§ 2.45 p.m.
§ Lord Evans of Parksideasked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have received from organisations, companies and individuals opposing trade union recognition at the workplace.
§ The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis)My Lords, the Government have held discussions with both the CBI and the TUC on the implementation of the manifesto commitment on union recognition. The Government have also received a number of other representations on union recognition, some in favour of introducing a statutory right to recognition and some against. The Government are holding further consultations on the issue and will publish their proposals in the forthcoming White Paper on fairness at work.
§ Lord Evans of ParksideMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for that interesting and informative reply. Does he agree that any question of trade union recognition in the workplace would best be resolved by a secret ballot of those employees in that workplace? Does he further agree that any suggestion that abstentions should be regarded and counted as votes against recognition would be utterly unacceptable?
§ Lord Clinton-DavisMy Lords, strong views are held on this issue by both the CBI and the TUC. I think it would be wrong, in advance of the publication of the White Paper, to take any pre-emptive position on any of the points raised by my noble friend. I know that he feels very strongly about this issue, too. What we are seeking here is an approach based on flexibility on the part of both sides, and including the Government, because this issue ought to be decided on a partnership basis if it possibly can be. That is our approach and that will be reflected in the White Paper which will be issued before the end of the first half of this year.
§ Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's sentiments about this. It is a very important topic. It was, if he can remember, satisfactorily resolved as between the employers and the employees by the machinery of the Act of 1971. It was one of the few parts of that Act that worked satisfactorily. Could that be taken on board in an effort to find not the same resolution—it is too complex for that—but a similar one?
§ Lord Clinton-DavisMy Lords, we have, of course, moved on a good deal since 1971. Any positive 289 suggestion for reconciling the parties concerned would be positively welcomed. One of the positive things that has emerged from the discussion so far is the wide area of agreement. What we are now considering is one of the few difficulties standing in the way of agreement. But the identification of points of common interest is rather remarkable, and I alluded to that when I last answered a Question on this point.
§ Lord RazzallMy Lords, in the light of his previous answer, and in the light of the comments about what happened in the early 970s, does the Minister agree that these issues are far more complex than the press are currently acknowledging? Is there not a danger that, in the current climate, issues of significant principle may be turned into disputes over arithmetical formulae as to the percentages of votes? What is the Government's position with regard to what are clearly complicated issues which in the 1970s were often resolved more by voluntary agreement in the workplace than by these arithmetical formulae? Does he agree that this is a complex issue which requires much greater consideration than it is currently being given in the press?
§ Lord Clinton-DavisMy Lords, under the guise of complexity the noble Lord has introduced a very simplistic argument. Of course, he is right when he says that this matter is shrouded in complexity. There are very strongly held opinions on both sides. Of course, the Government would prefer an approach based on a voluntary agreement reached between the parties, but whether that is capable of being achieved remains to be seen. We are still confident that further common ground can be identified and that a positive result will be achieved in these negotiations. That is what we are seeking to do and we are doing our best to achieve it.
§ Lord Murray of Epping ForestMy Lords, do the CBI and the Government agree that only an acceptable alternative, in a legal form, to the traditional way of securing recognition will he appropriate in these circumstances? Does the Minister acknowledge that in practice the most effective way of securing recognition is by ensuring that the employer enters into collective bargaining, hut, if he refuses to do that, that his employees decline to work except on terms and conditions that have been agreed? If no acceptable form is found in legislation, then do the Government acknowledge that that will be the only way open to trade unions? Will the Minister ensure that blame is not laid at their door for the failure of employers to be more sensible and reasonable in this discussion?
§ Lord Clinton-DavisMy Lords, my noble friend is very well qualified to enter this debate because his work in practice as General Secretary of the TUC was quite outstanding in bringing parties together on a voluntary basis. It did not always work, but he certainly used his best endeavours. The noble Lord raises a lot of separate questions in his intervention. I do not believe that I can go further than this at this stage: as a result of the deliberations that have taken place so far, the parties have unquestionably moved closer together in a large number of quite contentious areas, and that is good. 290 Whether in fact we can bridge this particular gap on recognition remains to be seen. I am still confident that that will be possible.
§ Lord Fraser of CarmyllieMy Lords, the noble Lord is a distinguished lawyer and a parliamentarian of great renown. Can he offer us an opinion as to whether he considers the wording of the party manifesto contained any ambiguity which could have caused distinguished leaders of the trade union movement and the Prime Minister to have reached apparently completely contradictory views?
§ Lord Clinton-DavisMy Lords, when the noble and learned Lord tries so hard to flatter me into submission, I shall resist it. It was very interesting that Mr. John Edmonds, in an interview this morning, said that it was not true that he was being very critical of the Government. He said that it was inappropriate to make criticisms of the Government at the moment. He showed that the Government were in fact using their best endeavours to arrive at a settlement. However much the noble and learned Lord was trying to dress up his question as a positive contribution to this debate, I must say that I thought it was imbued with mischief rather than with hope.
§ Lord Fraser of CarmyllieMy Lords, will the noble Lord answer my question?
§ Lord Clinton-DavisMy Lords, I thought that I had. Anyway, if I have not, the question was incapable of answer because it was not really on the ball.