POLITICS
Being entertained by Mr Fowler unawares
NOEL MALCOLM
orman Fowler, the Secretary of State of Employment, made a shrewd point during Monday's second reading of the Bill to abolish the Dock Labour Scheme. Opposition speakers had been prepared to use almost every conceivable argument, he said, to attack the Government's propos- als, except one: they were not willing to argue in defence of the scheme itself.
This is not literally correct (Mr Eric Heifer and Mr Ernie Ross, for example, have defended it unreservedly, and Mr Michael Meacher, Labour's employment spokesman, has resolutely affirmed that some aspects of the scheme are really not quite as bad as you might think): but it does capture an essential truth. Through- out Monday's debate, Labour speakers were at their most content when they were attacking the Government for its arrogance in introducing the Bill without consulta- tion, and for its hypocrisy in dealing so differently with the lawyers and judges. Some good points were scored over the Government's decision last week to allow the legal profession more time for con- sultations — a striking contrast with the dockers, whose opinions were never in- vited and who were allowed less than 24 hours to gather their thoughts on the subject between the announcement of the White Paper and the first reading of the Bill. But arguments based on the obvious lawyer-docker comparison have cut both ways and Tory zealots have been, on balance, the main beneficiaries. The Gov- ernment's keenest supporters can point to its impartiality in stamping out restrictive practices wherever it finds them; and the usefulness of this argument may indeed be one subsidiary reason for the timing of this sudden and wholly unexpected blitzkrieg against the Duck Labour Scheme. Any attempt at detailed comparison between barristers and dock-workers soon breaks down. The differences are obvious- ly much greater than the similarities. (One difference, however, would be worth ex- ploring: the doctrine, which has already become an article of faith on the Conserva- tive benches, that 'casualisation' is the worst possible thing that could happen to anyone is the exact opposite of what the barristers are saying. For them, the casual nature of their work is one of the most precious parts of their heritage. Many dockers actually would have agreed with them during the first 20 years of the Dock
Labour Scheme, when casual workers out- numbered permanent dockers by three to one; and in the run-up to `decasualisation' in 1967 the Transport and General Work- ers' Union supported several strikes in protest against attempts to turn casual workers into 'perms'.) The most significant link I can find between dockers' restrictive practices and the legal system concerns the practice of 'welting' — the assignment of extra men to a job, so that all the men can take turns doing nothing. In the Australian docks, I am fold, the people who welt are known as 'judges', because while the other men are working they go away and sit on a case.
The Government's climb-down over the judiciary's demand for more consultation was an embarrassment; but opposition claims that the Government enjoys an improperly cosy intimacy with the legal professions must seem particularly far- fetched just now. Symmetry demands that each time the Tories accuse Mr Meacher of indulging in 'beer and sandwiches' with the unions, they should be accused in turn of inviting the judges round for claret and canapes. But it just has not happened like that; the Law Lords have been hurling stale buns at the Government instead, and pouring out trebles of vitriol all round.
The wrong-footing of Mr Meacher on the beer and sandwiches issue has been very carefully planned. No sooner had he announced that the next Labour govern- ment would give no privileged attention to the views of the unions, than he was suddenly forced into the position of back- ing up a major trade union in defence of one of the most archaic and indefensible parts of our industrial history. But to accuse him of self-contradiction here is to indulge in a debating point of little real substance. The objection to beer and
'Some fool's found the answer to it all.'
sandwiches at No. 10 is an argument which says that unions should not be given a quasi-governmental role within the state. It is quite consistent of Mr Meacher to adopt that argument and at the same time to defend the position of any particular union when it is acting purely in its role as a trade union — as the TGWU, under Mr Todd's skilful guidance, has prudently acted so far.
If anything, it is the Government which has shown a poor understanding of the distinction between governmental and non-governmental roles. The crude and cynical way in which it has sprung this legislation on Parliament goes far beyond the normal exercise of governmental pow- er. (Anyone who thinks 'cynical' is an exaggeration here should study the re- marks which Patrick Nicholls, the junior Employment Minister, made in the Com- mons on 14 March: 'The Government's position on the scheme remains un- changed. There are no plans to change or abolish it.') Whenevei Mr Fowler is asked about the total, lack of consultation, he replies, as he did on Monday, 'There has been one opportunity after another for the TGWU to negotiate about the revision of the scheme. They have refused on every occasion.' Can he really be unaware of the constitutional significance of what he is saying?
In effect, what he is saying is that when private employers make suggestions about changes in working practices, this is entire- ly equivalent to a government circulating proposals for legislation. Similarly, perhaps, if a firm of property developers kept badgering me for permission to build a house on my garden and I kept refusing even to discuss it with them, this would entitle the Government to pass the 'House- construction on N. Malcolm's Garden' Bill overnight, without even mentioning it to me the day before.
Of course the Dock Labour Scheme ought to be abolished. We all know that. Even the Labour Party knows it. And of course the Government had other reasons for secrecy and haste as well. But there is a simple point of principle here. The Gov- ernment has endowed the port employers, retrospectively, with a quasi-governmental role. Each time they approached the un- ions in the past, they were, whether they realised it or not, drinking Mr Fowler's beer and eating his sandwiches.
Previous page
