NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS (Hansard, 5 March 1979)

§ Sir John Eden
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 that should have urgent consideration, namely, the decision by the National Union of Journalists to expel several hundred of its members employed in provincial newspapers who refused to go on strike; and the serious implications of that decision for the employment prospects of the journalists concerned, as well as for the freedom of the press. Recently the NUJ called a strike among its members employed by provincial newspapers. No ballot of the membership had been taken, and in a number of places separate local pay increases had already been negotiated. The concurrent national agreement still had some time to run. Several hundred journalists refused to strike, and continued at work. These included journalists employed on the Bournemouth Evening Echo and its associated newspapers in other parts of the South.
After the strike the union set up its own investigative procedures and "tried" its members who had refused to strike. This "flying assize", as it was called, caused widespread concern, and a number of us tabled early-day motion No. 231 criticising what had been done. Journalists who had refused to strike expected some retribution, in the form either of a fine or of the temporary suspension of their membership. But the union has gone much further. As one leading journalist in my constituency put it "The union has gone crazy. It is destroying a complete branch." In fact, last Wednesday 33 journalists on the Bournemouth Evening Echo were told that they were to be expelled from the NUJ. The same harsh treatment has been meted out to others in Weymouth, Southampton, Birmingham, Nottingham and elsewhere.
This is a very serious matter. It will have the most damaging effect on the career prospects of the journalists concerned. It will debar them from employment where there is a closed shop agreement in favour of the NUJ, and that covers most of Fleet Street, the provincial press and broadcasting. This is going to an extreme. The punishment is excessively 906 severe and I hope that the union will think again.
The union action also carries grave implications for the freedom of the press. There are those, including the present Leader of the House, who have tried to establish the NUJ as the sole union to be recognised in journalism. Let us hope that that day never comes.
Even as things are, the power to deprive a journalist of his or her livelihood provides immense opportunity for coercion in a wider field. What is now being done in support of a union diktat in the furtherance of a pay claim could so easily become a weapon for regulating the nature and content of material to be published. That must cause deep anxiety in this House and it should be the subject of our most urgent consideration.

§ Mr. English
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. There can be no point of order until I have answered the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. English
But you may be answering him under a misapprehension, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I take the words of hon. Members as they come. I shall give my ruling accordingly. If the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) wants to raise this matter afterwards, of course I shall listen to him.
The right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely, the decision by the National Union of Journalists to expel several hundred of its members employed in provincial newspapers who refused to go on strike, and the serious implications of that decision for the employment prospects of the journalists concerned, as well as for the freedom of the press. I listened with anxious care to the right hon. Gentleman. The House knows that, however important the matter, it is not for me to decide whether it should be debated; I merely decide whether there shall be an emergency debate.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the 907 Order but to give no reasons for my decision. After listening very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

§ Mr. English
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you. I am not competent to say what has happened in Bournemouth, but I believe that the right hon. Member may have unwittingly misled the House as to what happened in Nottingham—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We cannot have an argument about facts now. If there is a point of order that I can deal with, I shall do so. Otherwise, there is no point in pursuing this matter.

§ Mr. English
I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that fact was important in this context. If six members of the NUJ are being threatened with eviction from their houses by their employers, as has occurred in Nottingham, that should be mentioned here as well—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to make his own Standing Order application.

Several Hon. Members rose
—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am not taking further points of order on a ruling that I have already given.