HC Deb 11 January 1978 vol 941 cc1671-80

3.44 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide compensation for those dismissed for refusing to join a trade union; and for connected purposes. Schedule 1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 gives to every employee the right not to be dismissed unfairly. An employee who is dismissed unfairly may be awarded compensation by an industrial tribunal.

The Act went on to provide that the dismissal of an employee who objected to becoming a member of a trade union would be regarded as fair unless the employee genuinely objected on grounds of religious belief, or on any reasonable grounds, to joining a trade union.

The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976 preserved the protection for those who objected to joining a union on grounds of religious belief but removed the protection granted in the 1974 Act for those who objected to joining a union on reasonable grounds. The purpose of this Bill is to restore the protection granted by the 1974 Act.

This Bill has that limited object only—to provide that where a closed shop agreement comes into existence and an employee objects to joining a union on any reasonable ground his subsequent dismissal should be regarded in law as unfair, thereby entitling him to compensation.

When the 1976 Act was introduced even the Government did not understand how unfairly it would operate. I refer to the case of British Rail, and it is reasonable that we should refer to that case because, after all, the railways are owned by the Government. It is the Secretary of State who appoints the Chairman and the members of the Board of British Rail. It was British Rail which decided to conclude a closed shop agreement with the railway unions.

No sooner was the 1976 Act on the statute book than British Rail embarked on its programme of dismissals. In all, 40 employees have been dismissed, simply because they objected to joining a trade union. Because of the 1976 Act, their dismissal was regarded as being fair, but no fair-minded person could possibly believe that it was fair to dimiss, without compensation, a man who was carrying out his duties to the entire satisfaction of his employer and fellow employees, and whose sole offence was the presumed offence of a reasonable objection to joining a trade union—a requirement which did not exist and which was never in contemplation when that employee began his employment.

Of those 40 men dismissed by British Rail without compensation, seven had between 13 and 19 years' service, five had between 29 and 38 years' service and two had more than 39 years' service.

This Bill would provide that the dismissal of employees in those circumstances would be unfair and that compensation would be payable to them in exactly the same way as it is to those dismissed unfairly for other reasons. I quote with approval the words of Lord Donovan who said that an employee should be able to succeed against the employer so long as he can show that he has reasonable grounds for refusing to join the union. It may be argued that this Bill will affect only a few people. That may be true, but I now want to quote, with approval, what was said by the Lord President in this House on 27th January 1976, when he was Secretary of State for Employment. He said: I entirely agree that the fact that only a few people might be involved does not mitigate the importance of the principle. If injustice were to be done to a small number, it is right that the House should take that into account. It was John Lilburne who said that what could happen to anyone could happen to everyone."—[Official Report, 27th January 1976; Vol. 904, c. 277.] Those are not my words, they are the words of the Lord President.

One of the reasons why this Bill is necessary is that the closed shop is not a static concept. It is being extended all the time. It has been extended since the passing of the 1976 Act. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has argued that a person who does not want to join a trade union can always get another job elsewhere. That is what has been said, but it is not so easy to get another job if one is dismissed at the age of 59 or 60, as happened to some of those British Rail employees. As the closed shop is extended it becomes harder to find employment where a closed shop is not being operated. We may be nearer than we think to a situation where only a man with a union card is able to get a job. At least a person who loses his job in these circumstances ought to be entitled to compensation.

I wonder whether the Lord President's predecessor as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale would have approved of what the Lord President has done. During the recess I was re-reading Nye Bevan's book "In Place of Fear." There is a 1976, updated edition in which his widow wrote a preface from which I quote: Nye regarded imaginative tolerance as the mark of a civilised mind. That is an opinion on which the right hon. Gentleman ought to reflect.

I conclude with words from the final paragraph of John Stuart Mill's great essay on liberty—words which are chilling for the Labour Party, which used to be the champion of the weak against the strong but which has allowed itself to become the instrument of a new tyranny. It states: The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it. A State which dwarfs its men in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished. Four years ago those words would have been a proud commentary on the political career of the Leader of the House. Today, they are a mocking monument to the truth of the proposition that high office and political power can still corrupt.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. George Rodgers (Chorley)

The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has taken this opportunity to ventilate yet again his obsession about the closed shop, utilising a whole collection of quotations, and little that was original.

On this occasion the hon. Member has put down a motion seeking leave to introduce a Bill to provide compensation for those dismissed for refusing to join a trade union; and for connected purposes. It is strange that he should possess such deep feelings about the right of workers not to enrol in a union and yet be totally disinterested in the freedom of the worker to join a trade union if he should so desire.

The Grunwick dispute was centred upon the entitlement of employees to take up membership of a trade union—a right that is currently being denied. To my knowledge, however, the hon. Member for Eastbourne has never spoken up for the freedom of the individual to join a trade union, nor indeed have any of his colleagues.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

And nor will they.

Mr. Rodgers

It is crystal clear that the bleatings of Opposition Members about freedom and the rights of individuals are fraudulent. The only freedom they seek is that which would allow unscrupulous employers to maximise profits by low wages and poor working conditions, and this without having to contend with the resistance of organised labour.

The proposals presented by the hon. Gentleman are quaint and curious. They are designed to provide rewards to the freeloader—the person who is prepared to accept all the advantages that have been secured by the struggles and the sacrifices of his workmates but who is not prepared to contribute to the common fund. The hon. Member is reduced to making a hero figure of this sorry specimen.

Hon. Members

What sorry specimen?

Mr. Heffer

The sorry specimens on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Rodgers

In this area the Conservative Party is schizophrenic. Its parliamentary Members are critical about people who are in receipt of social security benefits whom they consider scroungers. Yet, seemingly, they are prepared to advocate that scrounging, when practised by non-union labour, should be applauded and rewarded.

I note that no reference was made in the hon. Member's speech to the legal or medical professions, which have established the tightest of all closed shops. Could it be that the campaign against the closed shop is being conducted selectively, and that influential groups in our society are not to be attacked? Whatever his motives, and however obscure his reasoning, the hon. Member should not be surprised that we on the Government side of the House oppose his motion. I shall endeavour to explain, yet again, why we do so.

Closed shop arrangements have for many years been an accepted part of the industrial scene in Britain. They are, of course, perfectly lawful and have always been so, apart from that one short and disastrous period when the Conservative Industrial Relations Act was in force. As everyone knows, its provisions to outlaw the closed shop proved completely unenforceable. The point seems to have been taken by the Opposition Front Bench, though I accept that the official Conservative policy on relations with the trade union movement varies from week to week and from spokesman to spokeswoman. I understand that there is no intention from that quarter to reintroduce the measures in the Industrial Relations Act which were intended to ban the closed shop.

It may be that the point has at last been taken by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, as his Bill moves away from his long-term opposition to the closed shop and seeks only to compensate those who are dismissed as a result of their refusal to join a trade union.

I welcome this evidence of growing political maturity, but the approach behind the hon. Member's motion demonstrates a total misunderstanding of the recent legislation on the issue of the closed shop. The Government are neutral. They are neutral on the closed shop and the legislation reflects that neutrality. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members obviously do not understand the legislation. A closed shop is simply a collective agreement which employers and trade unionists may find to their mutual advantage. It is up to the two sides of industry in their particular situations to decide whether to have a closed shop and on what terms.

The trade union legislation does not compel any party to conclude a closed shop agreement. If it considers it to be against its interest, so be it. Nor does it prevent any of the parties concluding such an agreement if they consider it to be advantageous. It is surely common knowledge that a great many employers, as well as trade unionists, prefer a closed shop as it creates a more stable atmosphere for bargaining agreement, the avoidance of inter-union disputes and a better chance that agreements and procedures will be adhered to.

However, as I have said, the legislation compels no party to conclude such an agreement. As matters stand the party is quite free to exclude any category of workers it feels appropriate from a closed shop agreement. The discretion is limited by only one statutory provision: that dismissal for refusal to joint a trade union where there is a closed shop should be unfair in the case of employees with a genuine objection to membership of any union whatsoever. That is a limited exclusion on which everyone was agreed.

The hon. Member's Bill would wreck the prospect of wide-ranging industrial agreements. The suggestion that a statutory provision be introduced compelling some or all of those who conclude closed shop agreements to pay compensation to individuals who refuse to accept such an agreement would be a recipe for industrial chaos.

Perhaps those who have been misled by the malicious and misinformed Press campaign against the closed shop should invest 50p in a publication entitled "Understanding Closed Shops", which gives a fair, detailed and balanced assessment of the position. It concludes:

A closed shop may be legitimately negotiated in our society.

The booklet is published by the Church of England, which I hardly need add is not affiliated to the Labour Party or the trade union movement.

Personally, I have always considered it a privilege to belong to a trade union. Many brave and decent people—my own father included—were savagely victimised for their participation in trade union activities. Of course I resent this motion, which is deeply offensive to the principles of trade unionism. I expect that it will be rejected, and rejected emphatically.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 184.

Division No. 58] AYES [4.01 p.m.
Alison, Michael Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) Meyer, Sir Anthony
Arnold, Tom Gardiner, George (Reigate) Mills, Peter
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East) Goodhew, Victor Molyneaux, James
Banks, Robert Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Monro, Hector
Beith, A. J. Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Montgomery, Fergus
Bell, Ronald Gray, Hamish Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Benyon, W. Grieve, Percy Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Berry, Hon Anthony Grimond, Rt Hon J. Neave, Airey
Biffen, John Grist, Ian Neubert, Michael
Biggs-Davison, John Grylls, Michael Newton, Tony
Blaker, Peter Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Nott, John
Boscawen, Hon Robert Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Page, John (Harrow West)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) Hannam, John Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Bradford, Rev Robert Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hon Miss Parkinson, Cecil
Braine, Sir Bernard Haselhurst, Alan Pattie, Geoffrey
Brittan, Leon Hastings, Stephen Penhaligon, David
Brocklebank-Fowler, C. Hayhoe, Barney Powell, Rt. Hon J. Enoch
Brooke, Peter Holland, Philip Price, David (Eastleigh)
Brotherton, Michael Hordern, Peter Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Howe, Rt. Hon Sir Geoffrey Raison, Timothy
Buck, Anthony Howell, David (Guildford) Rathbone, Tim
Budgen, Nick Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) Renton, Rt. Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Burden, F. A. Hurd, Douglas Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Hutchison, Michael Clark Rifkind, Malcolm
Channon, Paul James, David Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Churchill, W. S. Jenkin, Rt. Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd) Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) Jessel, Toby Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Cope, John Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Costain, A. P. Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Craig, Rt. Hon W. (Belfast E) Jones, Arthur (Daventry) Sainsbury, Tim
Crawford, Douglas Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine St. John-Stevas, Norman
Davies, Rt. Hon J. (Knutsford) King, Tom (Bridgwater) Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset) Lamont, Norman Shelton, William (Streatham)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey Langford-Holt, Sir John Sims, Roger
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Latham, Michael (Melton) Skeet, T. H. H.
Dunlop, John Lawson, Nigel Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Durant, Tony Le Marchant, Spencer Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Eden, Rt. Hon Sir John Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Luce, Richard Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) McCrindle, Robert Sproat, Iain
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray) McCusker, H. Stanley, John
Eyre, Reginald Macfarlane, Neil Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Fairbairn, Nicholas Macmillan, Rt. Hon M. (Farnham) Stewart, Rt. Hon Donald
Fairgrieve, Russell McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) Stokes, John
Fell, Anthony Marten, Neil Stradling Thomas, J.
Fookes, Miss Janet Mates, Michael Tapsell, Peter
Forman, Nigel Mather, Carol Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) Mawby, Ray Tebbit, Norman
Fox, Marcus Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Thatcher, Rt. Hon Margaret
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S) Wall, Patrick Younger, Hon George
Thompson, George Watt, Hamish
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon) Weatherill, Bernard TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V) Wigley, Dafydd Mr. Ian Gow and
Wakeham, John Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton) Mr. Hal Miller.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
NOES
Allaun, Frank Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John Noble, Mike
Anderson, Donald Ginsburg, David Oakes, Gordon
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Golding, John Ogden, Eric
Armstrong, Ernest Graham, Te[...] O'Halloran, Michael
Ashton, Joe Grant, George (Morpeth) Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Grant, John (Islington C) Ovenden, John
Atkinson, Norman Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Park, George
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Hardy, Peter Parker, John
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Parry, Robert
Bates, Alf Healey, Rt Hon Denis Pendry, Tom
Bean, R. E. Heffer, Eric S. Perry, Ernest
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Hooley, Frank Phipps, Dr Colin
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Horam, John Radice, Giles
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Richardson, Miss Jo
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Hughes, Roy (Newport) Robinson, Geoffrey
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Hunter, Adam Roderick, Caerwyn
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Rooker, J. W.
Buchan, Norman Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Sever, John
Buchanan, Richard John, Brynmor Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) Johnson, James (Hull West) Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Campbell, Ian Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Canavan, Dennis Jones, Barry (East Flint) Silverman, Julius
Cant, R. B. Jones, Dan (Burnley) Skinner, Dennis
Carmichael, Neil Judd, Frank Small, William
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) Kerr Russell Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Cohen, Stanley Kilroy-Silk, Robert Snape, Peter
Coleman, Donald Lamborn, Harry Spriggs, Leslie
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Lamond, James Stallard, A. W.
Corbett, Robin Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Cowans, Harry Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) Strang, Gavin
Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Lewis, Arthur (Newham N) Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) Lipton, Marcus Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Cryer, Bob Litterick, Tom Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Loyden, Eddie Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Dalyell, Tam Luard, Evan Tinn, James
Davidson, Arthur Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson Tomlinson, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil McCartney, Hugh Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) McDonald, Dr Oonagh Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) McElhone, Frank Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Dempsey, James MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Doig, Peter Maclennan, Robert Ward, Michael
Dormand, J. D. McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Weitzman, David
Dunnett, Jack McNamara, Kevin Wellbeloved, James
Eadie, Alex Madden, Max White, Frank R. (Bury)
Edge, Geoff Marks, Kenneth White, James (Pollok)
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Whitehead, Phillip
English, Michael Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Whitlock, William
Ennals, Rt Hon David Mason, Rt Hon Roy Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) Maynard, Miss Joan Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling) Meacher, Michael Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. Mikardo, Ian Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Flannery, Martin Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Wise, Mrs Audrey
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Woodall, Alec
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Molloy, William Woof, Robert
Forrester, John Morris, Rt Hon Charles R. Young, David (Bolton E)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald Moyle, Roland TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Garrett, John (Norwich S) Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick Mr. Ivor Clemitson and
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King Mr. Bruce Grocott.
George, Bruce Newens, Stanley

Question accordingly negaitved.