HC Deb 12 November 1973 vol 864 cc26-9
56. Mr. McBride

asked the Attorney-General if he will specify the occasions on which fines have been levied on the funds of trade unions.

The Attorney-General

This information is available only in relation to fines for contempt of court imposed by the National Industrial Relations Court. Such fines have been imposed on five occasions only. I will give particulars, which are too long for oral answer, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. McBride

I want to pat three brief points to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. First, is he aware that the political funds of my trade union—the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers—are separate and distinct moneys from those forming the assets proper of the union, and are not used to meet the day-to-day expenses incurred in its promotional work?

Secondly, political funds are used for political purposes only. These are described and, in my opinion, supported and buttressed, by the judgment in Magee v. Lovell in 1874 in which it was said: Words which form an essential part of the description cannot be rejected as falsa demonstratio." Lastly, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the political levy is not collected, nor can it be construed, as forming part of the assets, including everything that is available the meet the liabilities? [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Even if the Tories do not like it, they should be told.

The Attorney-General

I will not debate with the hon. Gentleman the legal precedent that he cited. These fines have been imposed upon this union for contempt of court and the moneys sequestrated under the order have been taken to meet those fines. So long as any party to litigation is in contempt of court, then, according to means, the collection of any fines imposed must and will prevail.

Mr. C. Pannell

Is the Attorney-General fully seized of all the facts in this case? The political levy of a trade union constitutes funds held in trust on behalf of the Labour Party. [Interruption.] Was it intended throughout, or would hon. Gentlemen opposite say that it was intended when the Industrial Relations Act was enacted, that it should be an attempt to get at the political funds of the Labour Party? Surely it was never so intended. This money was held in trust. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should address his mind to that.

The Attorney-General

Any party to any proceedings who is in contempt of court is liable to penalties and fines. There is no need to be in contempt of court. A person who is in contempt of court must face the penalty. This is the penalty that has been imposed. The answer is for that party to come to the court, argue his case, and get out of contempt.

Mr. Ashton

Is it not a fact that Sir John Donaldson in taking that £75,000 was guilty of gross incompetence if he did not know where the money came from, and that if he did know—

Mr. Speaker

Order. That kind of comment can be made only by substantive motion, and not in a supplementary question.

Mr. Ashton

With respect, Mr. Speaker, if this was not a case of not knowing where the money was coming from—[HON MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—was it not a question of a political fine, or political corruption?

The Attorney-General

It is nothing of the kind, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. This party did not participate in these proceedings and it was therefore held to be in contempt of court. As a result, and in the same way as any other person in this country who is in contempt would be dealt with, it has had a fine imposed upon it. The court will continue to impose fines on any person who is in contempt of the court, because that is the law of the land.

Sir Elwyn Jones

Will the Attorney-General inform the House who made the decision to select this fund from other sources of finance that were available, and on what principle this fund was selected?

The Attorney-General

This was an order of the court. It was a sequestration order under which £100,000 of the union's funds were seized, and out of that total a tine of £75,000 was imposed. It was an order of the court.

Sir Elwyn Jones

I fear that the Attorney-General has not begun to answer my question. Who, in the administration, decided which fund to go for, and on what principle?

The Attorney-General

It is not a question of being done by the administration. It was an order of the court to seize such assets, out of which the fine should be paid. That was an order of the proper officer of the court.

Mr. Orme

Is the Attorney-General aware that that decision has probably robbed the Labour Party of about one quarter of its total expenditure at the next General Election, and that it is money which members of my union have contributed freely? Is the Attorney-General also aware that the 1913 Act protects that money from use as general funds? Money subscribed by members for general purposes is not allowed to be used for political purposes, and therefore this money cannot be replaced. How can the Attorney-General defend a political act such as this?

The Attorney-General

It is not a political act. I repeat that if this union is in contempt of court it has no right to think that it can be treated differently from any other person who appears before the court. These are assets of this union, and they were seized to answer the fine.

Mr. John Morris

Is the Attorney-General really saying that an officer of the court specially chose this political fund?

The Attorney-General

I have said that the order was made by the court. It is not a matter for me, or for any other Minister. It is a matter for the order of the court, and the court made the order imposing this fine. There was no need for this party to be in contempt, and no need for it to lose these sums of money. It is about time that the members of the union appreciated that fact.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Hugh Scanlon, who has been acting foolishly and frittering away his members' funds, was elected by only 6.7 per cent. of the membership?

The Attorney-General

I do not have those statistics in mind, but I do have in mind what many people think, namely, that it is unnecessary for these sums to

£
(1) 13th April 1972 … Heaton's Transport (St. Helens) Ltd. v. Transport and General Workers Union … … … … … … 5,000
(2) 20th April 1972 … Heaton's Transport (St. Helens) Ltd. v. Transport and General Workers Union … … … … … … 50,000
(3) 8th November 1972 … Goad v. Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers … 5,000
(4) 8th December 1972 … Goad v. Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers … 50,000
(5) 22nd October 1973 … Con-mech (Engineers) Ltd. v. Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers … … … … … … 75,000
Total … … … … … 185,000