ACTION SHORT OF DISMISSAL RELATING TO TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP AND ACTIVITIES (Hansard, 28 July 1980)

§ Mr. Mayhew
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we may take Lords amendment No. 6, in page 16, line 23, leave out from "58A" to end of line 28.

§ Mr. Harold Walker
It really is a bit much for the hon. and learned Member to think that we would agree to these amendments on the nod. When I saw these amendments on the Notice Paper I wondered what on earth they were all about. Then I learnt that the provisions that we are now removing were the subject of amendments by the Government on Report, taken on the nod without explanation. It is a bit much to have provisions put in a Bill without explanation, and then to have the same provisions subsequently taken out, also without explanation.
All that I can say is that if the Government are admitting dropping a clanger—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I should say "making an error"—in the first place and are now seeking to correct that error, we may well assume that they have done the same in many other cases. Indeed, I am sure that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are convinced that the Bill is littered with error upon error. If the Government had come clean and tabled other amendments to remove those other errors, we might not have detained the House.

§ Mr. Mikardo
If one does a U-turn, and then does a U-turn back over the U-turn, what shape is that? That is exactly what the Government have done.

§ Mr. Walker
It is what my young daughter calls the "Harpic operation", by which she means round the bend, whether U, S or N. We are entitled to know why the Government have gone round that bend. The hon. and learned Gentleman should do the decent thing and explain how the Government got themselves into the muddle. They have got themselves into a lot of muddles, but perhaps he will explain this one.

§ Mr. Mayhew
I hope that I am among the last to treat the House with discourtesy. Having read what has happened in another place, I thought that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would save the House a little time. However, he is perfectly right.
The provisions to be deleted by the amendment concern the position of new employers entering into areas where longstanding, industry-wide closed shops operate. It was originally intended that clause 6 should apply. The words to be deleted by the amendment would have been consequential on the provisions originally intended to be included in clause 6. It was decided, however, that special words were unnecessary in clause 6. Unfortunately, by an oversight, we neglected to delete the words. We are very versatile. We were able to include the words on the nod and are quite capable of taking them out on the nod—or so we thought.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman felt that my speech was a bit much. If anything, it was perhaps too little. That is the explanation. I commend the amendment to the House.