Sitting of 14 April 1978

PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Consumer Advice Centres
  Consumer Advice Centres
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Reorganisation Schemes
  Reorganisation Schemes
  Music Tuition
  Music Tuition
WALES
  Nominated Bodies (Membership)
  Nominated Bodies (Membership)
TRADE
  European Air Routes (Fares)
  European Air Routes (Fares)
DEFENCE
  Personnel
  Personnel
  Service Personnel (Working Hours)
  Service Personnel (Working Hours)
  Service Personnel (Pensions)
  Service Personnel (Pensions)
  Army Restructuring Plan
  Army Restructuring Plan
  Phantom Air Defence Squadrons
  Phantom Air Defence Squadrons
  Service Personel (Baggage Allowance)
  Service Personel (Baggage Allowance)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Community (Identity Cards)
  European Community (Identity Cards)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
EMPLOYMENT
  Manufacturing (Male Wage)
  Manufacturing (Male Wage)
  European Community (Statistics)
  European Community (Statistics)
  Employment Protection Act
  Employment Protection Act
  Hotel and Catering Industry
  Hotel and Catering Industry
  Dismissals
  Dismissals
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
  West Norfolk
  West Norfolk
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  MR. W. NORVAL
  MR. W. NORVAL
ENERGY
  British National Oil Corporation
  British National Oil Corporation
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Zambia
  Zambia
  Cambodia
  Cambodia
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Republic of Ireland (Extradition)
  Republic of Ireland (Extradition)
ENVIRONMENT
  Industrial and Commercial Buildings (Minimum Energy Values)
  Industrial and Commercial Buildings (Minimum Energy Values)
  Sewage
  Sewage
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Weather Damage (East England)
  Weather Damage (East England)
TRANSPORT
  Trunk Roads (Feeders)
  Trunk Roads (Feeders)
  Holiday Traffic
  Holiday Traffic
  M20 and A20 (Accidents)
  M20 and A20 (Accidents)
  Tachographs
  Tachographs
  Kent and Sussex Ports
  Kent and Sussex Ports
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Consumption
  Food Consumption
  Loan Agencies (Small Farmers)
  Loan Agencies (Small Farmers)
  Animals (Exports)
  Animals (Exports)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Benefit Claims (Abuse)
  Benefit Claims (Abuse)
  Untreated Milk Infections
  Untreated Milk Infections
  Health Centre Charges
  Health Centre Charges
  Bethnal Green Hospital
  Bethnal Green Hospital
  Diuretic Tablets
  Diuretic Tablets
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Non-Contributory Invalidity Pension
  Non-Contributory Invalidity Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  War Disability Pensions
  War Disability Pensions
  Pensions (War Widows)
  Pensions (War Widows)
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Vaccination
  Vaccination
  Malta (Medical Services)
  Malta (Medical Services)
  Pantothenic Acid
  Pantothenic Acid
  National Health Service (Resources)
  National Health Service (Resources)
  Orthopaedic Footwear
  Orthopaedic Footwear
  Osteo-Arthritis
  Osteo-Arthritis
  Gluten-Free Foods
  Gluten-Free Foods
  Cystic Fibrosis
  Cystic Fibrosis
  Respiratory Conditions (Children)
  Respiratory Conditions (Children)
INDUSTRY
  Tyres
  Tyres
  Medical Research
  Medical Research
  Child Mortality
  Child Mortality
  Telephones
  Telephones
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
  British Leyland
  British Leyland
SCOTLAND
  May Day Holiday
  May Day Holiday
  British Youth Council
  British Youth Council
  Doctors (Pay)
  Doctors (Pay)
  Police
  Police
  National Museums, Galleries and Library (Indemnity Certificate Payments)
  National Museums, Galleries and Library (Indemnity Certificate Payments)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Inland Revenue Staff
  Inland Revenue Staff
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Ministerial Constituencies (Government Grants)
  Ministerial Constituencies (Government Grants)
  Child Benefits
  Child Benefits
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Departmental Inquiries
  Departmental Inquiries
Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PETITION

  Bournbrook, Selly Oak
  Mr. Tom Litterick: I beg leave, Mr. Speaker, to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the village of Bournbrook, in the district of Selly Oak, in the constituency of Birmingham, Selly Oak.
  Beginning with the usual marks of respect for the House, the petition states that there is the strongest local objection to the exclusion of the village of Bourn-brook, in the district of Selly Oak in Birmingham, from the Birmingham inner city partnership area, even though less needy areas have been included in that area.
  "Wherefore your petitioners pray that the House will take steps to have the said village of Bournbrook, in the district of Selly Oak in Birmingham, included in the said area.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc."
  A petition substantially the same as this has been signed by residents of Selly Oak.
  To lie upon the Table.

Ordered,
That the Suppression of Terrorism Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Graham.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION BILL
    New Clause No. 1

      SERVICE NOT TO PROCEED ON REFERENCE IF CERTAIN INDUSTRIAL ACTION TAKEN.
      'That the following Section be inserted after Section 11 of the Employment Protection Act 1975—
      "11A The Service shall not proceed on a reference under Section 11 above if strike or other industrial action has been taken or threatened in support of the recognition claim by the independent trade union concerned either since the reference was made or during the twelve months previous"'.—[Mr. Hayhoe.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      11.7 a.m.
      Mr. Barney Hayhoe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      On Second Reading I made it absolutely clear, as did my colleagues, that we were firmly opposed to the Bill. In order to paint the background for the new clause, I wish to make it clear that our belief is that any changes in the trade union recognition procedures in the Employment Protection Act 1975 must be fair and even-handed.
      We do not suggest that Section 11 and subsequent sections of the Act, and the way in which these have been interpreted, and the experience we have of those sections, indicate for one moment that the present position is perfect. We recognise that there are difficulties. But we believe the Bill to be unfair and highly partial in its effect. Although we have sought to improve it in Committee and made some changes, we now wish to continue that process on Report.
      In Committee, the Government and the Bill's sponsors were somewhat stiff-necked and intransigent in the way that they reacted to our suggestions. It is not at all characteristic of the Minister of State to behave in that way. Having debated many Bills with him in Committee, I know that usually he tries to be helpful, but I thought that his performance in Committee on this occasion

      1821
      fell far below the reasonable standards that we have come to expect from him.
      Incidentally, the opposition to these measures, and, I think, the support that we would get for the new clauses and the amendments that we are moving, come from very wide sections within the population. I have had representations from the Federation of Building Society Staff Associations, from the Royal College of Midwives, from the trade union concerned with the retired officers of the Civil Service, from the Confederation of Bank Staff Associations, and from many other bodies. They are all concerned about the recognition procedures which are covered by the Bill.
      Parliament first decided in 1971, when there was a Conservative Government, and reiterated in 1975, when there was a Labour Government, that it wanted, through legislation, to provide a means of solving union recognition disputes in a peaceful fashion. This new clause reinforces those arguments by saying to trade unions "You cannot have it both ways. You cannot seek to win recognition on the swings of industrial action as well as on the roundabouts of statutory procedures. You cannot have a situation where, "heads", trade unions win by industrial action and, "tails", employers and often employees lose through statutory procedures. That would be a wholly unfair situation.
      We Conservatives—I hope that this view will be supported by other hon. Members—want to discourage strike action or other industrial action in support of recognition claims or, indeed, in other respects. All too often when strike action or industrial action is taken it is the general public—wholly innocent and wholly uninvolved in the dispute—which suffers as a result. I hope that all of us will always be seeking ways in which we can reduce such action.
      If we look at the figures we see that in 1977 nearly 10 million days were lost as a result of strike action. That was three times the 1976 figure and more than in 1973, the last year of the Conservative Government. It is significant that within those totals we see some rise in the number of industrial disputes which are centred on matters of trade union concern and recognition.
      Mr. Stan Thorne: Against the background of the hon. Gentleman's known opposition to strikes per se, will he indicate how trade unionists will draw attention to their problem if this new clause is accepted?
      Mr. Hayhoe: As I proceed I hope that will unfold, because the new clause says that as there is a statutory procedure available under Section 11 of the Employment Protection Act trade unions should be encouraged to use those provisions and not seek to go along lines where they will be saying "'Heads', we try and win by industrial action and 'tails', we try to ensure that our case is accepted as the result of the statutory procedures".
      In bringing those statutory procedures on to the statute book Parliament indicated to the country that it wanted these sorts of disputes to be resolved through a peaceful system of inquiry and recommendation. We believe that some penalties, in the sense that the statutory procedures would not be available—that being the penalty—should follow the taking of industrial action or strike action by a union in pursuit of a recognition claim.
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the real world of industrial relations there are always very mixed feelings among work people about whether or not to strike? While the strike is on, the situation in terms of whether or not it should continue is always very fluid. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has not taken these matters sufficiently into account because what he is proposing would tend to prolong the strike—since he cannot allow the right to strike—if ACAS cannot move in in order to try to clear it up.
      Mr. Hayhoe: Perhaps because of his unfamiliarity with this legislation, and with the arguments, the hon. Gentleman has fallen into the tray of thinking that I am seeking to inhibit the right to strike. That I am not doing. I shall come to some comments about this later. What I am saying is that Parliament having established peaceful procedures for the resolution of recognition disputes alone we in this House should now be reinforcing it. If the hon. Gentleman will listen to the whole of my argument he will see that I

      1823
      shall draw attention to the most flagrant cases where Parliament ought to be ex pressing some sort of view.
      11.15 a.m.
      I made clear on Second Reading that there were other aspects of trade union recognition procedures, apart from those covered in the Bill, which we believe to be absolutely unsatisfactory. I said:
      "Many, many more people inside and outside trade unions, would give much higher priority to changes in the law about union recognition which would deal with the appallingblackmailing gangster-like tactics of SLADE than to the provisions included in this Bill".—[Official Report, 20th January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 852.]
      I believe that to be profoundly true. I believe that the majority of people outside would support that, because the whole poisonous business of SLADE—the Society of Lithographic Artists, Designers, Engravers and Process Workers—the way in which it blackmails individuals and firms and its blockading tactics to win recognition and membership, have nothing to do with proper trade unionism and nothing to do with the spirit which animated Parliament—when there was a Conservative Government in 1971 and, again, with a Labour Government in 1975—to pass legislation relating to trade union recognition.
      It would surely be absolutely intolerable if SLADE, after behaving as it is now behaving, could go to ACAS and ask it to help resolve a recognition dispute using the Section 11 statutory procedures of the Employment Protection Act. As a result of the marauding tactics which it follows, SLADE jeopardises the livelihood of individual artists, designers, illustrators and photographers. The very people whom SLADE is supposed to protect are the people whom it threatens and terrorises by its own activities. It would be absolutely intolerable if, after doing all this, SLADE could cheerfully put in a claim for recognition under Section 11 of the Employment Protection Act.
      Mr. Nicholas Scott: My hon. Friend said that SLADE had jeopardised the livelihoods of people involved in these activities. In my constituency alone I have had three cases of people being driven out of business entirely by the activities of SLADE.
      Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. There are people, not only in his constituency but in many parts of the country, whose livelihood has not just been threatened but severely damaged as a result of the activities of SLADE. Substantial parts of the work which for many years they have undertaken has been taken away from them by trade union action. This is not trade union action against some remote boss, or something of that kind; this is trade union action against craftsmen and working people. I believe that it should be condemned in all parts of the House.
      In my judgment it would be quite wrong, in these circumstances, for Parliament to do nothing about this poisonous SLADE affair. The new clause at least goes some way as an expression of disgust at SLADE's tactics and as an indication of our concern. Let me make it clear that this new clause, even in the circumstances that I have described, will not deny to SLADE the conciliation procedures which exist under Section 2 of the Employment Protection Act.
      If SLADE has a change of heart and wants to use the good offices of ACAS to resolve, through conciliation, some of the disputes that exist, this new clause does not deny that avenue to it. What it would do, at least for a period of 12 months, would be to deny SLADE the possibility of going to ACAS and seeking to use, in support of its claim for recognition, the statutory procedures which Parliament has laid down.
      Mr. Ron Thomas: If the hon. Member reads through his proposed new clause again, he will discover that it is worded so widely that its real intention seems to be to try to prevent a number of claims going to ACAS. It talks about industrial action having been taken or threatened in support of a recognition claim. It would only require a shop steward of an independent union to say "If we cannot get recognition by negotiation, we shall take action", for the clause to come into operation immediately.
      Mr. Hayhoe: I am not sure whether the hon. Member's intervention means that he agrees with my argument and that he is now merely nit-picking round

      1825
      the edges of it, or that he has not the guts to attack my central theme, which is the disgraceful behaviour of SLADE. When we last debated SLADE, no Government supporter was prepared to say a word in its favour. We shall see whether any champions of SLADE's anti-union behaviour appear today. I am sure that no one who is a real supporter of trade unionism will be able to defend the activities of SLADE in pursuit of membership and recognition.
      Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) has attacked SLADE and said that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) was nit-picking, although my hon. Friend's brief intervention struck at the very heart of this amendment. I sat with the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth throughout the proceedings in Committee. He has condemned SLADE. Can we expect him now to give us his view about the Grunwick boss, George Ward—[Interruption.] We all know that this Bill came about because of the Grunwick affair. What does the hon. Member say about the Grunwick gaffer, George Ward, and what he did?
      Mr. Hayhoe: I am speaking to this new clause, and I am sure that Mr. Speaker would take me to task if I wandered into matters that I dealt with on Second Reading or in Committee. I am saying that the Employment Protection Bill is not an argument about, or for or against, what happened at Grunwick. I know that Government supporters sitting below the Gangway, whose shortage of any sensible arguments on the issues involved in the Bill has been so noticeable, have time and time again made standard speeches, which presumably they made on the picket line outside Grunwick and which they are now repeating ad nauseam in this House, but I ask them to turn to the matters dealt with in the clause.
      I do not defend the wording of the new clause in detail. I am not a parliamentary draftsman. But the clear, firm, central intention of the clause is quite plain. It is to deny to unions which take or threaten industrial action in pursuit of a recognition claim access to the statutory
      1826
      procedures that Parliament has laid down.
      Of course, the best solution to the SLADE problem would be for its membership to do something about it. I think that the majority of its members do not support the tactics followed by their leaders. I am worried to see the way in which members of the SLADE Art Union are prevented from taking a full part in their union's affairs. It is not without significance that when we debated the Second Reading of this Bill, a group of members of the moderate SLADE Art Union were taking SLADE to the High Court to prevent SLADE taking action which was against the interests of the members of the SLADE Art Union.
      I believe that if all the members of SLADE, including those of the SLADE Art Union, were free to express their views on this matter, they, like many of us here, would condemn what is being done in their name. However, since that is not happening, in my view it is deplorable that the TUC and its printing industries committee, which is well aware of these problems, have done so little to help. Broadly speaking, their attitude might be described as shame-faced, so unwilling are they to take any effective action to deal with the problem.
      It is a pity that Ministers have not sought to intervene to indicate their abhorrence of the activities of SLADE. That view alone would be enough to create support for New Clause. No. 1. It was not all that long ago that the Prime Minister quoted the remark of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) about the unacceptable face of capitalism. Far more unacceptable is the unacceptable face of trade unionism, which we see in the activities of SLADE, and I hope that the Minister of State will condemn them roundly in the intervention that he is about to make.
      The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): Apparently the hon. Member has forgotten that we debated SLADE's conduct last year and that from this Dispatch Box I expressed the Government's concern about its tactics.
      Mr. Hayhoe: I readily acknowledge that. However, in a Written Answer to

      1827
      a Question towards the end of last month, the right hon. Gentleman said that no further effective action had been taken. We know that the Government wring their moral hands about it, but they are not taking any effective action. I hope that at least this new clause will provide a toehold for those who wish to express a view on this issue.
      The new clause should also be seen in the context of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) in the debate to which the Minister has just drawn our attention. On that occasion, my right hon. Friend made reference to recognition procedures and asked the Government:
      "Will they also look at sanctions applying to unions who dodge the procedure? Surely no one would suggest that unions who fail to use the appropriate methods should be entitled to the legal immunities for inducing breach of contract that make the threat of blacking so menacing and so effective. That goes to the nub of the problem. There is no case for having the procedures under Section 11 of the Act, which allow a union to take a case for recognition to ACAS, and yet, at the same time, allow a union to black and to bring about a breach of contract while retaining the immunities under Sections 13 and 14 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. The Government and the House must consider these problems. We must consider the general problems of persuading the TUC and its Printing Industries Committee to take the action that we have suggested. We must draw attention to the practices of SLADE, which are deeply resented and detested by people outside the House as well as by hon. Members."—[Official Report, 29th June 1977; Vol. 934, c. 469–70.]
      Those were my right hon. Friend's remarks in June last year. In tabling this new clause, the Opposition have sought at least to begin to put some flesh upon the ideas that my right hon. Friend expressed on that occasion.
      I have concentrated upon the activities of SLADE in opening the debate on this new clause. However, the clause goes much wider. I believe that it corresponds to feelings which are deeply and widely held by the vast majority of our fellow countrymen. They are fed up to the back teeth with seeing strike action and industrial action taken when other remedies for resolving disputes exist.
      Again, I think that we are striking a very deep chord if we support the new clause—a chord which is in no way anti-trade unionist or anti-trade union. It is a clause which will help to support the better and more responsible elements
      1828
      within trade unionism and which will also be well in tune with the feelings of a very large number of our fellow citizens. I commend it to the House.
      11.30 a.m.
      Mr. Philip Holland: My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) dealt with the new clause in the round, as a complete whole. I want to deal with it in two sections, because it deals with two distinct situations. First, it deals with strike action after a reference has been made. Then it deals with strike action before a reference has been made. I should like to take those two halves separately.
      In the first situation, all that the new clause really says is "Let us not have any unfair pressure on ACAS to prepare its reports on recognition with the kind of undue haste that could provide an excuse for sloppy workmanship." What the first part of the new clause does, in a sense, is to outlaw blackmail in circumstances in which an arbitration service has been called in to seek a solution to a problem in a way that will be fair to everyone concerned. It is perfectly reasonable to say that ACAS should not have to give consideration to a recognition issue whilst the members of the union that made the reference, or that may be affected by it, behave in a disruptive way.
      It is, of course, not unusual for employers in the public sector as well as in the private sector to refuse to negotiate a settlement in an industrial dispute when under duress. In many cases, employees on strike are required to return to work before negotiations can be reopened. There is nothing revolutionary about this; it is common practice in a large number of companies, in a number of industries.
      In such companies, trade unions and employers have a recognised procedure which is fully understood by both sides. It is a kind of folk dance. A strike is called to concentrate the employer's mind on a grievance that seems to be dragging on a bit. The employer recognises the importance of the dispute and indicates his willingness to try a little harder to reach an accommodation with the unions concerned. This is quite a recognised gambit. The employees return to work and positive negotiations are reopened with renewed determination to find a solution in a way that will enable both sides to get

      1829
      off the hook of their own previous obduracy.
      As I have said, it is a farly well recognised formula that puts in its proper context what is euphemistically called "industrial action" but which usually means industrial inaction. Provided that it is not overdone or unduly prolonged, withdrawal of labour used in this way in relation to an employer makes a point without causing unnecessary hardship or indulging in reprehensible forms of blackmail to achieve its ends.
      I have, of course been making a general point about how unfair it would be for ACAS to have to seek solutions to recognition problems whilst under the duress arising from industrial action, but there are, of course, other points to be considered. It would not only be unfair to indulge in strike action after a reference has been made; it would be both unnecessary and stupid, because in these circumstances this kind of prolongation of strike action would impose unnecessary hardship on the families of those on strike. It would deny those who had sufficient faith in the enterprise to put their money into it a proper return on their investment. In many circumstances it might well inconvenience the general public. Finally, it would dull competitiveness and destroy adherence to the delivery dates of the company providing employment.
      The one section of the community that would not be in any way inconvenienced would, of course, be the council of ACAS. Distracted by what was happening—perhaps; its judgment clouded by the continuing recalcitrance of one of the parties to the dispute—very probably; but it would not in any way be suffering as a direct result of the strike action.
      So what purpose would be served by employees remaining on strike after a reference had been made? It would certainly not be to the employees' advantage or to the trade union's advantage, for it would probably merely serve to antagonise the very people whose friendship they need.
      So why cannot Labour Members accept this new clause, which is concerned merely to protect the potentially foolish from their potential folly? Resistance to this very sensible safeguard may imply a
      1830
      desire to see confusion worse confounded. Some Labour Members—I hope that this is true—may take the view that at least the first part of the new clause is acceptable since they may find difficulty in accepting the final words of the clause about strike action.
      "during the twelve months previous."
      I shall spend a moment or two on that point.
      This, of course, raises a slightly different issue—the issue whether strike action is ever justified where good and adequate procedures exist under the control and direction of impartial and objective bodies. Whilst I would always support a law that enabled a man to withdraw his labour in the last resort, I believe that grievance procedures ought, of themselves, to be good enough to outlaw strike action. This is not something in which politicians ought to get involved; it is something for managements and unions to work out sensibly between them.
      It may be that Labour Members are not satisfied with the recognition procedures set up by their own Government under the grossly misnamed Employment Protection Act. Their disillusionment over the employment protection provided by that Act is not very surprising—for unemployment has trebled since it got on to the statute book. It may be, of course, that they are suspicious of the adequacy of the recognition procedures because they are not convinced of the impartiality and objectivity of the controlling QUANGO—ACAS. Having studied a number of ACAS recognition reports, I have to confess that even I have harboured doubts on that score. But that is no reason why unions should take their members out on strike to obtain recognition before they have even tried the clear official procedures laid down.
      Of course, we know that there are those who seek to profit by causing trouble. For them, any peaceful means of achieving a settlement to a dispute is to be deplored, but I cannot believe that the present Government and the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher), the Bill's promoter, are motivated by that kind of reasoning. I think that they are really just afraid of placing even the most innocuous legal restraints on their trade union masters. In this matter, nevertheless, I hope that on mature reflection they

      1831
      will conclude that the clause really does make sense and that any impact it has will be only on the irresponsible.
      Surely, the big unions cannot object to it, for they know to what an extent the official procedures are now all heavily weighted in their favour and how much influence they already exert through their nominees on the controlling quasi-autonomous national government organisations.
      This clause will merely exert a restraining influence on the irresponsible minorities, and I should have thought that very few hon. Members would quarrel with that objective. Indeed, I hope that a majority in the House will support the new clause, as I do.
      Mr. Ted Fletcher: First, I express the hope that we shall make rapid progress on Report and Third Reading. However, I am not very optimistic, in view of the fact that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) took half an hour to introduce the new clause. There are 11 groups of new clauses and amendments to be discussed today. Therefore, I express the hope that Opposition Members are not deliberately engaged in a filibuster to hold up the Bill. We shall see later in the day whether that is so.
      Mr. Holland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Fletcher: Not at this stage. I have hardly begun my contribution.
      We had eight sittings of the Committee on the Bill. This is a two-clause Bill, and many of the arguments that we have heard in the two speeches this morning were rehearsed in Committee. I should have thought that the Bill had adequate discussion in Committee and that we might proceed rapidly on Report to Third Reading. We are anxious to make progress, and I intend to reply as briefly as possible to the new clause and later new clauses and amendments in order that we may make progress this morning.
      The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth said that he was not a parlimentary draftsman. That is obvious, because the new clause is unworkable. The Opposition have not taken into consideration the real world in which we live. The clause proposes that ACAS would have to refuse any application from a trade union
      1832
      if its members had been on strike, or even threatened to go on strike, in the preceding 12 months.
      Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman said that according to the clause ACAS would have to refuse an application by a trade union. That is not what it says. It would make ACAS refuse to go on processing the application. It would not make ACAS refuse it. As I read the clause, it would go into cold storage until such time as the industrial action ceased and 12 months had elapsed.
      Mr. Fletcher: I see little distinction between not proceeding and not taking any action. That would be the effect. It is apparent that Opposition Members have little knowledge of industrial relations inside factory establishments. It may be that an employer will deliberately provoke a strike if he wants to get round a recognition issue. That has not been unknown. Unscrupulous employers will seize on the clause to provoke industrial action in the hope of staving off for at least 12 months any application by a trade union to ACAS for union recognition. That is a big obstacle to be overcome.
      Mr. John Gorst: It is nonsensical to suggest that it is in the financial and commercial interests of employers to provoke strikes merely to stave off recognition for 12 months. The hon. Gentleman suggested that Opposition Members had no knowledge of industrial relations. I suggest that he has absolutely no idea about commercial undertakings.
      Mr. Fletcher: I assure the hon. Gentleman that disputes have been deliberately provoked by employers to frustrate the intention of a union to seek recognition.
      Another matter which has not been taken into consideration is the nature of a dispute which involves recognition. In the majority of instances, industrial disputes do not start over the issue of recognition. A dispute may start in a non-organised establishment where the workers have applied for a wage increase or may be incensed about the dismissal of one of their colleagues. They may not be organised in a union. As a result of the action that they take—they may possibly come out on strike—they may join

      1833
      a union, as happened in the Grunwick dispute, and then say to the union "Will you discuss with our employer our particular grievance?" It may be a wage application, hours of work, overtime, holiday entitlement or a mass of things which are the basis of conciliation between union and management. At that stage, the management may refuse to see the union. It may say that it will not recognise the union.
      11.45 a.m.
      How in the new clause is a distinction drawn between a dispute which starts over terms and conditions of employment and then develops into a dispute on recognition because the employer will not talk to or be prepared to recognise the union? I suggest that deciding whether a dispute is a recognition dispute or an industrial dispute which developed into a recognition dispute will provide many meals for barristers in the courts.
      Mr. David Madel: Is not that point covered by the precise wording of the new clause,
      "threatened in support of the recognition claim"?
      It does not say "threatened in support of a wages claim" or anything else which may be amiss in a factory. As the wording is so precise, why is the hon. Gentleman so fussed about it?
      Mr. Fletcher: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might look at the Grunwick dispute, which is a classic example of a group of workers who came out on strike because a number of their colleagues had, in their opinion, been unjustifiably sacked. That was the origin of the dispute. They then joined APEX, and APEX asked the employer "Are you prepared to negotiate on a return to work on the basis of no victimisation?" As a result, the Grunwick dispute is now a dispute about union recognition. If we talk to anyone about the Grunwick dispute, he will say that it is a dispute about union recognition. But it is not. It originated as a dispute about what the workers regarded as un-fair dismissal of some of their colleagues. That is a classic example of how difficult it is to define action taken in defence of standards inside a factory and action taken to get union recognition.
      Mr. Holland: The new clause makes it plain that, if the strike at Grunwick or wherever else was about unfair dismissal, that would not preclude the union concerned making an application to ACAS. That is the point of the new clause. If the new clause is included in the Bill and if this happens at any time in future, there will be no question but that a reference can be made. It will be made fairly and legally, even though the employees might be on strike over the unfair dismissal of a colleague.
      Mr. Fletcher: Who will define the nature of a dispute? The House of Lords considered the Grunwick case purely as an industrial dispute involving union recognition. But any historian who goes into the background knows that that was not what sparked the union off. The 140 workers who came out on strike at Grunwick were not at that time in the union. Someone must define what is a dispute about union recognition and what is an ordinary industrial struggle for better conditions on the part of the union. I suggest that that would lead to more litigation. More cases will be brought to the courts. Therefore, the new clause is unsatisfactory because in practice it will prove to be unworkable.
      At the outset I said that I intended to make a brief contribution. Therefore, I suggest that if the new clause were adopted it would frustrate the efforts of trade unions to get recognition and would prolong industrial disputes. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House are agreed that it is better to have conciliation than confrontation. If the new clause were carried, it would lead to greater confrontation.
      A union that is frustrated in bringing its case to ACAS might well seek the only way out, which is to take industrial action. The members might say "We are not prepared to wait for 12 months until our case is considered because it might be six, eight or 12 months after that before any decision is reached". They might take the view "We are prepared to use our industrial might and strength to resolve the issue here and now".
      If the clause were carried, it would lead to greater industrial confrontation. Somebody must decide the difference between

      1835
      official and unofficial disputes. In many instances industrial disputes arise unofficially where a group of workers, incensed with the management's actions in certain directions, down tools, march out of the factory and go on strike. It is only after that has happened that the union is called in, considers the circumstances and in many cases makes the dispute official. Originally, the industrial action is not taken with the backing of the union but is taken unofficially by shop stewards or a group of workers in an establishment, and only afterwards is it endorsed by a union.
      We must define whether the clause will include unions and whether they have a share in the matter in initiating the dispute or whether it has been embarked upon unofficially. For all these reasons, it is highly undesirable for the clause to be adopted.
      The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth trailed the SLADE issue across the argument, yet that issue does not arise in any respect. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman was making a party political broadcast in order to express views that we have heard him advance on many other occasions against that union. As far as I know that union is not involved in any way. I understand that SLADE has never taken a case to ACAS. Although the attitude taken by that union might be regarded as reprehensible to Conservative Members, that union is not in a position of having been refused recognition by employers and has not taken any issue to ACAS. Therefore, the new clause would not help that situation in any way. If the hon. Gentleman wants to alter that situation, he must take a different course, but not through the provisions of the clause.
      It is irrelevant for these proposals to be brought forward in support of the new clause. I ask the House to reject it because it is not drafted correctly, it would be unworkable and it would increase rather than resolve industrial disputes. It would open the gates to more litigation in the courts in seeking to define whether disputes related to recognition or other matters. It would involve the courts in deciding whether action had been initiated by a trade union or unofficially by trade unionists. It contains so many loopholes that it would make
      1836
      the Bill unworkable. For those reasons, I ask the House to reject the clause.
      Mr. Esmond Bulmer: The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) has urged us to make progress rapidly. He has raised a number of technical difficulties, which show clearly that once we try to legislate, particularly on the basis of a hard case—and hard cases often make bad law—we run into all kinds of difficulties and inevitably our exchanges take a great deal of time. I find it difficult to accept the arguments put forward by the hon. Gentleman.
      The central case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) still stands—namely, that we have tabled a clause which will have the effect of making people think twice before they come out on strike. I am quite sure that trade unionists will understand, if the clause becomes law, that it is in their interests to make it clear why they are coming out on strike. If they have to come out on strike for a particular reason and they fear that the two reasons to which the hon. Member referred may be linked, they will go back to work, and if they come out again it will be clear why they did so. However, it would not be in their interests to do so.
      We believe that it should be in the interests of people to stay at work and to go through the statutory procedure. We understand why the trade union movement feels so strongly about recognition. Recognition is the key to organisation and to a boost in membership. From that process follow the funds that allow unions to grow and to represent their membership in a better fashion. We also accept that there are bad employers who still have a hire-and-fire mentality. We desire to encourage responsible trade unionists, and where there is a good relationship there are no problems.
      If we consider the employer by whom recognition is often resisted, we have to ask ourselves how far that resistance is promoted by some of the policies which trade unions are arguing. If a man has built up a family business and hears trade unionists arguing for wealth tax and capital taxes that would break up his business, he would not instinctively react favourably to approaches by people who argue in favour of taxes that would

      1837
      fundamentally affect his business and might well result in its break-up.
      There are legitimate reasons for not recognising a claim or not doing so immediately. If some of the other clauses and amendments which we have tabled are accepted, the willingness of employers to accept recognition will be very much improved—and certainly that argument applies to their willingness to co-operate with ACAS. The first of the reasons that employers might have for resisting an immediate approach is that they wish to sound out their employees to establish the will of the majority. There have been cases—there is one that is very well known—where the will of the majority has not been accepted. That raises serious and fundamental points which one hopes we shall have an opportunity to debate at a later stage. Where a group of people wish to obtain a certificate to the effect that they are an independent trade union, that process may take time. It is understandable that an employer will not wish to have a significant number of his work people put in a situation in which they may be dragooned into joining a union that is not of their own choice; or a situation might be created in which managers see that in the long term they will be compelled to become part of a manual union which they feel will not recognise their best interests.
      There is also the possibility that the nature of the business will change fundamentally. There may be a merger or a major sale in the offing. In that situation, the interests of the business may dictate delay because the long-term character of the company may change in such a way that a different union would be more appropriate. Equally, there could be a situation in which an employees' council was being set up, or significant moves of that type were being pursued in developing industrial democracy, and the advent of another union could make for difficulties. The employer might feel he wished to avoid such difficulties, and the recognition issue could be accepted on all sides very much more easily.
      The character of the local union leadership might be an important point. If an employer thought that he would have to negotiate with somebody like Alan Thornett, he might well have a natural
      1838
      reluctance to allow such a person to have formal standing in his company. Furthermore, it is no secret that trade unions are sometimes at loggerheads. An employer might well wish to see that Bridlington procedures were gone through and that a solution was arrived at between unions so that he could see which union could come out on top.
      These are all arguments that an employer could reasonably produce for delay or for feeling that the case should be investigated by ACAS, particularly if ACAS was, as a result of further amendments which we hope to introduce, charged with the duty of taking into account the interests of the company and its good industrial relations rather than simply the extension of collective bargaining.
      12 noon
      There are all sorts of reasons why inter-union disputes might grow. Improved technology means that some unions have to strive hard to stay in business. There is a growing conflict between unions representing those in management and manual workers. There is the growth of the closed shop, which can have an effect on professional codes of conduct. Conflict can arise as a result of statutory policies being pressed. It seems that there is an overwhelming case for giving some backing to the employer and allowing him to say to ACAS "These are the problems and we hope that you will consider them in addition to your statutory requirement to extend collective bargaining." There is also the example of the union with a bad case which may wish to use its muscle.
      I have had an experience of such a case in my constituency. I wonder whether any hon. Member does not have an example of the activities of SLADE, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has rightly described as operating in a way which savours of the worst form of protection racket. In the case I have in mind, an employer in a small advertising business was visited and told that unless all his employees became members of SLADE their work would be blacked. This was at a time when the Government were trying to sell their paper and interest rates were being pushed up to about 17 per cent. There was no chance of that small business being able to hold out.

      1839
      The employer summoned all those in the business and asked whether they wished to join SLADE. They said that they did not. He said "If you are not prepared to join, we shall go out of business. I will undertake to pay your subscriptions." The employer is now paying the subscriptions.
      The Minister of State cannot rest on his statement of last year. He must say what protection he is prepared to offer to the small employer. We hear a great deal about the work of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in defence of small businesses. It would be a great step forward if the Department of Employment could produce a measure which would ensure that small businesses were not subjected to such pressure.
      I have tried to develop a case showing why I believe it is infinitely preferable that the statutory procedure which has been introduced rather than industrial muscle should be used by those at work. It is surely in the long-term interests of everyone that it should be. Those who have run a company know the effect that bad industrial relations can have. They will know the effect of strikes on the company. They have an effect on credit and upon orders. The Government require no reminder from me about our reputation abroad concerning delivery by certain crucial industries. It is vital that we improve that reputation. There is also an effect upon the public as a result of bad industrial relations. Industrial action is often taken regardless of the effect on fellow citizens. I would like to say how much I support my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth on the new clause. The path of peace is infinitely to be preferred to that of conflict.
      Mr. Bidwell: The Opposition are taking up a theoretical position when they seek to amend the Bill. They are not dwelling in the real world of industrial relations. The amendment is designed to prevent ACAS from getting on with the duties which the House saw fit to lay upon it when the parent legislation was approved.
      Many hon. Members have referred to SLADE. This is a special case. It is possible to go even wider and say that members of SLADE should be running business enterprises because of the enormous power that they have acquired. It
      1840
      would be much better if SLADE were to run the businesses. There would not then be many of these struggles. The union needs to take managerial responsibility. However, hon. Members have mentioned cases of excess which do not represent the norm in industrial relations. The norm is free trade unionism in relation to employers and private enterprise.
      Earlier I tried to show how people can become bloody-minded when all that sensible and sane trade unionists want is to get round the table with management. Sometimes there is intervention from outside, as occurred in the Grunwick dispute, when there were mass street demonstrations and other developments. What needs to happen is that the work force and the employers should be able to get together round a table and reach civilised and sensible arrangements about trade union recognition and such matters as holiday pay and sick pay.
      The Opposition have made a meal out of the SLADE situation. They are seeking to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I have had long experience with members of SLADE as a result of my work as an education officer in the trade union movement. I met many of these SLADE lads at my summer schools. They are men of high skills. They have a lot to sell to the employer and are prepared to sell it dearly. I do not know much about their current problems, but I say good luck to them.
      I want to deal with the lesser mortals in the trade union movement and to refer to the Garners Steak Houses dispute, which involves my union, the Transport and General Workers' Union. The union is enrolling mainly immigrant workers in the catering trade. It is seeking to achieve an elementary standard of trade union recognition so that it can sit down to discussions with a backward employer. These workers have terribly low wages. I know that there are other factors which enter into this. This employer seems to be a particularly bad one.
      All approaches by the workers have been brushed aside. There is no provision for sick pay. There was a staff organisation, as distinct from a free trade union. They could make no headway, so they turned to the TGWU. There is a gathering storm. Enormous sympathy is building up for these young immigrant workers who are struggling for elementary union

      1841
      recognition. They need ACAS to have the freedom to assist them, which it does not have now.
      Mr. Hayhoe: Why cannot that union—the hon. Member's own union—apply for recognition under Section 11 to the management of Garners and have that resolved through the procedures laid down by Parliament rather than take industrial action, to the disadvantage of those involved and their families, quite apart from the inconvenience to the general public?
      Mr. Bidwell: That is what the union is involved in at present. The workers were in such despair that they were forced to take strike action. ACAS cannot test the opinions of those still working. Unless it has the strength now proposed, without the impediments suggested by the Opposition, there will be a mass demonstration in support of these workers.
      I attended one of their meetings last night. Many of us are disposed to give them the maximum assistance. They are asking not for revolution but for the elementary rights to bargain with the boss and to have opinion tested. The backward boss understands that the majority of his workers, given the freedom to choose, would opt for union membership, because he is a bad employer. Like Ward, he knows what the outcome would be. He has to be brought into the real world and understand that he is not employing coolie labour. We in the Labour movement will not stand for it.
      Mr. Holland: Since there has been an official procedure for recognition disputes since 1975, devised by the hon. Gentleman's own Government and supported by him—the Employment Protection Act—why is it necessary for his own union to call a strike to obtain recognition?
      Mr. Bidwell: Because, since the Grunwick affair, many people have lost faith in the ability of ACAS to function on their behalf. That is the reason for the Bill—not to make workers join unions but to test whether they want to do so. There was an obstacle to that in Grunwick, as there is in this affair. The union official concerned complains that the boss is arrogant and lays down conditions which make a meeting very difficult.
      1842
      I was accused of not having the experience of the tedium of Committee debates. I would point out that not one Tory Member has been on the other side of an industrial dispute; not one has been on strike in his life. Tory Members know nothing about what can happen at any stage.
      12.15 p.m.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I am surprised that Labour Members do not accept the new clause, which aims to discourage strikes. They tell us that they want peace in industry and they want unions to get along with the boss and be able to recruit. We are not against unions recruiting in a bona fide way, if they do not recruit pressed men.
      I am sometimes concerned when Labour Members say that we on this side know nothing about unions. Some of us have quite an experience of unions in our backgrounds and in our working lives. Many Labour Members have not worked in a factory for years. They were superannuated years ago and have spent longer in the House of Commons than on the shop floor. That goes for many hon. Members here today.
      Labour Members have an interest in this matter, but they should not accuse us of having no experience or concern Even if few of us have shop floor experience, many of us have some concern with the management side and are just as interested in trade union activities because managements have to work with unions every day of the week. The only way they can run their businesses successfully is with good labour relations.
      Although it may not be worded perfectly, the new clause should be acceptable to Labour Members. It would make discussion and agreement much easier. Sometimes it is difficult to discern whether a strike is about recognition or about discipline. For instance, the strike at Claridge's—whatever the reasons for it which are not clear—has been made into into a recognition issue by the union. The union has said not that it will recruit voluntarily but that it wants recognition and is determined to have it.
      Is it suggested that in those circumstances ACAS should come in? It would be in a very difficult situation. Would it not be better to agree that any threats

      1843
      made should be withdrawn, that the strike should stop and that there should then be discussions about ACAS coming in? The resultant atmosphere would benefit ACAS, which is an arbitrating body. It is not easy to arbitrate under duress, which is the situation of the employer and of those employees who may not want to belong to a union.
      Mr. Holland: My hon. Friend has echoed the view expressed by Labour Members that sometimes the reason for a dispute is not clear. But is it not true that the union usually says clearly why it is calling a strike and that if the issue is not clear the fault is that of the union?
      Mr. Lewis: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is sometimes very clear to those striking why they are striking, but they do not necessarily make it clear to the public or to the boss. They may pretend that they are striking for one reason when in fact they are striking for another reason. The members of SLADE have made it clear why they would strike and why they will try to force many small bosses to give way. I have suggested to some employers that they should encourage some of their employees to join another union, not SLADE.
      Today there is a battle among trade unions for members. One union competes with another. Some recognition disputes arise because one union wants to prevent another from getting in.
      Mr. William Molloy: The hon. Member said that people did not really understand what the trouble at Claridge's was about. In fairness to the management of Claridge's, it should be made clear that a statement was made on the wireless yesterday by the chairman or managing director of Claridge's when he made the matter perfectly clear. He said "The trouble was that a trade union representative kept making representations to the management. He made a bit of a nuisance of himself. So we sacked him". That merely engendered the ancient British reaction of "one out, all out". The union members wanted their colleague taken back, and then they would discuss the matter properly.
      Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, it does not mean that people have not given explanations. The explanation
      1844
      given by the management irritated the ordinary people. The chef was representing the workers. According to the chairman or managing director, he made a nuisance of himself by his constant representations on behalf of the workers, so the management thought that it would be a good thing to get rid of him. That brought to the surface a good old British reaction, and all his mates came out as well. The hon. Gentleman should say what he would have done in the circumstances.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a very good speech for its length.
      Mr. Lewis: I understand that there was some question of lack of efficiency on the part of the employee concerned in serving the very expensive tea and wads which people pay for at Claridge's. In such a situation, it is better that the workers should return to work and that ACAS should be able to deal with the situation peaceably.
      The new clause would provide that industrial action would not take place when there was a recognition dispute. It would have to be defined whether it was a recognition dispute. ACAS is well able to undertake such a task. It is often clear that the main objective is to secure recognition and that other "reasons" are mere excuses.
      Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman is telling the House that those engaged in dispute at Claridge's should call off their dispute, have the matter referred to ACAS and seek recognition through ACAS. That would be a wholly commendable course of action, except that the hon. Gentleman is advocating a new clause which would provide that if there had been industrial action the issue could not be referred to ACAS for 12 months.
      Mr. Lewis: The point about the new clause is that after the referral the industrial action should stop. However, at present the strikes continue. There is no doubt but that the strike at Claridge's is an attempt to recruit members to the union concerned.
      Mr. Ted Fletcher: Cannot the hon. Gentleman understand that if the new clause were accepted it would not be possible for the matter to be referred to ACAS? As the workers were on strike,

      1845
      12 months would have to elapse before an application could be processed by ACAS. So how does the new clause help him out of his difficulties?
      Mr. Lewis: It would help in that the strike would not have taken place in the first place. Many strikes are attempts to bring about increased trade union membership. We do not approve of that and we cannot applaud it.
      Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) said that the strike at Claridge's had arisen because a worker was dismissed because of his trade union activities. That would obviously have nothing to do with the new clause, which refers to strike action in support of a recognition claim. The Employment Protection Act provides redress by means of a claim for unfair dismissal, when exemplary damages are available if someone is dismissed for trade union activities.
      Therefore, the hon. Member for Ealing, North is wrong on both counts, because there is a way of resolving the dispute, whether it be of recognition or of unfair dismissal. Parliament has prescribed procedures whereby such disputes can be resolved without industrial action.
      Mr. Lewis: There is dispute about the reason for the strike at Claridge's.
      The new clause should be acceptable to Labour Members because it would assist in bringing about peace rather than causing conflict. If the proponents of the Bill reject the clause, they are, in effect, saying to the public that in the recruitment of union members they are prepared to resort to the boot rather than arbitration.
      Mr. Patrick Mayhew: The key to the dispute which has been opened up helpfully in this debate lies in a remark of the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher), to the effect that he is opposed to the new clause, amongst other grounds because it would frustrate the efforts of trade unions to secure recognition.
      Implicit in that argument is the proposition that nothing must be allowed to frustrate a trade union that wishes to secure recognition. Conservative Members, as has been made clear repeatedly, are greatly in favour of the recognition of
      1846
      trade unions where such recognition is proper in all the circumstances.
      The whole purpose of Section 11 of the Employment Protection Act, which the Bill is designed to amend, is surely that in recognition disputes, in place of raw muscle power there shall be substituted civilised debate followed by the recommendation of ACAS—an independent body—followed by an attempt to conciliate if that is not accepted—
      Mr. Ted Fletcher: That is just as in the Grunwick dispute.
      Mr. Mayhew: —followed by, if the recommendation is still not accepted, reference to the appeal court—the conciliation arbitration committee—which must then adjudicate. That is the whole purpose of the Bill introduced by the Government.
      12.30 p.m.
      Lying behind the new clause is the thought that there are circumstances in which it is not right that the wish of a trade union to secure recognition should be conceded, namely, where a trade union has sought to give effect to its wish by raw muscle power. That goes clean against the whole purpose of the Act, which we have always supported in this respect.
      The new clause provides that if there has been strike action by a union after a referral to ACAS of a recognition dispute, ACAS should not proceed with the reference. It also provides that ACAS should not proceed if there has been strike action by the union in the previous 12 months. These are variations on the same concept which can be considered separately.
      Our new clause that was not selected restricted the proposition to industrial action that was taken after a referral. We have made clear that we are not sticking by the exact wording of our selected new clause and we should look at both propositions.
      The Minister and the hon. Member for Darlington should tell us whether they believe that a union that wants recognition should, in all circumstances, be allowed to receive it. If the answer to that question is "No", they should define the circumstances that would preclude recognition. Are there any circumstances, such as bullying or strong-arm

      1847
      tactics, which would, in their view, preclude recognition? If there are such circumstances, what are they and how are they to be defined?
      The hon. Member for Darlington said that SLADE had never referred a case to ACAS, but the relevance of the SLADE history is surely that it demonstrates that in real life, certain unions—fortunately not the majority—resort to bullying tactics. In an intervention, the Minister said that he had expressed concern. One can find something for everyone in his speech about SLADE last year, but at one point he said:
      "If, in general, not only attempts by trade unions to increase membership or secure closed shop agreements are lawful and legitimate but so is sympathetic action in support of those and other industrial objectives, one might be tempted to ask why there has been so much concern about the current activities of SLADE."—[Official Report, 29th June 1977; Vol. 934, c. 477.]
      That passage was not redolent of the concern for the activities and tactics of SLADE that the Minister suggested in his intervention. The SLADE case is relevant to our debate because it shows what can and does happen in real life.
      Under the Employment Protection Act, ACAS has to take the opinions of the workers concerned, explore all the circumstances of an industrial dispute about recognition and, having weighed all the evidence, make a recommendation. If we accept that ACAS has a quasi-judicial role, it must surely be right that it should be allowed to carry out that function without a strike continuing. That is why we say that if a strike goes on after a referral, ACAS should not proceed with it.
      There is a stronger case for the first part of the new clause, dealing with a strike continuing after a referral, than for the second part, though an attractive case can be made for that as well.
      Those who object to the new clause as a whole should tell us whether they believe that it is conceivably excusable that a strike on a recognition issue should continue after a referral to ACAS. What purpose can that have, unless it is to extract advantage from strong-arm tactics?
      One of the matters that ACAS takes into account in deciding whether a union should receive recognition is the number of members that the union has in the
      1848
      factory concerned. The Minister had to admit in Committee that ACAS would not be precluded from recommending recognition even if the union did not have a single member in the factory. Absurd though it sounds, that is the position under the law, and the Minister, in an unguarded moment, admitted that it was absurd.
      The real question must be whether the members that a union can point to are true volunteers or pressed men and women. We all know that SLADE and its Art Union, which is specially reserved for these unfortunates, have secured recruits by virtue of the blacking and blackmail that has been threatened against employers who may be employing only four or five people.
      SLADE has said that it would stop the Kent and Sussex Courier, perhaps, or close an engraving works, unless the employer ensured that his employees joined the union. Rather than face ruin and extinction and unemployment for the employees, employer after employer has told SLADE "Very well, you had better go ahead". That is how numerous recruits have been acquired.
      It is essential that the members to whom a union seeking recognition can point should be true voluntary recruits and not those who have yielded to the tactics of the press gang. That is why we say that if a strike about recognition has persisted after the matter has been referred to ACAS to be determined by a judicial examination of all the evidence, the union shall be deemed to have put itself out of court and must wait 12 months before the referral can proceed.
      Mr. Harold Walker: We have spent a long time on this new clause. It had not been my intention to intervene in the debate, because I feel that private Members' time is so precious that Ministers should trespass on it as little as possible, but, since we have a heavy programme before us and I am sure that the House will want my hon. Friend's Bill to have a proper run of the course—especially as it was drawn as No. 1 in the Ballot—I feel that I should say something in response to the comments which have been made, in the hope that we can reach a conclusion.
      One hon. Member on the Opposition Benches said that hard cases make bad

      1849
      law, but then many of his hon. Friends, having nodded in acknowledgement of that view, went on to build a great case based on the single issue of SLADE. I think that only the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) seemed to recognise that, although the Bill and the new clause are concerned with recognition, the tactics of SLADE, about which hon. Gentlemen are understandably concerned—I have already expressed my concern about them—are tactics arising not from pursuit of recognition but, in the main, out of recruitment campaigns. In that sense, therefore, they are not closely relevant to the issue before us.
      Mr. Mayhew: Indeed, they are.
      Mr. Walker: I come now to what was said by the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland). I know that the hon. Gentleman has some first-hand experience of industrial relations, so I found it all the more astonishing that he should assume that one can always readily identify what a strike is about. I see the hon. Gentleman protesting at that, but he certainly gave me that impression, and I thought that the House gained the same impression, namely, that he believed that one could identify the issue which caused a strike.
      Mr. Holland: I said that in most cases the unions or the employees themselves who went on strike made quite clear why they were going on strike. I said "in most cases", and I am sure that that is the general experience.
      Mr. Walker: I apologise if I misrepresented the hon. Gentleman's argument, and he has now made his position clear. However, I must say that I disagree. I acknowledge at once that I am one of those Members who have been a good while away from the tools, and it is 13 years since I was a shop steward in industry, but in all my years as a shop steward I was astonished at the way in which issues became so interwoven that one found it difficult to separate one from another. It has long been the experience that the immediate issue which causes a strike is only the spark which ignites a gunpowder barrel which has been building up for a long time from many different elements.
      1850
      That is a relevant point to be made in support of the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher), that very often one cannot disentangle the subsequent pursuit of recognition from a strike or dispute which arises over something quite separate or different.
      The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) exposed the tangle into which the Opposition have got themselves. He said that the purpose of the new clause is to prevent strikes. I must tell him that, whatever he may see as the purpose of the new clause, it would have a very different effect. In fact, it would be quite the opposite, through barring workers from use of the Act.
      This Government were, as it has been put, the architects of the machinery by which trade unionists can seek recognition not through the old hard ways of industrial conflict but in a proper and civilised fashion. One hopes, therefore, that all workers will always use that machinery. But the hon. Gentleman would deny them access to that machinery, since that is just what the new clause is designed to do.
      The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) seemed to have some dichotomy of approach. He said that trade unionists seeking recognition should use the procedures of the Employment Protection Act, but he then said—I am sure that I quote him almost verbatim—that those who threaten strike or other industrial action should not have access to those procedures. In other words, at the very point when they are in dispute, the only way in which they can resolve it or seek a remedy is by persisting in that action instead of having opportunity to use the decent, sensible and civilised procedures which we have laid down.
      I turn now to the terms of the new clause itself:
      "The Service shall not proceed on a reference under Section 11 above if strike or other industrial action"
      —that is wide open to a lot of contention—
      "has been taken or threatened"
      —I am not sure how one is able in all cases to establish whether a threat has been made—
      "in support of the recognition claim by the independent trade union concerned"

      1851
      —and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington put his finger on the difficulty here of deciding whether an action has been taken or will be deemed to have been taken by the union if the action is unofficial, taken by its members. Indeed, it would be an incitement for the union not to make the action official if the effect of so doing would be to deny the union access to the Section 11 procedures.
      Then we have the closing words of the new clause:
      "either since the reference was made or during the twelve months previous".
      Not only is the new clause contrary to the purposes of the Bill, but it would be detrimental to the sensible ways which we have sought for establishing trade union recognition in support of collective bargaining, the extension of which I thought everyone favoured. I hope, therefore, that the House will reject the new clause. If the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth is not persuaded by the arguments from these Benches to think again about his proposal, I feel that the House will wish speedily to reach a conclusion and reject the new clause.
      Mr. Thorne rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
      12.45 p.m.
      Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I support the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe), but I wish to point out one difficulty. My hon. Friend says that if there is a strike or industrial action, there should be suspension of the reference by ACAS. The Donovan Commission considered recognition cases and came to the view that
      "a dispute over recognition was a trade disput within the words of the present definition".
      It came to that conclusion on the basis of the decision in the case of Square Grip Reinforcement Company v. Macdonald and Others, giving the reference thereto. Therefore, one would have to be absolutely certain here whether the extent of what is termed a trade dispute or a strike was so clearly defined as to be satisfactory.
      However, I see every reason to support the new clause, and I am fortified in that view by what the hon. Member for
      1852
      Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) told us—which I did not know—namely, that SLADE had not taken a single reference to ACAS. I have had opportunity to look at the ACAS annual report for 1977, and I see no reference there. I take the hon. Gentleman's word for it. Nevertheless, that was the very thing which SLADE should have done, but in its own interests it decided to adopt the heavy muscle procedure.
      Another case was brought forward by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell)—I am sorry that he is not here at the moment—which he said was a case giving him grave concern. But that could be answered simply by reference to Report No. 42, Commodore Business Machines—at page 91 of the ACAS annual report—in which it was found that, even though an employer may prove recalcitrant, it is still possible for a union to take a case to ACAS for inquiry and to have the whole matter thrashed out.
      The purpose of the new clause is to show that we are against any effort made to resort to strong arm tactics, and bullying in particular. The Minister, naturally, has said that this will be the exceptional case—one has SLADE in mind—but there are exceptional employers, too. Most employers are reasonable men, and I should like to believe that most trade unions are reasonable in their conduct, too.
      I recognise that a number of hon. Members wish to conclude the debate, so I shall not take much longer, but I must put one or two further points to the hon. Member for Darlington. If he wants to get his Bill through, let him accept this thoroughly reasonable new clause. That will conclude the entire discussion. It would not damage his Bill; indeed, it would strengthen it.
      There are two ways of approaching this issue. As my hon. Friend put it, one way is to penalise a union that is adopting bullying tactics and say that if that is what it does, no reference can be made to the procedure and machinery laid down in the Act.
      On the other hand, there is the position of ACAS itself. Should ACAS hear a case when a strike has broken out? The Minister will know that the annual report of ACAS was published only two days ago. It is very full in its reference to the criteria which it should adopt, and

      1853
      for this we turn to paragraph 16 on page 45:
      "The Act gives ACAS no guidance as to the criteria it should adopt in deciding whether or not to recommend recognition in individual reports beyond the general duties with which it charges ACAS under Section 1".
      Many people today are saying that it is high time that we established a few sets of criteria for ACAS. I acknowledge, on the other hand, that the council of ACAS has set out, on pages 46 and 47, what it considers to be some of these criteria. For example, it mentions the practice in industry and trade unions, employees' wishes, and so forth. But it has occurred to me that if the Minister did not like the observations of my hon. Friend he could say that one of the criteria that ACAS would bear in mind would be the behaviour of a union prior to a reference or the behaviour of a union whilst the case was being heard. But I can find no indication amongst any of these references that such a statement is being contemplated or even considered.
      Surely the Minister must know that recognition is so important to trade unions because it is the key to recruitment. The hon. Gentleman knows what is going on in the baking industry and in insurance, in each of which one union is trying to secure places ahead of another union. The National Union of Bank Employees is trying to get a foothold in insurance, and the TUC is trying to prevent it.
      I would like to feel that ACAS was guided in this matter by its own criteria, but it has no such criteria—if it had, there would be no need to put anything in the Bill. As it has not, it is reasonable to suggest that we should in the Bill give it a specific directive. Nothing could be more reasonable.
      If the Minister were prepared to say "You need not put it in the Bill but I will make recommendations to ACAS that this is one of the matters that it should consider, that is, the behaviour not only of the employer but of a union prior to a reference being made or during the conduct of that reference", I would be prepared to receive such a statement.
      I shall draw my remarks to a close because I want to give the hon. Member for Darlington full opportunity to get his Bill on to the statute book if he can, but it must be fully considered. The Minister
      1854
      referred to a letter from the chairman of ACAS, part of which was read in Committee on 8th March.
      It said that ACAS must
      "pay regard to the desirability of seeking a settlement of the issues by agreement. I should add that we do not regard the latter injunction just as a duty; it is in fact fundamental to the ACAS approach to industrial relations problems that the best way to settle them is by agreement."
      He stressed that aspect. He emphasised that once there is a dispute one cannot get the facts; once blood has spilled, it is impossible to come to an accommodation.
      I agree that ACAS's job is to establish the facts, bring the parties together and hope that they will resolve their diffferences. That is why I suggest that the hon. Member for Darlington should weigh what we have said and bear in mind that my hon. Friend is only making a recommendation which would improve the contents and the fabric of the Bill. If the hon. Member for Darlington responds in that spirit, he will surely be prepared to accept the new clause. That would also help to curtail the arguments that we are putting forward.
      Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I shall make only a short intervention, as I know that the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) wishes to get his Bill. One of my reasons for speaking is my wish to draw attention to the fact that, at a time when the Government are trying to deal with serious unemployment and to get expansion in small industry, many informed people, including members of the Government—particularly the Minister who deals with small industry and who was at the Bar of the House a few minutes ago—know what a barrier the Employment Protection Act has been to the expansion of small business. Therefore, anything that can be done to allay the fears of small business men and small industry about the Act will help towards expansion.
      What disturbs me is that the hon. Member for Darlington has introduced a Bill which will also be a barrier to the expansion of small industry and small business. I therefore welcome this new clause, introduced so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) because he realises only too well the difficulties that the

      1855
      Bill presents as an obstacle to employment in small industry. At least the new clause, which is important, brings to the attention of the people in small industry and small business that an attempt is being made to restrain the influence of an irresponsible minority which can and does cause such damage to industry, as has been the case with SLADE.
      My hon. Friend said that we abhor the activities of SLADE, and most certainly we do. SLADE's activities are the unacceptable face of trade unionism. The Minister expressed concern about the activities of SLADE. His use of the word "concern" surprised me.
      The Minister is a Yorkshireman and I thought that Yorkshiremen were capable of expressing themselves in rather tougher words than "concern". When a Yorkshireman uses the word "concern", he is speaking very mildly indeed. I hope that the Minister will say something rather tougher than "concern" when he refers to his feelings about the activities of SLADE. In the vales of Yorkshire, many Yorkshiremen, as practical people, would use much tougher language about SLADE's activities.

      Division No. 165]

      AYES

      [12.58 p.m.

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Gould, Bryan

      Moonman, Eric

      Atkinson, Norman

      Graham, Ted

      Moyle, Roland

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Newens, Stanley

      Bates, Alf

      Grocott, Bruce

      Noble, Mike

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Harper, Joseph

      Orbach, Maurice

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Ovenden, John

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Park, George

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Hooley, Frank

      Parker, John

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Prescott, John

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Huckfield, Les

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hunter, Adam

      Rooker, J. W.

      Cowans, Harry

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Sever, John

      Cryer, Bob

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Kelley, Richard

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dormand, J. D.

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Snape, Peter

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lamborn, Harry

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lamond, James

      Stallard, A. W.

      Edward, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      English, Michael

      Luard, Evan

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Faulds, Andrew

      McElhone, Frank

      Tinn, James

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Madden, Max

      Urwin, T. W.

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Flannery, Martin

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Meacher, Michael

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Forrester, John

      Mendelson, John

      Ward, Michael

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Ward, Michael

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Mitchell, Austin

      Watkins, David

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Weitzman, David

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Molloy, William

      Whitlock, William

      I merely wish to underline the case for the new clause and to stress that we feel strongly about it as an attempt to restrain the influence of an irresponsible minority. All of us who are concerned about industrial relations, unemployment and other things, and wish to see good relations in industry and believe in arbitration, want to see a solution to the problems proceed in a correct way. We do not believe that the hon. Member for Darlington has done any service. Indeed, he has shown up the divisions within the Labour Party in the House of Commons, instanced in the egging on of a moderate man like the Minister to express no more than his "concern" about SLADE's activities. I hope that the House will accept this very reasonable new clause.
      Miss Jo Richardson rose in her place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Question put, That the Question be now put:
      The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 29.

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Woodall, Alec

      Miss Jo Richardson and

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Mr. Stan Thorne.

      NOES

      Bell, Ronald

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Mates, Michael

      Silvester, Fred

      Carlisle, Mark

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Costain, A. P.

      Mayhew, Patrick

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Elliott, Sir William

      Newton, Tony

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Grieve, Percy

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Mr. John Gorst and

      Holland, Philip

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Mr. David Madel.

      Question accordingly agreed to.

      Question put accordingly, That the Clause be read a Second time.

      The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 125.

      Division No. 166]

      AYES

      [1.09 p.m.

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Biffen, John

      Holland, Philip

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Biggs-Davison, JOhn

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Scott, Nicholas

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Silvester, Fred

      Carlisle, Mark

      Mates, Michael

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Costain, A. P.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Speed, Keith

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Trotter, Neville

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Newton, Tony

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Elliott, Sir William

      Normanton, Tom

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Forman, Nigel

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Mr. John Gorst and

      Grieve, Percy

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Mr. David Madel.

      NOES

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Atkinson, Norman

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      McElhone, Frank

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Forrester, John

      Madden, Max

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Bates, Alf

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Meacher, Michael

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Gould, Bryan

      Mendelson, John

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Graham, Ted

      Mikardo, Ian

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Molloy, William

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Moonman, Eric

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Harper, Joseph

      Moyle, Roland

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Cohen, Stanley

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Newens, Stanley

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hooley, Frank

      Noble, Mike

      Cowans, Harry

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Cryer, Bob

      Huckfield, Les

      Ovenden, John

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Park, George

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Parker, John

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Hunter, Adam

      Pavitt, Laurie

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Prescott, John

      Dormand, J. D.

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Rooker, J. W.

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Kelley, Richard

      Sedgemore, Brian

      English, Michael

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Sever, John

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Lamond, James

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Loyden, Eddie

      Skinner, Dennis

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Luard, Evan

      Snape, Peter

      Flannery, Martin

      McCartney, Hugh

      Spriggs, Lesile

      1858

      1859

      Stallard, A. W.

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Woodall, Alec

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Ward, Michael

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Watkins, David

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Tinn, James

      Weitzman, David

      Urwin, T. W.

      Whitlock, William

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Miss Jo Richardson and

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Mr. Stan Thorne.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause No. 5

      AMENDMENT OF EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION ACT 1975 (No. 2)
      'After section 11 of the Employment Protection Act 1975 (reference of recognition issue to Service) there is inserted the following section:—
      "( ) In proceeding on a reference under Section 11 above the Service shall interpret the general duty laid upon it by subsection 2 of Section 1 above so as to give greater weight to 'the improvement of industrial relations' over 'the extension of collective bargaining' if and when any conflict arises between these provisions"'.—[Mr. Silvester.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Fred Silvester. I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The purpose of the new clause is to resolve a conflict in the affairs of ACAS. This matter was raised in Committee. I believe that it has been raised on almost every occasion when the Employment Protection Act has been discussed.
      For the convenience of the House, I should like to make it clear what is intended. After setting up ACAS, Section 1 of the Employment Protection Act goes on to say:
      "The Service shall be charged with the general duty of promoting the improvement of industrial relations, and in particular of encouraging the extension of collective bargaining and the development and, where necessary, form a collective bargaining machinery."
      The new clause would alter that so that, in proceedings which arise in matters of recognition, the service would be able to interpret that general duty in a way which would enable it to
      "give greater weight to 'the improvement of industrial relations' over 'the extension of collective bargaining' if and when any conflict arises between these provisions."
      I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the new clause uses the wording
      1860
      "if and when any conflict arises between these provisions".
      Of course, it is not expected that a conflict will always necessarily arise. The new clause, however, would deal with the situations in which a conflict might arise.
      It is not entirely a hypothetical matter. It was raised throughout the Committee stage. It was raised on the very first amendment in Committee. So it is true to say that everyone who has had any dealings with this measure has had the matter at the forefront of his mind as a major consideration, and it is right that we should give time to it before the Bill leaves us to go to another place.
      The reasons are quite clear. From time to time, the Opposition have been accused of saying that ACAS is biased. There is a certain amount of truth in the suggestion that we are getting reports from people who are worried about the degree of bias which ACAS shows. However, I think that, on the whole, Government supporters must admit that we have not ourselves taken that view. What we have said consistently is that one of the problems facing ACAS is that its duties put it in a position where that accusation of bias can be levelled against it.
      There are two ways in which that bias can arise within the terms of reference of ACAS. One is that only a trade union may refer a matter to ACAS. It was our hope to raise that matter on this Bill. However, that has not been possible within the bounds of order. Therefore, we are limited to dealing with the second of the two problems, which is that ACAS is also, under its terms of reference, required to secure an extension of collective bargaining.
      As I have said, this was foreseen in the original Bill. Perhaps I may refer to the proceedings in Committee, because it is interesting to see what happened then. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) moved an amendment which introduced new paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). The effect of the amendment was to delete from the

      1861
      clause the encouragement of the extension of collective bargaining and the development and, where necessary, reform of collective bargaining machinery, and to substitute:

      "(a) assisting the peaceful settlement of trade disputes and other questions arising between employers and employees by offering and providing conciliation and arbitration,

      (b) helping the safeguarding of individual rights of employees whether it is threatened by employers, trade unions, organisations of them or by fellow employees, and

      (c) encouraging the improvement of collective bargaining and, where necessary and appropriate, its extension and development and the reform of collective bargaining machinery."

      At that time my hon. Friend made some powerful arguments, one of which is of particular interest. He said:
      "we feel that if the service is to be seen as being evenhanded right across the board it should be concerned with the individual rights of employees when these may be threatened by employers, trade unions, organisations or their fellow employees. We believe that the ACAS should be seen to have responsibility towards the individual."
      The interesting feature is that it was not turned down by the Secretary of State out of hand. The reason which the Minister gave for rejecting it was very interesting. He said:
      "It might have been that, had we framed the Bill so as to charge the service only with a general duty of promoting an improvement in industrial relations, the service might have taken the view—I am almost certain that it would have done so—that part of its duty would be to encourage an extension of collective bargaining and the development, where necessary, of a form of collective bargaining machinery."
      In other words, at that stage the Minister believed that the extension of collective bargaining happily could have been included in the promoting of an improvement of industrial relations.
      However, the Minister went on to say:
      "If by amendment in Parliament that provision were to be deleted the clear implication would be that this was not part of its function and duty."—[Official Report, Stdg. Cttee F, 8th May 1975; c. 40–44.]
      That is a very extraordinary reason, and I thought it extraordinary at the time. But it did not seem to matter so much then. The Minister was saying, in fact, "Had we thought of it first, we might have agreed to it. But, because we put this additional feature in the Bill, we dare not withdraw it because people will
      1862
      get the wrong impression." But it did not matter whether people got the wrong impression. Once the Bill had left this House, ACAS would have been required to perform under the duties set down in the legislation, and those duties would have been interpretable by the courts. Whatever anyone felt would not have mattered. What mattered was whether the law gave ACAS the power and whether the courts agreed that it gave ACAS the power. Nevertheless, that was the reason which the Minister advanced.
      It is fair to say that, since at that time there was no concern on the right hon. Gentleman's part that collective bargaining was not included in the general proposition of good industrial relations and since we now have some evidence following the passage of the Act that there is some concern about this matter, it would be perfectly proper for the Minister of State, with the agreement of his hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher), to say "Time has shown that it would have been quite proper to accept this amendment at the time it was first introduced, and we do so now".
      Let me explain this argument a little further. The object of the Bill as it now stands is twofold. First, when we have this dual responsibility on the part of ACAS there is sometimes a conflict with individual rights. That was an argument advanced in the original debate. Secondly, it may not always be appropriate for collective bargaining to be regarded as paramount in matters of industrial relations.
      1.30 p.m.
      It is interesting, as an aside, that in the original debate the point was made that, if one looked very carefully at the then Clause 1(2), one would see that there was a "where necessary" stuck in it, but it has been moved to a different place:
      "The Service shall be charged with the general duty … of encouraging the extension of collective bargaining and development and, where necessary, reform of collective bargaining machinery."
      But one could get much the same purpose of the new clause now being moved by moving the "where necessary" to come before
      "of encouraging the extension of collective bargaining."
      However, that was not done, so it is no good worrying about it.

      1863
      We are, therefore, faced with a situation in which this dual responsibility on the part of ACAS leads to the two problems that I have mentioned. One is the conflict with individual rights and the other is that it is not always appropriate for the extension of collective bargaining to be seen as a major factor.
      In the original Committee, the Secretary of State said that good industrial relations would rarely be seen without collective bargaining. I do not dissent from that. But the proposition is wrong in two respects. It is not invariable, and the Secretary of State did not take into account the problem of the passage of time, a point to which I shall refer later.
      However, for ACAS the whole problem turns upon being obliged, in effect, to encourage union membership in a particular union to which it happens to give collective bargaining rights. This has arisen in a number of ways. A number of problems have already been seen in the way in which this has operated.
      For example, we shall be debating, at some stage on Report, the question of the number of people who are required to be members of a union before they can apply for recognition. That is the purpose of one of our later amendments. I think that it is of interest to the House to note that no great number is required. In fact, in Committee on this Bill the Minister of State was forced to admit—column 71 of the Official Report—that it would be perfectly possible to activate the ACAS procedure where a union had no members at all. Although that is rather unlikely, it is a possibility. We have had examples where a single figure membership has sufficed.
      In those circumstances, it puts ACAS in a rather difficult position if it is faced with an application from a union which has a nil or low membership in a particular bargaining group. It will be faced with the proposition that as one of its duties it has to encourage collective bargaining when the basis for that collective bargaining is not there.
      This is not entirely hypothetical. It can be seen, I think, by the kind of questions which ACAS asks. I make no criticism of this at this stage, but it has decided—and presumably this arises because it has to interpret its powers of operation—that when it asks questions of the work force it
      1864
      does not merely ask questions about the union membership but it also asks whether or not, if the union were there, people would be happy to have the union undertake the bargaining on their behalf.
      It is quite interesting to look at the various lists of the ACAS reports over the last couple of years or so and to compare the extent to which the deciding factor in ACAS has been this second factor rather than the actual union membership. I take them as they come. The first on my list shows that the union membership was 29 per cent., but the support for bargaining by the union was 50 per cent.; so one adds up and gets 79 per cent., and one gets recognition. Some of the figures are much lower than that. In practice, therefore, what is happening is that the mere act of seeking recognition on the part of a union which may have a very low membership and the sending round of a questionnaire or taking advice is stimulating the recruitment of a union in that particular place.
      That may or may not be a desirable thing, but it is a result, I suggest, of the requirement placed upon ACAS by the Act, and it is a requirement from which it cannot escape. It is not an optional extra. It is one which it is obliged to live by.
      This has already come up in a number of ways, but ACAS has certainly come up against it in the case of Powley and ACAS, in the often rehearsed judgment of Mr. Justice Browne-Wilkinson against ACAS and in favour of the Legal and General Staff Association. Although that was about a questionnaire, it raised a number of wider issues.
      Let us first consider the position of ACAS. According to that judgment—I quote from The Times Law Reports:
      "ACAS had submitted that 'since the only issue was whether or not to recognise ASTMS questions directed to the employees' preference for another union' were irrelevant…
      ACAS had stressed that there were practical problems in naming the staff association in the questionnaire. One was that if the employees received a questionnaire which asked whether they would like to be represented by ASTMS or the staff association, they might be misled into thinking that ACAS had power to recommend the staff association."
      It is an interesting point. It is a point that certainly the judge took. If ACAS is required by its rules to encourage the extension of collective bargaining, and if

      1865
      at the same time it is activated by only the single reference of one union and may not take into account the possibility that people may be represented by another union or by a staff association, it seems to me that it is necessarily in conflict with itself, because while, on the one hand, it cannot avoid the necessity of seeking to establish some form of collective bargaining machinery, on the other hand the very processes of recognition may lead it to adopt a lopsided approach.
      The dilemma in which ACAS found itself was elaborated by an operational memorandum, which I think most hon. Members have seen, which was sent round inside the ACAS organisation to the IROs. I shall not quote it all, but one of the interesting parts of it was that, when they were asked about forming staff associations or giving advice about staff associations, the memorandum made some comments and then went on to say, at "No. 2",
      "Difficulties could arise should a firm be subsequently faced with a claim for recognition by an independent trade union."
      It seems to me that such difficulties could arise only on the assumption that a move would be good; that if one sets up a staff association and an independent trade union, or, better still, if a trade union affiliated to the TUC were to come in, that would be more desirable. But that is not necessarily the case. If there is already in being or is set up a channel of communication or a staff association, or indeed, for that matter, a collection of un-unionised and uncollective people, and if industrial relations in that organisation are harmonious, it is difficult to see why ACAS should think that difficulties would arise by the introduction of an independent trade union—unless it thought, by the very fact of the Act that set it up, that it was obliged to think that.
      This morning we have been discussing at length the SLADE case, but one of the side effects of the activities of SLADE is that it has shown beyond any doubt that there are in existence many places where industrial relations were extremely harmonious, and where they were harmonious despite the fact that there was no collective bargaining arrangement. SLADE has sought to operate in places where, for one reason
      1866
      or another—partly historical and partly because of the structures of existing unions—it has not been possible or thought desirable by workers in those places to become unionised. Nevertheless, industrial relations have been sweetness and light, and, on the whole, pay and so on have been good.
      If in those circumstances ACAS were faced with a request by SLADE that it should receive recognition, and if SLADE were able to show that it had by one means or another signed up 20 or 30 workers, ACAS would be in an interesting position. In the light of SLADE's history and the animosity that it has stirred up among non-unionised people, ACAS would be faced with deciding whether to seek to establish some collective bargaining arrangement on behalf of SLADE which might disrupt industrial relations. Such cases will not be numerous, but I think that they can and do exist. Therefore, we are seeking to remove from ACAS one of the problems that it faces.
      We have to consider the position not only of ACAS but of individual employees. As I said, there can be harmonious industrial relations within a firm without a union or a collective bargaining agreement. They can exist where a staff association is not recognised as independent. Therefore, I do not think that it is proven that an independent union is necessary for industrial relations purposes.
      Yet, if we go back to the judgment in the Legal and General Staff Association case—I again quote from the judge in that case—we can understand the intensity of feeling which arises when people feel that they are being forced to take part in a collective agreement and, therefore, to join a union when they were quite happy as they were before.
      The judge, in his conclusion, stated:
      "The provisions of sections 11–17 were capable of having far-reaching effects on the lives of employees affected by a reference. Such employees might be members of the referring union, of another non-referring independent union, of another non-independent union or of no union at all. It was theoretically possible that ACAS might recommend exclusive recognition to the referring union. If the employer failed to give effect to the recommendation the employer might be required to observe the terms and conditions specified in the award; and under section 16(7) those terms and conditions became part of

      1867
      the employees' contracts of service, whether or not the employee was a member of the referring union.
      It was, therefore, clear that, as a result of that statutory machinery, an individual could have substantial measure of control over his working life compulsorily delegated to an agent which he had not selected and his contract of service varied without his consent.… Furthermore, there was no later occasion on which such opinions were to be ascertained except so far as they were reflected by the views of the union … to which they belonged."
      The judge then went on to say that that was why he was imposing such strenuous requirements on ACAS in respect of the questionnaire. He put it, as always, extraordinarily well.
      1.45 p.m.
      What is happening as a result of Section 11 procedures is that people in multifarious circumstances—some highly unionised, some struggling for new forms of union, some not unionised at all, some independent and others not independent—are suddenly thrown into a formal procedure when ACAS begins to be involved. Once that formal procedure begins, there is no way of stopping the roller-coaster. On it goes, and the procedure takes effect whether employees are members of a union or not. The only thing which would save them to have another go would be if ACAS recommended that there be no recognition of the referring union. In all other circumstances, their whole work pattern would change.
      It is of the utmost importance that people should feel that the procedure and the people carrying it out are wholly free from bias and that the views of those concerned are taken into account. This point has come up in sharp contrast in recent times. Although ACAS can look after itself, that is not necessarily true of some of the people involved.
      The battlefield has essentially been the managerial and executive groups and the scientific workers. These are new areas of recruitment for the unions which will occupy our attention for some months.
      Going back to the articles which were published at the time of the Employment Protection Bill and the kind of gossip which was going on then, it was expected that the Bill would provide the means whereby ASTMS, TASS and so on could extend their union membership. That they
      1868
      have found some disappointment in the decisions of the certification officer is neither here nor there. That was clearly one of the intentions when it started, and that is one of the reasons for the particular problem in Clause 1 which we are trying to amend.
      Nevertheless, it is true that in this area of recruitment the worker is a different kind of animal with a different problem. I think that to attempt to apply to that area and to those people similar criteria, methods of working and attitudes of mind which have operated in traditional unions of different sizes—many of which recruit across different work places—is unwise and is already producing dangerous conflicts.
      I come now to the point that I made earlier. I said that when the Secretary of State was opposing this proposal in the original Bill he did not take into account the elements of time and of change. One problem is that we are now dealing with a different kind of union member.
      I suggest that for those concerned to get themselves sorted out in the manner most suitable to their way of working will take time. The average time required for the setting up of a staff association and getting it through the certification procedure is, I am informed, about two years, and sometimes longer. In that period difficulties will arise. It takes time to establish independence, to get methods of working, staff and everything together. It is a sensitive area, and it will require the greatest tact and patience. I do not wish to see the multiplication of a large number of unions and associations at war with one another in this area any more than I should have liked to see that take place with the manual workers' unions and so on in the past. It is important that we should seek to bring this about with care and attention.
      ACAS activity has plunged into the middle of this situation when it was at its most furious. It is symptomatic that the Bill deals with this area. Essentially, it is getting at the staff associations and sweetheart unions which are particularly relevant in this respect. Therefore, we should draw attention to the fact that, if we are to seek these changes and to bring into the union a new kind of person, we should do so with a great deal of tact and care.

      1869
      I think that the dual standard which has to be applied by ACAS is a barrier because, when we are talking about good industrial relations, it gives ACAS enormous flexibility to meet those circumstances as they change—and they will change. Circumstances are changing in the banks and insurance companies, and they will continue to change. But, if ACAS is required simultaneously to set up structures for collective bargaining, I think that there will be considerable difficulty.
      I wish to emphasise one point. We must consider not only the way in which the provision operates but the way in which work people feel that it is operating. Having sat through the Committee on the Bill, I appreciate why so many people feel that ACAS operates against their interests and in a biased way. They have that feeling not because ACAS wishes to act in such a way or is doing so but because it is associated with terms of reference which almost give it no alternative.
      I wish to quote from the Committee's proceedings when we were dealing with the attitude of the established union towards unions not affiliated to the TUC. The hon. Member for Darlington said:
      "Those that have obtained certificates in the view of the TUC are not regarded as bona fide trade unions if they are not affiliated to the TUC. A lot of acrimony has occurred because ACAS has to take the initial steps in a recognition issue. As a consequence, it is not regarded by some trade unions—ASTMS in particular—as a competent body for dealing with recognition disputes.
      I want to make that clear because it is generally thought that the trade union movement welcomes many of the attitudes that have been shown by the certification officer, and that it approves of many organisations getting certificates which, in the opinion of the TUC and other unions, are not worthy of being granted a certificate."
      I intervened in the hon. Gentleman's remarks and I said:
      "I want to clarify one point. The hon. Member said that many unions do not regard trade unions that are not affiliated to the TUC as bona fide unions. Is that a correct statement of his view?"
      The hon. Gentleman said that I was misinterpreting what he said, and he continued:
      "I said that many unions that have applied for and been granted a certificate are not regarded by the organised trade union movement as bona fide trade unions, not that they are not regarded as such by the certification officer
      1870
      or by ACAS. They are bound to regard them as unions. The trade union movement resents some of the decisions that have been made. I make this point to contrast it with the view, which has been put forward consistently, that trade unions welcome the steps that have been taken; that they want to reinforce this provision, and that it is wholly beneficial to the TUC-affiliated unions for this part of the Bill to be implemented."—[Offiial Report, Standing Committee C, 8th March 1978; c. 357.]
      It is correct that the TUC-affiliated unions regarded it as of the utmost importance that this Bill should be implemented. I understand that. I also take the point that ACAS is bound by law not to take that position, and the hon. Gentleman rightly corrected me on that matter. Nevertheless, it is the case that people at the sharp end of the business believe that they are being given a poor deal because ACAS is obliged to forward the processes of collective bargaining approved by the TUC and because, every time there is conflict of interest in respect of a TUC-affiliated union, one finds that either it is backed either by ACAS or by the big guns or, as in this case, when that does not happen, by changing the law.
      While we are talking of the fears that arise in people's minds over the matter of bias, I should like to quote what I believe was the most remarkable statement made in the Committee's proceedings. The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) said:
      "We have to recognise, like it or not, that many of the staff associations or sweetheart unions arise from a relationship with the employer based—I use the words deliberately—on a notion more of class conciliation than class struggle. Those employed in industry, who in the main are in trade unions, are involved in class struggle. They are the representatives of the workers, forced to sell their labour power in order to live. They sell their labour power in a situation where capital buys it at the cheapest possible rate, and if there is a divided empire over which the employer rules—I submit that that applies to most industrial organisations in Britain today—unity within the work force and understanding of the situation in which they are struggling is absolutely imperative."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 15th February 1978; c. 139.]
      There are indeed many people in the section of the work force with which I have been dealing in my remarks who have not previously been unionised, who are coming to the point of unionisation and who believe that associations and unions should be based more on the notion of class conciliation than class

      1871
      struggle. I would not condemn them for it. People must understand that there are those with professional standing, who find a conflict between their union membership and their professional requirements in any case, whose tradition of behaviour at work is different from that about which the hon. Member for Preston, South was speaking.
      Mr. Holland: My hon. Friend is suggesting that where good industrial relations already exist within a company, but which exist without the aid of a TUC-affiliated union, ACAS under its terms of reference will be required to promote collective bargaining and is under some sort of duty to be divisive, to disrupt the existing good relations and to recommend recognition of some referring union.
      Mr. Silvester: Up to a point, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Within its terms of reference, ACAS would not be required to do what was suggested because from time to time it makes recommendations for staff associations. But there are a number of cases in which ACAS has felt it desirable to make decisions in favour of affiliated unions and it has no cosy or friendly arrangement with these newer bodies in the same way as it has with the established trade unions. It that is so, and if it is related to the kind of attitude I have just quoted in the remarks of the hon. Member for Preston, South, one can understand the enormous head of steam that is built up to the effect that ACAS is biased.
      The purpose of the new clause is twofold. First, it seeks to separate two requirements of ACAS. On the one hand, it will make it possible to discharge its duty better because it will be freer to do it. On the other hand, it will release ACAS from the charge—whether justified or not, but an understandable one—that is it lined upon the side of one kind of union rather than another.
      Mr. Ted Fletcher: I am sure that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) will be congratulated by his colleagues on his long, meandering and irrelevant contribution. He has made a significant contribution to the policy of filibustering, which obviously is the tactic to be pursued by the Opposition in seeking to stop this Bill making progress at 4 o'clock.
      1872
      It is significant that despite the synthetic indignation of the Opposition they have brought only a handful of their colleagues into the Chamber on this Bill. About 85 per cent. of Conservative Members have not come to Parliament to discuss what they consider to be a bad Bill. There may be reasons for that attitude. Some of those Members who have stayed away might think that the exercise of union bashing has gone far enough. In view of the by-election result yesterday, they may wish to hide themselves under the cover that they are not bashing the unions. Others may not regard the matter as being of great importance, since they were so soundly defeated on Second Reading.
      2.0 p.m.
      For the record, I am bound to point out that the Liberal Party, which has always supported the Tories in their opposition to this measure, is conspicuous by its absence. The Scottish nationalists are not here, but we can understand that this morning they are probably getting over a bad night. Perhaps they are suffering from a hangover.
      Mr. Skeet: The hon. Gentleman has been making one or two remarks about the Tory side of the House. Is he aware that in this debate there are eight hon. Members on the Tory side and only three on the Labour Benches? The enthusiasm is here. We want to come to the truth and analyse the argument.
      Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that he wants to come to the truth. The trouble is that the truth, as seen by the Opposition, has been reiterated in Committee, on Second Reading and during the proceedings on the 1975 Act. Everyone is getting fed up listening to the arguments being rehearsed over and over again. They know that we are on a treadmill. Nothing new has been said on this matter.
      There is no substance in the new clause. To try to contrast an improvement in industrial relations with an extension of collective bargaining is nonsense. The extension of collective bargaining could lead to an improvement in industrial relations. The two are complementary. There is no contradiction. The hon. Member for Withington has spent 40 minutes trying to reconcile the irreconcilable.

      1873
      The new clause seeks to take away from ACAS its discretion to treat each case on its merits. The hon. Gentleman said that he was trying to remove one of the problems faced by ACAS. What does ACAS say about this? Its annual report was published yesterday. I will read an extract dealing with this point. It says:
      "The framework for all ACAS activities is established by Section 1 of the Act which charges the Service with the general duty of promoting the improvement of industrial relations and, in particular, of encouraging the extension of collective bargaining and the development and, where necessary, reform of collective bargaining machinery. In passing the Act, Parliament has therefore seen no general inconsistency between the objectives of improving industrial relations, extending collective bargaining and developing collective bargaining machinery. It has been the policy of all the main parties in Parliament for very many years to regard collective bargaining as a normal method of settling terms and conditions of employment."
      That is the view of ACAS, which contradicts the meandering speech that we have had from the hon. Member for Withington, seeking to drag up irrelevant arguments to prove a non-case. The hon. Gentleman is contradicting the philosophy that existed in the Conservative Party when the Industrial Relations Act was passed. Section 1 of that Act says that
      "The provisions of this Act shall have effect for the purpose of promoting good industrial relations in accordance with the following general principles, that is to say—
      (a) the principle of collective bargaining freely conducted on behalf of workers and employers and with due regard to the general interests of the community;"
      In its own Act, now consigned to the dustbin of history, the Tory Party suggested that there was a firm relationship between better industrial relations and collective bargaining. Yet we have had all of these contorted arguments, seeking to show that there is a distinction to be drawn between collective bargaining and the improvement of industrial relations.
      This is a non-new clause. It is meaningless in terms of Conservative philosophy, as laid down in the Industrial Relations Act. We should not waste a further minute in considering it. The whole aspect was discussed at length during proceedings on the Employment Protection Act.
      Mr. Holland: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there can be no good relations between an employer and his employees unless the employees are marshalled into one of the "big battalion" unions and represented by it?
      Mr. Fletcher: I have never said that. I do not understand the relevance of that intervention. I was saying that there is no conflict between improving industrial relations and obtaining better facilities for conciliation. This was recognised by the Tory Party in its notorious Industrial Relations Act. The Tory Back Benches should have a word with the Front Benches and discover when and where the Tory Party changed its mind and decided that a conflict existed when it did not exist earlier.
      We ought to make rapid progress on this issue. There are another nine groups of amendments to be dealt with, some of them dealing with matters of substance, into which the Opposition could get their teeth. To spend the time of the House on this trivial, insignificant and inconsequential new clause seems to be an abuse. I would have thought that Tory Members would have more sense than to waste time in this way. I hope that without more ado we can reach a conclusion on the clause.
      Mr. Gorst: I do not want to be frightened by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) into resuming my seat within seconds of rising to speak just because he does not like the new clause. However, I do not intend to waste time or to spend very long on this matter. I am puzzled to know why my hon. Friends have inserted the words:
      "if and when conflict arises".
      Why not simply say "at all times"? Why not have the improvement of industrial relations as the pre-eminent, indeed, the sole concern of ACAS, instead of placing an obligation upon the service to undertake an examination in recognition disputes?
      Collective bargaining may well be desirable, but it is not necessarily of the greatest good. It may not be suitable or convenient. It may not be desired or effective. It seems unnecessary to have this as part of the mandate laid upon ACAS under Section 1 of the Employment Protection Act. It may be that there has been a slip in the drafting. If

      1875
      the House decides to slip this new clause into the Bill, perhaps at a later stage the requirement dealing with collective bargaining can be quietly removed.
      As it is, the mandate upon ACAS at all times to consider collective bargaining is a millstone round its neck. To change metaphors, although I realise that this is something of a sacred cow to Labour Members, it does make ACAS rather a bull in a china shop in terms of its much more important and legitimate responsibility of acting as a conciliator and arbitrator.
      Mr. Bulmer: I regret that the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) did not respond to the amendment with more understanding, both in his own interests and because of the real fears of many employers about the drift of employment legislation. The amendment is much more psychologically important than it may be in reality. If it is clearly stated that good industrial relations must take precedence in the minds of ACAS officials, that will do a good deal to allay employers' fears.
      Undoubtedly, when a Conservative Government are returned to power shortly, employers will be pressing my right hon. Friend for a whole range of changes in employment law. We believe that changes should be minimal, but some are clearly needed. The more that Labour Members push for the already apparent bias to be extended, the more difficult the task becomes to proceed on the basis of consensus and to avoid change.
      Confronted with the joint charge on ACAS to promote good industrial relations and extend collective bargaining, some employers are reasonably worried about the size of the bargaining point. We saw that in Avis and IBM. There has been a worrying tendency to ignore the opinion of the majority. When a company has a depot in another part of the country and has refused to recognise a union, it may be because that part of the country is organised by another union or because of the strength of a particular personality. But the company understands that its interests and those of good industrial relations lie in having one union or the minimum number.
      ACAS may say that that is a bargaining point that should be recognised, and it may throw a spanner in the works in
      1876
      the form of the industrial relations arrangements that it set up. Anyone who has studied Harland and Wolff will know how difficult unions find it to agree on representation in that sort of situation.
      There is a further problem when employers are not allowed to invoke the help of ACAS in an inter-union dispute. The situation could be made worse if the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) became law. Then the unions might be denied the opportunity to bring in ACAS. There is a real point behind the amendment, to which I hope the hon. Member for Darlington will address himself.
      Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) talked about the Committee making faster progress, but the only progress that he is prepared to accept is on his own narrow, bigoted terms. That is not the way to conduct a proper debate. Throughout these debates, he has paid no attention to any arguments. He has stuck rigidly to his own Bill and the briefs that someone else appears to have written for him. In those circumstances, I wholly reject any suggestion that the delays come from the Opposition.
      2.15 p.m.
      Of course we do not like the Bill, or want it to become law. We are seeking consistently to improve it, to make it fairer and more even-handed. Although we accept that we do not have the drafting facilities to make our amendments technically correct, we submit that they all relate to points of considerable substance. Perhaps it was nearly automatic that, as soon as the hon. Member for Darlington began to assert, without a shred of argument, that there was no conflict between the different requirements of Clause 1(2)—the improvement of industrial relations and the extension of collective bargaining—one thought of the present Lord President introducing the Employment Protection Bill. Those of us who know the right hon. Gentleman well knew that the net effect would be to destroy employment. Equally, when the hon. Member for Darlington says that there is no contradiction here, we can be certain that there is.
      Mr. Ted Fletcher: Would the hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to the

      1877
      clause that I quoted from the notorious Industrial Relations Act? It said:
      "The provisions of this Act shall have effect for the purpose of promoting good industrial relations in accordance with the following general principles."
      —one of which was
      "the principle of collective bargaining freely undertaken on behalf of employers and employees."
      If the Conservative Party believed that that was right then—that there was no conflict and that the two things could be chained together—why is the hon. Gentleman now opposing the same argument?
      Mr. Hayhoe: I am sometimes bewildered when arguing with the hon. Gentleman? Does he see no difference? I notice how carefully he avoided reading the other principles, with all of which, presumably, he did not agree. But even the limited and selective quotation that he has used proves no such thing. That wording differs from the wording in Clause 1(2), which says that an improvement of industrial relations is achieved particularly by the extension of collective bargaining.
      In the W. H. Allen case, ACAS rejected the views of the majority who wanted UKAPE to represent them. I know that there are arguments the other way, but the CBI and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions were involved. On the simple question whether there would be an improvement of industrial relations or an extension of collective bargaining, ACAS decided, when confronted with a non-TUC union, that the principle of improving industrial relations was best upheld by making no recommendation for the extension of collective bargaining. That is contained in ACAS Report No. 68.
      ACAS decided that even though, as it admitted, there was majority support and although the requirements of bargaining units, and so on, were all met, there was a conflict between extending collective bargaining and improving industrial relations. It therefore made no recommendation for recognition of UKAPE. That judgment is now being questioned and the matter may go before the courts. That destroys the argument of the hon. Member for Darlington. He says that there is no contradiction of any kind.
      Mr. Ted Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman will agree that the recommendation—or non-report—of ACAS was approved not only by the trade unions concerned but by the employer and the Engineering Employers Federation, which commented on it in its annual report. The federation represents about 6,000 engineering employers, so a substantial number of people backed ACAS on that issue.
      Mr. Hayhoe: I am aware of that. Now the hon. Gentleman abandons any pretence of trying to support the claim that he confidently asserted earlier—that there was no contradiction. He crawls away to hide behind the skirts of the Engineering Employers Federation. What an indignity it is that the hon. Gentleman should creep away to that corner to hide when his arguments on the general issue have been destroyed.
      The extension of collective bargaining, when done in accordance with the views of the work force and by agreement, will ordinarily bring about an improvement in industrial relations.
      Mr. Ted Fletcher: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Hayhoe: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support. That fact to which I have just drawn attention was enunciated in the first of the principles to which he drew attention in the Industrial Relations Act. What a pity that he did not then have the courage of the convictions that he now expresses in saying "Hear, hear". His feet did not follow his voice in terms of votes on the Industrial Relations Bill. That is another indication of his inconsistencies.
      From time to time conflicts arise between the requirement to seek an improvement in industrial relations and the extension of collective bargaining. These views are not held just by the Opposition; they are held by practically every major body in the country concerned with industrial relations. I pointed out on Second Reading that Eric Wigham, in an authoritative article in The Times, said that there was not always consistency between those two objectives. The Industrial Relations Review and Report said the same thing. Mr. Wigham said this in The Times of 6th December, speaking of ACAS:
      "They are charged under the Act to promote the improvement of industrial relations and to

      1879
      encourage the extension of collective bargaining, but there are cases where the two objectives are mutually exclusive."
      Yet the hon. Gentleman says that there is no contradiction at any time. By so saying he rejects the considered view of one of the authoritative labour correspondents in this country. I could make numerous other quotations.
      Mr. Gorst: I believe that in answering the intervention of the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) my hon. Friend has been led into a very lengthy explanation. May I help him by explaining the difference between them? I believe that, in effect, the hon. Gentleman is saying to my hon. Friend "As the Tories got the Industrial Relations Act wrong, I am entitled to get things wrong as well".
      Mr. Hayhoe: I do not know whether that carries the views of the hon. Member for Darlington up the scale or down the scale. As they are at a very curious level anyway, perhaps we may leave it there and let the political philosophers work it out.
      Mr. Ted Fletcher: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not leave it there but will agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) that the Tories got the Industrial Relations Act wrong.
      Mr. Hayhoe: Yes, indeed. I said so at the time and I have said so since. If the hon. Gentleman had paid sufficient attention to some of the debates on the Industrial Relations Bill he would have known that I am on record as making criticisms at that time. Much of the Act has been re-enacted, in any case. The propaganda to which it was subjected was surprisingly effective but also astonishingly inaccurate in many ways and I suspect that our economic circumstances would have been much happier today if that Act—amended as it would have been if the February 1974 election had gone the other way—was still on the statute book.
      At that time the Labour Opposition said that there should be no framework of law in these matters and opposed the introduction of law into industrial relations. Since the Labour Party came to power it has enacted a great deal of legislation concerning industrial relations, albeit that much of it has been very
      1880
      biased, pro-trade union legislation. The law now intervenes further and deeper into the whole practice of industrial relations that it ever did as a result of the 1971 Act.
      Mr. A. P. Costain: Is my hon. Friend sure that he has not got the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) wrong? If the hon. Member really thinks that this is an insignificant new clause, and if he wants to get on with the business, why does he not let the new clause go through?
      Mr. Hayhoe: That is a very sensible comment. I began by saying that we should make faster progress on the Bill if the hon. Member for Darlington would abandon the attitude that on this matter no view other than his own is acceptable. He now has an opportunity to recommend that the House accepts the new clause. If he says that the clause is insignificant, he can make progress by agreeing to it. Alternatively, if he argues that he said that only to argue the rather specious position that he adopts—that he thinks that the clause is of great significance—that will make nonsense of some of his earlier remarks.
      We Tory Members believe the new clause to be of great importance. As the hon. Member for Darlington said, we raised the matter right through the discussions on the Employment Protection Bill. We raised the matter again on Second Reading and in Committee on this Bill, because we regard it as of great importance. We want ACAS to be a truly independent body, working under truly independent terms of reference. That is why we have tabled this new clause and sought to make somewhat similar amendments to other parts of the Bill.
      I again appeal to the hon. Member for Darlington. If he is concerned about conciliation rather than with the class war of which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) spoke so eloquently to the Committee, let him accept the new clause and thereby make some progress. I am afraid that I am not all that hopeful that the hon. Member will respond positively.
      Miss Richardson rose in her place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his consent and declined then to put that Question.
      Mr. Madel: New clauses tabled to any Bill, whether a Private Member's Bill or a Government Bill, are designed not to wreck the Bill but to improve it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) said twice on this new clause, if the two new clauses that have been discussed so far today had been accepted some progress would have been made and the Bill would have been tidier and much more even-handed.
      The most important words in this clause are the opening words:
      "In proceeding on a reference under Section 11 above."
      When the Section 11 procedure has been gone through and recognition has been given to a trade union, great power and influence come to that trade union.
      2.30 p.m.
      No one can say that the new clause is giving ACAS a harsh or unreasonable order; it merely asks ACAS to be supremely conscious of the need for conciliation and the need to improve industrial relations over all else. Other matters are important, but the improvement of industrial relations is the most important. The dispute figures for 1977 add greater weight to our case.
      Section 11(3) refers to circumstances in which further recognition is requested when recognition has already been accorded to some extent. It is often in cases of further recognition that conflict can arise between unions. Many firms in this country are only partly unionised and have only 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. of employees as union members. Very often there is peaceful co-existence within such a factory or plant. I am not saying that this will continue for ever, or that the situation will remain static, but the clause says that it is best for ACAS to consider the maintenance of good industrial relations above the extension of collective bargaining.
      Mention has been made of the growing conflict between unions in white-collar industries. I declare again my interest as consultant to the National Union of Bank Employees. I am well aware of the problems that the union is involved in with other unions in banking and insurance.
      In banking many people are not members of a union and do not want to
      1882
      join a union. Industrial relations will not be improved if ACAS makes a recommendation for the extension of collective bargaining without paying supreme attention to the importance of industrial relations.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) said, we are shortly to have a White Paper on industrial democracy. If its recommendations became law they would change the whole nature of bargaining and industrial relations in this country. This adds greater weight to the need for ACAS to be careful before recommending an extension of collective bargaining over and above the improvement of industrial relations.
      If, by law, we are to have a two-tier board system, I can see many possibilities of conflict and difficulties between unions over who is to be on the second board. If ACAS rushes in and recommends an extension of collective bargaining in a factory when it is on the verge of implementing a two-tier industrial democracy system, there will be difficulties and conflict.
      It is a fact of industrial relations life in this country that we have inter-union disputes over spheres of influence collective bargaining and a whole host of industrial relations matters. We have to live with them, but if we tell ACAS to put greater weight on the improvement of industrial relations rather than on the extension of collective bargaining, that will make greater sense.
      It will make supreme sense in this country, because in the rest of this century we shall see a rapid growth of new technologies. This is as inevitable as night following day. We know what difficulties this will present to unions in terms of the question who represents whom in particular industries and technologies.
      When ACAS was set up, we were told time and again by hon. Members on the Government Benches about the need for a national conciliation service and a wholly independent organisation to which unions, employers and individuals could go to sort out industrial relations disputes. Those who said that then must surely accept the new clause.
      The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall, (Mr. Bidwell) said that he and his hon. Friends were looking for a better system

      1883
      and a better way of handling our industrial relations problems. If he wants to do that, no doubt he will join us in putting the new clause into the Bill, because it is a better way of doing things if greater weight is given to the improvement of industrial relations rather than to the extension of collective bargaining.
      Mr. Eddie Loyden: Can the hon. Gentleman give some indication of the criteria that he would use to determine whether the extension of collective bargaining would create better industrial relations? What sort of conflict does he think would arise out of the extension of collective bargaining?
      Mr. Madel: The conflicts that might arise would be put to ACAS by people in the place of work when the service was fulfilling its conciliation role. I cannot pluck examples out of the sky, but disputes and trouble would occur.
      Mr. Gorst: Perhaps I may help my hon. Friend. At Grunwick more than 99 per cent. of the work force made clear that they did not wish to have a trade union, and they petitioned their employer, Mr. Ward, not to give their names to ACAS. Surely this constitutes a situation in which collective bargaining imposed on these people by ex-employees would be against the interests of good industrial relations?
      Mr. Madel: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to an important point and there are further examples to come. We know that ballots are to take place of members of certain staff associations on the question of which union they wish to belong to. The ballots will be fairly and reasonably conducted. That is a case for ACAS's holding back from making any recommendation for recognition and allowing the ballots to take place so that people can give their opinion about what they wish to do.
      New Clause No. 5 would put that extra cautionary request to ACAS to go steady in cases where two unions were recruiting members and it was decided to hold a ballot. If one union got recognition for certain matters before the ballot, that would be an inevitable extension of collective bargaining and could lead to the conflict to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) referred.
      Mr. Harold Walker: It might be for the benefit of the House and facilitate progress if I express briefly the Government's view on the new clause.
      The hon. Member for Hendon North (Mr. Gorst) will recognise that what he said about Grunwick was inconsistent with what their Lordships said in their judgment.
      Mr. Gorst: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Walker: I should have known better. I apologise to the House for having mentioned Grunwick again.
      Mr. Gorst: I simply want to ask the Minister whether he will say in what way it was inconsistent. I see no inconsistency.
      Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman said that 99 per cent. of those employed at Grunwick were against being represented by APEX, the union that was seeking recognition. Their Lordships recognise that those who had been dismissed for the purposes of recognition should be recognised as part of that work force and that their view should be taken into account. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not allow him to tempt me again into a long discussion about Grunwick.
      The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) must be the very last defender of the Industrial Relations Act. I did not think that there was one left. He must be the only survivor. I hope that what he said today will be fully noted by the trade unions so that they know what is threatened by the Conservative Party in the unlikely event of its ever achieving power again.
      The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer)—he is not in the Chamber at the moment; he may have nipped out for a cup of tea—said that when his party got into power, although there would be pressures from employers for changes in our employment protection legislation, the changes would be minimal. I found that difficult to reconcile both with the speeches of his hon. Friends and with the number of changes that they are seeking to make through the medium of the Bill. What they are seeking to do through this modest measure shows—by golly—that they are in fact, threatening a lot of change.
      Mr. Hayhoe: Let us have this clear. Throughout the passage of this Bill thus far we have said that in our view the recognition sections of the Employment Protection Act are not satisfactory. We were willing to enter into discussions to try to reach an agreed programme for change, but we were opposed to a unilateral change that expressed one point of view. It is reasonable, in accordance with all the traditions of the House to put down a whole series of amendments and clauses covering important points, to ventilate these in debate and to vote upon them. There is nothing inconsistent in our attitude, and nothing inconsistent with the policy statements which we have made about the sort of legislation which the next Conservative Government will bring in.
      Mr. Walker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that some of the amendments and new clauses which he and his hon. Friends have tabled—especially the new clause now before us—go considerably beyond recognition. Notwithstanding the Long Title, the new clause would amend not the recognition provisions but the terms of reference of ACAS.
      Mr. Hayhoe: With great respect, I cannot allow that to pass without comment. I know that my hon. Friends wanted to table an amendment to alter Clause 1. That was not in order. What is in order—this is the subject matter of the clause now before us—is to query, in respect of recognition issues and only recognition issues, whether ACAS should give greater weight to the improvement of industrial relations over the extension of collective bargaining.
      Mr. Walker: When the hon. Gentleman reflects on the debate and the arguments that the Opposition have deployed, he will, I think, have to recognise that he and his hon. Friends have been arguing for a wider application of what they seek to do, extending it to the terms of reference of ACAS.
      With respect, I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) on the point that I took him to imply in his recent intervention. There probably are situations in which good industrial relations are at risk through the extension of collective bargaining. We have had one case put to us
      1886
      in which there was a clear conflict, recognised by ACAS, and ACAS did what, presumably, the Opposition think right in such circumstances, putting good industrial relations first. I refer to the case of W. H. Allen, at Bedford.
      I hope that I am entitled to jump ahead for a moment and make a brief reference to New Clause No. 12, tabled by Opposition Members. I hope that we shall come to that clause very soon and that in debating it we shall have the present discussion in mind. If New Clause No. 12 were incorporated in the Bill and enacted, UKAPE, which was denied a recognition recommendation at W. H. Allen, would secure its recognition automatically, notwithstanding the effect on industrial relations at that firm. I hope that that will be borne in mind.
      There has been nothing new in the debate. As has been said from both sides, we have been arguing interminably about this business over the past two years. I am sure that the House does not expect me once again to go over all the arguments that we have deployed in making clear why the terms of reference for ACAS were chosen and why we believe them to be absolutely right. I advise the House to stick to those terms of reference as we now have them.
      Where a conflict does arise—I recognise that it may do so—it is far better to leave it to the good judgment of ACAS, as in the W. H. Allen case, to make its own assessment of the weight of importance to be attached and, on the one hand, to the extension of collective bargaining and, on the other, to the need to preserve good industrial relations. I believe that in 99·9 per cent. of cases they will be synonymous—although I recognise that there may be the odd case, such as I and hon. Members have instanced, where there is a doubt. In such circumstances, as I say, it is much better to leave it to the good judgment of ACAS in each situation, leaving the terms of reference as they are. I ask the House to reject the new clause.
      Mr. Gorst: How can the Minister reconcile saying, on the one hand, that we should leave ACAS with the terms of reference produced back in 1975, because they are all right and, on the other, support the introduction of this Bill at

      1887
      the same time? He cannot have his cake and eat it.
      Miss Richardson rose in her place ana claimed to move, That the Question now put.

      Division No. 167

      AYES

      2.45 p.m.

      Anderson, Donald

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Noble, Mike

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Atkinson, Norman

      Grocott Bruce

      Orbach, Maurice

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Ovenden, John

      Bates, Alf

      Harper, Joseph

      Park, George

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Prescott, John

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Henderson, Douglas

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Huckfield, Les

      Ryman, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Sever, John

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Hunter, Adam

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Cowans, Harry

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Snape, Peter

      Cryer, Bob

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Kelley, Richard

      Stallard, A. W.

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lamond, James

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Loyden, Eddie

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Luard, Evan

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Ward, Michael

      English, Michael

      McElhone, Frank

      Watkins, David

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Madden, Max

      Weitzman, David

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Whitlock, William

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Flannery, Martin

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mendelson, John

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mikardo, Ian

      Woodall, Alec

      Forrester, John

      Mitchell, Austin

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Molloy, William

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Moonman, Eric

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Golding, John

      Moyle, Roland

      Miss Jo Richardson and

      Gould, Bryan

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Mr. Stan Thorne.

      Graham, Ted

      Newens, Stanley

      NOES

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Stanley, John

      Crowder, F. P.

      Madel, David

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Elliott, Sir William

      Mates, Michael

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Newton, Tony

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Gorst, John

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Mr. A. P. Costain and

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Mr. Fred Silvester.

      Holland, Philip

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time.

      Division No. 168]

      AYES

      [2.56 p.m.

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Elliott, Sir William

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Gorst, John

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Grieve, Percy

      Crowder, F. P.

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Question put, That the Question be now put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 34.
      The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 130.

      Holland, Philip

      Newton, Tony

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Le Merchant, Spencer

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Madel, David

      Sinclair, Sir George

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Mates, Michael

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Mr. Fred Silvester and

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stanley, John

      Mr. A. P. Costain.

      Mayhew, Patrick

      NOES

      Anderson, Donald

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Orbach, Maurice

      Atkinson, Norman

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Ovenden, John

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Harper, Joseph

      Park, George

      Bates, Alf

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Prescott, John

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Henderson, Douglas

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Huckfield, Les

      Ryman, John

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Sever, John

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Hunter, Adam

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Cohen, Stanley

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Cowans, Harry

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Snape, Peter

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Kelley, Richard

      Spearing, Nigel

      Cryer, Bob

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Stallard, A. W.

      Davies, Bryar (Enfield N)

      Lamond, James

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Loyden, Eddie

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Luard, Evan

      Urwin, T. W.

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McCartney, Hugh

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      McElhone, Frank

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Madden, Max

      Ward, Michael

      English, Michael

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Watkins, David

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Weitzman, David

      Faulds, Andrew

      Meacher, Michael

      Whitlock, William

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Flannery, Martin

      Mendelson, John

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mitchell, Austin

      Woodall, Alec

      Forrester, John

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Molloy, William

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Moonman, Eric

      Golding, John

      Moyle, Roland

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Gould, Bryan

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Miss Jo Richardson and

      Graham, Ted

      Newens, Stanley

      Mr. Stan Thorne.

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Noble, Mike

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause No. 6

      AMENDMENT OF EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION ACT 1975 (No. 3)
      '( ) (1) Section 12 of the Employment Protection Act 1975 (inquiry by and report of the Service on a recognition issue) is amended as follows:—
      "(2) After subsection (4) there is inserted the following subsection:—
      '(4A) In making a recommendation for recognition the Service shall have regard to—

      (a) the quality of existing industrial relations and the size and structues and the personnel policies of the business to which the recognition issue relates, and

      1890

      (b) the need for any recommended negotiating group to include workers sharing a common interest and to be viable as a stable unit for collective bargaining purposes'.".'—[Mr. Madel.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Madel: I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
      We now move on to Section 12 of the Employment Protection Act, which deals with inquiries and reports on recognition issues. As stated in the new clause, after Section 12(4) there should be added subsection (4A) which makes recommendations to ACAS and gives ACAS cautionary advice before it makes a recommendation for recognition.
      If subsection (4A) is inserted, the existing subsection (5) in the Act will still

      1891
      stand. That subsection states that ACAS, when making a recommendation for recognition, shall specify (a), (b), (c) and (d). Paragraph (d) is particularly important. That is one of the reasons why we have drafted the new clause. It refers to
      "the level or levels at which recognition is recommended."
      I turn to paragraph (a) of the new clause. This refers to the fact that when ACAS makes a recommendation for recognition it shall have regard to
      "the quality of existing industrial relations and the size and structures and the personnel policies of the business to which the recognition issue relates".
      I stress straight away that industrial relations and personnel policies from time to time change in particular industries. They are constantly under review. Indeed, if management is to do a proper job of personnel policy, it must be ceaselessly vigilant and assure itself that its industrial relations and personnel policies are up to date and relevant to its employees. Equally, employers and unions must recognise that, as Britain's technologies change, some unions decline in membership and some increase. Therefore, paragraph (a) refers to
      "the quality of existing industrial relations and the size and structures and the personnel policies."
      I do not like to quote myself any more than any other hon. Member does, but at column 319 of the Committee's proceedings of 8th March I referred to the major electrification project—I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) present—which is taking place between Bedford and St. Pancras and which is due to be completed by 1982. One of the problems to which I referred in that debate was that signalmen would have to be redeployed as the modernisation took place.
      Therefore, a problem for the railway industry will be to which union the signalmen should belong. There may be a recognition problem, though one does not want to anticipate what may happen, but it is a relevant example to give, given that in subsection (4A) which we seek to include in the Bill we refer to the size and structure of the business and the quality of existing industrial relations.
      1892
      One aspect to which we have paid special attention is the reports on recognition which ACAS has issued. The problem of limited recognition has been recognised in many cases. When ACAS is to make a recommendation for limited recognition, it makes sense to include this additional subsection.
      In the "Industrial Relations Report and Review" of April 1977, ACAS says in Report No. 15 which concerns Avis Rent A Car, that it issued a questionnaire with the company's co-operation to which it received replies from 23 of the 25 employees concerned who worked at Glasgow Airport for Avis Rent A Car. That revealed that only four employees were TGWU members at the time but that a further 15 said that they would join the union if it was recognised.
      The ACAS report went on to say:
      "From the company's viewpoint a limited recognition recommendation allows it to maintain uniform pay structures on a companywide basis. The company have, however, since told the union that they do not intend to give formal recognition at Glasgow Airport."
      There can be difficulties and a conflict when limited recognition is recommended, and the Opposition think that it makes sense to include subsection (4A) in the Bill asking ACAS to pause before rushing, as some people have criticised it for doing, into making a recommendation.
      There have been further cases since this one, which is relevant given what the company decided to do. In the December 1977 report referring to Avis Rent A Car and the TGWU, again ACAS did a survey and ascertained the views of 19 of the 24 staff covered by the reference. That revealed that 17, or 89 per cent., wanted the TGWU to negotiate on their behalf, while 13 were already members of the union and a further three were potential members. Accordingly, ACAS recommended the company to recognise the union for the purposes of collective bargaining on matters which fell within the discretion of local management in respect of drivers, fitters and rental representatives at its Euston, Colnbrook and Greenford rental depots. That was paying attention to the size of the existing work force and the quality and structures of personnel policies.
      I also think that, given that recommendation No. 80 referred not just to one depot but to the rental depots at Euston,

      1893
      Colnbrook and Greenford, it could be said that on that matter ACAS was almost anticipating New Clause No. 6.
      There is a further example. This is Report No. 63. Again it concerns Avis Rent A Car and, this time, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. In this matter ACAS notes:
      "The main terms and conditions of employment for employees in Avis' 80 establishments are determined centrally by the company. But the company was prepared in November 1976 to discuss shift pay and shift working arrangements locally with the union. Accordingly, the Service proposes collective bargaining for the smallest negotiating group to date—i.e., four employees—but on a limited basis."
      I am not so sure about that one. Hon. Members may wish to make further comment on it. I am not sure whether the decision in Report No. 63 was necessarily the correct decision. Whereas in Report No. 80 the decision is tied in with New Clause No. 6, I am not so sure that that is so with regard to the decision in Report No. 63.
      3.15 p.m.
      There is one last report, No. 21, which was the W. S. Atkins and TASS report. There, ACAS recommended that W. S. Atkins and Partners recognised TASS generally for the purposes of collective bargaining and for the purposes of all employees in the civil and structural departments of the company's Middles-brough regional office. There were 15 staff members there who were not members of the union. There were, though, a total of 1,300 employees there. I think that in that case it was paying attention to the size and structure of the work force. Therefore, what the new clause does is to invite ACAS, before making the recommendation for recognition, to pay great attention to what the industrial relations set-up is like in the particular company.
      Paragraph (b) says:
      "the need for any recommended negotiating group to include workers sharing a common interest and to be viable as a stable unit for collective bargaining purposes".
      I think that Report No. 21 certainly concerned a viable unit. The workers were all employed in the same place. In Report No. 63, with regard to Avis, where there were three depots, I think again that that would probably lead to stability because there were three depots
      1894
      and all the depots were included, and not just one depot on its own.
      In no sense, therefore, could the new clause be described as unhelpful, trying to wreck the Bill or trying to change the terms of reference of ACAS—not a bit of it. The new clause fits in very neatly between subsections (4) and (5) of Section 12 of the 1975 Act.
      I end by stressing two sentences in the new clause. We want the negotiating group
      "to be viable as a stable unit for collective bargaining purposes".
      If the unit is not stable for colective bargaining purposes, inevitably industrial relations start to get damaged. This is why we were spending so much time discussing New Clause No. 5. I also stress the following words:
      "the size and structures and the personnel policies"
      and
      "the quality of existing industrial relations".
      Sometimes in a company industrial relations are not so good. Sometimes they have taken a downward turn because there has been an inability on the part of management to work out with two unions which group of employees should be represented by whom. Paragraph (a) is saying to ACAS "Steady. Just before you make a recommendation, particularly for limited recognition, you should pay very careful attention, as paragraph (a) invites you to do."
      All our new clauses have been designed with one object in mind—to improve the quality of industrial relations, to make the task of ACAS easier and to do everything we can to get across to the people of this country, especially those who lead full working lives, the fact that ACAS operates an even-handed policy and that it is independent and is an organisation to which people may go to sort out their industrial relations difficulties.
      It is for these reasons, therefore, that I hope that the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) will find the new clause a useful addition to his Bill.
      Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: This is the first of the new clauses that make specific reference to personnel. As someone who has been professionally qualified, as a Fellow of the Institute of Personnel Management, for many years,

      1895
      I should like to make a few comments on what I regard as the important aspects of the new clause.
      One of the troubles that one finds in industrial relations today is the growing difficulty that arises because those engaged in personnel feel that they are gradually getting squeezed out by various organisations—by ACAS, on the one hand, and by unions, on the other.
      In a good company, the relationship between the personnel function and the workers, whether or not they are members of unions, ought to be able to set the ground rules and ought, in most cases, to be able to prevent any need for a reference to ACAS.
      What worries me about the Bill as drafted is that, without the new clause, we would continue the trend that has been set for at least seven or eight years, when all parties paid less and less attention to the importance of personnel management. I regret that quite a few Government Departments still do not employ qualified personnel people. That applies to companies, as well. I hope that there will be a reverse of that trend and that personnel managament will get the recognition that it deserves.
      The new clause proposes that regard must be paid to the quality not merely of industrial relations and the size of the structures, but of personnel policies. Personnel policies should have three aims. The first is the well-being of the company. Without the well-being of the company, not merely the workers but the shareholders and the public will suffer. Therefore, the company's well-being ought to come first. In the end, the component parts of a company are the workers, the shareholders and the public who may consume the goods. That is the first objective of a good personnel function.
      The second objective should be to be able to detect friction at an early stage. During the years that I have been practising, my relationship with the major trade unions with which I have had to deal has been on a reasonable basis, because I have established a personal rapport with trade union leaders. I find that it is possible to talk to them on the basis of complete trust and confidence. It is much easier to settle differences face to face without the necessity of calling
      1896
      in an outside organisation which comes in all too frequently at a late stage.
      If a personnel manager is good at his job, he can detect the first signs of trouble. It is at that stage that he should try to isolate them. He must try to decide whether the trouble is genuine or is a movement of anarchy—the Minister will recognise this very well—which is deliberately working against the permanent officials of the union. The right hon. Gentleman knows that in the North-West and Yorkshire there is a strong movement that is determined to smash some genuine trade union officials because they are being sufficiently responsible in trying to abide by the Government's guidelines. The personnel manager must decide whether the trouble is of that kind or is genuinely based and is a project that the union wishes to discuss and to move forward with. If the latter, he is then in a position to see how to isolate the trouble and to consider whether a move can be made by management to prevent the trouble going any further.
      The Minister of State will probably agree that in 99 per cent. of such cases, rapid and complete agreement can be reached by management and union when there is a genuine grievance which both are determined to solve. The 99 per cent. can exist only where there is a proper personnel function and where the union has played its part in making certain that its unpaid officials have gone through proper training, either with the union or through the industrial society, and have a genuine understanding of their company. Many unions are now saying that they will not give credentials to a shop steward unless he or she has served for 12 months in the company concerned. Otherwise, we get quick ins and outs, which do no good and no credit to the unions.
      Another problem arises when one cannot obtain agreement on a genuine basis with the union officially. At that stage one needs to decide whether one should go higher within the union and then run the risk of bringing in a higher member of the union and a higher member of management, because they are higher in the structure of their respective organisations, which in many cases will mean that they will be less in touch with what is happening on the problem. That applies even

      1897
      more when we bring in an outside organisation, such as ACAS, and the old conciliation machinery which existed in the Ministry of Labour and now in the Department of Employment.
      Mr. Holland: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in ideal conditions, if one brings in people higher up in organisations, or, indeed, people from outside, it affords the possibility of a much more objective view being taken of the problem, and perhaps a more impartial solution? I stress the phrase "ideal conditions" because the process does not always work.
      Mr. Finsberg: I do not dissent from that view. I agree that in ideal circumstances it is a good thing, because the two sides can examine the facts as presented and, because they are not involved in the heat of argument, they can take a more dispassionate view. That is the second stage.
      The kind of agreement that I should like to see negotiated between union and company is an agreement in which both sides say "There will be no official strike until certain machinery has been exhausted". The ideal agreement to be arrived at is that under which both sides, having gone through the machinery, submit their case to some form of independent arbitration by which both sides agree to be bound.
      I return to the first point, and I wish to stress that the personnel function is extremely important. There are three elements involved, namely, the common interest, the stable unit, and the collective bargain. Reference has already been made to the Avis case, where by no stretch of the imagination could one say that any of those three elements was present. That was one of the least understandable decisions. It is difficult to accept a decision if one does not understand the basis on which it is brought about. I wish only to stress—I do not wish to detain the House—that the common interest needs to exist first. One cannot have a common interest if one is trying to put into the same negotiating group people from different parts of the country who are in slightly different grades and whose ultimate interests cannot be said to be 100 per cent. identical. One needs to be certain that
      1898
      one has a proper definition of "common interest".
      Mr. Gorst: Does my hon. Friend feel that it would help to solve this difficulty if provision were made for ACAS to review a recognition recommendation after, say, three, six or nine months of operation, so that the factors could be examined and the recognition recommendations varied, and new conditions, perhaps, attached?
      3.30 p.m.
      Mr. Finsberg: I take my hon. Friend's point. I am anxious not to detain the House. The point that he has made would probably be better made by way of a new clause. It seems that it would be possible to table such a new clause for the next time we debate this Bill. Whatever decision is reached ought to be looked at again in the light of experience. It would be interesting to know whether ACAS, given the opportunity of reviewing, say, the Avis case, would now think that it had reached the right decision and made the correct recommendation. If my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) gives more thought to this matter and tables a new clause, I shall be happy to add my name to it. There is the benefit of instant debate.
      The second of the phrases in subsection (2)(b) is that concerning a stable unit. ACAS looked at quite a few cases involving such groups of people as bookmakers, those in the licensed trade, and those in insurance agencies. Often, by the nature of the job, the unit could not be regarded as stable because in such industries there is a history of people moving on. If, in six months' time, we were to review the answers given by those interviewed, the odds are pretty high that 30 per cent. or even 50 per cent. of those interviewed would have moved on. A stable unit has to be proved, and my hon. Friend could well adduce that argument in his new clause, which I am sure is dashing around in his brain.
      My last point concerns the phrase "collective bargaining purposes." What are these purposes, and in what respect would the new clause strengthen them? If the clause were adopted it would reassure a large number of people. Strangely enough, a substantial proportion of those engaged as full-time officials in trade unions have a high regard for the

      1899
      personnel function and those involved in it. Often there has been the feeling not merely that the personnel function is being downgraded by both sides but that to some degree middle management is being pushed out and is not being given the opportunity of playing its part in the dialogue with the middle union structure. The clause would go some way towards redressing that balance.
      For all of these reasons I believe that the clause has merit. I do not believe that it is a destructive or obstructive clause. It is a genuine attempt to help and one which, I would have thought, would find a great deal of favour with full-time trade union officials and those engaged in my profession of personnel management.
      Mr. Ted Fletcher: I wish to be brief in replying to the representations that have been made to the effect that this new clause should be adopted. As they stand, the factors that we are asked to take into consideration are not exceptional and would, I believe, meet with the approval of the House. In fact, ACAS takes these factors into consideration at the moment, as I shall seek to show later by a quotation from the annual report of the Service.
      It is another matter to place a statutory obligation on ACAS to carry out only these two requirements. There are many other factors that ACAS has to take into consideration when making an assessment of an industrial dispute. The inclusion of this provision could lead to legal argument and to questions arising such as whether ACAS had adequately taken those factors into consideration, whether it had balanced them correctly or whether it had given more emphasis to one factor as opposed to another. It may lead to more disputes than it is designed to settle. It seems to set out the duties of ACAS in a statutory form. Any attempt to say which duties must be followed would make legal interpretation impossible.
      Chapter 9, paragraphs 16 to 27, of the report of ACAS for 1977 deals with this matter. It says:
      "None of these factors is necessarily decisive in itself. It is necessary to consider them in combination and to decide in individual cases how much weight to attach to each."
      Paragraph 21 says:
      "These factors apply generally to possible negotiating groups. It is also necessary to
      1900
      decide which factors are relevant in particular cases and how much weight is to be accorded to each relevant factor. Sometimes, the relevant factors combine to suggest the same conclusions, but in others, where they point to different solutions, a balancing of different factors is necessary. Ultimately, all decisions involve an industrial relations judgment as to the prospects for establishing effective collective bargaining."
      So ACAS is saying that it takes into account not just these two factors but a whole variety.
      Nor does it deal with just one type of industry. Every industry throws up different problems. A balancing factor apparent in one dispute may not be given much weight in another. As a consequence, it would have to be left to the discretion of ACAS to decide whether to give more prominence to one factor than to another.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but if ACAS has the duty to have regard to the two matters in the new clause, there is no reason not to include this provision. The new clause only says that ACAS should "have regard" to them: it is not conclusive.
      Mr. Fletcher: I am aware what the new clause says. ACAS would have to have regard to those two factors. Legal opinion might be sought later to prove that it has not paid full regard to one or the other. But more than two factors are involved. ACAS may be robbed of its discretion if this is made a statutory duty. Therefore, this provision seems unnecessary. In Committee we said that ACAS should be given the widest possible discretion in the way that it handles industrial and recognition disputes. As my quotations from the annual report show, the new clause seeks to tie the hands of ACAS.
      We should be taking a backward step if we attempted to write into law every facet of the work of ACAS, how it should approach problems and the weight that it should attach to one factor or another. The new clause would frustrate the Bill's intention to give the utmost discretion to ACAS to carry out its function of improving industrial relations and extending areas of conciliation. It would be unwise for the House to accept the new clause.
      Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr.

      1901
      Madel) argued constructively and positively for factors that would improve industrial relations, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), in an interesting and thoughtful contribution, gave the House the benefit of his long experience in personnel management and gave the lie to anyone who claims that the Opposition are seeking confrontation or conflict with trade union leaders. The whole essence of the constructive speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead was that his professional practice in personnel management had always been to seek agreement as widely as possible.
      I am particularly glad that the response of the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) was, uncharacteristically, conciliatory. We should not let such a change of attitude pass unnoted.
      The new clause was tabled before the annual report of ACAS was available to hon. Members. The quotation that the hon. Member for Darlington read and many other extracts that he could have quoted show that ACAS is taking account of the sort of factors mentioned in the new clause.
      I do not suggest that we should follow the advice of the hon. Member for Darlington and reject the new clause, but, in view of what has been said, the content of the ACAS annual report and the conciliatory fashion in which the hon. Member for Darlington dealt with the new clause—
      Mr. Gorst: I hope that my hon. Friend is not leading up to suggesting that the new clause be withdrawn. Despite what he has said, there are many factors in favour of its inclusion in the Bill. Obviously, I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend's speech to give the reasons now.
      Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend has prophesied what I was going to say. I was moving towards suggesting to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South that he should seek the permission of the House to withdraw the new clause. I recognise that if any hon. Member refuses permission the debate must continue, but it seems to me that it would be for the convenience of all concerned if we moved on to at least the next new
      1902
      clause, which raises some important matters.
      However, I can only suggest that to my hon. Friend and suggest that my other hon. Friends follow my advice. I have no way of compelling them to do so.
      3.45 p.m.
      Mr. Thorne: I view the remarks just made by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) as probably the most hypocritical that we have heard all day. Clearly, the Opposition Front Bench, aided and abetted by a small number of Conservative Back Benchers, set out to torpedo the Bill, and, without bringing to the House more than about 30 of their number, they have fairly effectively succeeded in doing that, at least for today.
      To suggest that this new clause could safely be withdrawn in the light of the ACAS report for 1977 suggests to me that Opposition Front Bench spokesmen have not understood the role played by ACAS since its inception. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) rightly said, it has throughout been doing precisely what the new clause requires. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth is well aware of that. I do not think that much passes his notice in these matters. Therefore, it seems to me that the purpose of the exercise is mischief.
      I noted that the hon. Gentleman applauded the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg). I listened closely to the hon. Member for Hampstead and found his speech the most confused statement possible on the new clause. I jotted down some of his words. He talked about the personnel function and about ACAS squeezing out personnel management. Then he said that personnel management ought to prevent any need for ACAS. Next, drawing on his experience, he told us of some of the personnel policies in which he had been involved.
      The hon. Member for Hampstead told us of the rapport which he had with trade unions. If he had rapport with trade unions, we applaud it, but the question under debate is recognition. There are no trade unions in the situation covered by Sections 11 and 12. We are talking about trade union recognition being at issue.

      1903
      Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman speaks of personnel system and rapport with trade unions, the logical implication is that the trade unions are already recognised and there is no problem.
      Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman is displaying his ignorance of these affairs. Discussions with trade unions do not necessarily mean the same as recognition of trade unions. There may be a stage at which recognition is building up, when a percentage of the work force is in a union, when they have not asked for recognition and when the company itself does not wish to give it. There are intermediate stages, and the hon. Gentleman has either forgotten that or has chosen to misrepresent what I said.
      Mr. Thorne: I have no illusion but that it is possible for employers to conduct discussions with trade unionists while still preventing them from obtaining recognition for collective bargaining, in order, possibly, to improve industrial relations. The hon. Gentleman himself—again I quote his words—revealed how he sees the situation, because he used the phrase "whether they are genuine". In other words, by implication, the more militant the trade unionists with whom he is having discussions, the less likely they are to be genuine. He established that by talking about the activities of trade unionists in the North-West, implying that in some way these militant trade unionists were not the genuine trade unionists whom he would seek to recognise.
      In my view, we should reject the new clause if it is pressed to a vote. If it is not, as I said earlier, all we can do is recognise it as one of the many parts—there are a great many before us—of the tactic employed by the Opposition with the deliberate intent of destroying a Private Member's Bill.
      It seems to me that those who are responsible for the procedure of the House should look closely at today's proceedings in relation to the prospect of Private Members' Bills. There are several Private Members' Bills listed on the Order Paper today which some people would like to see pass with very little difficulty. But the activities that we have seen today do not persuade some of us that we should allow those Bills through
      1904
      without a firm objection and without an attempt to apply to them the same standards as have been applied to this Bill by the Conservative Opposition today.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have been told by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) more or less that we have been breaking the rules of the House. We have put down perfectly reasonable new clauses and amendments to the Bill, as we are entitled to do. If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at the list of hon. Members who have spoken, he will see that no one has made a very long speech. A limited time has been spent on each amendment. If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that we are here to let a Bill of this kind go through the House without being properly amended as we think it should be—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. That is not a point of order. No one has broken any of the rules of the House today.
      Mr. Gorst: My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) complimented the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) on his conciliatory reply to the debate on this new clause. I do not take issue with my hon. Friend on that, but I believe that the hon. Member for Darlington, while he may have been conciliatory, was wrong.
      The hon. Member says that ACAS considers all the factors enumerated in the new clause, but what if it does not? What if it does not adequately consider the quality of existing industrial relations? What if it does not consider the size and structure and personnel policies of the business? There ought to be a legally binding obligation on ACAS not only to say that it has fulfilled its obligations to look at these factors but to show that it has balanced them properly.
      ACAS cannot be called to task by the person who is the subject of the reference; this obligation must be made mandatory in an Act of Parliament, so that an aggrieved party can take the matter to the courts. I know that hon. Members opposite hate the sound of the words "legal proceedings" and "courts", but that is what this country has always had

      1905
      and, God preserve us, will continue to keep—in other words, the rule of law.
      If the hands of ACAS were to be tied by this minimal diminution of its discretion, I do not think that one should apologise for it. One should be glad, and feel safer as a result, because if there is to be an aggrieved party at least he will have recourse, whereas under the blanket

      Division No. 169]

      AYES

      [3.55 p.m.

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Madel, David

      Silvester, Fred

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Mates, Michael

      Stanley, John

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Brooke, Peter

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Costain, A. P.

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Trotter, Neville

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Newton, Tony

      Walters, Dennis

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Osborn, John

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Mr. Philip Holland and

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Mr. John Gorst.

      NOES

      Anderson, Donald

      Gould, Bryan

      Noble, Mike

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Graham, Ted

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Ashley, Jack

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Ovenden, John

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Park, George

      Atkinson, Norman

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Harper, Joseph

      Prescott, John

      Bates, Alf

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Rogers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Huckfield, Les

      Rooker, J. W.

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Ryman, John

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Canavan, Dennis

      Janner, Greville

      Sever, John

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cowans, Harry

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Snape, Peter

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Kelley, Richard

      Spearing, Nigel

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Stallard, A. W.

      Cryer, Bob

      Lamborn, Harry

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Lamond, James

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Tinn, James

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Luard, Evan

      Urwin, T. W.

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      McCartney, Hugh

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Dormand, J. D.

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      McElhone, Frank

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Ward, Michael

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Madden, Max

      Watkins, David

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Weitzman, David

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Whitehead, Phillip

      English, Michael

      Meacher, Michael

      Whitlock, William

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mendelson, John

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Flannery, Martin

      Mikardo, Ian

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Woodall, Alec

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Forrester, John

      Molloy, William

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      Moyle, Roland

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Miss Jo Richardson and

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Newens, Stanley

      Mr. Stan Thorne.

      Golding, John

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Four o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
      provision that hon. Members on the Government Benches want, no one will have any recourse to law or to justice. That is why I hope that the new clause will be pressed to a Division and that the House will accept it.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 126.
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Friday 5th May.

  PROTECTION OF CHILDREN BILL
  Order for Committee read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Objection taken.
  Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. There is nothing I can do about it.
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there no protection which the Chair can give to a Private Member's Bill which has just been objected to—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has to conform and act in the interests of the House according to the Standing Orders. It is in order for any hon. Member to say "Object" to the Bill. That is all I can do about it.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Townsend: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Bearing in mind that the Government are supporting the Bill, may I ask, through the Chair, what plans they have to facilitate its passage?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. That is a matter for the Leader of the House.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. I shall not carry on with points of order, because no points of order arise.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is the last point of order that I shall take. Mr. Nicholas Scott.
  Mr. Nicholas Scott: Can we be assured that it will be on the record that it was the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) who, out of sheer spite, has put the children of this country at risk?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has now ensured that, because his remarks will be recorded in Hansard.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am taking no more points of order. Objection taken. Committee what day?
  Mr. TownsendMonday next.
  Committee upon Monday next.

  INTERNATIONALLY PROTECTED PERSONS BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading) and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  SEXUAL OFFENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

  SMALL BUSINESSES (PROTECTION OF EMPLOYMENT) (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [24th February.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate further adjourned till Friday next.

  PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Second Reading, what day? No day named.

  ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

  INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No 40 (Committal of Bills).

  SOCIAL SECURITY (KIDNEY PATIENTS) (NO. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

  COUNCIL TENANTS' CHARTER BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 12th May.

  ESTATE AGENTS (MONEY)
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the carrying on of and to persons who carry on, certain activities in connection with the disposal and acquisition of property used or intended for use, in whole or in part, for residential purposes, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of that Act;

  (2) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under any other Act; and

  (3) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any fees received by the Director General of Fair Trading under that Act.—[Mr. Graham.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    AGRICULTURE
    That the Farm Capital Grant (Variation) Scheme 1978 (S.I., 1978, No. 380), a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.—[Mr. Graham.]
    Question agreed to.

  HS146 AIRCRAFT
  Motion made, and Question proposed That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]
  4.9 p.m.
  Sir Bernard Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not going back on your previous ruling, but I should like to ask you whether you will report to Mr. Speaker the somewhat unusual circumstances in which the right of objection, which is undoubted for private Members and in no way can be challenged, was exercised in connection with a Bill when not only had the Government given an undertaking of a fair wind for its passage but in the Second Reading debate, which was one of the most memorable debates in the present Parliament, if not in many others, every speaker, from both sides of the House, was so concerned with the problem of urgency and the need to deal with it that the temper of the House was made perfectly plain in a way that I have never known it to be made plain previously. The objection here this afternoon was in defiance of the will of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to draw this to the attention of Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Member can rest assured that Mr. Speaker will read everything that has been said.
  4.11 p.m.
  Mrs. Helene Hayman: I am grateful to have the opportunity this afternoon to argue the case for an urgent and positive decision on a matter that is of deep concern to my constituency—the need for a go-ahead by the Government on the HS146 feeder liner project.
  This is a case that has been argued in the House previously by myself and by

  1911
  others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), who had an Adjournment debate on the same subject nearly four years ago. Indeed, it has been a long battle and a battle in which we have repeatedly claimed that there was an urgent need for a decision on the future of this aircraft. While not belittling those claims for urgency in the past, I think that now more than ever we have a real reason for telling the Government that they have to make up their minds very speedily.
  The situation has changed in two vital respects. One is that the aircraft industry is now in public ownership and that the board of British Aerospace, to which the Government have given the task of assessing the commercial viability of the HS146, has now come forward, as the Minister of State told the House in answer to a Question on Monday, with a positive and unanimous recommendation to go ahead with this feeder liner project.
  The other thing that has changed and enhanced the urgency is that the market for civil airliners is at last picking up. One of the few good things about the delays in the HS146 has been that they have coincided with the recession in the world market for civil airliners, and a delay of three and a half years, which could have been fatal had it not coincided with the oil crisis and its consequent effects on airlines and their buying policy, has not been destructive of the project.
  We can still go ahead, but if we are to go ahead, we have to go ahead now. A decision now would mean certification in, perhaps, 1981, and the aircraft going into service with airlines in 1982. Anything later than that would mean a loss in the market, and a loss in the market, of course, detracts from the commercial viability of the aeroplane.
  The merits of this project have been put forward in this House many times previously. It is an aeroplane that is quiet, that is cheap, that has low fuel consumption, and that can use grass airstrips. It is an aeroplane not of high technology, not marking any great breakthrough in technical advances for the aircraft industry, but designed to meet the need that undoubtedly exists, particularly in the developing world, for a short-haul jet liner that can replace the turboprop aircraft at present in service and, furthermore,
  1912
  can provide the first airliners for countries that at present have no aeroplanes of their own. The HS146 is, in the words of the aerospace correspondent of the Financial Times, an aeroplane that would be simple, rugged, reliable and, above all, cheap.
  I believe that we have a duty to argue the case for the HS146 not simply on employment grounds—I shall come to those shortly—but on very strict commercial and industrial grounds. The market for this type of feeder airliner jet, the 70–100-seater, short-haul liner, is predicted at about 1,200 in the next 10 years. A realistic hope of a share of that market would be 360 for the HS146. In addition, there is the possibility of a military application, which make the figures look even more appealing. But any delay could mean that that market and those market projections would diminish.
  Our argument is that the HS146 has always been not a political aircraft but a sensible and sellable project which it is in the interests of this country, as well as of my constituency, to build.
  We cannot ignore the employment factor. If we go ahead, we are talking about 20,000 jobs—perhaps more if the market is better than we have estimated—throughout the aircraft industry and its sub-contractors in the 1980s. If we do not go ahead, we are talking about at least 3,000 redundancies in British Aerospace, 1,500 of which would be at Hatfield. In that event the damage to my constituency—an area which has a record of which the country is proud in terms of aircraft production—would be devastating.
  The decision on the HS146 comes at a time when, because of the pick-up in the greater optimism of world airlines and aircraft industry, this country, British Aerospace and the Government have to make enormously complex and long-term decisions about a whole range of options in the civil area. Now that there is confidence that there will be a new generation of civil aircraft, our contribution to that new generation has to be worked out in terms of collaboration and international negotiations—perhaps across the Atlantic, perhaps in Europe. Those negotiations on the larger aircraft will be tremendously complex and will, I believe, take time.

  1913
  There is an advantage in arguing for the HS 146 now. It is an aircraft on the civil side on which we can take the decision to proceed alone and which we are capable of producing alone. Obviously—there are strong possibilities of this—some international collaboration on some percentage of the aircraft would be extremely useful, but not a sine qua non of going ahead with the project as it is with every other larger civil project that confronts us.
  If we go ahead, we maintain not only staffing levels on the production side of the industry but the vital design capability which is this country's richest asset in terms of the aerospace industry. Without that, we shall be less able to compete and to collaborate with the 160- and 180-seaters—the larger projects to be considered and which we have to decide upon in the course of the next weeks and months. I believe that this is a crucial point, because the aircraft industry has always depended on the expertise and skill of those who have contributed so much of their lives in the past to it. Without them we do not have an aircraft industry that can compete in world markets. Those people have had a tremendously difficult four years. They have had uncertainty, they have seen redundancies in the industry, and they have seen projects such as the HS 146 put on ice.
  I have for four years nagged the Government to go ahead and to give a full decision on the HS 146. But it would be wrong not to recognise publicly that without what the Government have done in the past, without the funding from the Department of Industry and without public ownership of the aircraft industry, Hawker Siddeley's decision in 1974 to withdraw from the project would have been final and fatal. We would not be having this debate today, and there would be no chance to build the HS 146, because it would have been killed stone dead then. That is why I think it right to pay tribute to what has been done in the past.
  Morale in the industry is beginning to pick up. At last it is talking about what it will build, even though positive decisions on the larger aircraft have not been made. There has been a major breakthrough in aerospace as well as in the United States which is significant for
  1914
  the whole airframe industry in this country.
  There is another reason why it is particularly important for the Government to look with favour on the first major recommendation to come out of British Aerospace. It was a unanimous recommendation of a body to which the Government have given the job of assessing the viability and desirability of going ahead with aircraft projects. I believe that in this case we should approve the decision of British Aerospace, back its judgment and allow it to go ahead.
  There is a whole host of decisions to be made on aircraft policy, but an early decision on the larger collaborative projects is, in my view, unlikely. On the other hand, an early decision on the 146 is absolutely essential. The detailed market surveys carried out recently, and all the reports which have come back from the sales teams which have been going round to the world airlines, point to this factor. Inevitably this applies to the small airlines. We shall not obtain one large launching order for the 146. By its very nature, the fact that it is an aircraft for the developing world means that we shall have to sell in small batches.
  There is every indication that the small airlines are now willing to commit themselves to go ahead. If now we say that we are building the 146, they will do so. If, however, we say that we are to continue with this lump of ice, we must remember that it is melting rapidly. If we do not go ahead now, the market is such that other aircraft will be sold. If other aircraft instead of the 146 are sold, we shall eat into this eventual market and we shall diminish its financial viability. That is why it is essential, in terms of the market, employment in the aircraft industry, and the morale of an industry which has served its country well in the past, financially and otherwise, and wants to do so again in the future, that the Government should come quickly forward with a positive response to British Aerospace's request to go ahead and so end the indecision which has hung over all our heads for the last four years.
  4.23 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) is a tireless campaigner on behalf of her constituents,

  1915
  and particularly on the issue of the Hawker Siddeley 146 feeder liner. She has advocated its merits many times in the House and has put a comprehensive and complete case this afternoon.
  This matter is important to my hon. Friend's constituents who work at the British Aerospace factory at Hatfield. It is also important to the many other workers at British Aerospace sites throughout the country, and it is important for the commercial future of British Aerospace itself. For these reasons, it is understandable that my hon. Friend should have taken this opportunity to make her representations and to have the matter debated this afternoon. At the same time I hope that she will understand when I say that I am not in a position to give definite answers to many of her questions.
  The stage that has been reached in approaching a decision on the project is already well known. British Aerospace recommended to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the end of last month that the project should go ahead. Under the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act, the Government's approval is required for any aircraft development which is likely to cost more than £25 million. We are now considering whether to give that approval.
  I can assure the House that we are considering the recommendation urgently, and we hope to be able to announce our decision soon. At the same time, I must tell the House that, precisely because of the importance of the decision, we are considering the recommendation extremely carefully. We shall not be rushed into making a decision before we are satisfied that it is the right one.
  My hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot anticipate the Government's decision. She has rightly pointed out that between October 1974 and nationalisation in April 1977 the Government kept the project alive by funding limited work to preserve the option for British Aerospace. My hon. Friend is right to put that into perspective. Since nationalisation, limited funding has been continued by British Aerospace. This funding has enabled a number of technical improvements to be made to the design of the aircraft. It has enabled studies to be made of various military transport derivatives
  1916
  of aircraft, which could be critical in ensuring sufficient sales. It has above all, enabled discussions to take place with other manufacturers abroad about the possibility of some degree of collaboration on the project.
  British Aerospace's recommendation that the project should go ahead involves a substantial sum of public resources. The investment involved would be about £250 million at today's prices. We need to be satisfied that, over the full life of the project, this investment would earn a satisfactory return. There is certainly no question of the development being subsidised by the Government; nor has British Aerospace suggested that this should be done. The project will be assessed from the point of view of its effect on the commercial future of British Aerospace, taking account of the need to preserve a viable civil aircraft manufacturing capacity. The Government have to decide whether, in the context of British Aerospace's operations as a whole, the HS146 project offers the prospect of a return consistent with commercial criteria.
  I have stressed the importance of the decision that has to be taken because of the size of the investment involved, because jobs are involved and, above all, perhaps, because this is the first major development decision that has had to be taken since nationalisation. Having said that, however, I think that it would be a mistake to over-emphasise the importance of the decision. It is true that many jobs would be guaranteed by the project, including jobs in the equipment industry. But that is not to say that these jobs would be lost if the project did not go ahead. That would be true only if no alternative work was found to replace it. In fact, British Aerospace is still actively engaged in discussions with potential collaborative partners in Europe.
  There have also been proposals for possible collaboration from American manufacturers, though British Aerospace will not engage in direct negotiations while the European talks continue. The HS146, important as it is, is a relatively small development by comparison with the major international projects that may be embarked upon. One of the Government's concerns in deciding whether to approve British Aerospace's recommendation is to be sure that the project can fit in with

  1917
  whatever other work we hope British Aerospace obtains and that it does not take up excessive financial and physical resources.
  I apologise that I have not been able to answer more directly at this stage some of the questions that my hon. Friend has rightly raised. I repeat, to my hon. Friend, her constituents and British Aerospace workers throughout the country, that the Government are fully seized of the importance of the project for those employed by British Aerospace at Hatfield and elsewhere in Britain. They are also fully aware of the importance of the decision
  1918
  in view of the determination of British Aerospace to establish itself in the long term as a manufacturer of civil aircraft.
  At the same time, we are anxious to assess British Aerospace's recommendation in the context of its overall financial prospects and the decisions that are likely to be taken on international collaborative projects in the coming months. We hope to be able to announce a decision on the HS146 soon and are treating it as a matter of the highest importance.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Four o'clock.