TRADE UNIONS (DEMOCRATIC ELECTION OF OFFICERS) (Hansard, 30 July 1957)

§ Mr. T. L. Iremonger (Ilford, North)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to secure the participation of a reasonable proportion of members of trade unions in elections to office in their unions. The Bill which I now seek the leave of the House to introduce is designed to amend the Trade Union Acts of 1871 and 1876 in such a way as to make it a condition of registration that the rules of a union should provide that elections to office in the union be subject to certain minimum requirements. The minimum requirements which I have in mind are, first, acceptable uniform conditions as to secrecy of ballot, and, secondly, the participation of a certain minimum proportion of eligible members.

These requirements are to be detailed in regulations to be made under the Bill and subject to affirmative Resolution of this House. Further, the Bill seeks to amend the principal Acts so as to make registration a requirement for qualifying under Sections 2 and 3 of the 1871 Act which gives the trade unions the special privileges in regard to contract and conspiracy which they enjoy under the law. Failure to comply with the requirements would involve the registration of the union lapsing unless within a period of six months fresh elections had been held, in compliance with the provisions in the Bill.

I believe that the House feels—I know that the country at large feels—that there are certain dangers and abuses which my Bill seeks to remedy. I think that these dangers and abuses were well expressed by the Daily Mirror in its "Spotlight on Trade Unions", which was published in May, 1956, and I should like to remind the House of what was said then: A handful of men can already dictate policies that have nothing to do with trade union welfare, but are based solely on the consideration of how much disruption can be caused. The fact is that it is everywhere possible—in many cases it actually happens—that trade union leaders are elected by a very small minority, say, 10 per cent, of members. The views of this 10 per cent. of the members may very well be totally unacceptable to the majority whose apathy has allowed these 1072 false leaders to be elected and in whose names these false leaders apply policies and profess to speak and to act.

There are two dangers in this. The first is the "Trojan horse" danger, which is perfectly obvious, a danger to the security and economic life of the nation, because it allows, and is recognised to allow, dedicated members of the Communist sect to get themselves elected to responsible offices in trade unions. It is the avowed and declared aim of the Communist Party to achieve power in this way because it knows perfectly well that in this country it will never gain political power in an election in which the majority of the electorate takes part.

There is a second danger, which is possibly a more subtle one but no less to be deplored. It is the danger to our institutions that arises out of the fact that trade unions can determine the success or failure of any policy to combat inflation. In any such policy everyone has his part to play. The Government have their part. Management and capital have their part to play. Individual private citizens have their part to play both as consumers and as savers. So, also, the trade unions have their part to play, as they have great power to affect production, productivity and prices.

The feeling of the general public, rightly or wrongly, is gravely disturbed by the spirit in which the trade union leadership sometimes appears to be approaching its responsibilities. It is no part of my concern to argue the rights or wrongs of trade union leadership. But it is very proper that there should be public concern about it, because trade union policy is an influential factor in determining the value of the £.

This very proper concern develops into anxiety when it is clear to the public that trade union leadership is not based upon a proper election, but upon a bogus minority election. The people of this country will acquiesce in any policy, however wrong they feel it to be, if they believe it is based upon the support of the majority of those people responsible for that policy.

Today, I believe that the great majority of the people, rightly or wrongly, have lost faith in trade union leadership, and in the responsibility, patriotism and integrity of the entire trade union movement. This is a very ominous and unhealthy state of affairs and must for all 1073 our sakes be remedied. The best remedy, I suggest, is to see that trade union leadership is representative and is seen by the public to be so. I want a trade union movement that deserves—[Interruption.] I repeat that I want a trade union movement that deserves and commands the respect of the public. [Interruption.]

I regret, Mr. Speaker, that it may not be possible for me to reach the conclusion of my speech as quickly as I should have liked to do and in the time at my disposal. I am obliged to go rather more slowly and to raise my voice, owing to the fact that I do not wish to make it inconvenient for the Official Reporters to hear what I have to say.

I am frankly shocked and dismayed at the resentment that one hears expressed against the trade unions on the part of the general public who regard themselves as victims of inflation because they cannot protect themselves against it. They feel that powerful trade unions can protect themselves and are unscrupulous in contributing to the causes of inflation. One hears misguided but not necessarily evil-minded people say, "When are you going to do something about the trade unions?" What they mean by this is—heaven forbid that they should have their way—that the Government and Parliament should intervene and dictate union policy. That is not the way that it should be done. It is utterly unacceptable. This is not the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The only people who can properly do anything about the trade union movement are trade unionists themselves.

It is my belief that the absolute freedom of both sides in industry to negotiate in trade disputes is of fundamental importance, but those negotiations affect others besides those who are actually taking part. If this absolute freedom is to remain acceptable to the general public, those taking part in negotiations must command the respect of all those affected directly and indirectly. If we get trade union leadership right—[Interruption]and by "right" I mean elected by the majority of those entitled to elect the leaders—the rest will follow. The trade union leadership does not command public respect today. The public has a very shrewd nose to smell out a tyranny and it smells one here. The agent of 1074 this tyranny is apathy, and it is that apathy which the Bill seeks to correct.

§ Mr. E. Shinwell (Easington)

It is to the credit of this democratic assembly that any hon. Member can raise, under the Ten Minutes Rule, whichever issue pleases him, however disgraceful and unpopular it may seem. Nevertheless, this intervention by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger)will not only be resented by the trade union movement throughout the country, but will be regarded, in the opinion of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House, as a piece of first-class impudence.

After all, if one sought to use the privileges we possess in this assembly to indulge in derogatory terms against directors of public companies, or the somewhat dubious methods employed in their appointment—I will not say election—or if one dared to take advantage of our liberties to probe into the multifarious transactions of public companies, I imagine that that would be hotly resented by hon. Members on the Government benches. There will be general approval of that observation, at any rate on the Government side of the House.

The hon. Member for Ilford, North is unacquainted with the facts of the situation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Very much so."] It is true, and no one would seek to deny it, that in some of the trade unions, as a result of the absence of interest in the affairs of those unions, many of the members allow and permit the election, by default of interest on their part, of some officials whose views are not acceptable to the majority of members. That occasionally happens, but hon. Members may have observed what has happened recently in some of the unions which are regarded as militant in character.

Hon. Members will have noted that Communists who have been nominated for election as the principal officers of their respective unions have been rejected, and not necessarily by a majority but by a minority of members. That disposes completely of the case presented by the hon. Member for Ilford, North.

Whether that be the case or not, this is, as the hon. Member himself observed, a matter primarily for the members of trade 1075 unions; and by what right do we intervene? There is something more in this matter than appears on the surface. Of course, the hon. Member is not unduly concerned about the election of some officers whose views do not coincide either with the views of Government supporters or, for that matter, with the moderate views that may be expressed on this side of the House or outside. That is not his primary concern.

This is the beginning—we have noted it recently, and there has been ample evidence of it—of an attack on the trade union movement. This is a very dangerous situation in which we find ourselves. The trade union movement of this country is now deeply embedded in our national councils, national affairs and national economy. Any attack made on the trade unions will have its repercussions not so much against the trade unions, but against the country itself. Hon. Members must be very careful indeed.

It is perfectly true that recently one of the principal trade union officers of one of the largest unions in the country, one of the most powerful and influential unions, has expressed himself in a somewhat militant fashion. And why not, having regard to the social conditions of the people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and to the high profits that are made by public companies in which right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side of the House share to a considerable extent? This is not merely a matter of raising an objection to a trade union official on the ground of his policy, or because he is more militant than we like him to he. This is the beginning of a deep-seated, vicious attack on the trade unions, and I would beg right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to be very careful indeed.

After all, by attacks of this kind, by the use of specious arguments of the kind which we have just heard, we may create resentment among trade union membership in the country which will perhaps cause much more trouble than exists at the present time. We must be very careful. I do not propose to proceed any further about this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, if there were time, 1076 I could keep the House going for hours. I could deal with the whole history of the trade union movement, and all the more so because I have lived in it for more than half a century, because I understand it, because I am proud of it, as I think the nation ought to be proud of it. Without a trade union movement, I wonder where this nation would be, anyhow.

After all, the hon. Member agrees with the principle of collective bargaining. The only trouble about it is that there are reservations, qualifications and inhibitions in this respect. The hon. Member's conception of collective bargaining is that the employers should do all the bargaining and all the collection. We cannot have it that way. This is not a one-way traffic. Collective bargaining means that we have to get both sides engaged in the process. So long as the hon. Gentleman believes in that principle, so long must we respect the right of the trade union members to elect their officers as and when they think fit.

I hope that the House, irrespective of the arguments that may have been adduced, having regard to the very high principle involved, and the danger of creating some resentment in the country, will refuse leave to bring in the Bill, irrespective of the views expressed by some correspondents of the hon. Member opposite. We all receive a vast number of letters from people in the country. I would be quite willing to produce some of the vast number of anonymous letters which I receive, in which I am described in all kinds of terms. I should be delighted, but one does not take any notice of them. It is all part of the day. It is what we are paid for—[Laughter.]—such payment as it is.

I beg of hon. Gentlemen to reject with contumely and indignation the specious arguments adduced by the hon. Member, and to reject this most unworthy suggestion.