Trade Union (Freedom of Association)

HC Deb 22 July 1981 vol 9 cc319-25 3.32 pm

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to secure the right of freedom of association in relation to trade unions so as to give effect to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; and for connected purposes. The Bill is directed against the closed shop, which is the arrangement in industry which requires that unless workers join a specified trade union they will not get or hold a job. I thought of calling it the Trade Union (Right to Work) Bill, because it would give a right to work in two situations in which such a right is at present removed by the closed shop. First, it would give that right to those such as Joanna Harris, the poultry inspector of Sandwell, the four tea ladies of Walsall, and the railwaymen whose case is now before the European Court of Human Rights, who have been sacked and who, in some cases, might never be allowed to work again in the only work a skilled worker might know because they would not join a union.

Secondly, the Bill would give that right to work to the employees of firms which have been threatened with extinction because the employees are not members of a union and trade unionists refuse to work with them.

I have preferred to call the Bill the Trade Union (Freedom of Association) Bill because, in sheer numerical terms, there are many more people who have not been sacked but whose fundamental freedom to associate with whom they please has been taken away by closed shop agreements, and who have been forced to be members of a union although they see no benefit in it and have no wish to join one.

Since we have all been sent to this place, whatever our political party, to protect the liberty of the individual in our constituencies whenever that liberty is threatened by the insensitivity of State machinery or by any other form of collective oppression, it is difficult to see how such a Bill, provided that it is moderate and is itself unoppressive in operation, could be opposed, save perhaps by those with vested interests in doing so.

Mr. Ernie Ross (Dundee, West)

Like lawyers.

Mr. Lawrence

Certainly, mine is no voice crying in the wilderness. There is universal and overwhelming support for further action, and that support comes from all shades of the party political spectrum.

Let us first take the Government's view, as set out in paragraph 263 of the Green Paper on trade union immunities.

Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, East)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not straying dangerously near making the speech that he would make if he were allowed to bring in the Bill?

Mr. Speaker

Order. If I had thought that, I would have interrupted, but I did not think so.

Mr. Lawrence

I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I was putting the Government's view on the matter, as expressed in their Green Paper on trade union immunities.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is beginning to put his foot in it now. Will he be kind enough to explain why the House should give him permission to have his motion?

Mr. Lawrence

I want such a Bill because it is necessary that there should be some changes in the law. The necessity for it has been amply and much more accurately and effectively stated by the Government in their Green Paper. The Government are opposed to the principles underlying the closed shop. They say: That people should be required to join a union as a condition of getting or holding a job runs contrary to the general traditions of personal liberty in this country. It is acceptable for a union to seek to increase its membership by voluntary means. What is objectionable, however, is to enforce membership by means of a closed shop as a condition of employment. Individual employeessshould have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to join the trade union. Closed shops and the practices they can engender damage the image of trade unionism itself. The Government believe that these views are increasingly shared not least within the trade unions themselves. Then there is the view of the people. There can be no doubt that those who elected this Government to power wanted something to be done more effectively about the closed shop. The view was clearly reflected in an ORC poll two years ago, which showed that 85 per cent. of the general public and no fewer than 81 per cent. of trade unionists were opposed to sacking people who refused to join a union. Even that idol of some Opposition Members, Mr. Alex Kitson, the deputy general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, was reported in The Times on 22 June to have said: I have never agreed with the closed shop as part of a contract of employment between the employee and the employer. Mr. Kitson and, no doubt, many Opposition Members must feel ashamed to think that any trade union should be so unable to persuade prospective members of its value that it has to dragoon them into joining by a form of blackmail against the wishes of the individual.

It used to be said that although the closed shop might not be very desirable, we could not do anything about it because the major employers all wanted it. It was said that that was why the 1971 Act did not work. That is no longer the case. The CBI now says that the closed shop should be eliminated. The Engineering Employers' Federation is against it in principle. The Institute of Directors, the Association of Independent Businesses and the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors are all against it.

It is interesting to see how comparatively alone we are in the Western industrial scene at present with our tolerance of the closed shop. In West Germany, a country with good industrial relations, the closed shop is—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is beginning now to stray. Will he confine himself to his argument why the House should give him permission to have his Bill?

Mr. Lawrence

One of the reasons why we should have this Bill is that we are comparatively alone in the Western world in not having such a provision. In West Germany and in France the closed shop is illegal. In Ireland it is unconstitutional to attempt to enforce a closed shop. In Italy any such agreement is null and void. In Sweden they barely have closed shops at all. In the United States pre-entry closed shops are illegal, post-entry closed shops are illegal in 20 states and no one can be deprived of a job in a closed shop anywhere except for failure to pay his dues.

Almost certainly, closed shop agreements are contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, as it is difficult to believe that the right to choose to join any union does not also mean a right not to choose to join, for that is what choice surely means—[Interruption.] Hon. Members would do well to listen, because I have heard them pontificating about human rights and civil liberties. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights puts the matter beyond doubt. Article 20 states simply that no one may be compelled to belong to an association.

In the light of all those considerations, the House must surely agree that there is a strong case for dealing with the evils of the closed shop which recent cases show still exist, notwithstanding the Employment Act 1980. Back-Bench Conservative Members have shown—by their 166 signatures to the early-day motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale), which asks for amendment to the law to permit employees to obtain and retain jobs irrespective of trade union membership—their desire for early action.

Is my proposed Bill a reasonable, moderate and practical way of dealing with the problem? I hope that the House will consider that it is. It upholds the fundamental right to free association, which in practice other countries have been able to uphold, by stating clearly that everyone shall have a right to join or not to join a union as he or she chooses.

The Bill recognises that it is almost impossible in practice to abolish the closed shop, and that in some limited circumstances, where there is no oppression and everyone is happy, it may even be acceptable. Therefore, I do not seek to abolish it by making it illegal. The Bill does not seek to destroy the animal—merely to draw its venom. It would, therefore, make every present and future union membership agreement void in law, and therefore unenforceable in the courts. It would provide protection for the worker by giving him a right of action in tort in a court of law.

Mr. Ernie Ross

Ah! Lawyers.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

Jobs for the boys.

Mr. Lawrence

The judge could decide whether it was a matter for exemplary damages.

I think that hon. Gentlemen will see that my Bill is, as they would expect of me, modest, moderate, harmless to industrial relations and positively beneficial to them, and, therefore, a difficult Bill seriously to oppose. Furthermore, my proposals are almost identical to one of the options being canvassed by the Government in paragraph 273 of the Green Paper, "Trade Union Immunities". Although there may not be time for the Bill to become law in this Session, its passage will give the message to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment—who is even now considering further measures—"This House, Jim, is right—and close—behind you".

The Bill will also show the electorate that we in this House care about freedom, and are determined to do something more to uphold it in industrial relations.

3.49 pm

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, Central)

I listened with interest to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). I think that all hon. Members would have given a great deal more weight to his argument had we not known his profession. He belongs to the greatest of all closed shops—the legal profession. Not one right hon. or hon. Member or any member of the public who does not belong to the inns of Court could have right of audience in many of our legal institutions.

Much of our legislation provides that people such as chartered accountants shall be the only ones whose word can be accepted in particular cases. That again, is a closed shop. Therefore, if the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends are urging that there should be an end to the closed shop generally in the workplace, the argument should apply also to their workplaces. The Opposition would not be so foolish as to argue that point, because we believe in every man to his trade—to his avocation, to his profession and to his qualifications—

Mr. Michael Brotherton (Louth)

And to Ampieforth.

Mr. McNamara

If the hon. Gentleman, with his connections with Stonyhurst—a Jesuit college—wishes to make such comments, that is. up to him.

In making his point the hon. Gentleman missed the whole issue. There are two types of closed shop, and the hon. and learned Gentleman failed to recognise either of them. He confused the pre-entry closed shop with the post-entry closed shop, and spoke about neither. One cannot separate closed shops from the social and working conditions with which they are concerned. Closed shops are concerned not only with protecting living standards, wage rates and opportunities—rights that all people, whether lawyers, boilermakers or dock workers are entitled to seek—but with standards, attitudes, professional training and the proper carrying out of trades and avocations.

The hon. Gentleman merely sought to make whipping boys of trade unions on a Green Paper on which the trade union movement as a whole has refused to comment. Its refusal arises from the shortness of the time available and from the bias of its implications, and because the Government have sought, less than any other Government—less even than the Government of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—to bring together the representatives of working people to discuss the prospects for industry and the future of the nation. That is why we should not accept this measure.

There is, however, one point about which my hon. Friends are deeply concerned. People in the trade unions and the working class movement have advanced by virtue of their collective will and purpose. That is a philosophical difference between the Government and the Opposition, but it is a difference that is important to us. It is with that difference that we trace our advancement and the opportunities for improvement for our people.

If the Bill receives the support that the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks for it, two things will happen. First, there will be an escalation of conflict within every sector of industry. In present circumstances that cannot be for the good of the country. Secondly, the hon. and learned Gentleman will help the free rider—the person who is not prepared to play any part in the working of our society, who is not prepared to accept his responsibility either in the workplace or in the community, and who rides along on other people's backs. That would be a recipe for division in society, for industrial chaos and, in particular, for more unemployment. That is something that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I cannot accept.

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 114, Noes 136.

Division No. 286]	[3.49 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert	Langford-Holt, Sir John
Alton, David	Lawrence, Ivan
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Beith, A. J.	Loveridge, John
Bendall, Vivian	MacKay, John (Argyll)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)	Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Benyon, Thomas (A'don)	Marlow, Tony
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)	Mates, Michael
Bevan, David Gilroy	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Biggs-Davison, John	Moate, Roger
Blackburn, John	Montgomery, Fergus
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Braine, Sir Bernard	Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Bright, Graham	Myles, David
Brinton, Tim	Neale, Gerrard
Brotherton, Michael	Neubert, Michael
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)	Onslow, Cranley
Browne, John (Winchester)	Page, John (Harrow, West)
Buck, Antony	Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Burden, Sir Frederick	Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Parris, Matthew
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Pawsey, James
Clegg, Sir Walter	Penhaligon, David
Cockeram, Eric	Pink, R. Bonner
Colvin, Michael	Proctor, K. Harvey
Costain, Sir Albert	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Dickens, Geoffrey	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Rost, Peter
Dykes, Hugh	Sandelson, Neville
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Faith, Mrs Sheila	Shepherd, Richard
Fanner, Mrs Peggy	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles	Speed, Keith
Fookes, Miss Janet	Speller, Tony
Fox, Marcus	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh	Squire, Robin
Freud, Clement	Stanbrook, Ivor
Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Steel, Rt Hon David
Glyn, Dr Alan	Stokes, John
Goodhew, Victor	Temple-Morris, Peter
Gorst, John	Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Gower, Sir Raymond	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Trippier, David
Greenway, Harry	Trotter, Neville
Grieve, Percy	Viggers, Peter
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)	Wainwright, R.(Colne V)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Wall, Patrick
Hamilton, Hon A.	Walters, Dennis
Hannam,John	Ward, John
Hlggins, Rt Hon Terence L.	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)	Whitney, Raymond
Hordern, Peter	Winterton, Nicholas
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)	Wolfson, Mark
Jessel, Toby
Kershaw, Anthony	Tellers for the Ayes:
Knight, Mrs Jill	Mr. Paul Marland and
Lang, Ian	Mr. Christopher Murphy.

NOES
Anderson, Donald	Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Ashton, Joe	Buchan, Norman
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)	Campbell-Savours, Dale
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Canavan, Dennis
Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)	Carter-Jones, Lewis
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

Coleman, Donald	Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Conlan, Bernard	Litherland, Robert
Cook, Robin F.	Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)	McCartney, Hugh
Crowther, J. S.	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Cryer, Bob	McElhone, Frank
Cunliffe, Lawrence	McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)	MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Dalyell, Tam	McNally, Thomas
Davidson, Arthur	McTaggart, Robert
Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)	McWilliam, John
Deakins, Eric	Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Dempsey, James	Maxton, John
Dewar, Donald	Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Dixon, Donald	Mikardo, Ian
Dobson, Frank	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Dormand, Jack	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Dubs, Alfred	Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Duffy, A. E. P.	Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Dunn, James A.	Newens, Stanley
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Eadie, Alex	O'Halloran, Michael
Eastham, Ken	O'Neill, Martin
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
English, Michael	Park, George
Ennals, Rt Hon David	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)	Prescott, John
Evans, John (Newton)	Robertson, George
Ewing, Harry	Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Faulds, Andrew	Sheerman, Barry
Fitt, Gerard	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Flannery, Martin	Short, Mrs Renée
Forrester, John	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Foster, Derek	Silverman, Julius
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald	Snape, Peter
Garrett, John (Norwich S)	Spriggs, Leslie
George, Bruce	Stallard, A. W.
Golding, John	Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Stoddart, David
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)	Stott, Roger
Hardy, Peter	Strang, Gavin
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Tilley, John
Haynes, Frank	Tinn, James
Home Robertson, John	Torney, Tom
Hooley, Frank	Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)
Janner, Hon Greville	Watkins, David
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Welsh, Michael
John, Brynmor	White, Frank R.
Johnson, James (Hull West)	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)	Wilson, William (C'try SE)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Winnick, David
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Woolmer, Kenneth
Kerr, Russell
Lamond, James	Tellers for the Noes:
Leadbitter, Ted	Mr. Nigel Spearing and
Leighton, Ronald	Mr. Kevin McNamara.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, there is requirement that when a Member makes a speech and has a direct pecuniary interest, it should be declared. In seeking leave to introduce a Ten-Minute Bill—the speech for a Ten-Minute Bill is treated as a speech justifying its introduction—the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said that the Bill would give a right of action in tort. That means a right of court action which can be achieved only through obtaining the services of lawyers who have a monopoly, closed-shop access to the courts.

Clearly, that constitutes a potential direct pecuniary interest. In order to maintain the standards of Parliament, Mr. Speaker—I know that you are anxious to do that; certainly that interest would have to be declared in local authorities—could you give a ruling?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that I can help the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). First, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) raised a question of public policy. Secondly, the hon. and learned Gentleman might by no means be the lawyer on whom someone would depend.