TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (SOUTHAMPTON) (Hansard, 25 January 1979)

§ Mr. Adley

I apologise to you and the House, Mr. Speaker, for this further application, but I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, particularly in view of what we have heard earlier this afternoon, namely, the refusal of the Transport and General Workers' Union regional office in Southampton to allow union members freely to express their views against official union policy". This matter is specific, because the events took place this week at Transport House, Southampton, directly affecting a number of my constituents, who are drivers employed by Ingram's, of New Milton, and who are members of the Transport and General Workers' Union. It is important, Mr. Speaker, because the freedom of the individual is at stake. These drivers have had no ballot on whether to strike. They have received no approach, as local members of the TGWU, from any of their officials. Their last resort was to go to express their views at the union's regional headquarters. The denial of the right to speak, or even to attend a meeting, is undoubtedly related to their publicly expressed opposition to the strike, in which they have been joined by drivers in a number of other companies in the South of England, such as Flewin's of Andover, some of whose drivers received the same treatment at the same meeting.

To deny union members the right to attend union meetings because they publicly disagree with union policy is equivalent to stopping Members of Parliament at the Members' entrance of this House if they publicly disagree with Government policy. It is totally undemocratic.

This matter is urgent because of the escalating ill will that the strike appears to be breeding, evidenced by events at Battle hospital, Reading, yesterday. The 728 Home Secretary told us yesterday that the TGWU had agreed that there would be no reprisals against those who crossed picket lines. But that is only one aspect of the current situation. Men will work and men have accepted employers' offers. But it is employers, in many cases small employers, who will not let them work, for fear of post-strike reprisals if they cross picket lines. Few doubt the good intentions of the Home Secretary but we have not yet heard how he intends, on behalf of Parliament, to honour the pledge which he gave the House yesterday about no intimidation. As one of the strikers refused permission to attend the meeting said to me, "It is all right at the top, but it does not get down the line". Are you further aware, Mr. Speaker, that drivers who are not on strike but whose employers are frightened to let them work and who are therefore laid off are now being denied unemployment benefit?

I wish to refute in advance any allegation that I am seeking to make political capital out of this situation. I neither know nor want to know the political stance of my constituents, but I know that they have been forced not to work and have been unable to exercise their free choice to work. It is my clear duty as a Member of Parliament to voice their fears in this House of Commons. The union office should be their forum. The union rule book should be their protection. Yet their office is barred to them, their rule book is abused, and now the local branch secretary of the union has gone ex-directory on the telephone. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this House of Commons must hear their case.