................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
MARGARET BECKETT INTERVIEW
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 24.5.98
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Well, the Trade and Industry Secretary
Margaret Beckett is in our Derby Studio. Good afternoon Mrs Beckett.
MARGARET BECKETT: Hello.
HUMPHRYS: They have done rather well out of it,
all the unions haven't they?
BECKETT: Well, it's interesting to see the
different views of people in different quarters. What I would say is that
what the government has done is to try to strike a fair balance of making sure
that we have reasonable, decent minimum standards in the workplace, which
underpin the growing partnership, the cultural partnership in the place of
work. We've talked a great deal in recent months, and indeed recent years,
about partnership with business, but there is a growing cultural partnership in
the workplace, but the law hasn't underpinned and supported that in the way
that it might, and that's the purpose of this new package.
HUMPHRYS: But there is a fundamental shift here
isn't there. The employers did not want as a matter of principle, union
recognition of the kind that has now been accepeted.
BECKETT: Well, it is a difficult matter, and it
is as you say, genuinely an issue of principle. Where the CBI, who of course
are perfectly happy with the voluntary approach towards trades unionism, where
the CBI have ended up, and where indeed the Conservative Party have placed
themselves, is that even if one hundred per cent of people in a particular
place of work want to be members of a trade union and want to have that trade
union recognised, they have at present no right to that. Now Britain is
unusual, perhaps even unique in the developed world, in not having that basic
right. And it does seem to us as a government that that is a human right if you
like, that shouldn't be denied if that's what people really want.
HUMPHRYS: Right, but it's something that the
employers did not want, and you acknowledge that you have forced it on them.
I mean there's no point in mincing the language, that you have moved against
them on this area.
BECKETT: We could not agree that there should be
circumstances in which it had to be a basic right that had to be delivered even
if perhaps an employer still remained resistant.
HUMPHRYS: Now, the threshold is forty per cent.
You have said that if that proves to be unworkable you'll take another look at
it. What does that mean - what does unworkable mean in this context?
BECKETT: Well, what we've said - you have to look
not only at the overall package of the White Paper, but also at the package on
union recognition, and what we have said - and by the way at every stage in the
procedures for that, it turns people back towards voluntary agreement,
voluntary understanding, voluntary acceptance. But what we have said is, that
if in the end agreement cannnot be reached, then forty per cent of a workforce
have to vote for union recognition. Now, we've also said that what we want is
the whole balance of this law to be workable, to be practical, to be something
that actually makes sense to people in the way that it operates, and if over
time, and we're talking about obviously built up experience of how the law works
if people fall back on it, if over time it does appear that there is some
unjustified impediment in the level of forty per cent, then the government will
not rule out looking at it again.
HUMPHRYS: So-
BECKETT: I repeat - we're talking about a
building up of experience of how the law works in practice, if people fall back
on it. The emphasis throughout this package is of voluntary agreement and
understanding. The law's only there if it's used as a last resort.
HUMPHRYS: But can I be clear about this. If,
let's say over the next three months or six months, whatever period you like,
the trade unions discover that they're stumbling at this forty per cent hurdle
time after time after time, would that make it unworkable in your terms?
BECKETT: We've just published the White Paper
only about three days ago. We haven't even got legislation coming forward to
be debated and to be on the statute book, let alone build up experience of how
that legislation works in practice. So I think it's very early days indeed to
be trying to set any kind of target. All we're saying, and let's not forget
the CBI just as much as the TUC want this legislation to be workable. We've
come to a balance of judgement as to where we think workability lies. If,
over time experience builds up to show that there is some area of impediment in
how the legislation works, then we've said we'll be prepared to look at it.
What we haven't said is that we'll start changing the legislation before
it's even written.
HUMPHRYS: No, but I mean you must know what
workable means, because it's in the White Paper isn't it. I mean that's - that
word's there, isn't it?
BECKETT: Well, I repeat, there are a whole lot of
procedures in the White Paper and the forty per cent is the final hurdle. What
we very much hope is that as people begin to look - if a union seeks
recognition and there is some disagreement, the employer is reluctant, all the
way through the procedures the goal is to take people back towards voluntary
agreement. But if in the final analysis, they really can't agree and they come
back to a ballot, then there is that figure there which is the test of whether
or not the ballot succeeds. And of course it's a majority as well as forty
per cent casting a vote in favour. So I mean that is the test. What we hope
is that many of these issues, ninety-nine point nine-nine per cent will be
resolved before ever anybody gets to ballot.
HUMPHRYS: Right. But, given that they don't and
they do go to the ballot and you find that they are failing the forty per cent
test over and over again, it could be reduced. I mean, that's the purpose of
this review, is it?
BECKETT: The purpose of the review is to see
whether there are elements in the overall package that need to be looked at
again.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah. And, that's one of them - that's
what I'm asking you.
BECKETT: And that is one of them.
HUMPHRYS: Right. So, it is possible. I'm not
saying it is certain or even hugely likely but it is possible that if unions
consistenly fail that you'd have another look at it and you might reduce it to
thirty-five per cent, or whatever.
BECKETT: I think what you're overlooking is that
if there is a consistent problem with the way the legislation works probably
everyone will want us to look at it again.
HUMPHRYS: Well, the employer certainly wouldn't
want it to be reduced, would they?
BECKETT: Well, what employers want is a settled
and peaceful workforce whose mind is on productively satisfying the demands of
the customer - not on some dispute with the employer. And, that's why, in
fact, that I think one of the most important things that was said over the last
few days is that the CBI said they didn't. They would prefer us not to be
making a law that said people could demand the right to be represented. But,
they thought if we were doing so, this law was, on the whole, workable or had
within it the seeds of a workable framework. And, that is what employers want.
I repeat what I said right at the beginning. There is a voluntary and growing
culture of partnership in the workplace. People in the business community are
talking all the time about best practice, about better performance, about how
you can deliver better, how you can provide higher quality to the customer.
And, in place after place of work the answer they're coming up with is the only
way you can do that is by having a really, constructive working partnership
with your employees. And, that is the bottom line that the Government is
trying to work with and support.
HUMPHRYS: But, one wonders how much of a
partnership this is going to be. I mean, you saw, of course, what the
Engineering Employers' Federation said and that was that you have failed the
test because you have produced a series of proposals and I quote them that
bear heavily on business - they don't like it.
BECKETT: Well, I thought that was a little harsh.
I was sorry to hear Graham MacKenzie, who I know well - and, who, obviously, is
very much involved with the manufacturing industry - I was sorry to hear him
saying that. I think, perhaps, what he is overlooking and what it is important
not to overlook: he, probably, would not have said what he did if this year the
Government had brought forward a piece of legislation that contained some
element of our proposals. But, then, it might have been thought that there
were other things that had to be put right and so, next year, or the year
after, there might have been suggestions: that there were: what about this?
What about that? The Government has very deliberately chosen and I think it's
an important step - both for workers because not all of the rights that we're
talking about accrue simply through membership of a Trade Union - for people in
the workplace and for employers to recognise. We see this as a settlement for
the Parliament. It is a major package, it is an important package. It is a
fresh balance in the workplace but it's what there's going to be and, then, it
will settle into place. People will be able to work with it and live with it
and make it work in practice over this Parliament. And, that, I think, is
enormously important, because one of the things that doesn't help anybody in
the business community is continual change.
HUMPHRYS: But, given that there are lots of things
about it that the employers don't like: I could give you a little list - you
know them as well as I do, and they come back to you and say: Look, we really
are finding these things terribly difficult, indeed. They're causing us all
sorts of problems. Does - when you say it is a settlement for this
Parliament, does that mean there can be no looking at it again throughout the
rest of this Parliament? Even though you're prepared to look at the forty per
cent threshold again?
BECKETT: Well, the elements which are - if you
like - sort of numerical elements, some of them we will look at again as need
be, particularly now in the context of that contested mechanism for Union
recognition. But, broadly speaking, the overall elements, for example the
lowering of the threshold for unfair dismissal to a year, I think, most people
think that that is a fair balance. I'd be very surprised indeed if there are
many employers who believe that that causes them problems. And, frankly, those
who are - who do argue that - there are some who we all know have actually been
exploiting the Law as it now stands and that is not good for anybody, or for
industrial relations.
HUMPHRYS: And, something like lifting the ceiling
on compensation for Unfair Dismissal, which worries some employees. They
reckon it could cost them millions if it all goes wrong. That's not something
you'd be prepared to look at again, for instance.
BECKETT: Well, again, I think, people are,
perhaps, it's been such a short time. They perhaps, haven't had time to look
at the parallels. But, for example, a year or so ago, the previous Government
lifted the threshold on awards in cases of sex discrimination, race
discrimination and so on - discrimination in general in the workplace and it
has made very litte difference. What has slightly skewed the figures is that
they were a small number of very high profile cases, the Service women cases,
on the whole in the pipeline. They had been around for a very long time and
so, they built up a lot of interest, which was a large part of the payments
that were awarded - I mean, financial interest. And, they were of a particular
character. But, actually, since the general limit on discrimination cases has
been lifted, the number of cases has gone up only by a very small degree and
the medium amount award - in other words, the middle range of what is awarded -
is roughly the same, in fact, it's even gone very, very slightly down.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, let's turn then, if we may, to
something else that the employers, by and large don't like, and that is the
Minimum Wage. You're going to be getting a recommendation from the Commission,
as I understand it, during the course of this week. Now, if you don't approve
of that yourselves, or let me put it another way, if the CBI says: we are
desperately unhappy with that, we simply, cannot accept that, are you committed
to accepting the Commission's recommendation because, after all, it is an
independent commission, or are you prepared to say: Well, yeah, we don't like
it very much either. We'll - we'll change it to a different figure.
BECKETT: Well the approach, as always with these
things, is that if you have an independent body which is reviewing these
matters, they make their recommendations and obviously the Government has to
take them very seriously. But in the end, the Government has to take its own
view and that is what the Government will do. We shall weigh the
recommendations of the Commission, we shall weigh the evidence that they put to
support those recommendations and we shall come to our own view, which we shall
then advocate and indeed, according to the legislation - if we differ from the
Commission - we will have to explain to Parliament why that is the case.
HUMPHRYS: And you would take into account, for
instance, what you heard people saying in that film from Paul Wilenius a minute
ago, the CBI says anything above three pounds fifty an hour, for the Minimum
wage, would have a serious effect on jobs and prices. You'd listen to that
view, would you, and take that into account?
BECKETT: I'm speaking of course from memory, as
you are, but I don't think that is quite what Adair Turner said. I think what
he said-
HUMPHRYS: He said even three pounds fifty, they'd
be closures in-
BECKETT: I think what he said, that it was at
about three pounds fifty he thought you could probably get away without any
major impact.
HUMPHRYS: Well, he said-Even at that-Yes but I
said above that you see. He said even at three pounds fifty, there would be, he
took the textile industry as an example, there would be closures above three
pounds fifty and you'd see a real effect.
BECKETT: Well, as I say, we don't know, either of
us, precisely what the Low Pay Commission will recommend. Certainly one of the
things that we-one of the many pieces of advice that the Government gave to the
Low Pay Commission, is that they should take account of the potential economic
impact, the impact in areas like Inflation. They should in particular of
course, take account of the likely effects on Employment of whatever they
recommended; that they should look at what is happening in the labour market
and weigh all the evidence that came to them very carefully. And of course they
travelled quite extensively 'round the country; they had a large number of
hearings and took evidence from people, who are themselves low paid or people
who are employers and so on. So, they've done a substantial job of work and we
shall be very interested and obviously shall take very seriously what they
recommend.
HUMPHRYS: But, it will be very difficult for you
to present yourselves as the friend, or the partner - whatever word you prefer
- of business, of the bosses, if you let through an increase that they see as
big. And you've also got to bear in mind what the Bank of England has said
about this. I mean they're worried about the inflationary pressures aren't
they?
BECKETT: Well, what the Bank of England said was,
depending on-it would depend on what the Low Pay Commission recommended,
whether or not they felt it would have an impact on inflation, and if they did
feel that, then of course they would-it would be one of the factors that they
would take into account in making the judgements that they make about Interest
Rates.
HUMPHRYS: Setting Interest Rates - exactly.
BECKETT: Yes, but they were very careful to say
that they would weigh the recommendation when it came. I know quite a lot of
people read into it the fact that they were saying that it would mean
...interest rates, but that's not what the Bank of England themselves said.
HUMPHRYS: Well they said Monetary Policy will have
to be-will have to be tighter than would otherwise be the case, if there is a
Minimum Wage.
BECKETT: IF.
HUMPHRYS: And then they went on to say, if it's a
higher rate-
BECKETT: No, no, no. Let's be fair. What they
said was-
HUMPHRYS: Any Minimum Wage is-
BECKETT: - if it had an effect.
HUMPHRYS: But look, logic insists, doesn't it,
that any Minimum Wage is bound to have an effect because if you set a Minimum
Wage that is- well,alright if you set a minimum rate of two quid, no effect -
if you set a Minimum Wage of let's say three pounds sixty, that would be above
that which many people are getting at the moment?.. It's going to have an
effect - bound to isn't it?
BECKETT: Well, you see, I think it's interesting
you say that because you say,if you set a Minimum Wage of two pounds, okay it
would have no effect. Well that's not what the previous Government argued.
HUMPHRYS: Well, forget them. Let's look at what-
BECKETT: They said that any standard at all would
be damaging and we don't accept that. We do accept though that it is important
to have a reasonable standard and a sensible standard that can be introduced in
a way which is fair but doesn't have a massive and damaging effect on the
economy. Now, we asked the Low Pay Commission to take all of that into account
in making their recommendations. I'm sure that they'll have done so.
HUMPHRYS: But, a Minimum Wage means that costs
will go up at a time when Gordon Brown, when the Chancellor is saying: we've
gotta to keep costs down. And I mean specifically Wages. He said that to me
many times.
BECKETT: Well, if you look at the actual
evidence. I mean, I know people make these theoretical arguments-
HUMPHRYS: That's not theoretical.
BECKETT: But if you look at the evidence. For
example, in the United States, where they have a Minimum Wage and they have
indeed different Minimum Wages. There have been several examples in the last
couple of years where the rates of the Minimum Wage have gone up, without any
damaging effect on Employment.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, three pounds fifteen-
BECKETT: Without any damaging effect on
Inflation. But it's different-I mean there are different wages in different
parts of the country, because we're talking about a whole continent in the
United States.
HUMPHRYS: Well indeed we are. But three pounds
fifteen is about it, isn't it? Well three pounds fifteen is a very low rate
indeed.
BECKETT: It does vary. It does vary. It does
vary.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but that's not a million miles
away from it, is it and three pounds fifteen in this country would be regarded
as a pretty pathetic attempt - certainly by the Trade Unions, you would have a
Hell of a job with them, wouldn't you?
BECKETT: Well all I can say to you is that we do
believe it is perfectly possible to have a reasonable and fair Minimum Wage
which will not cause great economic disruption. Many, many, tonnes of ink and
paper have been spent on trying to prove that in some way a Minimum Wage is
bound to be damaging, no matter what the level. Frankly, the case has failed.
Actual evidence on the ground of what happens if you have a resonable Minimum
Wage, do in fact tend to suggest that it actually can be beneficial, that it
can improve productivity. That it can improve relationships in the workforce.
And, of course, one minor point, it does actually save the taxpayer quite a lot
of money because at the present time, the taxpayer is spending a billion and a
half pounds to subsidise very, very low paying employers and that isn't fair
either.
HUMPHRYS: Just a final thought then. Are you going
to keep-you heard somebody, I think it was Chris Pond saying that film, that
you need to keep, if you're serious about a Minimum Wage, you can't just have
a-set a figure and that's it, forget all about it - are you going to keep some
sort of Low Pay Commission setting a new Minimum Wage as it were, every year,
or whatever the period happens to be?
BECKETT: Well, one of the things that we shall do
when we announce our reaction to the Low Pay Commission's report is to say how
we propose to handle these issues in future. The Government has allowed for the
Low Pay Commission to have a continuing role. If Government calls on them to
give advice on these matters in the future. And that's an issue, obviously,
that we shall address.
HUMPHRYS: Margaret Beckett, many thanks.
...oooOooo...
|