APPROPRIATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO TRADE UNION IN LIEU OF MEMBERSHIP (Hansard, 29 July 1971)

§ Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)
Last night we were discussing this Amendment and Amendment No. 14B, in page 7, line 4, leave out subsection (7). The Under-Secretary of State for Employment moved the Amendment formally and we had no statement from him. I understand that he was trying to make progress in the debate, but it seemed to us that there should have been some explanation of these Amendments. I want to make it clear that we recognise that the Amendments are a concession to the Opposition in the other place and that they arise out of discussions which originally took place in this House in the Committee stage.
Reference to the construction industry has been eliminated from the Clause by this Amendment. It means that there can be a widening of the number of industries for which the Secretary of State can make statutory orders. But we believe that the hon. Gentleman should explain in some detail the thinking of the Government on what industries would be involved, in addition to the construction industry, because there are many industries where workers are employed on a casual basis and where the application of the provision of three months, or one month, after an agreement was arrived at would mean that many thousands of workers would not be involved in union membership because of 803 the casual nature of their job. I can think, for example, of musicians, seamen on short runs, members of Equity, television employees and so on. I believe that the Government are in duty bound to explain the situation a little more clearly. We are not making a big issue of this point. We on this side of the House consider these Amendments are concessions to points raised by the Opposition here and in the other place, but it in no way means that we are accepting the whole concept of the agency shop in principle. We are opposed to the agency shop. We think it is wrong and we believe that the Government have once again got themselves into this muddled situation because of the concept of the agency shop which they have put forward.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) for what he has said. In a burst of somewhat misguided enthusiasm late last night I tried to assist progress by moving this Amendment formally. That is always a hazardous thing to do, and the hon. Gentleman has now asked me to give an explanation.
This is not a major matter, but it is of some importance. As the hon. Gentleman has said, this Amendment has been requested both in this House and in another place. Therefore, I owe it to the House to give a short explanation of what these two Amendments are about. In doing so I entirely accept, although I do not agree with the hon. Member, that by concurring with Amendments to some of these Clauses this does not commit the Opposition to any concept of the agency shop. This was well deployed yesterday in debate and we are only too well aware of the hostility towards the agency shop of hon. Members opposite.
We feel that these Amendments are an improvement because they enable the Secretary of State to make orders by Statutory Instrument to modify in respect of any industry, not only in the construction industry, the requirements of Clauses 7(5) by substituting shorter periods for those specified.
If I may explain briefly, Clause 7(5) provides that a worker shall not be required by an agency shop agreement to 804 pay an appropriate contribution in respect of certain periods. In the case of a worker already in the employment of a firm when an agency shop agreement comes into effect, this period is three months from the date when the agreement takes effect. In the case of a worker engaged for employment with a firm where an established agency shop is operating the period is one month from the commencement of his employment. In the construction industry, where many workers are employed for periods of short duration and workers are rarely employed by the same employers on more than two successive occasions, and where a small permanent labour force is often supplemented by a large number of transient workers, the requirement of one and three months would often make the operation of an agency shop impracticable. Subsection (6) therefore, enables the Secretary of State to make an order to substitute shorter periods in agency shop agreements covering workers in construction. Subsection (7) defines a construction worker.

§ Mr. Heffer
Could the hon. Gentleman indicate in any way the thinking of the Government as to the actual period when he says "a shorter period"? What does that mean? Does it mean two weeks, one week, or three weeks? What have the Government in mind?

§ Mr. Dudley Smith
I do not think one could say at this stage, and it would certainly be wrong to commit my right hon. Friend because this would have to be judged on the cases. I think the position needs to be reserved. However, this is for a period shorter than those two periods which I have already mentioned.
Representations were made about this problem of those on short duration employment. The movement of workers between employers is by no means confined to the construction industry. That fact is well appreciated. As I say, we have had representations both in this House and in another place. Such conditions occur, apart from in the construction industry—for example, in entertainment as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, in agriculture, in seafaring and other industries. While it would be wrong to delineate the whole lot, we will promise to consider any particular cases which are advanced.
805 It would seem reasonable to extend the power of the Secretary of State to enable him to make an order to modify these requirements for the period after which the appropriate contribution becomes payable for work of any description where it would be appropriate to do so. In those circumstances, I suggest that it would be sensible to agree with this Amendment.

§ Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)
Looking at this matter logically, where there is an established industry, whether one agrees with the principle or not, how will this provision be operated? In industries with an itinerant labour force which changes all the time, of which there are many, how can one get a stable trade union situation? It is beyond me.

§ Mr. Dudley Smith
I do not think that arises on this Amendment. I am not as pessimistic as the hon. Gentleman appears to be. I do not disguise the fact that there are difficulties because, as he says, work forces are moving around a great deal. But with this Amendment, which is a sensible one, there is more chance of establishing an agency shop situation than otherwise would be the case. It would be fairly impracticable, as it was realised at the outset, in the construction industry, and this would open it up to other industries, examples of which I have given, if an agency shop is desired by the workers concerned.
In those circumstances, I commend this Amendment to the House, and again I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so brief in his comments and allowing me to make this explanation.