HL Deb 05 July 1983 vol 443 cc502-3

3.7 p.m.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for encouraging more employee involvement in the public sector to supplement the provisions for companies contained in Section 1 of the Employment Act 1982.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie)

My Lords, the Government take all suitable opportunities to encourage good employee involvement practice in the public sector as elsewhere. However, we believe that this is best achieved on a voluntary basis and we have no plans for further legislation.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that, although Government legislation aimed at achieving further so-called privatisation is largely an area within which Section 1 of the Employment Act will apply, there will remain a large part of the public sector that is excluded from the relevant section of the Act? Does he further agree that in the public sector there is often a much greater sense of difference between "us" and "them" than is the case in many private companies, and that it is entirely desirable that this difference be reduced?

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, in regard to the last part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, it is precisely because of such alienation that we wish to see more companies transferred into private ownership where industrial relations can often be much more advanced and much better. On the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, nationalised industries which have been privatised will be bound by companies legislation, including Section 1 of the Employment Act 1982. It seems to us that there is no justification for placing more onerous employee involvement requirements on previously nationalised industries than on other companies

Lord McCarthy

My Lords, in view of the statement that the noble Earl made about no further legislation. is he in fact saying once again that the Government have no proposals to do anything at all about the Vredling proposals and that once again this is considered some kind of substitute for those proposals?

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, the cries of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for more rules and regulations come as no surprise to us. I can tell him that the Government are studying the Vredling proposals that happily now include amendments to the original text. Nevertheless, we remain convinced that progress in this area which we think important is best achieved by voluntary means, as I stated earlier.