SWALLOWING THE BILL
There now remains only parliamentary and royal formalities to be concluded before the Industrial Relations Bill is enacted into law; and, although we may doubt whether the Act will turn out in practice to be as effective as its supporters have hoped and its opponents have feared, we may heave a great and justified sigh of relief that the furious business of its pas- sage is at an end. Despite the parlia- mentary apologists (of both sides) who have defended the all-night sittings, the time-wasting divisions, the consequential guillotine, the sound and the fury, the House of Commons has not provided out- siders with an edifying or even amusing spectacle during the second reading and committee stages. For this. the Opposi- tion must carry chief responsibility. It was quite clear that the Government had a mandate for the Bill, a determination to carry it on to the statute book, and a majority more than sufficient to do so. Despite this—and despite that they had themselves when in power first endeav- oured, and only when political pressures became too great, ceased endeavouring, to enact a similar law—the leaders of the Labour party decided on a root-and- branch opposition to the Bill instead of using the time of the House of Commons to improve it. A complicated Bill has not, in consequence, had as much useful par- liamentary time devoted to it as it de- served. It is arguable that no complicated Bill ever gets enough parliamentary dis- cussion, but this is no ground for justifying opposition tactics which have squandered time. With all due respect to the passionate fervour and Welsh harmonies contained within the Parliamentary Labour party, members are not elected to Parliament to sing the 'Red Flag' as a dawn chorus nor, metaphorically, to wet themselves in the ecstasies of their cathartic opposition.
We onlookers, in part bemused and in part appalled, must hope that the future law, once it has acquired its necessary complement of case law, will serve its pur- pose, as stated in its first clause, of promoting good industrial relations in accordance with the following general principles, that is to say,—
(a) the principles of collective bargain- ing freely and responsibly conducted; (b) the principle of developing and maintaining orderly procedures in industry for the peaceful settlement of disputes by negotiation, concilia- tion or arbitration, with due regard to the general interests of the com- munity; (c) the principle of free association of workers in independent trade unions, and of employers' associations, so organised as to be representative, responsible and effective bodies for regulating relations between employ- ers and workers; and (d) the principle of freedom and security for workers, protected by adequate safeguards against unfair industrial practices, whether on the part of employers or others.
The electorate is entitled to expect that the Bill, once enacted, be allowed a decent opportunity to see whether, and how, it will work. The objects of the legislation are unexceptionable and the manner of its working unprophesiable.
At least with the Bill out of the way and the smoke it created died down, it should be possible to see more clearly the lines of the political and economic debate, which essentially is about the relationship between inflationary wage de- mands, unemployment and the govern- ment's policies.
It is possible to have excellent industrial relations and a sluggish economy, just as it is possible to have massive industrial expansion and rapid increase in a nation's wealth during a time of great industrial unrest. The Industrial Relations Bill, even if it succeeds in reducing official and un- official strikes, will not produce that steady and firm growth in the nation's production which, together with the avoiding of exces- sive unemployment, has been the chief object of governments since the war. The views of the managing director of the Ford Motor Company are to be taken seriously; but when he writes, explaining why his company has decided against a £30 million expansion project,. 'The British disease is the instant strike and the cure is to stop it', although many may instinc- tively shout 'Hear, hear', others will note that there are a great many other diseases than this and that, anyway, it is the job of management and not of government to stop instant strikes. If it is true, as Mr . Batty writes, that 'overseas dealers ... are saying quite openly that it is becoming almost impossible to do business with the British Motor Industry', the prime respon- sibility for this must rest with the manage- ment of that industry who have permitted industrial relations so to deteriorate that 'Year after year we have made delivery promises that we have been unable to keep and with the many important customers with whom we do business our credibility is exhausted.' Likewise,.the prime respon- sibility for the failure of Rolls-Royce can- not lie elsewhere than in the management which took faulty decisions and signed foolish contracts. ,No government, of what- ever political persuasion, can by the exer- cise of will or through legislative or other action, put these sort of things right, or prevent deteriorations and disasters from taking place.
Governments can, however, set the scene and, within limits, provide incentives for doing this and disincentives against doing that. Scene-setting is largely a matter of rhetoric. Mr Heath's administration, taking its colour in more than usually marked chameleon-like fashion from its leader, has contrived through its rhetoric to set a scene in which there will be no `bailing-out'; in which the industrially weak and inefficient will be allowed through lack of government intervention to go to the wall; in which by refusing to countenance any statutory incomes policy the climate of a wages free-for-all has not been discouraged; and in which the gov- ernment in its capacity as an employer or a proprietor will play the role of an exem- plar to the private section. There is much to be said for the setting'of such a scene: a shaking-up, an industrial and commer- cial fall-out or drop-out is required. Whether it will work or not we cannot yet tell: all we can know for sure is that in the past the orthodox alternative has not worked, and it is because of that failure to secure growth in a comfortable fashion that the present effort to achieve growth at the expense of comfort is to be viewed.
Unemployment rises; bankruptcies in- crease; strikes proliferate; wage demands leap. The situation cannot last indefinitely. We must await the Budget before we en- deavour to discern what incentives and disincentives the Government proposes. We nevertheless note with apprehension if not ,yet with alarm that whereas that part of the scene-setting which has to do with efficiency the rhetoric of abrasive- ness has already become familiar, the rest of the scene, which must have to do with growth and with rewards for labour and skill and enterprise, whether or not it has been set, has not yet been put on pub- lic view. It is becoming high time for us to see the whole scene, lest we conclude there is nothing left, now that the Indus- "trial Relations Bill is paSsecli to see.
Previous page
