HC Deb 10 July 1974 vol 876 cc1491-508
Mr. Percival

I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 2, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert: (1) A trade union may be either a body corporate or an unincorporated association. (2) Where a trade union is unincorporated.

Mr. Speaker

I understand it is suggested that with this amendment we take the following amendments:

No. 45, in page 2, leave out subsection (2).

No. 46, in page 2, leave out subsection (3).

No. 47, in page 2, leave out subsection (4) and insert: (4) A trade union which before the commencement of this section was a body corporate by virtue of Section 74 of the 1971 Act shall cease to be a body corporate by virtue of that section at the expiration of the period of three months beginning with the commencement of this section and the provisions of section 15 below (as well as this section) shall apply to it on and after the expiration of that period unless before the expiration of that period it has again become a body corporate'.

No. 48, page 2, subsection (4), after first corporate ' insert: ' by virtue of section 74 of the 1971 Act '.

No. 49, in page 3, subsection (5), line 1, leave out from union ' to ' shall ' in line 6.

No. 52, in Clause 3, page 4, subsection (5), line 1, leave out unincorporated '.

No. 53, in page 4, subsection (5), line 2, leave out ' and '.

No. 54, in page 4, subsection (5), line 4, leave out from unions ' to ` shall ' in line 5.

No. 57, in Clause 5, page 5, line 2, after (68(4)) ', insert or 85(3))'.

No. 58, in page 5, line 4, at end insert: (e) was immediately before the commencement entered in the Special Register under the Industrial Relations Act, 1971'.

No. 59, in page 5, line 4, at end insert: (e) is a special register body as defined in this Act '.

Mr. Percival

I think that it would want only three more amendments for a full house, Mr. Speaker.

The amendments fall into their own categories. There is a series of points that we must take separately, but all are quite brief. As the Bill was drafted, it would have excluded what are now called the special register bodies, because it provided that a trade union must be an unincorporated association. A union did not even have the choice of being a corporate body. The effect would have been to exclude such bodies as the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and the United Kingdom Commercial Travellers Association. Much pressure was brought to bear on the Government to remedy that situation, both from those bodies and from the Conservative benches.

I am happy to acknowledge that the Government saw the wisdom of those representations and took steps to ensure that those bodies should not be excluded, at least, not by the clause, which deals with the question whether a union should be a body corporate or unincorporate. There is still a doubt whether some bodies may have been excluded by the new definition. I hope that in replying to the debate the Minister can say something about that.

I should like to illustrate my point by reference to the United Kingdom Commercial Travellers Association. Under the clause as originally drafted, it would have been excluded because, being a body corporate, it would have been precluded from continuing as a trade union and continuing to enjoy its status as a body corporate. That part of its possible difficulties has been resolved by the Government's amendments to the clause in Committee, but I should like to be assured that the Government are satisfied that, while they have removed that possible difficulty, there is not another difficulty that might face such bodies in getting themselves within the definition of trade union.

I thought that the understanding in Committee was that the Government had come to the conclusion that all those bodies which qualified as special register bodies should continue to be treated as trade unions and enjoy the benefits of the Bill and come under its obligations. I should like the Minister's assurance on that, if he can give it, in particular with reference to the example I have given, although I do not say that it is the only body that might face that difficulty. There may be others. I should like him to give a categorical answer if he can, because one can work from that answer to make comparisons with other bodies if they are in any doubt.

10.15 p.m.

I think that the Minister will feel that this is an area in which the bodies concerned are entitled to have their doubt firmly resolved, if doubt there be, before the matter goes to another place. The difficulties that I am talking about, if they exist, cannot be put right here, but they could and should be put right in another place.

I hope that it is apparent from what I have said that I want to make it clear that we appreciate that the Government saw the wisdom of the representations that we made about special register bodies. However, we are not so happy about the way they did it. One simple way of doing it would have been to accept the amendment that we put forward in Committee, which is now Amendment No. 44, which provides that a trade union may be either a body corporate or an unincorporated association. It then goes on to deal with the position of an unincorporated trade union. If that amendment had been accepted, that of itself would have cured all the difficulties of the special register body and we should not have been compelled to have all these amendments and a reference to special register bodies in line 1 of Clause 2. That would have been unnecessary because by saying that a union may be either a corporate body or an unincorporated association we should get rid of the obstable which Clause 2 presents.

We still maintain the view that we advanced in Committee and that we are putting forward now because again, to give credit where credit is due, the Minister was good enough in Committee to say that he would consider this matter again and come to the House on Report to tell us his conclusions. We still think that the method which we advanced in the first place is far and away the better method because not only does it resolve the situation of the special register bodies but it does so in a much simpler way than that adopted by the Government. In addition, it has the great merit that all future organisations or persons who wish to make themselves into a body would have the option of being either bodies corporate or unincorporated.

The Minister knows perfectly well, like my right hon. and hon. Friends, that many unions have no desire to be corporate bodies. We would not dream, in the context of the Bill, of trying to introduce provisions to say that they must be corporate bodies. We accept that if they want to be unincorporated associations, then through the provisions of the Bill that should be allowed to happen. The provisions of subsection (1) ensure that the public is protected against any possible adverse consequence of a union being unincorporated. Provided that we have that safeguard we have no objection to a union being an unincorporated association, if that is what it wants.

However, we do not understand why a union should not be allowed to be a corporate body if that is what it wishes. There is no question of our wishing to interfere with the unions and to decide whether they should be corporate or unincorporated. The sole effect of the amendment is to give an organisation which wants to bring itself within the definition of a trade union and then to act as such the option of being either corporate or unincorporated.

Having carefully considered what was said in Committee and paying full attention to the argument that most unions might not wish to be corporate bodies, we just do not understand why it should be said that these large and responsible bodies—it does not matter whether they are large and we are presupposing that they are responsible—which we want to see acting responsibly should not have the choice. That is the argument. If it prevailed, subsection (2) would be unnecessary. Subsection (4) would likewise be unnecessary. Amendment No. 46 is directed to that point. It is clear that subsection (2) would not be needed if that amendment were carried.

Amendment No. 47 is in a slightly different category. It is important. In Committee we put it to the Minister that here was a danger that subsection (4) might have unintended consequences. We understand that it is the Government's desire to get rid of the 1971 Act—and I say that without going into whether the reasons for that are justified. It follows they would say that bodies which were incorporated under Section 74 should cease to be corporate and should become unincorporated. That is what subsection (4) is intended to do.

Unhappily, the subsection is not limited to those bodies which were incorporated under Section 74 of the 1971 Act. It appears that, as the subsection stands, it might, by sheer inadvertence, catch some corporate body which none of us had thought about. We might find a body which, because it came within the definition of trade union, would lose its corporate status. I do not believe that the Government want to do this. Amendments Nos. 47 or 48 would remove any danger of that happening. They would not strike at anything which the Government are seeking to achieve. Either one of those amendments would ensure that we do not do something which we do not intend.

Amendments Nos. 49, 52, 53, 54 and 55 are all linked with the point I have made. If Amendment No. 44 were accepted, all those amendments would follow. I will not take further time by saying anything more about them.

But I wish to speak about Amendments Nos. 57, 58 and 59. The purpose of those is simple. All other unions and bodies which are listed in Clause 5(2) will automatically go on the list to be kept by the Registrar of Friendly Societies. We feel that the special register bodies which in the first instance were being excluded but which are now to be included should also have the right to go onto that list automatically if they so wish.

The reason why we did not press his in Committee was that there was some question about whether the bodies concerned wanted that to happen. We felt that we should not push something which was intended to be for the benefit of a particular group of people unless they wanted it. No doubt the Minister has had the same notes from the British Medical Association, speaking for itself and the other bodies with which it has jointly made representations, saying that it would like to go on automatically. Any of the amendments Nos. 57, 58 or 59 would produce that effect. The neatest one is Amendment No. 57 but I do not mind in the least which of the methods is employed. I hope that the Minister will find it possible to accept one of them. If we do not do that, while professing to have amended the Bill so as to include these organisations, we shall nevertheless be treating them differently from anyone else.

The Minister was good enough to say to me that a reason for not making this change was that some bodies may not come within the definition of a trade union and may not be entitled to be registered. For bodies wanting to register in the future that must be a relevant consideration, but it would be contrary to the spirit of the amendments already made to Clause 2 to decline to accept one of the amendments.

The reasoning behind rejection of the amendment is the expectation that an organisation which applied to be on the list might not be able to satisfy the requirement that it was a trade union. I hope that the Government do not wish to exclude from the list the special registered bodies on the ground that new bodies must satisfy all the requirements. A large number of people will automatically go on the list, and the special bodies should be treated in the same way. That can be done by accepting Amendment No. 57, Amendment No. 58 or Amendment No. 59.

These are practical considerations which are of importance to a substantial number of respectable bodies. I hope that the Government will go a little further in assisting them by accepting one of the amendments, even if they cannot go so far as to accept Amendment No. 44. I invite the Minister to reconsider the major point which arises on Amendment No. 44. Why should not we give these bodies the same choice that we are giving to the employers' associations? Amendment No. 44 would allow these bodies to be either corporate bodies or unincorporated associations, whichever they please.

Mr. Booth

The hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) has been kind enough to acknowledge that the Government have gone a considerable way to meet criticisms which were levelled at the Bill in respect of special registered bodies during the Second Reading debate and subsequently. This series of amendments is designed to persuade the Government to go a little further along that road.

In Committee I undertook to reexamine the position, and I have done so. I will explain why I feel that it would not be appropriate at this juncture to try to alter the situation still further by the proposed amendments.

The effect of Amendments Nos. 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 would be to enable trade unions to choose whether they would become corporate bodies. It is generally acknowledged that unions do not want to be corporate bodies. Unions are representative, democratic organisations in which frequently authority is not centralised. Incorporation is not totally appropriate to bodies which are organised in that way.

10.30 p.m.

The purpose of incorporation for most companies is associated with the limitation of liability. In the Government's view trade unions do not seek or require this, and it would be fair and proper for those who criticise our stand to say that we are in some senses denying trade unions a right which would be open to them if this amendment were carried. However, it is not a right which trade unions have sought. I have sought the views of a number of trade unions, and the only trade union which found difficulty on this point eventually raised no objection when it saw the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Percival

The hon. Gentleman says that it is not a right which the trade unions have sought, but that is surely not right. The bodies for whose benefit provision has already been made in regard to special register are surely the trade unions. It was they who sought amendment, the purpose being to enable them to remain both trade unions and corporate bodies.

Mr. Booth

It is a difficult point because they are special register bodies, and whether they are trade unions depends on the definition one attaches to "trade unions". The fact that provision was made in the 1971 Act for special register bodies recognised that there was something special about them.

When we originally considered this matter, one factor that engaged our minds was whether unregistered unions would be immune from suit. In Clause 2 provision is made for a union to sue or to be sued in its own name. That does not deal entirely with the point in the amendment, but it indicates the way in which the provision came to be framed.

The Bill gives all employers' associations a choice whether to be incorporated or unincorporated bodies. We believe that this is necessary since a large number of employers' associations carry out functions in addition to that of regulating relations between employers and workers. Even if only a few employers' associations came into this category, it would still be appropriate for them to have this power. So far as there is any indication of a trend in these matters, it leads us to believe that such associations will be engaged in other activities, such as trade promotion activities, and would welcome provision in the Bill which would give them an option.

The effect of Amendment No. 49 would be to give special register bodies who are trade unions the same protection in respect of restraint of trade as that given to trade unions which are not special register bodies. Special register bodies which are trade unions have protection under Clause 2(5) only in respect of Industrial Relations Act activities. This does not put them at a disadvantage in relation to other trade unions in an area where they have a common interest, namely an area of related industrial relations activities. It recognises, however, that there is a difference and that special register bodies may be engaged in activities other than those of industrial relations.

The effect of Amendments Nos. 52, 53 and 54 would be to put incorporated and unincorporated employers' associations in the same position—that is to say, that they would both have a protection only in respect of restraint on trade. This would therefore limit—

Mr. Percival

The intention is that the protection would relate only to that part of their activities concerning the regulation of relations between workers and employers. I am sure that the Minister would agree with that limitation.

Mr. Booth

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The protection would apply only in the case of the regulation of industrial relations activities.

Again, we take the view that there is a distinction to be drawn between the incorporated and the unincorporated and that the incorporated employers' association should have protections which go beyond activities in respect of industrial relations because it is quite proper for the incorporated employers' association to engage in those other activities.

The original Bill did what these amendments seek to do. It put all employers' associations on the same footing. It was represented to the Government by the CBI that this was unfair as between the unincorporated employers' association and the unincorporated trade union and that, in order to make the situation equitable as between these two types of bodies, we should give this wider protection to the unincorporated employers' association.

We responded to the CBI view on this in Committee with Government amendments to Clauses 3 and 10. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not think me unkind if I say that Amendments Nos. 52, 53 and 54 are anti-CBI amendments and that I stand here to defend the CBI, which is not my normal function in life.

Mr. Richard Wainwright

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he could scarcely pay a greater compliment than to say that these clauses are anti-CBI?

Mr. Booth

I thought that I said that the amendments were anti-CBI. But if what I said was a compliment to the amendments, I was ill-advised to say it. If I said that, there is no withdrawing it and it is on the record for all time. However, there has been no complaint made by employers about it.

We have created a position of equity as between the unincorporated employers' association and unincorporated trade union, and we feel that that is proper since they are both engaged solely in activities as between employers and workers.

The effect of Amendments Nos. 57, 58 and 59 would be to add special register bodies to those in Clause 5(2) which are placed on the lists of trade unions and employers' associations kept by the Registrar of Friendly Societies without their having to make an application.

The position at present is that any special register organisation can make an application. In Committee, by an amendment to Clause 2, the Government eased the position of the special register organisations by allowing them to retain corporate status. If they meet the definition of a trade union in Clause 25, they will be entered on the list by the Registrar of Friendly Societies on making application.

The hon. and learned Member for Southport made special reference to the United Kingdom Commercial Travellers' Association. As always in these matters, he was courteous enough to inform me of his intention of doing so. As a result, I have been able to look at the position of this organisation. It is by no means a typical one, but, since the question has been asked, I am obliged to address myself to it.

I understand that within the provisions of the memorandum of the association, which is an incorporated body, there are statements as to the aims and purposes which indicate that the association exists to improve the status and qualification of commercial travellers, to regulate relations between commercial travellers and their employers, to promote professional standards among commercial travellers, to arrange the provision of insurance benefits for its members, and to arrange the provision of legal assistance for its members. It is not stated that the association exists to carry out collective bargaining. The question of whether it fell within the definition would be for the Registrar of Friendly Societies to decide, presumably on the basis of its aims in stating that it exists to regulate relations between commercial travellers and employers. I cannot give a guarantee on this. It would be a matter for the Registrar of Friendly Societies to decide. Presumably it is open to the association between now and the passing of the Bill to take legal advice and act accordingly, as can any other organisation which feels that it could qualify as a special register body, and apply for transfer afterwards.

In amending the Bill in this way it is not our intention to exclude any particular bodies. The amendment is not aimed at affecting any special register organisation. It is our intention that any special register body, whether incorporated or not, providing it falls within the definition of a trade union contained in Clause 25 of the Bill, shall be able to make an application and succeed in that application. Special register organisations are not in the same category as those covered by Clause 5(2). If they had met the definition of a trade union under the 1971 Act there might have been no need for a special register.

We have gone a long way since the Second Reading of this Bill to meet the very proper concern of the overwhelming majority, if not all, of the special register bodies. We have dealt with the question of their corporate status. We hope that there will be no difficulties in the application of the clause as it now stands amended. We hope that the clause will commend itself to the House and that the hon. and learned Gentleman, in view of this explanation, will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Mr. Percival

This debate will have served a very useful purpose. It has brought out a consideration to which the special register bodies may not have directed their attention. All special register bodies have assumed they will now be registered and will not meet with any difficulty. This debate will have drawn their attention to the fact that all the hurdles may not have been removed. This is good. They can now turn their attention to that point. I hope the Minister will ensure through his Department that special register bodies who have made representations have their attention drawn to this fact so that if they want to make any further representations in another place they can do so.

The Minister has introduced parity between the unions and the employers' associations in relation to the protections to which he referred but at the expense of preferring unincorporated to incorporated bodies in both cases, a distinction which we find hard to understand. We could understand it if the employers' associations were to enjoy protection in respect of all their activities. We have in our amendment limited the protection given to employers' associations to protection in connection with the regulation of relations between workers and employers. That seems to us to meet the case.

The Minister has dealt with Amendment No. 44, but not with Amendments Nos. 47 and 48, including the question whether the Government may inadvertently unincorporate a body. Those points may best be pursued in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Tugendhat (City of London and Westminster, South)

I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 3, subsection (5), paragraph (b), leave out from 'voidable' to end of clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 51, in page 3, paragraph (b), leave out 'voidable' to end of clause and add— Provided always that nothing in this subsection or otherwise in this Act contained shall prejudice or in any way reduce the Common Law rights of a person who has applied to join but not been given membership of or who claims to be and to remain a member of or who has been expelled from a trade union or render valid or enforceable any rule or decision relied upon by the trade union which in the circumstances of the case would be held to be void or unenforceable under and according to the Common Law.

No. 55, in page 4, clause 3, subsection (5), paragraph (b), leave out from ' voidable ' to end of clause.

No. 56, in page 4, subsection (5), paragraph (b), leave out from ' voidable ' to end of clause and insert— Provided always that nothing in this subsection or otherwise in this Act contained shall prejudice or in any way reduce the Common Law rights of a person who has applied to join but not been given membership of or who claims to be and to remain a member of or who has been expelled from an employers association or render valid or enforceable any rule or decision relied upon by the employers association which in the circumstances of the case would be held to be void or unenforceable under and according to the Common Law.

Mr. Tugendhat

On Report of a major Bill the strategy of the Opposition Front Bench, of which I have little experience, is somewhat difficult. We have gone over the arguments on many of the clauses at length and in great detail in Committee and the House is anxious to make progress. I think that nine-tenths of hon. Members present in the House now served in Committee, so they are reasonably familiar with the points at issue. Therefore, we are paying no disrespect to the Bill, and certainly no disrespect to the changes that the Opposition would like to bring about, if we take as read many of the arguments and do not go over too much old ground to show our dedication either to changing or to supporting the Bill. In that sense I offer the Minister of State a non-aggression pact which I feel sure he will be happy to take up.

When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) suggested that I should move this amendment, which he dealt with in Committee, I faced the prospect with some trepidation, because I draw a clear distinction in my mind between legal and non-legal amendments, and I think of myself as a distinctly non-legal person. However, my hon. and learned Friend said that common law was common sense. Though I rather doubted that proposition when he made it, I have decided, since studying the issue, that on this occasion he is right.

The key point in the amendment is our view of the Bill as it stands. This is the point of difference between the two sides of the House.

Our view is that the Bill limits the rights of courts to provide common law remedies in favour of individuals who are arbitrarily excluded or expelled from trade unions. The position is not clear. Indeed, if it had been clear there would have been no need to raise it on Report. But our position is clear. It is that when there is any doubt in a matter of this kind that doubt should be resolved in favour of the individual.

We accept that trade unions rarely misuse their powers against individuals. Clearly an organisation that exists to support the interests of its members is hardly likely to make a practice of trampling on their rights. We are not suggesting anything of that kind. However, we feel that in any human organisation fallibility and error can occur and that the Bill provides a loophole for abuse. Therefore, we believe that any loophole should be stopped up.

We recognise the point made by the Minister of State in Committee that individuals can be unreasonable, can have unreasonable recourse to law, and involve organisations in tedious and expensive litigation. We accept that that certainly can happen. But the Minister of State also said—perhaps this is more important—that the Bill does not and is not intended to reduce common law rights.

That is a fine statement of intent but it was not backed by legal opinion. The Law Officers of the previous Government regularly attended the debates on the Industrial Relations Bill, and if the present Law Officers had been given a run over the course, we might have been clearer on this point. But it was not to be, and we had to rely on the Minister's interesting but necessarily less than authoritative summary.

The problem is that the 1871 Act limits the common law rights of individuals in favour of unions. We accept that, as we made clear in Committee, if we had not made it clear before. But the limitation under Section 3 of that Act applies to purposes and not to rules. The Bill explicitly extends that protection to rules—a vital difference. Not all rules are necessarily covered by the word "purposes". There is a distinct extension of the principle in the Bill.

We believe that legislation should as clearly as possible enshrine the principles on which society—not just a sectional interest, however important and wideranging—is based. If the Government altered the Bill along these lines, an important principle would be strengthened. When in doubt, we should err on the side of the individual.

Mr. Booth

I appreciate the terms in which the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Tugendhat) moved the amendment. He need not express his trepidation when addressing himself to these complex matters. I had far greater trepidation when I first faced them in Committee. If I have a little less now it is only because I have been able to restudy the issue. I am a student who learns a little more each time he studies a subject. My job is to me an open university. I am learning all the time, and nowhere more than in the area covered by the amendments.

Amendments Nos. 50 and 55 would remove the provision that the rule of a union or employers' association shall not be unlawful or unenforceable by reason only that it is in restraint of trade. Amendments Nos. 51 and 56 would provide that the common law rights of would-be members of those bodies to bring cases against them are preserved notwithstanding the organisations' protection from action on grounds of restraint of trade.

Clause 2(5) and Clause 3(5) maintain the protection afforded by Section 135 of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, which is the basic protection of Sections 2 and 3 of the 1871 Act. So the point at issue has presumably been enshrined in the law of the land for over a century. In the first challenge to it of significance in recent times, namely, Faramus v. Film Artists' Association in 1963, the House of Lords upheld a majority decision by the Court of Appeal that Section 3 of the 1871 Act protected the rules as well as the purposes of a trade union. There was no doubt at that stage that the House of Lords took the view which I am arguing tonight—that the rules and the purposes of a trade union are protected by Section 3 of the 1871 Act. They are protected now by Section 135 of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. However, Lord Denning had proffered the minority view that Section 3 did not leave unions free to make any rule, however unreasonable it was, in restraint of trade.

There was also, in the case of Edwards v. SOGAT in 1971, in the obiter dicta of Lords Denning and Sachs, an implication, at least, that the protection of Section 3 might be set aside in determining that certain "purposes" in the rules were not proper to a trade union.

Those are the only two instances that I can find, with the benefit of many legal advisers in the Department, where there has been any doubt thrown upon the basic proposition that the rules and purposes of the trade unions are covered by Section 3 of the 1871 Act. The clause in its present form removes that doubt. Therefore, it may be held—and it has been alleged—that we are removing a doubt which may have benefited an individual in bringing an action. There has been no proof or demonstration of that. The fact that the reference to this matter in Edwards v. SOGAT was in an obiter dicta shows that it was not crucial to Mr. Edwards winning his case in any way.

Mr. Percival

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the effect of what he has said is that the Government are here removing a doubt by knocking on the head an argument which was advanced in those two cases and was accepted in one of those cases, Edwards v. SOGAT? What the Government are doing is making quite clear that the argument which was advanced in those two cases and succeeded in one of them cannot in future be advanced.

Mr. Booth

Let me make the position clear on my understanding. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the argument was advanced in both cases. In one of the cases, Edwards v. SOGAT, it was contained in an obiter dicta. There was not an argument of the case as such which had a bearing on the outcome. The outcome was favourable to Mr. Edwards without this doubt.

Mr. Percival

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right about that. In the judgment of Lord Justice Sachs, he considered whether Section 3 was effective in that case to preclude the plaintiff from succeeding, and decided that it was not. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman says that that was obiter.

Mr. Booth

My understanding was that the obiter dicta of Lords Denning and Sachs were obiter dicta precisely because they were not absolutely relevant to the judgment in the particular case. In that case the union was not seeking to argue that it did not have a liability but merely to limit the compensation. In the case of Faramus v. Film Artists' Association it was a minority view which was being expressed, and the majority view was upheld by the House of Lords in their decision.

Therefore, I contend that what we are doing in presenting the clause in this way, and what the amendment would undo, is merely an affirmation of what the common law rights are at present of people who would seek to bring an action against a trade union in this particular case. But it is not our intention that anyone's rights should be limited or that his protection should be removed. It is our belief that we are doing in the Bill is dealing with a limited part of the total area which is appropriate for law in regard to industrial relations.

11.0 p.m.

The House will in the very near future have to turn its attention to the question of trade unions and labour relations and consider how far it is appropriate to extend our law into the protection of employment. I hope that we shall be proposing such a Bill shortly, and in preparing for such a Bill we shall certainly have to bear in mind the questions which arise.

The House should therefore be grateful to the hon. Members who tabled these amendments in Committee and on Report. They raise issues which may lead us to disagree about how the question should be tackled or whether it is appropriate that it should be considered, but there is unanimity in this House that in making law we must protect individuals' common law rights in so far as that is compatible. It is still my intention that tonight we should freeze or enshrine the common law position until the House comes to consider the question of employment protection.

Mr. Tugendhat

The Minister of State said that his job had been an Open University, and it certainly seems to yield impressive results when he sets out to tackle these complex legal issues. I shall not disguise the fact that we are not entirely happy with his interpretation of it. We accept the good faith in which he puts forward his proposals. Of course, we accept the intentions he says underlie this part of the Bill. We feel that there is an unfortunate wording and we should place that on the record, but we will not press the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Back to
Forward to