Water Bill

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Lord Skelmersdale

My noble friend Lord Nugent spoke also to Amendments Nos. 14 and 51. With permission, I should like to do the same. As the first chairman of the National Water Council, there is no one in this Committee who speaks more knowledgeably than my noble friend on matters relating to the water industry pension fund, which is at present a responsibility of the council.

There are two main points I would like to make in response to what my noble friend has said. The first is that the water industry pension fund is one of the funds established under local government superannuation regulations made under the Superannuation Act 1972. It is, in effect, a branch of the local government scheme. The regulations control in some detail the contributions which must be paid by members of the scheme and by the employers, and the benefits which in their turn are payable. However, I must remind him that no scheme has ever been established under Section 27 of the Water Act 1973, although that section does indeed empower the water authorities to establish and administer pension schemes and funds.

The second point I should like to make is to confirm that this very large pension fund, standing at present at over £800 million, is a vital matter for over 60,000 employees in the water industry and many thousands of pensioners. Proper arrangements must be made for the management of the fund and, as my noble friend has mentioned, for the collection of contributions and the payment of benefits once the National Water Council ceases to exist.

The Government have, of course, had this very much in mind from the moment the decision was taken to abolish the council. In the consultation paper that we published on 7th July last we suggested that the appropriate arrangement would be to continue with the fund which was part of the local government 92 scheme. We suggested the designation of one of the water authorities to administer the fund on behalf of the whole industry.

The chairmen of the water authorities have considered this suggestion and I am pleased to inform the Committee that they are agreed that one of the water authorities will be asked to take on the role of administering body. Fresh regulations will be made under the 1972 Act transferring the existing fund to the designated authority, together with all the responsibilities for administering the scheme.

It may be asked why it is necessary to choose a water authority. The answer quite simply is that the chosen body must be a statutory body—that is, one which cannot go out of existence without legislation. In view of the massive responsibilities attaching to this position, I am sure your Lordships would agree that that is a prudent course. It is, of course, well precedented that one body should act on behalf of others in this way (for example, a county council is normally responsible for the superannuation not only of its own employees but also of those of the district councils within its area).

The chairmen are, however, concerned to ensure that there is proper involvement of all the water authorities in the administration of this fund and of the scheme. I understand that arrangements will be made with the designated water authority to ensure that a committee representing all the authorities—perhaps the water authorities' association or a committee of it—will have delegated to it the main pension functions. The ultimate responsibility will rest with the designated water authority, just as at present it rests with the council. But the other water authorities will all be closely involved, as I have indicated.

In the longer term, we understand that the water industry is likely to move towards an independent scheme, established under Section 27 of the 1973 Act. If they do so, paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 to the Bill provides that they must first obtain the consent in writing of the Secretary of State. I should like to offer the Committee the assurance that, before granting such consent, the Secretary of State would need to be assured that proper arrangements had been made for protecting the interests of all concerned—and that, as he has explained, is the purpose of my noble friend's amendment. I hope that my noble friend will agree with me that the Government are proceeding along the right lines in this matter, and will not have to pursue this particular set of amendments.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

I thank my noble friend for his answer. I recognise that the somewhat complicated machinery that my noble friend has contemplated and described to us will indeed provide what is required. It has to be done in this curious way because the noble Lord is abolishing the National Water Council, and therefore he has to find some other statutory body to take its place. It does do it. It brings in all the other water authorities. It will bring in the trade unions as well, and therefore it will provide a similar structure to what we have now. For myself, I am perfectly satisfied. Does the noble Baroness wish to speak?

Baroness Fisher of Rednal

I was supporting the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and I should like to clarify one of the things which the noble Minister said in reply to the amendment. Is it the Yorkshire or the South Yorkshire Water Authority—I have forgottin which—that may be the authority that takes over the trusteeship of the fund? I thought when the noble Lord replied that he said that the representatives on the new body which will be looking after the pension fund would be representatives from other water authorities, so they would be members of a water authority.

If that is the case, how will employee representation be safeguarded as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, wanted in his amendment? I understand that there are four employee representatives on the body as it is now established under the National Water Council. I know that the noble Lord had three in his amendment. However, I think it is on the record that, after the eight and a half years which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, took us back when he was the first chairman, there is a skill and expertise that has been set up with that organisation, and there has been nothing untoward with the employee representation on that body.

I should like to clarify the position. Is it what the Minister has said? Will the representatives be only from water authorities? As there was no specific number that the Minister would accept as employee representatives when I moved the amendment on the first day of Committee, will he tell me whether that point will be covered?

Lord Skelmersdale

When I replied to the opening speech of my noble friend Lord Nugent I was careful not to say which particular water authority would carry out the functions, because that is still a matter for discussion. The noble Baroness is quite right when she says that the Yorkshire Water Authority would be appropriate, but that has not been decided. The reason that it is appropriate is that most of the pension staff are employed in Sheffield, which is within the area of the Yorkshire Water Authority.

So far as representatives of the employees being on the pension administering body, whoever that may finally end up to be, there is, as I understand it, absolutely no reason why they should not be involved in whatever the new arrangement is in exactly the same way as they are now. There are two sides to a pension fund. One is the administration, or trusteeship, if you like, of the capital sum. The other is the actual paying out and receiving of personal contributions at, as it were, the other end. One of the things that my noble friend Lord Nugent was particularly worried about was the trustee arrangement which, as I say, will be done collectively by all the national water authority chairmen.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Lord Irving of Dartford

I should first declare an interest, having an association with NALGO. I wish to speak in support of Amendment No. 16 which, stripped of all legal verbiage, requires the authorities to seek consultation in respect of the establishment and maintenance for the settling by negotiation of terms and conditions of employment, with the provision for reference to arbitration in default. In other words, the amendment is designed to reinstate Section 26(2), (3) and (4) of the Water Act 1973, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, inferred. Like him, I too deplore the inconvenience which was caused to many people by the strike. The difference between the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and myself, is that I do not believe that his solution would provide a better state of affairs, and it might lead to a worsening of the conditions, not only in that industry, but in other industries, too.

97 It is very attractive indeed to believe that one can regulate everything, including industrial relations, by law. But the fact is that the law does not provide good industrial relations; they have to be worked for. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said that the structure, as he called it—the arrangements—had not worked. I do not think that NALGO would believe that, certainly not in regard to the white collar workers; they have worked very well.

During the strike to which the noble Lord referred, the newspapers spoke about the industry having a long history of industrial peace. The manual workers claimed that they refused to go to arbitration because the intervention of the Government and the Secretary of State had made impossible free negotiations, as provided in the Act. Noble Lords may argue as to whether or not there was an intervention, but the fact is that the unions believed passionately that that was so, and unlike the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, they would consider that they gained more from the action that they took, however deplored it might have been, than they would have secured through free negotiation. But it is not our purpose to argue that point this afternoon. The whole business was aggravated by the mistakes of the management, and their exaggerations and miscalculations, which I believe must have puzzled many private employers.

What the strike proved was that in a vital industry, such as the water industry, men or women cannot be coerced into falling in line if they have a strong sense of grievance; and that is true also of the legal sanction. The unhappy fact of the matter was that of themselves the Government were quite powerless to bring the strike to an end by sitting it out, as they did in the case of the National Health Service workers, or in any other way; and no compulsory arbitration board could change that fact. In the end there had to be a voluntary coming together. The tragedy was that it took so long.

Now the noble Lord wishes to abolish the arbitration procedure and introduce an arbitration board which, in a simple, easy, clean way, would virtually hand down decisions from above. Why should the workers in key industries accept, any more than they would accept it under the other arrangements, something that they find utterly unacceptable? The truth is that there are no substitutes for good will and good industrial relations, which, as many employers know only too well, have to be earned. It may be that in some industries Mr. Tebbit can use the law, or a large Conservative majority to get workers into line. But after the recession he will not be able to do without the willing co-operation of unions and workers, not just in the water industry, but in all industries, if we are to produce at the quality, the pace, and the price which will match those of our competitors.

It is also true that it is very difficult for trade unions not to be suspicious of a board of this kind, particularly following the Government's action in suspending the Civil Service Pay Unit and Schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975. If the decisions being handed down by the arbitration board are unacceptable, why should the Government not do exactly what they did in those two cases? As I have said, there are no substitutes for good industrial relations. They have to be earned through effective 98 consultation and negotiations, with arbitration as a fallback, and certainly with a strike as the weapon of last resort. I hope that the Minister will not take the retrograde step of leaving out of the Bill provision for proper procedures, including arbitration.

These amendments were moved during the Report stage in another place. The Minister, Mr. Shaw, stated that Ministers considered it "unnecessary" for there to be statutory requirements for the arrangements to be made for the negotiation and agreement on pay and other terms and conditions of service. As reported at column 263 of the Official Report, he added that it is up to— the chairmen of the regional water authorities, as now formed into the association, in negotiation … with the trade unions to determine what form of central or regional bargaining structure they wish to have". As Mr. Howell pointed out, that leaves it up to any regional water authority, if it so wishes, to attempt to establish its own wage negotiating machinery outside the scope of any national agreement—a move which would be strongly opposed by the TUC-affiliated unions concerned with the water industry. The TUC supports national determination of pay and conditions of service in the water industry and deplores the Government's failure to make a clear statement on the need for some form of agreed national bargaining machinery. Not only NALGO, but also all other unions with members in the water industry, attach great importance to the maintenance of national joint negotiating machinery in the industry. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will reject Amendments Nos. 15 and 50, and accept Amendment No. 16.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

I should like to say a few words in opposition, in particular to Amendment No. 15. But before doing so, like other noble Lords, I should like to pay tribute to the expertise of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, to whom I of course defer. I am sure that all of your Lordships, on whatever side of the Committee you sit, are grateful to him for giving us the opportunity of a valuable peg on which to hang a constructive debate on a question which transcends the particular problems of the water industry—the subject matter of the Bill.

Before dealing with the reasons that I have in mind, so as not to exacerbate the situation, I should like to say, with respect, that I do not agree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford. It is true that there were mistakes of management—perhaps there always are—but there was an element of union policy dedicated to show a degree of muscle against the present administration which has manifested itself over the last two years. During the last two years there have, I think, been only two months when there has not been some dispute in the public sector, and that is why the public has been trapped, like a pawn, in the power struggle.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Nugent that the present structure of the water industry is not satisfactory. I agree with the noble Lord that something must be done to seek to avoid stoppages not only in this essential service, but, I would suggest, in 99 essential services in general. Some of your Lordships may remember my Amendment No. 54 at the Report stage of the Employment Bill (when I was supported by my noble friend Lord Renton), which reflected this anxiety during the hospital workers' dispute Curiously enough, that amendment was opposed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate on the ground that Section 5 of the Act of 1975 remained on the statute book and that that rendered it a criminal offence to break a contract of employment, inter alia, to endanger human life, or to cause serious bodily injury—

Lord Renton

If there is a conspiracy.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

Of course, if there is a conspiracy to do so. In the context of labour law as it has developed in those circumstances—I am grateful to my noble friend—there is the conspiratorial element in the organisation of the industrial action. But I agree unreservedly with my noble friend Lord Nugent that it is nonsense to seek to have resort to the criminal law and, with the utmost respect, I wholly disagree with the view advanced by my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. It is high time we had no criminal sanctions against workmen in connection with industrial relations. Some other means must be devised. The civil courts will never, should never, must never, order a man to work. That is slavery. The criminal law is inappropriate. Some other means must be found; and they must carry with them a requisite degree of acceptance.

All noble Lords appreciate that there is no fail-safe mechanism, that there is no universal panacea. It is apparent that this subject is under active consideration by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at this moment; and, indeed, was so long before paragraphs Nos. 59 to 60 of the Green Paper appeared, and was so in the light of the recent events to which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, referred. But the question is this. What is to be done? Perhaps a cooling-off period. That involves a temporary withdrawal of the right to strike. Perhaps statutory, arbitral machinery, such as is proposed by Amendment No. 125 in particular. That is a permanent withdrawal of the right to strike. Perhaps other means.

I would urge your Lordships to reject this amendment for five reasons. First of all, it pre-empts the options available to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at the present time, and it is apparent from the interview that he gave on television last night that he has not yet made up his mind which option he is going to take. Secondly, it affects a single-service industry, the water industry, whereas we must come to grips with the problem in all service industries generally. Thirdly, as it stands, and as has been recognised by my noble friend, it affords no right of action to the consumer because Sections 15 and 16 of the 1982 Act probably do not afford any locus standi to the consumer to pursue. Fourthly, which is very important, it forecloses on due consultation with the unions, which must be had before any massive change of direction is to be made in industrial relations law—another point fully acknowledged by my noble friend Lord Nugent.

100 Lastly, and perhaps least, it could be that this option, the mandatory statutory machinery, the arbitral machinery proposed by this amendment, would not be acceptable because of its inflationary aspect, which adds an inflationary bonus above the ordinary cut and thrust of negotiation between employers and workers. But for all these reasons at this stage I would respectfully suggest that it would be premature to carry such an amendment, and that this Bill at this time is not an appropriate vehicle in which it should be carried.

Lord Shinwell

It occurs to me (but I may be proved to be wrong when I so surmise) that we are engaged in a debate which extends far beyond the management and administration of the water industry. It seems to me that we are debating two principles which either, on the one hand, have been accepted and partly rejected, or, on the other hand, have been rejected in their entirety—depending very largely on what may be described as a political point of view. We are debating to some extent what kind of society we would regard as civilised; one that satisfies perhaps a modest percentage of the population but might have the effect of improving industrial relations.

My noble friend spoke of the possibility of dealing with this subject in the context of views on industrial relations. If one recalls what happened at the outset of the water dispute, it will be within the recollection of most noble Lords who read the newspapers on the subject and who gave it some concern that those who were threatening a strike or were about to embark on an industrial dispute seemed to be hesitant about it, seemed not quite certain whether they should take a drastic course of action or to wait for a decision by Her Majesty's Government or even by those who were responsible for the management and administration of the water industry.

This was largely because of the attitude—I regret to have to say this, but I think I am justified in making reference to it—of the press. It seemed to me at the time that the press were looking forward to a dispute which might have an effect on our political situation in readiness for what may happen in the course of the several months that would pass before June or October, or what-have-you, was reached. It was a pity that the press did not give it the consideration that it deserved instead of seeming to provoke the waterworkers to undertake all that is associated with an industrial dispute, thereby imposing severe hardships, as undoubtedly it did, on a very large section of the community. No one can deny that. I would say that every Member of your Lordships' Committee regrets that that should have happened.

I mentioned two principles. One of them is that those engaged in labour have a perfect right within the law to withdraw their labour as and when they think it necessary. That cannot be denied. It is embodied in our legislation. Almost from the beginning of this century a number of people associated together in what was then described as the Labour Movement to oppose anti-trade union legislation. As the result of various incidents—the Taff Vale dispute, the Osborne judgment and a number of other matters which I recall—the Labour Party was formed. The Labour Party was in fact formed out of the anti-trade union legislation, as they understood it.

101 That has been going on throughout the years with amendments to legislation, new legislation, advanced legislation, new ideas, new concepts and the like. Now we have reached the stage where this dispute has come to an end and we are considering what is best in the circumstances in order to avoid a similar dispute. We must endeavour to prevent any hardships being imposed on the population of our country, our industries, our general body of consumers. That is why I ask: what can be done?

It has just occurred to me that the subject we are discussing extends far beyond the administration and management of the water industry. This is a matter for discussion between the Government of the day—either the present Government or some future Government, of whatever political opinion—and those responsible in the trade union movement; that is, to a large extent (probably 80 per cent.; it may be more, it may be less) those associated with the Trades Union Congress. Why should there not be discussions among those associated with the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, members of the Government and perhaps a number of industrialists associated with water supply? Why should that not happen and develop in some form a more satisfactory concept than that which now operates? Why is that not done?

The other principle, of course, apart from the one I have mentioned of the rights of those engaged in labour to withdraw their labour as and when they think necessary, concerns those who believe, whether rightly or wrongly, that what is regarded as essential in the interests of the general body of consumers and the industry should not lead to an industrial dispute. Indeed, that was developed in the course of the recent trouble in the press, in your Lordships' House, in the other place and elsewhere. What should be regarded as essential is something that the noble Lord opposite referred to in relation to the trouble that occurred over the health service. He referred to the trouble that occurred over the health service and that some people regarded the withdrawal of labour by those associated with the National Health Service as interfering with something that was regarded as existing essentially in the interests of those who required the service. What is essential? What is not essential? Who is to say what is right and what is wrong in either case? It is very difficult to find a solution to that aspect of the problem.

Therefore, what occurs to me—if I may venture to offer a proposal to your Lordships—is that whatever may happen in the course of this debate (whether we accept the amendment or oppose it, or whether we oppose what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has proposed and what has been said by my noble friend on this side of the Committee) I propose setting that aside or coming to some conclusion of a temporary character until those bodies who have a status in the country can discuss the matter: first of all, Her Majesty's Government, of whatever political complexion, and also the trade union movement, which, whether some people like it or not, also has a status in the country as one of our national institutions.

Lord Renton

The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, speaking from the depth of his great experience, has 102 very clearly indicated the dilemma which faces the community and faces Parliament in considering two conflicting principles, both of which are well established. One is the right to strike, the other is the right of the community to continue to receive essential services for which it pays. In the case of the police of course we do not acknowledge the right to strike.

These two principles surely should not be beyond the wit of Parliament and of the trade unions somehow to resolve. It was quite intolerable that a whole civilised nation like ours, nearly 60 million people, should have been held to inconvenience, hardship and, it could be said, to ransom, by a small body of essential workers numbering fewer than 30,000, because we had not devised adequate means to deal with such a situation.

On the amendment of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford and the alternative amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford—to whom I always listen with sympathy for I was born at Dartford—we now have the opportunity of considering this matter, but in relation to the water supply industry only, whereas it is a much bigger question than that, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has pointed out. My noble friend Lord Nugent has an amendment which indirectly might be thought to solve the problem. If he has it in mind that making the adjudication part of the contract of service and the breach of the contract leading to civil action against those people who individually or collectively break the contract, then it could be said that a sanction is being introduced which overcomes the difficulty about interfering with the right to strike. It provides a sanction. But having listened to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the five reasons which he gave, I must confess that though I felt great sympathy with my noble friend Lord Nugent, I think that my noble friend Lord Campbell was right to point out, for the reasons that he gave, that we cannot deal with this matter in this way on this Bill.

I wonder whether I may make just two further comments. One arises from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Irving, and also the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. The noble Lord, Lord Irving, expressed the point by saying that there is no substitute for good industrial relations. I regard that as a counsel of perfection. Alas, it is almost a counsel of despair because although good industrial relations are, fortunately, the more general rule, experience has shown that there are things which enter into good industrial relations which sour them, which prevent them from providing the answer for the community. One has only to consider politically motivated people, especially I am sorry to say when there is a Conservative Government in power. One has only to consider the way in which the endeavours of honest, good, moderate trade union leaders are impeded by the action of militants. We have had to put up with that sometimes in essential services also. So we must not—we dare not—rely simply upon that counsel of perfection.

My other comment is this: that, alas, the system of industrial negotiation that we have, even when it is accompanied by compulsory arbitration, provides a built-in guarantee of more or less inflation, as my 103 noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway pointed out in regard to his fifth point. When my noble friend Lord Nugent suggested that there should be an adjudication board consisting of an independent chairman, perhaps of our profession (a lawyer or, more eminently, a judge), one representative of the trade unions and one of the employers, I thought: "Oh, there is going to be the usual horse-trading, the usual compromise and the usual contribution towards inflation."

If I may make a general point in conclusion, I hope that if we are going to rely upon compulsory arbitration or adjudication on any occasion in future, we should always have five people, not three. We need an independent chairman and representatives of both sides of industry and we need to have represented the consumers and the national economic interest. I therefore think there should always be a representative of the Treasury or the Department of Trade on any such tribunal; and then we may get solutions which will not be a guaranteed contribution to inflation. I think we owe a great debt to my noble friend Lord Nugent for raising this matter. I have not widened the debate too much: I have only followed what others have said. But, valuable though this debate may be, I doubt whether it can result in a Division which would provide a solution.

Lord Rochester

I very much welcome the constructive nature of the debate that has taken place so far. I am sorry that, like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in particular—with whom, not for the first time, I found myself very much in agreement—I cannot support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. I simply do not think that it is practicable, without a greater degree of consent than is at present apparent, to invoke the law to prevent people directly involved in disputes, even where they may endanger life or limb, from withdrawing their labour if they are determined so to do. I do hope that in saying that I shall not be accused of caring more about the right to strike than about the right to live, because that is not true.

The great majority of ordinary British working people, in my view, do not want to strike and will normally do so only if they feel they are being exploited or treated unfairly. What is necessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said so aptly, is to find some means whereby the pay and employment conditions of people engaged in these essential services can be so determined that they no longer perceive the need to take industrial action and are willing instead to behave with sufficient responsibility to ensure that the community does not have to suffer continuing disruption. I doubt very much whether that means is to be found by imposing immediate statutory arbitration in the water industry alone.

In the debate on the gracious Speech last November, I suggested in some detail a possible way in which pay determination arrangements for people employed in key occupations might be introduced with general agreement. I will not elaborate on that suggestion now, except to say that in my view any such arrangements need to cover many more people than those engaged in the water industry. A great deal more consultation will 104 be necessary—and here I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, had to say- before any such arrangements can be implemented. I repeat that a great deal more consultation is required.

The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said—and I thought it was typical of him so to do—that he would like to see a consensus in this matter. So would I; and since I do not feel able to vote for his amendment as it stands I can only hope that he will not place me in the position of having to vote against it. Somehow it is in the nature of the discussion that has taken place so far that I do not think I shall be put to that test.

I am glad to support, so far as it goes, the amendment which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford. In my view, it is highly desirable that there should be consultation with the relevant unions with a view to establishing, after the reorganisation of the water industry, an agreed negotiating procedure under which unresolved disputes should ultimately be referred to arbitration. But I feel that a lot more education is needed before negotiators are sufficiently convinced of the desirability of making collective agreements legally enforceable contracts for them to be workable in this country. That difficulty, it seems to me, is recognised in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Irving.

At the same time, the feature of the recent water dispute which was most objectionable to me—and I daresay to many of your Lordships—was the failure of the unions to honour the undertaking in their current procedural agreement to go to arbitration. Against that background, I should like to revert, if I may, to a suggestion which I made in a debate in this House on trade union immunities nearly two years ago: namely, that the Government should consider introducing a further code of practice dealing specifically with negotiating procedures. Basically the idea was that throughout British industry arrangements should be established like those operating elsewhere in Europe, under which disputes concerning agreements already entered into should be settled ultimately by arbitration instead of by industrial action.

The provisions of such a code might thus become admissible in evidence and taken into account in proceedings before an industrial court or a tribunal. In that way I thought it might gradually, and with a sufficient degree of consent, be possible to reach a position where the organisers of industrial action taken in breach of collective agreements would no longer have legal immunity and could be sued for damages.

In reply to that debate, the Government spokesman—I think it was actually the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie—was kind enough to say that serious consideration would be given to that proposal. Yet when, during our discussions on last year's Employment Bill, I reminded the Government of that undertaking, I was told that there was no plan to advance the matter. I have told the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, that I was going to raise this matter again and therefore I shall quite understand if he does not feel able to give me an immediate answer; but if that is still the position, I should like to know why it is.

105 For the rest, it is my view that in essential services such as water supply, as elsewhere in industry, the best hope of making progress lies in increasing employee involvement, and particularly in achieving a common awareness on the part of all employees in these undertakings of the relationship between pay, prices and jobs. That may sound an unexciting and lengthy process, as indeed it is; but I fear that any attempt prematurely to enforce collective agreements by law will, as the Donovan Commission concluded and as was demonstrated by the outcome of the 1971 Industrial Relations Act, fail until such time as changes in our dual system of collective bargaining arrangements have been effected and the incidence of unofficial industrial action has been greatly reduced.

Lord Howie of Troon

I want to do something which it never occurred to me in my wildest dreams I would ever dare to do, and that is to disagree with both of my noble friends Lord Irving of Dartford and Lord Shinwell at the same time, and to go further than that and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who is clearly in the right in this instance. I hope that, whether or not he is successful in carrying the amendment today, he certainly carries the idea and persuades the Government, whom we know to be open-minded in all matters.

But, first, like my noble friend Lord Irving of Dartford, I should like to declare an interest. He declared an interest in that he had a relationship with a trade union, and a very important one at that. The interest that I declare is the interest which we all have in this House and elsewhere as consumers. We are all occasional users of water—in moderation, it is true—and we cannot escape it. But this fact, that we are all consumers of water, highlights the weakness in the case of my noble friend Lord Irving.

He, to my mind at least, laid out clearly, strenuously and convincingly the generalised argument in favour of trade union activity in the normal relationship between employer and employee. But the case that we are considering today is not of that order. Because water is an essential, the strike or the industrial activity, whichever form it takes, moves beyond being a dispute between employer and employee and becomes, by its very nature, a dispute between the employee and the consumer. That means that the strong arguments, which my noble friend Lord Irving used in one context, do not survive when they are translated into this new context.

By its very nature, a strike in an essential service industry of this kind, regardless of the intentions—however pure they are—of the unions, must be directed against the consumer, and these are the very consumers whom the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, desired to be drawn into this. I think that, in some respects, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was correct. In so far as there is some kind of tribunal, it must be a tribunal of five, if you can have such a thing, rather than a tribunal of three. So I think that there is great strength in the argument that, in these essential industries, strikes should be forbidden or, if not forbidden entirely, subject to the strictures of this amendment.

106 But that, of course, as my noble friend Lord Irving rightly hinted, lays employees open to great danger. It is not always the case that people who give up the right to strike find that they are rewarded by justice; and under some Governments the justice would be less than under others. I do not name any Government in particular in that respect. So that means that if employees give up the right to strike and to attack the neighbours—which is what they do, however well-meaning they may be—they must be given some other kind of safeguard, which must be some form of comparability in their earnings with the earnings of others. That comparability has to be worked out through some kind of public board. Whether the public board is the tribunal, as instanced in this case, or whether it is some longer-standing organisation, this is not the place to argue today. But there should be a machinery which replaces the strike weapon as a means of acquiring, or hoping to acquire, justice and which does it instead.

I thought that the recent strike in the water industry was an almost total shambles. It was an almost total shambles, because neither side really wished to be involved at all in a strike. I think both sides realised in their heart of hearts that they were in the wrong context for striking and, consequently, everything in it was handled badly. The only element of professionalism which I, as an outsider, could discern in the strike was the performance of Mr. Jim Dickens, who at one time was a notable and persuasive advocate of the Tribune view in another place—and a most admirable Member of that other House he was, as all of us who were colleagues of his in those days will readily agree. He shone through that whole amateurish shambles as the only professional in sight. But, be that as it may, in the end the strike had to be resolved by something not unlike the kind of thing which I dare say underlay the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. It may not have been exactly what he had in mind, but it was an ad hoc version of something like what he had in mind.

I have only one last point to make before I resume my place. In the course of his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said that both Front Benches were probably agreed to oppose him on this matter. Of course they are. In the face of sense, the two Front Benches always combine to oppose it. I hope that, whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, succeeds today, the idea that he has in mind succeeds and that it will not be too long delayed.

Viscount Massereene and Ferrard

I heartily agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, has said. In fact, I myself have used his words in the past. We are inclined to forget that we are talking about a public utility. We ourselves are composed of nearly 90 per cent. water and for 29,000 workers in a public utility to hold the nation to ransom is deplorable. It is a question of what I call the last link in the chain. These water board workers have not invented water. They have not manufactured water. It is a gift of God or, if you prefer, nature, which comes out of the ground. They have not even erected the buildings or invented the machinery that pumps up the water. Yet they have this vast power. They can hold the whole nation to ransom, except for parts of Scotland where you just put a pipe in a burn. In other countries, 107 employees in public utilities, especially water, have to sign a special agreement to the effect that they will not strike. It is time that we in this country had something like that, because we are out of date. I shall not go on, because I came in at the end of the debate. But if my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford takes this amendment to a Division, I will vote for him.

Lord Bellwin

We have had a very good debate, although some may think that it was more appropriate to a Second Reading than to a Committee stage. But that seems to be a fate to which I am committed. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Nugent will be gratified by the very constructive nature of the debate and, certainly, I welcomed it for that. I, too, am speaking to Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 50. Perhaps I may say at once that my noble friend Lord Nugent has clearly thought out his proposals with great care, as we would expect of him. Nobody underestimates the importance of this subject.

To deal first with Amendment No. 16, your Lordships will notice that it seeks to reinstate provisions which are in the Water Act 1973 and which will disappear when the Bill becomes law. These provisions relate to negotiations over terms and conditions of service. Even when the Bill was first drafted the Government considered it undesirable and unnecessary for there to be statutory requirements as to arrangements to be made for the negotiation of agreements on pay and other terms and conditions of employment. The Government's view has been, and remains, that employers and trade unions should be free to establish whatever machinery they consider appropriate and to change it by mutual agreement, if and when circumstances require.

It is too early, perhaps, finally to draw any general lessons from recent events about industrial relations in the water industry or how they are to be improved in the future, but the all-out strike, which ended when it was halfway into its fifth week, can hardly be regarded with equanimity. The Government's mind is not closed to any possible further measures needed in the context of such strike action. We shall not hesitate to take any measures, statutory or otherwise, which we are convinced would be both effective and beneficial.

Section 26 of the Water Act 1973 provides for the National Water Council, which is comprised as to half its members by the chairmen of water authorities, to seek arrangements for the negotiation of conditions of employment, in very much the same way as this amendment proposes in respect of the water authorities, one and all. The recent strike and the recent difficult negotiations on pay occurred within a framework similar to that which would result from the present amendment. I am sure the Committee will agree that this statutory framework has not proved entirely satisfactory and that at the least the two sides should be free to seek any other framework which will serve them, and the public interest, better. Whatever views may have been expressed before, both by the parties and by others, I have no doubt that the right course is for all concerned now to think out afresh what negotiating framework is needed. I hope that my noble friend will accept that what is proposed is not 108 bound to help the establishment of the proper dialogue between management and employees in the water industry which is in the best interests of good industrial relations. In the light of that reply to my noble friend's amendment, I hope he will accept the Government's view.

To turn to my noble friend's Amendment No. 15, I am sure that we all understand well the wish to establish a means of resolving disputes in the water industry. I, too, share his concern—as must we all—in the light of the recent dispute and the way it remained unresolved for a considerable space of time before being finally settled in the way that it was. Partly with these events in mind, therefore, and partly for more general reasons, I must question this amendment which would have the effect, as my noble friend has told us, of setting up an arbitration board which would hand over to a third party the responsibility for determining the industry's wages bill, whatever the wishes of the two sides.

There is already provision for arbitration in the industry's national agreement—for example, if the two sides of the water industry's National Joint Industrial Council cannot resolve a difference. That provision rests on a statutory basis. Subsection (2) of Section 26 of the Water Act 1973, to which I have already referred, includes the words "with provision for arbitration" in its specification for the negotiating arrangements to be procured by the National Water Council. The NJIC agreement provides for arbitration by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, or some other body as may be agreed between the two sides. The national agreement is that arbitration shall take place on the reference of either side and will be binding on both.

Whatever its foundations, however, arbitration is the last stage in the resolution of a disagreement and is only practicable where both sides are ready to resolve their difference in that way. That is a clear lesson from the recent dispute. It is to be expected that when the employers and unions consider what their negotiating arrangements are to be, they may wish to include provision for arbitration when other processes are exhausted. But the formulae must take account of the rest of their procedures and cannot be considered, let alone legislated for, in isolation.

I can illustrate this point by referring to the amendment itself, which says: Any dispute concerning any matter relating to the remuneration or other terms or conditions of employment…shall be referred to the [arbitration] Board". It is impossible in legislation to specify who will refer disputes to the arbitration board, and on what basis. And what would happen should one party not wish to seek arbitration at a particular stage in negotiations? There are other problems to be faced. What is a dispute? Does it include a dispute involving only one worker? Who are the parties to a dispute? It is hardly practicable to work backwards from a particular form of arbitration to establish the rest of the negotiating machinery. Arbitration is an integral part of the machinery itself and cannot be considered in isolation. The Government do not wish to impose a particular form of negotiating machinery and so restrict the options available to the parties. ACAS is in being and available, with a wide range of experience and facilities. 109 Why is it inherently less suitable to ask ACAS to appoint arbitrators than to constitute a new body to carry out such arbitration as my noble friend proposes?

We also recognise—this point was brought out in several of the speeches which were made earlier, notably in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who speaks with such authority on these matters—that in a matter of this kind it is impossible to deal in isolation with one essential service. The essential point for the Government—and for the unions, come to that—in deciding how to pursue wage claims is surely that the interests of the consumer and the national economy must be paramount. We, for our part, will be bearing this point well in mind as we reflect on the recent sad events.

One other point is that there is nothing in the amendment which would prevent a strike from starting or continuing, once started. In that respect, does it not miss one of the intentions which may have given rise to it? With these considerations in mind, which derive from both recent experience and a more general view of what is politic and realistic, I have to say that the Government consider it inappropriate to prescribe in this legislation the form or framework, or the final tribunal, for the negotiation of terms and conditions of employment in the water industry or the resolution of disagreements about them. We remain of the view that, within the general framework of law and practice, each industry should be free to make and adopt its own arrangements.

In conclusion, I applaud—who would not?—my noble friend's motivation in bringing forward these amendments. With his background in the water industry, few, if any, can be better qualified to speak on the subject. I have answered at length, and in doing so I hope I have indicated to my noble friend and to others who have spoken the importance which the Government attach to the matter. There will be further consideration of it, and my noble friend's contribution will be of immense value, as will the observations of all noble Lords who have spoken, including my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, my noble friend Lord Renton, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. This matter is of considerable importance, whose significance lies beyond just this Bill. For that reason, I am particularly grateful to my noble friend. While the future is all to play for, I hope he will understand why the Government do not feel inclined to go for the arrangement which he has proposed in the amendment.

Baroness Fisher of Rednal

I think the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has great knowledge and great experience, and he has drawn that to our attention with the amendment. He I think is in the same predicament as noble Lords on this side of the Committee. What concerns everybody is: what will happen to the procedures when the National Water Council is abolished? I want to reiterate something that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said: it is a topical amendment, it is topical because we have just had a recent water dispute. I am not so sure that you change legislation because you have a topical interest, because 50 years of collective bargaining in the water industry has not 110 produced any national dispute until 1983—I repeat, 50 years of collective bargaining and not a strike until 1983!

In this amendment we are trying to set up an arbitration on one strike. I accept what noble Lords have said about the inconvenience—in some cases the hardship—but I would not accept that 60 million people were held to ransom. I come from a very large city and I do not think those people in that large city, about 1 million of them, were held to ransom; I think a few hundred were inconvenienced. If we think of 50 years' of collective bargaining without any disputes, does not that reflect well upon the effectiveness and the lasting acceptability of the existing negotiating machinery? How the negotiating machinery should carry on was spelled out by the noble Lord the Minister. What we see in this amendment is an intent to interfere in that agreed collective bargaining arrangement. Of course, if one reads the newspapers, if one listens to the radio and the other media, we are all well aware that the Government are considering a review of public sector arbitration arrangements, those arrangements where employers should be encouraged to end unilateral access. If I was cynical—and I am not—I might pose this question to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent: is this initiative on his part to further the Government's intention? Is this laying down the path? Is a Water Bill one way in which perhaps the Government would get satisfaction? The noble Lord the Minister has said that he does not want it through a Water Bill, and that I would accept.

If we look at the amendment—and I know the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said that he did not think the wording was correct and could be amended—it reads as follows: The Secretary of State shall appoint a Water Industry Arbitration Board … Dear, dear! We had enough on Second Reading about the people the Secretary of State was going to appoint to the regional water authorities; we would be going into another debate if we were thinking who was going to be appointed to an arbitration board.

Though noble Lords have said how many persons there might be, there is nothing in the amendment that says one, two, three, four or five. There is nothing to say what qualifications. It does not say that the trade union movement shall be consulted, it says any individual or organisation which would be appropriate. Is it going to be a supposedly independent body? As the noble Lord the Minister said, it covers "any dispute". What disputes! Might it be a dispute on protective clothing? Might it be a dispute on safety? There are all these matters about which I think nobody would wish to go to such a board although they would have to do so.

Then we find in the amendment: … to consult with any individual … Does this mean a general chat round a table? Does it mean that the unions would no longer be able to negotiate? Then we have: … adjudication by the Board … shall form part of the contract of employment … I would have said, speaking from this side of the Committee, that this could only mean compulsion, and legally imposed settlements of disputes in 111 industrial relations matters are rejected by the British trade union movement. There might be one or two Members on this side of the Committee who perhaps do not agree wholeheartedly with that, but the British trade union movement think it is an abrogation of basic rights in a free society. Decades of collective bargaining as they have gone on do not in my view merit an arbitration board of this description.

Of course, as noble Lords on both sides of the Committee have said, "and be enforceable accordingly", obviously means that the workforce would not be allowed to withdraw their labour. As my noble friend Lord Irving said—and of course I am in full support of his amendment—a compulsory arbitration system which is foisted on either side, whether the employer or employee, will not work. The only way arbitration can work is by mutual principled acceptance of the system. As the noble Lord, Lord Irving, said—and I repeat—legally imposed arbitration is a recipe for conflict and not for conciliation.

I think all of us recognise that arbitration in public utilities tends to militate against the fuller consideration of the wider issues behind a dispute. They tend to degenerate into a technical discussion on the amounts of monies available which the Government feel the employer can pay. In that way there is no room for argument when the negotiations start, no consideration of social justice. Nobody can possibly say that in the recent dispute the water workers were in any way in what one would call the higher paid parts of employment in this country. Even if one uses the very maximum figures that were used, they do not come up to the average weekly earnings of the manual employees in the country.

I think what we have to say to ourselves is that we have in this country a system for settling disputes that go to arbitration. As the noble Lord the Minister has said—he uses ACAS as the example—there is the existing machinery in ACAS which the water industry can use and does use for settling disputes. Disputes of course can only come about when the two sides are failing to agree. ACAS has that machinery, and if we accept this amendment it will mean that ACAS are in a very difficult position regarding the water industry. They will be placed outside of what is a public utility, and I would have thought that that was not an acceptable position for ACAS to be put in because they will find themselves with a duty to uphold the existing procedures. Therefore, those in a public utility find themselves at a disadvantage as compared to every other aspect of industry.

There may be a great deal of concern regarding what might arise if fixing of wages and conditions is carried out by the individual regional water authorities in the future, and we shall have to come to that at a later stage. At the present moment the fixing of wages and conditions is carried out nationally. However, if—as perhaps might happen in the future—this will be in the hands of the regional water authorities, that might be another forum where one will get greater activity, where one might even get leap-frogging by trade unions trying to get better wages and better conditions. A much harsher water authority might try to clamp down on the workers in that area. I do not accept that the answer to the problems of the water workers' wages 112 lies in individual water authorities taking over the responsibility of the national organisation. It is also important to say that the amendment that has been moved would be extremely difficult to impose, and it could be well-nigh impossible to enforce on angry workers, at the most.

Perhaps there is an argument—and I could use it quite easily—that there needs to be a more coherent approach to public sector pay and conditions. But with the abolition of the National Water Council we are obviously getting ourselves into all these problems. Until the Government spell out quite clearly what will arise from the passing of this Bill, with all the functions that the National Water Council used to operate, we shall be continually having these debates, because there is nothing in the Bill that tells us who is to take over the responsibilities.

Noble Lords have talked about compulsory arbitration, but that does not guarantee swift settlement of disputes. As witness of that we need to look only at the protracted procedures in the Railways Staffs' National Council, and at how those arbitrations go on and on.

I wish to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Irving of Dartford. We have tabled this amendment to make quite sure that there is a negotiation procedure after the passing away of the water councils. There is nothing in what the noble Lord has told us. It will be left to individual water authorities to make their own arrangements. Therefore, it is important for us to put down something that will safeguard the interests of those who work in the industry.

I conclude by saying that all of us know—and I repeat what I have said previously—that the Prime Minister and the Government are of a mind to enact legislation against strikes in essential industries and to generally curb trade union power. We all know this, and we know that in the next few days or weeks we shall be discussing in this Chamber democracy in the trade unions—the Green Paper. The amendment that we have before us pre-empts that kind of discussion. If the Government, at some later date, think that it is wise to bring before Parliament a Bill that will curb trade union power, the correct procedure to do that is through a Bill which should be brought forward just on those lines—an amendment on trade union activity. It will then be debated in both Houses and a full exposition of the total case will be put forward. That can be debated, and that is the way I suggest it should be done. I reiterate what other noble Lords have said. It will be quite wrong, in my view, to start off that legislation by agreeing to this amendment. In other words, I think it would be a backdoor method of trying to get in that kind of legislation.

Therefore, I have to say that I oppose the amendment of Lord Nugent of Guildford and give my support to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Irving of Dartford.

Lord Winstanley

Before the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford replies may I make a very brief point? I understood that the advice given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, was to the effect that he felt 113 it would be extremely unwise to deal piecemeal with this very important matter of pay determination in vital public services by singling out one section of vital public service workers—the waterworkers. I should like to know: what is the precise meaning of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin? Does he offer that advice as a justification for doing nothing at all, or are we to take it that he and the Government intend at some later date to do something more collective to cover these vital public services as a whole? In other words, I am again putting to the noble Lord the question that was put to the Government by my noble friend Lord Rochester during the debate on the gracious Speech, and on a later occasion. It was a fairly specific question regarding the Government's intentions in general. What I am saying is that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin is a vital one. It really is unwise to single out one section of vital public service workers and deal with them.

I also think that it is perhaps unwise to use that as a justification for doing nothing at all about an extremely important subject. So I should like to know from the noble Lord which way he wants us to take it. Does he want us to take his advice as meaning that the Government intend to do something about this subject as a whole at a later date and not that they merely want to ask us to do nothing at all ourselves?

Lord Bellwin

I shall respond equally briefly to that point. I made it clear—at least I thought I did—that I was responding to an amendment tabled by my noble friend—and, indeed, to the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford. I said quite clearly that I thought it would be wrong to deal with this in isolation for this industry. But we must also recognise that my noble friend is fully justified in bringing forward this amendment because here we have a new situation that is arising, through this Bill, for the water industry. What pertained previously will no longer apply. That is, previously there was the National Water Council, which conducted negotiations, but this will not be there in future under this Bill. Therefore, it is perfectly proper at this time for my noble friend, or anyone else, to bring this forward as an alternative. It is not for me to answer for my noble friend, he will do that much more competently than I can, but that is how I understand it.

As to the Government's line on the kind of situation that has arisen in industries of this kind, I think I said that I welcome debate in terms of the future. I think I used the expression, "it is all to play for", and that is why it is constructive that all that has been said should be said. We shall take note of it. To say that we will do nothing is to pre-empt the kind of things that the Government have talked about. As I said on another matter only last week in your Lordships' House, just a little more patience and—who knows?—we may yet see something which your Lordships can debate.

Lord Howie of Troon

Would it not be more valuable to deal with a matter such as this piecemeal and get it right a bit at a time rather than try something more all-embracing and get the whole thing wrong at once?

Baroness Birk

I agree that this has been an extremely interesting and wide-ranging debate. It 114 seems to me that what we are left with now is an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, which has been very highly praised but generally turned down, I think, by most people, for different reasons. We are then left with the amendment in the name of my noble friends. If that amendment is not accepted it means that the Bill will go forward—and the Minister has just said so himself—without any form of replacement for the type of machinery that has been operated until now by the National Water Council. It is perfectly true that in this Bill we cannot, and should not, be dealing with a whole code of practice for the trade union movement and employers, and for everything generally. That must be for the future, but I think that we on these Benches would feel very unhappy if this Bill went forward without anything in it at all.

The way we read it, at the moment it means that each of the authorities would be left to decide themselves and to make their own arrangements, so that there would be, as my noble friend Lady Fisher pointed out, the possibility—indeed, I would say even more than that, the probability—of leapfrogging. There could also be great differences between different parts of the country and different authorities. Therefore, I think that the only solution is for this amendment to be accepted or for the amendment standing in the name of my noble friends to be pressed, so that we have at least some machinery in the Bill for dealing with these problems at the present time.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

As my amendment was the start of this interesting discussion I should like to thank your Lordships for making it such a worthwhile debate. I confess that my motive for putting it down was not really in the belief that my amendment would be accepted. Back-Bench amendments are very seldom accepted in any circumstances, and, as I anticipated in my opening speech, both Front Benches united against me, so I was sunk from the start. My only noble friend was Lord Howie of Troon on the Back-Benches at the opposite end of the Chamber, who saw that there was some validity in the point that I was putting forward. Any suspicion that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, might have had that this was some deep-laid plot which was to bring in by the back door the start of the Government's new policy on the matter must have been completely swept away by the gallons of cold water which were poured on my amendment, very charmingly, by my noble friend Lord Bellwin.

I really come back to where I started. I felt—and I believe all noble Lords feel the same—that we had had an experience of a very unpleasant kind which we would like to see our people spared from in the future; that is, a future water strike. It is therefore incumbent on my noble friend and on his noble friends and his right honourable friends to give the deepest possible thought to the method that can be found to strengthen the negotiating machinery to safeguard the public against such a happening in the future.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, made the point that the existing machinery has lasted for 50 years. In fact, it has not; it has lasted for only ten years. The existing structure was created by the Water Act 1973, which made the water industry a national industry and 115 therefore made these negotiations national in a way that they had never been before. Before, there were 166 individual water undertakings, I think it was, 29 water companies and 1,400 sewage authorities, and the whole thing was fragmented. Therefore, the punch which the three trade unions could bring to the negotiating table has been in action only for the last ten years.

Although I would entirely agree with the noble Baroness that these men in the water industry are peaceful, public-spirited men, they are not badly paid. With the increases now, their average earnings with overtime—a good deal of overtime—are up to about £150 a week, which is not too bad with an index-linked pension and security of job.

They are a peaceful lot. I am bound to say that when I had the privilege of conducting the negotiations for the employers' side we had some pretty long and arduous negotiations. In fact, it is a way of life to conduct an NJIC and an NJC, and I spent a great deal of my time doing it; but I found the men in the water industry very good to deal with. We won each other's confidence. I would never have thought that this industry would have drifted into such a national strike. But if ever a series of negotiations was mishandled from the start, this one was. The less said about it the better, I think. Nevertheless, it has happened, and I think it is essential that my noble friend and his ministerial colleagues should now really apply their minds to finding some way to safeguard the country against the same thing happening again.

Of course, I understand what a major concession it would be if the trade unions concerned here, or, indeed, in any other part of the public sector, gave up the right to strike. In the splendid speech of the noble Lord , Lord Shinwell, we heard the authentic voice of the man who fought for the trade unions to have the right to strike. I understand that that is sacrosanct, and something very solid has to be given if there is to be agreement—because there must be at the end of the day—to bring the trade unions and the employers' side together to find a better solution. But it is not going to be easy.

The noble Lord, Lord Irving, is absolutely right in saying that the major part of industrial relations is just hard work: hard work understanding each other's problems; considering them; giving where you can; where you cannot, explaining why you cannot; and throughout fostering human relationships, so that the machine works satisfactorily—because it is working continually. The employers must learn to be as professional as the employees—and the employees, in the voice of the trade union leaders, are very professional indeed. So that is the basis of it, whatever machinery one has. But my concern is to try to have some ultimate safeguard which would save our people from the experience they have recently suffered.

I feel that in that spirit this debate has perhaps added something. It has certainly given us some notable speeches. It has given us, from my noble friend the Minister, a reply with at any rate some comforting words. Like my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I heard the Secretary of State last night, and he is obviously thinking of it, too. I guess that he may not be thinking of quite such a consensus as I should 116 like to see, but evidently the Government are thinking about it and realise that something needs to be done. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.