LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 15 November 1976)

§ Lord JACQUES
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 67 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 68.

Baroness VICKERS
My Lords, can the noble Lord explain this a little? It seems to me to be a very odd Reason: Because it may be desirable to consider work for classification without agreement of both parties to a collective agreement. Will not a rather awkward situation arise here?

§ Lord SANDFORD
My Lords, before the noble Lord replies to my noble friend, I should like to ask him how, in the light of what he has just said about the National Freight Corporation, he can possibly justify that Reason. If the parties can come to a collective agreement which has the effect of making it then undesirable to classify the work going on under the collective agreement, why do we have exactly the opposite view in the next Amendment?

§ Lord JACQUES
My Lords, we are dealing with something quite different here. The broad effect of this Amendment is similar to that of Amendment No. 78, which seeks to give the right to veto to the trade unions recognised in respect of the work concerned since 3rd December, 1975. It goes even further in that the positive agreement of both union and employer is required before the work can be classified. This is quite a different thing. It is giving not merely a right of veto but a double right of veto, a right of veto to both sides.

Viscount BARRINGTON
My Lords, can the noble Lord make a little more explicit to those who do not understand these technical terms, the meanings of the words "desirable" and "undesirable"? The last three Amendments and many before that, including the Liberal Amendment about consumers, have been rejected on the grounds that what was proposed is undesirable, which may mean undesirable to the public, undesirable to the Government, or undesirable to any one person. Here it definitely states the word "desirable" in a context where it is apparently not desirable by one of the two parties concerned. Could that point be made a little clearer?

§ Lord SLATER
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it could not be any clearer where one gets the employer and the trade unions to agree in toto upon an issue of this character? This is what really happens in industry. I am surprised at the attitude of some industrialists on the other side of the House who have to negotiate with trade unionists and who at some time in the course of negotiations, after long talks and deliberations in their departments, reach finality. I think that on this issue the Government are presenting this in the right way, and that it is quite clear to those people who have had experience within this operation.

§ Lord JACQUES
My Lords, the word "desirable" is used by the Commons, and I should not like to answer for the Commons.

§ Lord GEORGE-BROWN
My Lords, there is an issue here which has been raised by my noble friend Lord Slater. Just because the employers and the unions, no matter after how many hours of 1020 argument, make an agreement, is no reason why a democratic Parliament should take it. I think that we are getting a little wide of our remit here. We are in fact giving a veto to the trade unions, because unless the employer agrees with them he cannot get by. I was a little worried when my fellow backwoodsman, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, raised a point on the last Amendment. I did not get up, but I became a little worried and thought that possibly I should have done. I am rather worried about this one, too. I cannot really see the case for letting this one go. Now since everybody seems to have arranged things behind the scenes, I am willing not to be awkward. But what we cannot do, I should have thought, is simply to argue that because the employers and the trade unions have fixed it up between themselves, behind the scenes, none of the rest of us have anything to say. It seems to me to be destroying the idea of Parliamentary democracy. I personally am rather uncertain about whether I am willing to let this one go.

§ Lord JACQUES
My Lords, this Amendment is much less important at this stage of the Bill than it was originally. I should like to remind noble Lords that there is a half-mile limit now, not a five-mile limit. We are saying that there is work which was done by registered dock workers. It has been taken away from the waterside, and the Board should be able to consider whether that work should or should not be classified without a veto from the employer or the trade union concerned. We say that this matter should at least be considered, but if this Amendment were carried it would not even be considered. That is the line that the Government take.