§ 8. Mr. Brittanasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the operation of the law of picketing.
§ Mr. BoothThere are difficulties in operating the law on picketing which were recognised by the House when the present law was debated during the passage of the Employment Protection Bill. However, I intend to consult those principally concerned to see whether improvements in the law can be proposed.
§ Mr. BrittanDoes the Secretary of State agree that if any changes in the law are to be made they must incorporate two vital principles—first, that it should not be possible for huge numbers of people to abuse the purpose of the law by assembling in numbers far in excess of what is needed to communicate or to persuade, and, secondly, that no one other than the police should be permitted to stop people going about their lawful business?
§ Mr. BoothI find it hard to draw a clear distinction of principle on the basis of one or two additional people. If the law is to be precise on this matter, as I believe it may well have to be, we shall have to measure the advantages of limiting numbers against the proper extension of the right to picket, and form a view on whether it should include, with or with 210 -out the aid of the police, the right to require a vehicle to stop at a picket line.
§ Mr. Ron ThomasIs my right hon. Friend aware that many Labour Members will not support any panic measures to restrict the right of trade unionists to picket peacefully, as laid down in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act? Will he understand that those of us who have visited the Grunwick site know full well that peaceful picketing cannot take place, because a driver employed by the firm drives a bus recklessly through the gates? Will he now call on the Opposition spokesman on employment to say that he believes in law and order and supports the decision of the High Court that APEX should be the bargaining agent for these workers?
§ Mr. BoothIt is up to the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) to decide whether to respond to my hon. Friend's invitation. I make it clear to the House that there is no intention on the part of the Government to introduce panic measures. I intend to consult in a proper manner those concerned with the issue of picketing and of maintaining the right of people peacefully to picket and to communicate, because there is at present a contradiction in the law, in that it is not possible to marry a right to drive a vehicle unimpeded down a road with the right peacefully to communicate on a picket line with anybody whose action may be interfering with or affecting the prosecution of a dispute.
§ Sir David RentonIs the Secretary of State aware that the Government's legislation in this Parliament has extended the law on the right to picket beyond what was reasonable and necessary, despite the warnings given to them by the Opposition? Will he reconsider that legislation with a view to bringing sense and good order back into the whole situation?
§ Mr. BoothI think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken in his recollection of the Employment Protection Act. The Government's proposed change in the law on picketing was contained in Clause 99 of the original Bill. That was rejected by the House. The limitation on picketing which took place between 1906 and 1971 was introduced in the Industrial Relations Act. The 211 essential difference was that that legislation took away the right to picket outside the residence of the owner of a factory. The basic right to picket outside a factory has existed since 1906.
§ Mr. John EvansDoes my right hon. Friend recall that in Committee on the Employment Protection Bill a number of Labour Back Benchers made an honest and determined attempt to clarify the law on picketing? Does he further recall that we received no support whatsoever from the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) or any other Tory on that Committee? At least we tried to determine the law on picketing without any support. Therefore, it is hypocritical of the Opposition now to demand that the law be clarified.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.
§ Mr. BoothI certainly confirm what my hon. Friend said. The proposal to limit the numbers of pickets came from my hon. Friends on the Back Benches. A similar proposal was put forward when the matter was brought to the Floor of the House on Report. I hope that in the light of what has since taken place the House will again carefully, coolly and calmly reconsider the proposal that was before it at that time and perhaps take a different view upon it.
§ Mr. HayhoeThe Secretary of State is wholly misrepresenting the position. Is he aware that on 20th June 1974, in Standing Committee, I moved an amendment to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill that would have given the Secretary of State power to make regulations governing the numbers of pickets and the circumstances of picketing, along the lines suggested by the then Secretary of State for Employment, the present Leader of the House, who, in a footnote to a statement that he made to the House in March, said that it was the Government's intention—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—to limit the numbers of pickets.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have tended to make their questions longer. Will the hon. Gentleman conclude his question?
§ Mr. HayhoeI have concluded it, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. BoothI certainly recall the proceedings on the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill. Originally I was asked by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) about changes in the law on picketing. I have described accurately to the House when those changes took place. There was no basic change in the law on picketing in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act.