therefore ask the noble Lord whether he cannot do as he was asked; namely, give us an indication of what the Government's thinking is at present? If not, will he be good enough to endeavour to give us that information when we reach the relevant clauses in the Bill, so that we may know what we are talking about before we are asked to approve those two clauses?

The second question is this. As the noble Lord said in his opening that he did not want to answer questions on which he might have to eat his own words (I think that is what he said), do I take it that he is telling us that the Government do not want to take a fixed, inflexible stance at this point on a number of issues, and that they are prepared to listen to representations from all sides? If so, that would be a most acceptable situation.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, that is precisely what I meant to convey. This is the first public discussion on the code, so far as I know—no doubt the first of many—and the Secretary of State will be ready to listen to all the recommendations that may be made, including representations from noble Lords who choose to make them. On the matter of information, here again I think the appropriate time to amplify what needs to be amplified would be when we come to the clauses in the Bill.

LORD BYERS

My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Lord that even that may be a little early, because many of us will want to make representations right throughout the piece on the whole question of disclosure of information. We should not want to find that the Government have made up their mind too soon.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am sure that is right. I qualified the observation by speaking of "anything that needs to be said on this subject". That would be the appropriate time to discuss it rather than now.

I think that inherent in this code is a striving towards a complete change of attitude in industrial relations. The fact remains that one cannot for ever conduct industrial relations on a basis of confrontation. On the one hand, one has the desire of the employees to get better conditions of work and to improve their standard of living. On the other hand, there is the need to maintain the efficiency and prosperity of the enterprise, which, after all, is the basis of secure employment. Somehow or other, these two elements have to be reconciled. In the reconciliation of these elements lies the future of that undertaking, and indeed the future of the country. I close by quoting the well-known words: And if a kingdom be divided against itself that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. It is in order to ensure that a system of working together in mutual trust is developed by the two sides of industry that this code, which, as I say, involves moral obligations, is put forward.

On Question, Motion agreed to.