HL Deb 23 May 1991 vol 529 cc391-5

3.22 p.m.

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Earl said: My Lords, one of the Government's first measures in their step-by-step reform of legislation on the closed shop was to issue a statutory code of practice on the subject in 1980. That code gave guidance on how union membership agreements and arrangements should be operated, so as to obviate the worst excesses of the closed shop. However, a succession of Acts of Parliament, culminating with the 1990 Employment Act, has made all forms of the closed shop effectively unlawful. It is therefore clear that the Closed Shop Code of Practice no longer serves any useful purpose. In the 1990 Act Parliament gave the Secretary of State the power to revoke obsolete codes and I am sure that the House will agree that revocation is the appropriate course of action where the Closed Shop Code of Practice is concerned.

I turn now to the other code of practice covered by the draft order, which is generally known—in so far as it is known at all—as the Industrial Relations Code of Practice This code was published in 1972 to: give practical guidance for promoting good industrial relations", in accordance with the principles of the previous year's Industrial Relations Act.

The industrial scene has, of course, changed enormously in the 20 years since that Act was passed, and the code cannot help but be an anachronism today. Fortunately, much of the subject matter which is of lasting value is available in a more up-to-date form, either in the ACAS codes of practice or in the popular series of ACAS guidance booklets.

That being so, I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House will agree that the time has come for the Industrial Relations Code of Practice and the Closed Shop Code of Practice to be revoked. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his usual clear statement of what the order entails. I appreciate that this arises from legislation already passed by both Houses and that we therefore have little choice but to accept it in accordance with the traditions of the House. Nevertheless, I should like to make a few points.

The order arises from government legislation based in the employment field, although almost all of it is concerned not with employment and certainly not with the intention of strengthening employee rights relative to the employer, but rather with restricting the rights of trade unions. The Government will claim that their legislation has improved the industrial relations climate in this country, citing the diminished number of disputes, although that situation is changing. I believe that, where that has happened, it has had as much to do with threatened unemployment and particularly with the decline of jobs and job opportunities in manufacturing industry as it has had to do with the so-called employment legislation, although that of itself has had a weakening effect upon the power of employees to oppose redundancies and the withdrawal of rights inflicted upon them.

There is little that one can say about the 1983 code of practice which is being revoked as a result of the order. As has been indicated by the Minister, this arises directly from recent employment legislation which has been passed by the House. As to the revocation of the code of practice known as the Industrial Relations Code of Practice, I believe that I am right in saying that it was originally introduced by a Conservative Government. It is now maintained that it is not necessary because, I gather, ACAS codes of practice have rendered it redundant. No one will quarrel with the notion that a code enacted almost 20 years ago needs revision and updating, but to leave it entirely to ACAS seems to me to be mistaken. It signifies that the Government are prepared to bow out of responsibility in that important area.

As has already been pointed out in discussion of the order in the other place, employers' activities could do with some form of guidance as to good practice, which is what codes are all about. The Government often seem to give the impression that all disruptive behaviour in the industrial scene arises from the actions of employees supported by their unions. However, such actions are all too often reactive. The employers take some step which is widely perceived to be unfair and that leads to disruption. The most recent example is the action by Rolls-Royce in relation to the contracts of its employees. I should have thought that that was bad industrial practice by any definition, and it may well be illegal. That may be for the courts to determine, but codes of practice should indicate what is good practice, and that certainly is not.

As I said earlier, I do not like the legislation which the Government have initiated and which has been passed by both Houses. The Government have weighted the odds very much against employees and their unions and heavily in favour of employers, but that has not improved our competitive position or employment opportunities, as current figures show. When we at length have a Labour Government, we shall introduce legislation designed to give a fair and balanced framework of industrial law which preserves rather than destroys individual rights. The Government are gravely mistaken if they think that there is electoral mileage to be gained by flagging up an intention to introduce yet more restrictive anti-union legislation if they are returned for another term. What has already been done is widely perceived as being unfair.

Having said that, we on this side of the House accept that it is not the tradition to oppose orders which have been passed by the other place or orders which are based on legislation already carried by this House. However, it would have been wrong for me to give the impression that we are in any way happy about what has happened. The noble Earl will know that we are not, but, having said that, I offer no opposition to the order.

Lord Meston

My Lords, I had not intended to speak, but I share the anxieties of the noble Baroness. It may be that the closed shop code is otiose, but, like her, I am concerned with the revocation of the industrial relations code. Codes have an inherent value in setting and raising standards. They also have an evidential value. Only two days ago I was in an industrial tribunal and was able to refer to the industrial relations code, which is now being revoked. I wonder whether the Government can be so sure that the vacuum which will undoubtedly be created will be filled by the non-statutory ACAS codes.

I ask the Minister whether any attempt was made to bring up to date the Industrial Relations Code of Practice. The message which seems to come from this order is that standards no longer matter or no longer concern the Government. Looking now at the legislation that we have in force in this country, people will see that there is a statutory provision for the creation of codes of practice; but they will also see that that code of practice has been revoked. It is a matter of concern and should not pass without comment.

3.30 p.m.

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne

My Lords, I shall attempt to reply first to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and then to the noble Lord, Lord Meston. The position on union membership is perfectly clear. No individual can lawfully be refused employment or be dismissed from his employment just because he is or is not a trade union member. Everybody knows the position and there is no need whatsoever for guidance.

The Government have made it clear that a job applicant who is engaged in the basic activities that are a natural part of being a member of a trade union should have nothing to fear. But the Opposition continue to want special recruitment protection.

Baroness Turner of Camden

Perhaps, my Lords, the Minister will allow me to intervene. He has just said that the position about trade union membership is absolutely clear. Does that include the situation so far as the Government are concerned in relation to GCHQ?

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne

I think, my Lords, that that is a different point from the subject on the Order Paper today.

The Industrial Relations Code of Practice was published in 1972, as I said earlier, in order to: give practical guidance for promoting good industrial relations", in accordance with the principles of the previous year's Industrial Relations Act.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, acknowledged, the industrial scene has changed enormously in the 20 years since that Act was passed. The code cannot help but be an anachronism today. The noble Baroness believes that the Government should issue a new, more up-to-date code to replace the 1972 code. The Employment Act 1980 gives the Secretary of State the power to issue codes of practice containing practical guidance for the purpose of promoting the improvement of industrial relations. Indeed, as noble Lords will be aware, last year the Secretary of State issued a code of practice entitled Trade Union Ballots on Industrial Action, and an updated version has just come into effect. In addition the Secretary of State has announced his intention of updating and possibly revising the code of practice on picketing which was first issued in 1980.

However, I hope that the noble Baroness is not overlooking the fact that much of the subject matter of the 1972 code which is of lasting value is already available in a more up-to-date form. The section of the 1972 code dealing with disciplinary procedures was superseded by the ACAS code, Disciplinary Practice and Procedures in Employment, which came into force into June 1977. Paragraphs dealing with disclosure of information were similarly superseded by the ACAS code, Disclosure of Information to Trade Unions for Collective Bargaining Purposes, which was brought into force in August 1977. Another two sections of the 1972 code were superseded by the ACAS code, Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities, which first came into force in April 1978. Other parts, although still technically in force, are now comprehensively covered in the popular series of guidance booklets published by ACAS.

That being the case, the Secretary of State is not persuaded that there is any present need for the Government to issue a new code of practice dealing with the areas covered by the 1972 code. I am sure however that ACAS will continue to give careful consideration to areas in which guidance could usefully be given, whether by code of practice or by booklet.

The noble Baroness referred to the situation in Rolls-Royce. I cannot comment in detail about recent events at Rolls-Royce. It appears that the company took legal advice before sending out dismissal letters and gave individuals their due period of notice. Employment contracts can of course be lawfully terminated at any time by giving the correct period of notice and following any procedures which may be laid down in the contract. In any case, decisions about how Rolls-Royce, or any other company, should remain competitive and meet the challenges of the changing marketplace are for the company concerned. It would be counterproductive for government to try to inter) ere in the commercial decisions of companies. There i5 no reason to believe that the retention of the 1972 cote or the production of a replacement is called for as a result of those recent events.

Baroness Stvar

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may ask him to enlighten my ignorance. A code is not legally binding. However, it can be used valuably as evidence at a tribunal. Does the ACAS code have anything like the same force? That is a matter of considerable importance. I do not know the answer.

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne

My Lords, I was ai3out to come to that point. ACAS codes of practice are statutory codes of practice. I hope that that answers the point.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, will the Minister say a little more about the Rolls-Royce situation? He said that it was a matter for the employers. We are now referring to good practice. As I understand it, there was no consultation whatsoever. Does he regard that as good practice? Is that not a matter that employers should be advised strongly to have regard to in industrial relations?

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne

My Lords, I fear that I cannot go further down the road the noble Baroness wishes. I cannot comment on what individual companies do.

I hope that noble Lords are content with what I have said. I commend the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.