HL Deb 21 February 1992 vol 535 cc1500-4

2.55 p.m.

Viscount Ullswater rose to move, That the draft code of practice laid before the House on 4th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, one of the first, and certainly one of the most important, of this Government's step-by-step reforms of industrial relations and trade union law was to make flying pickets unlawful. The 1980 Employment Act removed any trade dispute immunity for a person to picket other than at his or her own place of work, unless he or she is the union official who represents the pickets. To supplement that change in the law we also took powers to issue a statutory code of practice. It is that code—originally issued in 1980—that would be replaced by the revised draft before your Lordships today.

Since 1980 there have been various changes to the law relating to picketing and the organisation of picketing activities. For example, the 1982 Employment Act made it possible to take legal proceedings against a union which organises unlawful picketing. The 1984 Trade Union Act required unions to ballot their members before calling on them to take industrial action; and the 1988 Employment Act gave union members protection against being disciplined by their union for crossing a picket line.

In addition, although scenes of violent and intimidatory picketing had become much less common than in the 1970s, over 10 years had passed since the issue of the code and it was appropriate to review what it said about good practice —that is, above and beyond the requirements of primary law —in respect of the conduct and organisation of picketing. Accordingly, in February 1991 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced his intention to prepare a draft revised code. At the end of July the draft revised code was published for public consultation with responses being invited by the end of October. This Motion now seeks approval of that draft, as modified to take account of comments received during the public consultation period and laid before the House some three weeks ago. The draft revised code is organised into the same main sections as the present code.

The preamble, while otherwise in a standard form, calls attention to a new feature of the revised code designed to be generally helpful to the reader, that is the use of light grey background to identify and distinguish passages which outline or re-state provisions in primary legislation.

The section on picketing and the civil law reflects changes to relevant employment law since 1980—for example, by giving more emphasis to the requirements which must be satisfied if picketing is to be lawfully organised, for example by a trade union. There are new recommendations about limiting picketing activities where a picket takes place at an entrance or exit of a place of work shared by workers of more than one employer and about choosing locations closest to the place of work being picketed.

The sections on picketing and the criminal law and on the role of the police update the present code to take account of the 1986 Public Order Act. Section 14 of that Act is also mentioned in the section on limiting numbers of pickets as it gives the police powers to impose conditions on public assemblies such as may occur where demonstrators wish to show support for pickets. Otherwise that section is very similar to the equivalent section of the present code. It includes the provision—with added emphasis by highlighting the text—that, pickets and their organisers should ensure that in general the number of pickets does not exceed six at any entrance to, or exit from, a workplace; frequently a smaller number will be appropriate".

The section on organisation of picketing restates important good practice recommendations and adds some new ones such as that a picket should not claim to be, and identify itself as, official—that is, supported by a trade union—unless the union is in fact prepared to accept the consequent responsibility for the pickets' activities. It also outlines the new statutory protection which union members now have against being disciplined by their union for crossing a picket line.

The recommendations in the final section— Essential supplies, services and operations"— now recognise that picketing should not be so conducted as to disrupt "activities" (as well as "supplies of goods and services", as in the present code): necessary to the maintenance of plant and machinery".

In applying the law since 1980, the courts have, where relevant, been guided by the present code's recommendations, in particular in respect of whether more than six pickets at any workplace entrance would be likely to give rise to fear and intimidation.

The statutory code is a valuable source of information about the law, and of advice about good practice which can help ensure that picketing does as little damage as practicable to good industrial relations. The time has come to revise the present code so that it can continue to make the same contribution in the years to come. The revised code will serve that purpose. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft code of practice laid before the House on 4th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Ullswater.)

3 p.m.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very clear explanation of the draft code on picketing. However, I wonder why it is felt necessary to bring it forward at this particular time. To my knowledge there have been no recent occasions upon which picketing has presented any problem. There have been no scenes outside workplaces, no clashes with the police and nothing remotely resembling the kind of activity of which the Government have complained and to which the Minister referred today. I question, therefore, whether in introducing the code at this time the Government are attempting just before an election to raise the old anti-union issues again. Public opinion polls would appear to indicate that a majority of the population regard unions as a good thing. There seems no justification for the Government's evident belief that they can get more mileage out of an anti-union stance.

That said, the code is in line with existing legislation which has been passed by Parliament. It is, of course, useful to have in a small handbook a summary of the legislation and a guide as to its meaning and to action which unions and their members in dispute may or may not take. I agree with the Minister that that is very clearly set out. The present layout is an improvement.

This House will know that we on these Benches regard the legislation upon which the code is based as one-sided and unacceptable, although I would point out in passing that for many years the TUC's code on picketing limited the number of pickets which ought to be deployed at any one time or at any one place. However, it does not seem to us to be fair that the Government should intervene legislatively so strongly in favour of employers and against those whose only real weapon against exploitation is the collective one of unionisation.

In my view a reasonable Government would at least attempt to put a fair legislative framework in place, acknowledging that individual employees, particularly at times of high unemployment, have virtually no means of redress against unfair treatment by an employer except through union activity. The Minister may point to provisions allowing access to industrial tribunals but, as he knows very well, there have now been decided restrictions on that remedy, both in regard to the length of time an individual must have been in employment before going to an industrial tribunal and in regard to the waiting time before a case reaches an industrial tribunal. The situation is even worse if the individual seeks to go to appeal. Therefore, restrictive legislation with regard to unions on which the code is based simply add to the problems of individuals seeking some semblance of fair treatment.

I shall not comment on the various sections of the code. The Minister well knows our objections to the legislation since we voiced them on many occasions when the Bills were before this House. However, I repeat that in my view the legislative framework is unfair.

Despite what the Government say, that framework is not largely responsible for what they call improved industrial relations. The reduction in the number of disputes is due largely to the very deep recession and the mounting toll of unemployment. When we are in Government we shall ensure that we have a fair legislative framework—not a framework balanced in favour of the unions or the employers, but a framework which endeavours to be fair to both sides in industrial relations—acknowledging that employees, through their union, have certain rights which are a part of ILO conventions that in the past have been ratified by successive UK governments. However, I offer no objection to the code that is before the House. As has already been stated, it is based on legislation which has been through both Houses.

Lord Knights

My Lords, it had been my intention to speak at rather greater length on this topic than I now propose to do. Clearly the strong views that were held in 1980 when the code was first introduced have long since disappeared. However, of all the multifarious duties imposed by society on its police, the one that causes them the greatest concern is the maintenance of public order. In discharging their responsibilities in that field, it is clearly necessary that at all times the police should be seen to be completely impartial.

The one drawback of this code is that it bears the hallmark of government and to that extent may introduce an element of partiality into a process in which impartiality is of the essence. Ideally, I should like to see a code produced jointly by the TUC, the CBI and/or ACAS, which those bodies would be prepared to police. But, in the absence of that, this code serves a very useful purpose, provided that we bear in mind the fact that occasionally it may be thought to be the code of the police or the Government rather than what one would have hoped; namely, an acceptable compromise between all the parties concerned.

Having said that, the alterations and amendments seem to me to be eminently suitable. In particular I like the distinction which is now drawn between pickets and activities connected with picketing; that is to say, assemblies or meetings, which have always been more difficult to police than picketing itself. With those few comments I am happy to support the proposal.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, welcomes the way in which this draft code on picketing has been put forward. It is in the interests of those undertaking picketing that such a code should be introduced. It is perhaps unfortunate that she should take a code which has had a very useful life for a 10-year period and which, because of the existence of a number of changes in primary legislation, is now being reviewed to be part of anti-union legislation. I altogether reject that concept.

I believe this code to be exactly as I stated in my opening remarks. It is a fair review of the original code, taking into account the changes in primary legislation since that date. I believe that we now have a fair legislative framework. I should point to the fact that the industrial climate is better now than it has been over the past five years and better than it was in the latter part of the 1970s. The noble Baroness said that that came purely from the pressures of recession in the past year or so. I ask her to examine the figures relating to the number of strikes that have taken place over the past few years. She will see that there have been fewer strikes than even in the last year of the 1970s.

The noble Lord, Lord Knights, with his long experience of working with the police, drew attention to their role as outlined in the draft code. He also pointed out that the code bore the fingerprint—if I may use that expression—of government. The document went out to consultation and various amendments were proposed which have been incorporated in the revised draft code on picketing that is now before the House.

The code was brought forward by the Government. However, they have listened to other parties and have sought to make the code the most practical guide for those who are intent on using picketing as a form of persuasion to their colleagues. The code of practice explains the primary law and what the code of good practice should be. I believe that it does so very fairly.

I commend the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.