TGWU and Ford Plant at Dundee (Hansard, 26 April 1988)

§ The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham)
My Lords, the Fair Trading Act 1973 makes provision for restrictive labour practice references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but the kind of action mentioned by the noble Lord cannot be referred under the terms of this Act. Only existing practices, not those threatened for the future, can be so referred.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
My Lords, does the Secretary of State agree that the threat of the Transport and General Workers' Union was a critical factor in the withdrawal of the Ford Motor Company from Dundee, with the loss of approximately 1,000 jobs? Does he also agree that it might have been wise for the Secretary of State to have warned the TGWU that in the event of it carrying out its threat there could possibly have been a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under the 1973 Act, which he has just quoted?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I suspect that the Transport and General Workers' Union received many warnings, since Ford had carefully considered other sites for this plant—namely, in Spain, Portugal and Austria—before deciding to go to Dundee. Part of the package which I am told attracted Ford was the single union agreement with the AEU. Such was the way in which this matter developed that I suspect no warnings in the world would have changed the mind of the TGWU leadership.

§ Lord Wyatt of Weeford
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the threat of the TUC to expel the engineers and electricians if they agree to single union working is something that ought to or could be referred as a restrictive practice to the MMC?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I very much wish that that could be the case. However, we can only refer existing practices under the terms of the Fair Trading Act and not threats for the future, no matter what their nature.

§ Lord Mason of Barnsley
My Lords, in the Question the word used is "threat", and that is not a restrictive practice. Had the act taken place and the products not been handled, would that have been a restrictive practice? What action could then have been taken by the Secretary of State?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, that is a hypothetical situation. However, had such a threat been carried out, I suspect it would have been open to anyone to refer the matter to the MMC or to ask for it to be considered. Should that unlikely situation ever arise, I hope that it is referred to the MMC.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the nub of the problem is not the restrictive practice issue but the fact that there is no effective machinery whatever for the orderly resolution of inter-union rivalry disputes? If that is so, does he agree that it is incumbent upon any government to take appropriate steps in the national interest if the TUC cannot put its own house in order?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, this is not an inter-union dispute. It was quite clear that in this instance Ford had agreed with a union to provide a factory. What happened afterwards was that another union threatened that it would take action against the other plants of that company. On that point I do not know what the Government can do except to study the position. If we can find a way through, I have no doubt that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be taking steps.

Viscount St. Davids
My Lords, is the noble Lord really saying that the threat is not an offence and only the actual commission of the act is? Is he really saying that to point a pistol at a man's head is not an offence and it only becomes one when the man is actually shot dead?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, though I am intrigued by the way in which the noble Viscount puts this question, we are talking of restrictive practices, and they are not offences. The question is whether this is a restrictive practice. A restrictive practice does not become one until it actually comes into being.

§ Lord Basnett
My Lords, I should like to hear evidence that the Transport and General Workers' Union itself actually issued this threat. I should also like your Lordships to be aware—

Noble Lords
Question!

§ Lord Basnett
My Lords, I shall come to the question afterwards. Is the noble Lord aware that any such threat can only have been issued by the negotiating body? Does he not agree that in this situation, which we all regret, it is difficult to ascribe the blame to one of the parties alone? Many people are to blame. Does the Minister further agree that what is really needed is backing for effective TUC guidelines for reconciling union differences and allowing the peaceful introduction of single union agreements? That is what is needed, and not mischievous questions.

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, what I suspect is needed is the peaceful introduction of single union agreements. I suspect that all Members of your Lordships' House will agree with the noble Lord in that. When it comes to ascribing blame for the unfortunate occurrences which cost about 1,000 jobs in Dundee, it seems fairly clear to those who live in Dundee where the blame lies.

§ Lord Broxbourne
My Lords, following on from the previous questions and the answers thereto, will my noble friend, with his customary cogency and modesty, make it clear that it is for the courts and not for Ministers to interpret the statutes?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his compliment, as I interpret it. It is not even so much for the courts but for the company itself. It was Ford that became aware of what the working conditions would be like; it was therefore Ford that decided in the circumstances it had no option but to withdraw.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we fully agree that the alleged threat of unspecified action at a future time could not possibly be referred to the Office of Fair Trading and that it does not constitute a restrictive trade practice as defined in the present law? Will he further agree that my noble friend Lord Basnett had a serious point when he asked for proper TUC machinery for sorting out single union deals? Have not too many noble Lords spent too much time shedding crocodile tears for Dundee?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, those tears are not crocodile tears: they are real, 1,000 times or more. In this instance it is not a matter for the Government but very much one for the TUC. There has been enough time—some five months—for the TUC to deliver. I hope very much that it will do so before another five months pass.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, will my noble friend pay special attention to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt? If the situation is allowed to fester on as it is now, it could well stop other people who would want to bring investment to this country in order to service Europe. That makes it a problem for the nation quite apart from an immediate problem for Dundee.

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, there are many examples of inward investors who have invested in this country successfully and with single company agreements. In the particular case of Ford, the company was bringing a new plant to an existing infrastructure of many plants in this country. That becomes very difficult when it is alleged that the Transport and General Workers Union threatens certain action. But this should not deter new investors in this country. They have found that, even without government assistance, it is by far the best country in Europe in which to invest.

§ Lord McCarthy
My Lords, does the noble Lord have time to answer the question of my noble friend Lord Basnett about the evidence of the alleged 116 threats from the Transport and General Workers Union? Will he not confirm the fact that if a threat had been carried out it would have been a secondary action, unlawful under the terms of the 1980 and 1982 legislation, and no investigation would have been needed?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, that may be some comfort to the lawyers. But the great test here is Ford. Ford decided that the threat was real enough; so it withdrew.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
My Lords, will the Minister accept that it was common knowledge during the negotiations that there was a threat, implied or otherwise, that other Ford workers would black the products of the Dundee factory in the event of it being opened? I am concerned not about inter-union disputes but about inward investment. Will the Minister please confirm that the 1973 Act provides for a Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigation if a labour practice operates against the public interest? Can he confirm that any such threat, or implied threat, if carried out, would come within these provisions?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I suspect that it is a matter of interpretation, if not by the lawyers, then certainly by the courts, whether a threat of a restrictive practice is in fact a restrictive practice. It is my advice that it has to come into being before it exists. Until then the Fair Trading Act does not apply.