Strikes to Achieve Collective Bargaining Rights Not Protected from Legal Action

Orders of the Day — Employment Relations Bill – in the House of Commons at 9:45 pm on 30 March 1999.

Alert me about debates like this

'After section 225 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 insert— 225A. An act is not protected if the reason, or one of the main reasons, for which it is done is that an employer has refused to recognise to any extent a trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining.".'.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Photo of Michael Lord Michael Lord Deputy Speaker (Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10—

Assessment of working days lost as a result of Act—'.—The Secretary of State shall prepare and present to Parliament annually an assessment of the total number of working days lost owing to industrial action in the previous calendar year, with particular reference to action arising in connection with recognition disputes between employers and trade unions.(2) If at any time it appears to him that the number of days lost in industrial disputes has exceeded five million in any one year, or is likely to do so in the current year, he may make an Order suspending all or part of the provisions of this Act.(3) No Order under subsection (2) shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Photo of Tim Boswell Tim Boswell Shadow Spokesperson (Business, Innovation and Skills), Shadow Spokesperson (Business, Innovation and Skills), Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry)

It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain that I am moving new clause 7 and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), if he is lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will thereafter speak to new clause 10. We are co-signatories to both new clauses.

New clause 7 is a small provision, but there is an important point of principle that has exercised, among others, the Engineering Employers Federation, which has written to us on the matter. The new clause would remove the immunity available to actions in tort from trade unions if they sought to take industrial action to secure collective bargaining rights.

Ministers and others who are experts in this area will be familiar with the concepts of part V of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Acts in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute are broadly protected under section 219, but there are a number of exclusions from protection beginning at section 222. New clause 7 would insert a further exclusion.

The argument for this measure is simple. If the Government are bent on bestowing collective bargaining rights or a procedure to secure collective bargaining rights through statute, we fail to see why there is a need for a parallel protection for trade unions seeking to achieve collective bargaining rights by taking industrial action. Why should both routes be open? That could only be an invitation for industrial action to continue, when the right course would be negotiation—ideally—or, if necessary, for the Government to avail themselves of their own proposals in schedule 1.

I see only one defence, or lacuna. Interestingly and irrationally, in view of the Secretary of State's earlier suggestion that the legislation constituted a seamless web, the Government have provided that in a firm employing 20 or fewer people there should be no collective bargaining rights. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman could tell the House that it would be all right for members of a labour force that size to strike to secure their rights, whereas employees of a firm employing more people could adopt the statutory route; but I think that the essential principle remains. We do not want to encourage people to strike when they already have recourse to the law.

Photo of John Redwood John Redwood Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

I urge the Government to think again about disrupting industrial relations in our country. Many hon. Members who are present tonight will recall the bitter disputes that characterised the 1960s and 70s. They will remember that such disputes took place during periods of Conservative, Labour and Labour-Liberal government, and that the Labour-Liberal coalition elected in the 1970s to control strikes presided over some of the worst years of strike and turmoil in our country's history. They will agree that the last thing that we wish to do is return to any of that.

I remind the Government that it took Conservative Administrations led by my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Thatcher many years to introduce enough changes to the inherited industrial relations legislation to solve the problem. The strike record of the early 1980s was better than that of the worst years of the 1970s, but it was not nearly good enough, and it in turn was marred by the year of the miners' dispute.

After 1985, when the main part of the reforms finally materialised, we transformed ourselves into a country with relatively few strikes and relatively few days lost. Indeed, in the 1990s, under the Conservative Administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), we achieved a record second to none in Europe—a proud record compared with that of any of our major competitors in the world. I well remember businesses around the world saying some years earlier that they had no intention of coming to the United Kingdom because its strike record was so bad.

Photo of Michael Fabricant Michael Fabricant Conservative, Lichfield

Not only did businesses not invest in the United Kingdom, there was a brain drain in the 1970s. [Interruption.] It is all very well for Labour Members who have suddenly appeared from the Kremlin Bar to comment. They are old Labour. They cannot be expected to understand, especially as they have had a few drinks too many

Photo of Mr Gerry Bermingham Mr Gerry Bermingham Labour, St Helens South

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That remark should be withdrawn forthwith. It is not within the remit of the House for any hon. Member to suggest that another is participating other than with good—

Photo of Michael Lord Michael Lord Deputy Speaker (Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means)

Order. I think that it would be wise of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) to withdraw his remark.

Photo of Michael Fabricant Michael Fabricant Conservative, Lichfield

I abide by your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and withdraw the remark.

Photo of John Redwood John Redwood Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 10:30, 30 March 1999

As I was saying—and as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) was trying to say in his intervention—we were in a parlous situation in the 1970s. Other countries and companies did not rate our industrial relations highly, and they had plenty of evidence for that from the number of days lost. It took time. Indeed, if a criticism can be levelled at the Conservative Administration who were first elected in 1979, it is that it took time for that Administration to realise how much reform was needed in industrial relations legislation to achieve the desired result of better employer-employee relations.

That Administration were cautious in the early days. I wish only that the present Government were similarly cautious when setting about reversing Conservative policies. They should have gone much more steadily and carefully. I understand the pressure that they are under from the trade unions, but would it not have been better to introduce a more modest measure to test whether the successful industrial relations record that had finally been established by 1990 under the new Conservative settlement would be damaged? Instead, the Government are blundering in. They are reversing many of the important elements of our hard-won trade union settlement. All they do is assert that there is no danger of a return to the bad old days and bad old ways of the 1960s and 1970s.

The Secretary of State assures us in every way, apart from firmly on the record, that there will be no increase—or a very small increase—in strikes, that this country will not go back to the bad old ways, that it will still be one of the best locations in which to invest, that he will be able to say to visiting companies that our industrial relations record is still good and a reason why they should come here, rather than go elsewhere—[Interruption.] There are a number of sedentary interventions. As the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will know, I am happy to take a proper intervention if he wants to make one.

Photo of Mr Gerry Bermingham Mr Gerry Bermingham Labour, St Helens South

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is mathematically simple that, if one decreases the number of manufacturing jobs, one decreases the number of strikes? That was the approach that was adopted by Baroness Thatcher, from which we are seeking to recover.

Photo of John Redwood John Redwood Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

That is a futile intervention. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is possible for there to be strikes in service sectors and in public services. Indeed, some of the worst strikes under Labour Administrations have been in the public services. As he should also know, it is the present Government who are shrinking manufacturing at an awful pace. We keep warning them not to do so, but they do not listen. Every day another factory is closed and there are more job losses.

Photo of Nicholas Soames Nicholas Soames Conservative, Mid Sussex

I urge my right hon. Friend to ignore the words of a cocky little barrack-room lawyer about strikes.

Photo of Michael Lord Michael Lord Deputy Speaker (Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means)

Order. The hon. Gentleman should know that we should use temperate language in the House. It always helps with our proceedings. Perhaps we can leave it at that.

Photo of Nicholas Soames Nicholas Soames Conservative, Mid Sussex

I withdraw the remark, "a little barrack-room lawyer".

What does my right hon. Friend think is the likely contribution of the new clause to the improved competitiveness of the British economy?

Photo of John Redwood John Redwood Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

The new clause, as I am about to explain to an impatient House of Commons, would provide some protection—not sufficient, but some—in the event of things getting out of control. I am trying to explain to the Government that their legacy is a very good one, that their experience and that of other Governments in office in the 1960s and 1970s should warn them that it is easy to lose control and to have damaging and bad strikes, and that, if they are wrong about their legislation, they will rue the day.

The strikes will become most intense in the run-up to the general election. That will be extremely damaging. It will bring back memories of how Labour lost control in the past. Therefore, in a spirit of generosity, for which I am renowned, through the new clause I offer the Government the chance to back off and to ensure that not all the legislation will apply if they start to lose control of industrial relations.

Given the lateness of the hour and the generous nature of my offer, one would have thought that the Secretary of State would leap to his feet, say that he was happy to accept the new clause, that he did not believe that more than 5 million days a year would be lost in strikes—which is the threshold in the new clause—and was happy to accept it to reassure all the listeners and viewers out there who may hear about the matter in due course, if the media allow. The Secretary of State is resolutely sitting in his seat, implying that he wishes to vote down this generous offer.

The new clause proposes that should the Secretary of State be wrong and should the number of days lost through strikes go back up to 5 million—massively higher than anything that we have experienced in the 1990s so far—it would be within his rights, without the need for new primary legislation, to suspend the parts of the legislation that were causing difficulties in industrial relations in this country.

Five million is a high threshold. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I had a good debate about how high it should go. Our generosity overcame us and we set it at 5 million. We have not seen 5 million days or more lost to strikes in this country since 1985. It was, of course, regular in the 1970s under the Labour Administration; in four of the five years from 1975 to 1979 more than 5 million days were lost to strikes. From 1980 to 1996 inclusive, there were only three years when more than 5 million days were lost to strikes—and that was three years too many.

I am pleased that there have been no such occasions for more than a decade as a result of the settlement that Conservative Administrations finally achieved in the 1980s, against the advice and bitter opposition of the Labour party, which thought that industrial relations should remain poor and that the legislation that it had left to the incoming Conservative Government in 1979 was perfectly reasonable.

Why does the Bill represent a threat? Hon. Members who have read schedule 1 will have seen the incredibly complicated machinery that is being put in place to put through the Government's proposals on union recognition where there has not been agreement between the two parties in the normal way. These powers, given to the Central Arbitration Committee, are many and rather vague.

We could face disputes in which unions were squabbling over who was entitled to seek to represent the work force. We could have several unions trying to enrol sufficient members to get to the threshold to demand a ballot. There might be some difficulty in deciding which of the competing unions would be entitled, and we could get action between unions as they move to try to get control of that bargaining unit.

We could have considerable disagreements between management and the work force over what is the bargaining unit; something that is left rather vague in the Bill, giving plenty of scope for further trade disputes and for resort to expensive lawyers and court actions. The proposal for the derecognition of so-called sweetheart unions could cause difficulties in deciding whether a union qualified for such a term, and whether it was right to go ahead with its derecognition if the employers felt that it was a good union. Many of the members of the union may take the view that that was a reasonable way of proceeding for representation—[Interruption.]

If the hon. Member for Workington wishes to contribute to the debate, would he like to make an intervention? He should either make an intervention or keep quiet and listen to an important debate. He may think that it is amusing that we are facing more strikes and industrial relations disruption in this country. We do not.

Photo of Michael Lord Michael Lord Deputy Speaker (Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means)

Order. There are two hon. Gentlemen who should be behaving themselves. It is unfair. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) should be heard.

Photo of John Redwood John Redwood Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

I am grateful for your courtesy, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The House should recognise that good industrial relations are crucial to jobs and prosperity in our country. Have we not been through enough in the 1960s and 1970s? Did we learn nothing from that bitter experience? Did we learn nothing from the disputes in the 1980s to establish better trade union law?

Before the election, the Secretary of State and his friends in the Labour leadership were seeking to reassure people that they accepted the Conservative trade union settlement. They were even prepared to say that they thought that it was one of the better things that the Conservative Administration had done.

Photo of John Redwood John Redwood Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

The Labour leadership agreed that too much power had gone to the shop stewards and to disruptive forces in the 1970s, and that it was important to have a new settlement. Why are the Government now backing away from that, having won the election?

Photo of John Bercow John Bercow Conservative, Buckingham

I do not know whether my right hon. Friend heard the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) saying "Rubbish." Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the new clause is presumably that he was a keen supporter of the Government under which the streets went unswept, the sick went untended, and the dead went unburied?

Photo of John Redwood John Redwood Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was talking about rubbish in the streets, rather than rubbish in my speech. That would have been wise of him, but as I have offered him the opportunity to intervene, it is a pity that he could not have made such a contribution in open debate.

Photo of John Redwood John Redwood Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

I am getting on with it—and it would be easier to get on with it if Labour Members behaved themselves instead of trying to disrupt the progress of their own legislation. They have made a good job of disrupting the Bill so far, despite the considerable help that we have given in trying to get it through. I am beginning to wonder whether we have been too generous on that score tonight, in view of the way in which the parliamentary Labour party is now behaving.

The new clause would provide an important safeguard. If the Secretary of State is right and no increase in strikes results from his legislation, he has nothing to fear from it. If he is wrong, and there is a danger of the number of strikes getting out of control, the new clause would be a welcome salvation, whereby he could avoid the delay and difficulty involved in coming back to the House to amend primary legislation. It would give him the scope to suspend the complicated and difficult features of the Bill that are likely to become a cause of trade disputes and strikes in themselves.

If hon. Members consider some of the complex detail in schedule 1, which runs from page 19 to page 56 of the Bill, they will see how much scope there is for dispute, and how much power rests in the hands of the Central Arbitration Committee. For example, paragraph 21(5) tells us: In deciding how the ballot is to be conducted the CAC must take into account—

  1. (a) the likelihood of the ballot being affected by unfairness or malpractice if it were conducted at a workplace or workplaces;
  2. (b) costs and practicality;
  3. (c) such other matters as the CAC considers appropriate."

In other words, the CAC can do whatever it likes without reference to Parliament. The House is being asked to approve legislation so loose, general and vague that it provides enormous scope for disputes, rows and strikes over its interpretation.

Similarly, paragraph 18 is very vague about how the "appropriate bargaining unit" should be defined. That gives plenty of scope for argument and dispute. Under paragraph 17, considerable judgment will have to be exercised in deciding how many workers would have to vote for compulsory negotiation by the trade union—a judgment that could easily be made badly by the CAC, and could easily be disputed. That, too, could lead to strikes and court action.

Given the lateness of the hour, I shall not pursue all the flaws and holes both in the schedule and in the other parts of the Bill that introduce it. I rest the Opposition case and plead again with the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, a junior Minister who has now been left on his own on the Treasury Bench—

Photo of Mrs Maria Fyfe Mrs Maria Fyfe Labour, Glasgow Maryhill

I notice that the right hon. Gentleman and a few of his right hon. and hon. Friends have registered an interest with regard to the new clauses. It would be interesting for the House to know what those interests are.

Photo of John Redwood John Redwood Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

Had the hon. Lady been present at the beginning of our proceedings, she would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and myself explain that we had interests in companies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]. Companies would be affected by all the measures in the new clauses—[Interruption.] Neither my hon. Friend nor I spoke on behalf of a particular company, nor did we table our new clauses at the request of particular companies. We are being extremely careful by saying, "Yes, we are practical people with knowledge of the business world"—[Interruption.]

Photo of Michael Lord Michael Lord Deputy Speaker (Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means)

Order. Mr. Sedgemore and Mr. Campbell-Savours should know better. It is not good for the House to behave in that manner.

Photo of John Redwood John Redwood Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

If the hon. Lady reads the record of our proceedings tomorrow, she will see that what I have said is true. We have behaved very carefully, although we have no specific interests to declare in connection with the new clauses.

I sum up by urging the Government to recognise the fact that damaging the settlement that they inherited could prove more dangerous than they realise. There could be a further increase in strikes; there is already some increase in strike activity at the moment, for a variety of reasons. Damaging that settlement could put off investors, affect jobs and lead to all sorts of trouble. We are offering the Government a way out, and I hope that they will accept it.

Photo of Mr Jonathan Sayeed Mr Jonathan Sayeed Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire 10:45, 30 March 1999

When two parties enter into a contract, it is beholden on both to keep to it. New clause 7 would get rid of one of the most damaging parts of the Bill. At present, an employee who violates the terms of his contract can be dismissed. Under the Bill, that protection of the employer will go, because the employee will have the right to sue the employer and, possibly, to be reinstated and compensated. When a contract is broken by one side, the employer should have the right to dismiss the employee. The Bill will not permit that to happen.

In relation to new clause 10, it is worth remembering that 29 million days were lost to strikes in 1979. In 1996, the number had fallen to 1.3 million days, a testament to the step-by-step approach towards industrial relations taken by the then Conservative Governments. Despite the fact that the number of people in employment increased, the number of people striking, and the frequency with which they did it, fell dramatically.

New clause 10 would set a limit much higher than 1.3 million days at which, if the number of days lost in strikes were so great as to be deeply damaging to this country, some of the Bill's more expensive proposals could be cut away, at least for a time. It is a fairly modest proposal, and any sensible Government would adopt it.

Photo of Michael Fabricant Michael Fabricant Conservative, Lichfield

New clause 7 is mainly concerned with collective bargaining. The Bill is flawed. Adair Turner, writing in the Financial Times on 18 March, said: Good employee relations should be built on trust and it is not best fostered if collective bargaining has been imposed on an employer by a trade union. Collective bargaining can work where it has two willing partners, but not when there is only one. No real improvements in industrial relations occurred the last time we had compulsion in the 1970s and, indeed, the legislation proved to be unworkable. I need not remind the House that Adair Turner is director general of the Confederation of British Industry.

The Bill is outrageous. It will bring about disruption in industrial harmony. To make matters worse, employers will be expected to meet 50 per cent. of the cost of each ballot. That is money that most small firms can ill afford, if I may echo our earlier debates on exemptions for businesses that employ fewer than 51 people.

What estimate has the Minister made of the total cost of arranging ballots and the accounts that are to be made by third parties? I appreciate that he may not have the figures to hand, but I hope that he will answer the question in his summing up.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) mentioned that 29 million working days were lost in 1979. However, the numbers of strike days in other years between 1974 and 1979 were also high. In 1974, almost 15 million working days were lost; in 1975, the figure dropped to 6 million; and, in 1976, a relatively good year, it dropped to only 3 million. However, in 1977, the figure went back up to 10 million; in 1978, it was 9 million; and, in 1979, it was 29.5 million. I shall give the figure for 1990 after I have given way to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner).

Photo of Barry Gardiner Barry Gardiner Labour, Brent North

The hon. Gentleman referred to the figures for 1974, but they were conditioned by the fact that we had just had a Conservative Administration who presided over one of the most bitter strikes ever. We still remember the power failures during the miners' strike, when three working days a week were lost. The figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned may have been affected by that fact.

Photo of Michael Fabricant Michael Fabricant Conservative, Lichfield

The hon. Gentleman only amplifies my point that the Bill would return us to those days. Even if we discount 1974—I shall not repeat the figures for the later years, because they will be in Hansard—the figures are high. How do they compare with this decade? In 1990, almost 2 million days were lost in strikes—2 million days too many. In 1991, 761,000 days were lost; in 1992, 528,000; in 1993, 649,000; in 1994, 278,000; in 1995, 415,000; in 1996, 1.3 million; and, in 1997, 207,000. Those figures are a long way short of the 5 million figure that appears in new clause 10.

What are the Government worried about? Do they believe that 5 million working days will be lost at some time in the future, or are they aware that people such as Rupert Murdoch, whom they so confidently hope will be on their side at the next election, realise that the saving of The Times in the 1980s would have been impossible if the Bill had been in force? Does the Minister accept that? The Times was bankrupt and its workers had been on strike for six months when Rupert Murdoch took it over. He could not have done that under the Bill's provisions. This legislation is not for the future; it is going back to the past. For that reason, I support new clauses 7 and 10.

Photo of Michael Wills Michael Wills Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Trade and Industry)

As we have heard graphically from Opposition Members, the new clauses would evoke the spectre of times past and of irresponsible trade unions. That might have worked in 1979, but it will not work now. Times have changed. People know that trade unions have changed and that industrial action is now genuinely used only as a last resort.

New clause 7 seeks to remove immunity from trade unions if they call industrial action in recognition disputes. That is a one-sided measure, and the Opposition clearly intend it to be so. It would leave employers holding all the cards. The Bill's provisions are carefully designed at every stage to provide incentives for employers and trade unions to agree sensible arrangements. We are confident that, in the vast majority of cases, they will do so, but we cannot force people to agree. Therefore, in the last resort, the possibility of industrial action must remain. The statutory procedure will provide an alternative that will lead to almost all disputes being resolved without industrial action. That, and the other measures in the Bill—notably, the right to be accompanied in disciplinary and grievance hearings, and some of the other changes which we propose on industrial action ballots—will reduce the risk of industrial action, but the right to strike is a fundamental and internationally recognised freedom.

The previous Government restricted the ability of unions to organise industrial action, especially through the complicated ballots and notice requirements, while doing nothing to protect workers once their unions had complied with those requirements. That is the reason for clause 15. It would be unfair and wrong to limit further the right to organise industrial action in the way proposed by the new clause. It is already more tightly constrained in this country than in most comparable ones. Further tightening lacks any justification. I am confident that the House will reject that tonight.

New clause 10 is a little highly flavoured, coming from the Conservatives. I, too, have some figures. The average number of working days lost each year through industrial action in the 1980s, when they were in power, was 7.2 million, nearly 50 per cent. above the level that they propose as the trigger for special action. The average number of working days lost over the past two years under this Government is 256,000, less than 4 per cent. of the average for the 1980s. As the figures are published each month by the Office for National Statistics, with annual analysis and international comparisons, an annual report to Parliament would be redundant.

Photo of John Redwood John Redwood Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

Will the Minister complete his mathematics by telling us the Conservative average in the 1990s and the Labour average between 1974 and 1979?

Photo of Michael Wills Michael Wills Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Trade and Industry)

I was merely pointing out the ulterior motive behind new clause 10. The Opposition are not really concerned to propose anything that will make a substantive difference; they are interested only in the misleading innuendo contained in new clause 10. It implies that the Bill, as they have actively stated this evening, will lead to increased industrial action. In fact, the opposite is true: the Bill will help to resolve industrial disputes without industrial action. It will promote a partnership approach. It works with the grain of industrial relations.

Photo of John Bercow John Bercow Conservative, Buckingham

In the light of what the Minister said about the Bill's likely beneficial effect on the industrial relations climate, will he confidently predict that, in each remaining year of this Parliament after its passage, there will be a reduction in the number of days lost through strikes?

Photo of Michael Wills Michael Wills Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Trade and Industry)

The hon. Gentleman well knows that that is an intellectually bogus proposition, and I do not intend to engage with it. He proves my point that the new clause is a debating point that seeks to promote a spurious innuendo without basis in fact. He sat through the Committee, during which at every point it was driven home to him that the Bill was based on a partnership approach. He still has not got the message, but, no doubt, in time he will.

Photo of Michael Wills Michael Wills Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Trade and Industry)

I would like to make some progress, as it is nearly 11 pm.

It is interesting that none of the seven pieces of employment legislation that the Conservative party passed while in power contained provisions such as those proposed by the new clause. If they believed in the need for such measures, why did they not use one of those pieces of legislation to propose them? That makes my point. The new clauses are futile attempts to resurrect ghosts from the past. The world has moved on, but the Conservatives have not noticed. If they insist on pressing the new clauses, those of us who live in the real world will go happily into the Lobby to oppose them.

Photo of John Redwood John Redwood Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

Will the Bill lead to a fall or a rise in the number of strikes in the remaining years of this Parliament?

Photo of Michael Wills Michael Wills Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Trade and Industry)

I had finished, but I am happy to answer that point. I confidently predict that the Bill will underpin a spirit of partnership through legislation in the workplace. I encourage the Conservative party to vote in support of that.

Photo of Tim Boswell Tim Boswell Shadow Spokesperson (Business, Innovation and Skills), Shadow Spokesperson (Business, Innovation and Skills), Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry)

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) asked the Minister an unanswerable question and, inevitably, he failed to answer it. He could not explain to the House why he was not prepared to avail himself of our modest proposal in new clause 10. He said that he did not need it, but it would have provided an insurance for him. He was asked another unanswerable question about whether the number of strikes would increase. He demurred on that as well, although he had already asserted that the number of strikes would fall as a result of the beneficial effects of his measures.

The reason why no Conservative Government found it necessary to include a clause of the type that my right hon. Friend and I have tabled was simple. We did not decide to legislate with a 37-page schedule 1 to give collective bargaining rights in the way that the Labour Government have done. With the greatest possible respect, I remind the Minister that he argued in Committee that the main flaw in the Employment Protection Act 1975 was that it contained only six clauses. I agree that the Minister has done better than that in terms of productivity. He has given us 37 pages, but I have news for him: instead of the lawyers scrapping and going to judicial review on six clauses, they will have 37 pages to go at. I make a counter-prediction to the Minister that the Bill will be not in place of strife, but a case for strife. It will cause more trouble and more dissent. We are in the business of trying to protect Ministers from their own folly.

In that context, I will give one piece of good news to the Minister. Although I am tempted to do so, I will not press new clause 7, but we wish to press new clause 10. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.