HC Deb 29 April 1971 vol 816 cc682-7
2. Mr. Simeons

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those rights that the Industrial Relations Bill will allow to trade unions for the first time.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr)

As the reply is lengthy, I shall, with permission, publish the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Simeons

Will my right hon. Friend indicate, also, any similar benefits which may be extended to individual trade unionists, and will he say what means are open to him to make these more widely known?

Mr. Carr

The list regarding benefits for trade unions is long, and I could publish an equally long list of benefits to individual workers. As soon as the Bill is an Act of Parliament, we shall take wide measures to publicise these and other matters.

Mr. McNamara

Will the right hon. Gentleman list in the OFFICIAL REPORT the conditions which any trade union has to acept in order to have the benefits, and will he publish a list of those benefits which he proposes to remove from trade unions, including the right of protection of their property if they do not register, the individual responsibility of union officers if the union is not registered, and so on and so forth, ad nauseam, in this evil Bill?

Mr. Can

I assure the House that the benefits of this good Bill—all aspects of it—will be made fully clear in the literature which we shall publish.

Following is the list: The rights which the Industrial Relations Bill will confer on trade unions (i.e. organisations of workers which register under the Bill) for the first time are as follows:
  1. (i) unions will be able to apply to the N.I.R.C. for disputes about trade union recognition to be examined by the C.I.R. and to have the Commission's recommendations made legally enforceable if a majority of the employees concerned vote in favour of this;
  2. (ii) unions will have a right to be given information by the employer which they need for collective bargaining;
  3. (iii) unions will be able to obtain an agency shop agreement against the wishes of the employer and to receive contributions from non-members covered by such an agreement;
  4. (iv) where a procedure agreement is defective, or does not exist, or where action is taken contrary to such an agreement, unions will be able to have the situation examined by the C.I.R. and its recommendations made legally enforceable;
  5. (v) union members will be able to take part in union activities without discrimination against them by their employer;
  6. (vi) if a union's complant that an employer is contravening his duty to disclose information is upheld, the N.I.R.C. may authorise it to present a claim to the Industrial Arbitration Board for improved terms and conditions of employment. The N.I.R.C. may also authorise such a claim if it upholds a union's complaint that an employer subject to a recognition order is not negotiating seriously;
  7. (vii) in actions against trade union officials (provided these officials have acted within the scope of their authority on behalf of the union) the remedies available through the N.I.R.C. will be restricted to a determination of rights;
  8. (viii) unions will be granted corporate status, including the right to hold property in their own name.
6. Mr. David Mitchell

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what new restrictions the Industrial Relations Bill imposes on a worker's right to withdraw his labour.

7. Mr. Parkinson

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the parts of the Industrial Relations Bill which give authority to any body to order a worker back to work against his will.

Mr. R. Carr

The Industrial Relations Bill imposes no new restrictions on a worker's right to withdraw his labour; nor does the Bill give anybody authority to order a worker back to work against his will. The right to strike and the right to work are specifically protected by Clause 124 of the Bill.

Mr. Mitchell

Has my right hon. Friend noted the widespread distortions about the Bill being spread by hon. Members opposite, deliberately and with malice aforethought, designed to deceive good, honest, trade unionists and to persuade them for political reasons to oppose the Bill? Can he assure us that he has a simple explanation of the Bill in preparation for when it becomes an Act?

Mr. Carr

I am aware of the distortions. They are so gross that, once the Bill has become an Act, they will rebound on the heads of those who make them. People will find in practice that all the fears which have been whipped up simply are not justified. As I have said, full leaflets explaining all aspects will be prepared as soon as the Bill becomes an Act.

Mr. Parkinson

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is some measure of the lack of ground for real criticism of the Bill that its opponents are reduced to making distortions and allegations of this kind?

Mr. Carr

That is clearly the only ground on which they could attack the Bill.

Mr. John Fraser

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the number of planted Questions he has on this subject. Will he confirm that the Government now have the worst strike record of the last 50 years and that most of the strikes would not be affected by the Bill, because they derive from the Government's poor economic policy?

Mr. Carr

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman dislikes Questions which elicit the truth. Perhaps he has not noticed that the number of strikes in the first three months of 1971 was only about half the number in the same period of 1970. Perhaps he has not noticed, either, that the number of people involved in strikes in the first three months of 1971 was about 25 per cent. lower than in the same period last year.

9. Mr. Mawby

asked the Secretary of State for Employment which Clause in the Industrial Relations Bill creates a new offence for which people could be sent to prison.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith)

There is no such Clause in the Bill.

Mr. Mawby

Is there nothing my hon. Friend or the Ministry can do to counter the deliberate misrepresentations being made by influential people, causing completely needless fears?

Mr. Smith

We are doing what we can by way of speeches and articles to correct the wrong impression being given by people who ought to know better—people who are trying to frighten others into thinking that they might be sent to prison. Until the Bill becomes law it will not dawn on large numbers of people that the Measure is fair and reasonable.

Mr. Rose

Does the Minister include among those people who do not know any better the noble Lord, Lord Donovan, who made it quite clear in the House of Lords the other day that the Bill can, through many of its Clauses, lead to a person being imprisoned? Does he not know that following an injunction there can be imprisonment? Does he not also know that although it cannot force people back to work, the penalty for not going back to work can also lead to imprisonment? Do not every one of those things refute everything that he has said?

Mr. Smith

There is no penalty in the Bill for not going to work. The position is that at present under civil law anyone who commits a grave contempt of court can eventually be sent to prison. I should be very surprised if people were sent to prison for contempt of court under the Bill. We have never made any secret of the fact that if someone is determined to go to prison and to make a martyr of himself, he may land up there. The vast majority of people concerned with industrial relations have nothing whatever to fear.

18. Mr. Tom King

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the provisions in the Industrial Relations Bill which would make a trade union liable to a fine.

Mr. R. Carr

Trade unions, like employers' associations, may be fined under Clause 89 and paragraph 40 of Schedule 3 of the Bill. These provisions deal with certain breaches of the administrative requirements relating to registration, and with failure to produce information for the purpose of an inquiry by the Commission on Industrial Relations or the Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, when statutorily required to do so.

Mr. King

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does it not clarify quite specifically a matter concerning the Bill which has been grossly distorted? Will he also add this to the list of items which will be carefully spelled out in his explanatory document?

Mr. Carr

Yes, certainly. It is perhaps of interest to the House to recall that the Trade Union Acts of 1871 and 1876, which the Bill repeals, contain penalties for failure to provide the registrar with information.

Mr. Simon Mahon

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us who have been lifelong trade unionists feel that the rights of workers do not belong to political parties or to individual trade unions but are basic, human, God-given rights and that among them is the right to withdraw labour when a worker feels that injustice is being done? Is he further aware that it will be woe to the Conservative Party if it ever interferes with this human right?

Mr. Carr

I accept completely what the lion. Gentleman said. I assure him that the Bill does not interfere with that right and that the present Government will never introduce a Clause which does what the hon. Gentleman fears.

Mr. McNamara

May I suggest to the Secretary of State that he reads his own Bill? In view of the point which he made about fines, does he not agree that the Clause dealing with compensation in, for example, cases in which damages are awarded for unfair industrial practices has artificial limitations based not upon the damage done but upon membership? Therefore, it is capable of no other interpretation than that it will be a fine which penalises trade unions.

Mr. Carr

It is impossible to debate that point at Question Time. But I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation; it is simply not true.

Mr. Heffer

Will the right hon. Gentleman stop misleading the House? He and his hon. Friends know that there are a number of Clauses in the Bill, particularly Clause 148, under which compensation can be paid by trade unions, that compensation is another name for a fine, and that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are deliberately putting across this line in order to put a gloss on a Bill which is totally obnoxious?

Mr. Carr

We must be clear about this matter. A fine is an automatic penalty for a criminal offence. The award of damages or compensation—whatever we may call it—arises not out of an action by the State, nor is it automatic, but out of an assessment by the new civil court envisaged in the Bill, taking into account the contribution which both sides, the union and the employer, may have made to the cause before the court.

19. Mr. Hugh Jenkins

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of the Industrial Relations Bill on the work of the London and provincial theatre councils.

Mr. R. Carr

I am satisfied that the Industrial Relations Bill as it now stands will not impair the effectiveness of these councils.

Mr. Jenkins

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is entirely mistaken in his belief—and that view is held not merely by me but by all the trade unions and employee organisations? Will he therefore give favourable consideration to Amendments now being discussed in another place with a view to rectifying this situation?

Mr. Carr

I do not accept that a pre-entry closed shop is necessary to achieve the protection which Equity and the profession need. However, I am glad that the hon. Member is coming to see me next week to discuss these matters, and I shall listen carefully to what he says.