Industrial Disputes: Policy (Hansard, 8 May 1989)

§ The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham)
My Lords, if such disputes arise, the Government hope that they will be resolved without damage to the interests of the business in which both employers and employees are engaged.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. However, does his answer not seem to be in conflict with what is happening in the national dock labour scheme dispute, bearing in mind that one of the parties, the union representing the workers, has already offered to go to ACAS to settle the matter amicably? The Government have chosen to force through a Bill which is totally one-sided and seen to be on behalf of the employers. Is that not in complete contradiction with the Minister's answer?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, it can scarcely be provocative for the Government to propose that the dock workers in today's well-paid port industry 393 should have the same rights and obligations as other employees and in addition should have special compensation for redundancy for a three-year period.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is the belief of some of us that ACAS was set up to deal with this problem? In a dispute between employees and employers the Government could help both sides to go to ACAS to try to settle the matter round the table which is the civilised method of doing it. Can he say something about ACAS?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, ACAS works with the voluntary agreement of all parties concerned. It is for both parties therefore to go to ACAS if they so desire.

§ Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, is it not rather disingenuous to expect there to be no industrial disaffection in a situation where employees are offered deals much below the rate of inflation and in a situation also where mortgage rates are a heavy obstacle and obligation upon employees? Is it not absurd to expect there to be no industrial disruption in such circumstances?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I do not expect there to be industrial disruption in the circumstances because the one thing that employees in our land have learnt over the last few years is that industrial disputes lead to the destruction of people's jobs. It is true that interest rates on mortgages are high—but no higher than they were two or two-and-a-half years ago while the general level of wages is above that. There is only one thing that can bring down this country and keep the rate of inflation rising. That is wage claims that are too high and not earned.

§ Lord Rochester
My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that, for better or worse, now that the Government's legislation affecting industrial disputes is in place, it is essential that the Government should adopt an even-handed approach between employers and representatives of employees in any particular dispute?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
Yes, my Lords, I confirm that the Government do precisely that.

§ Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, if that is so, would it not be good if the Government were openly to declare their support for arbitration and arbitration processes rather than, as far as one can see, undermining the role of the Central Arbitration Committee, as has happened in recent years?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, no. The point of government standing away from such disputes is that they should not interfere with either the employer and employee or the employer and the union; and that is what it would mean.

§ Lord McCarthy
My Lords, does the Minister agree that he cannot get away with it by saying that it is a matter for ACAS; that under the terms of the 1896 Conciliation Act, the Secretary of State has the 394 responsibility to take such steps as he deems expedient to promote an amicable dispute settlement; and that he must do so particularly when one of the parties will not come? Why will the Secretary of State not use his powers under the 1896 Act?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I so deem that I should not use those powers.

§ Lord Grimond
My Lords, the Minister rightly said that one of the great dangers to the country is inflation through excessive wage demands. Does he agree that those demands are fuelled by the enormous increases for the people at the top of the professions and industry? Does he also agree that it is hard to expect the employees of the BBC to be satisfied with 6 or 7 per cent. when the director general is awarded an increase of 30 per cent.?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, that attitude prevailed in this country for decades after the war and we all know where it got us. We should not look at what other people receive; we should look at what we do ourselves and at how much we deserve.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, does the Minister not understand that during the passage of previous legislation through your Lordships' House reference was made to the observations of the Master of the Rolls, who in his capacity as chairman of the industrial relations courts said even then that legislation was weighted in favour of the employers? Does he not understand that his Answer to my Question can only be interpreted by those involved as meaning that the Government are not bent on giving trade unionists basic rights, as they keep on saying, but instead are bent on removing most of the basic rights? Is it not true that their stand has been shown to be a complete sham by the recent statement of the International Labour Organisation on the basis of what the Government are doing to the trade union movement?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, no. The TUC has said that the International Labour Organisation has made a statement but it has not. A committee of the ILO has reported. It will be interesting to see what the ILO has to say when it is aware of the full facts regarding trade unions and the rights of trade unions in this country, which still have a privileged position in our legal system.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, do I understand from what the Secretary of State said that the Government are discouraging the use of arbitration when there is a dispute and are supporting the idea that employers should resist going to arbitration? Secondly, on reflection, will the Secretary of State not revise his comment that the only thing which can hold back this country is wage increases? Surely there are plenty of other things such as inadequate training, inadequate investment and inadequate infrastructure. Does the Secretary of State really say that the only thing is pay claims?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, I shall gladly agree that there are other matters which could hold back this country. However, I do not see that I have a positive duty to intervene, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, implied that I should.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, can the Secretary of State tell the House why he arrived at that decision and why he is not prepared to use the legislation provided by this Parliament? Why has he deemed it unnecessary to use that legislation and to intervene? Can we please have the reasons?

§ Lord Young of Graffham
My Lords, no. There is no positive duty on me to say why I should not do something in this instance, and nor shall I.