HC Deb 30 June 1981 vol 7 cc682-3
2. Mr. Nicholas Winterton

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has so far received on the Green Paper on trade union immunities.

12. Mr. Neubert

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations, corporate and individual, he has so far received on the Green Paper on trade union immunities.

Mr. Prior

So far, we have received 210 representations on the Green Paper, including 90 from individuals.

Mr. Winterton

Bearing in mind the vicious abuse of the closed shop, as exampled in Walsall and Sandwell, and the overwhelming number of representations received from business organisations urging further legislation, particularly on the closed shop, will my right hon. Friend give a firm commitment to the House this afternoon that further legislation will be announced in the Queen's Speech for the next Session of Parliament so that the people of this country may be rid once and for all of the evils of the closed shop?

Mr. Prior

I agree with what my hon. Friend said about Sandwell and Walsall councils. Clearly, these and other matters covered by the consultation process on the Green Paper will be taken into account when the Government decide about future legislation. I think that it would be wrong for me in any way to prejudge the Queen's Speech, but I have noted my hon. Friend's point and the points made by many other hon. Friends.

Mr. Neubert

As the Government are opposed in principle to the closed shop as a denial of personal liberty and a protection for restricted practices, how could the present arrangements continue to be justified? Is it not more than a coincidence that, in many of the countries which are more successful internationally than we are, the closed shoo is actually illegal?

Mr. Prior

Some countries which say that they do not have closed shops in fact have them. We have had a number of closed shops in this country for many years. Particular industries and representations on the Green Paper have asked for the closed shop to be continued. We must take all these things into consideration. It is certainly not acceptable that the closed shop should continue to allow people to be dismissed as at Sandwell and Walsall, and perhaps a number of other places, where clearly the deterrent powers in the 1980 Act are not proving sufficient to deter an employer who is determined to follow that course.

Mr. Eastham

Some hon. Members may be obsessed with attacking the trade unions, but will the Secretary of State also consider lousy employers? Is he aware of he example in the city of Manchester, where Lawrence Scott has unjustifiably attacked the workers and where there is a sit-in of 650 workers? Will the Secretary of State also look at management?

Mr. Prior

I shall not comment on an individual case. I have always made it plain that I believe that management and unions have both played a part in bad industrial relations in the past 20 years. I am doing all that I can to improve matters. It would help enormously if Opposition Members recognised that the Employment Act is moderate and reasonable. If they want to get industrial relations right, they should support it, not threaten to throw it out.

Mr. George Gardiner

As the Green Paper covered many important aspects of trade union immunity, going beyond the issue of the closed shop, will my right hon. Friend assure us that the representations that he has received under all heads will be seriously considered when he draws up the legislation that we understand is on the cards for the next Session?

Mr. Prior

All representations will be carefully considered. They vary from demands for immediate action and for action some time in the future to demands for no action at all. All these matters are extremely difficult and delicate and will be properly considered. In due course, the House will be informed of the Government's decisions.

Mr. Harold Walker

In contradiction of what the right hon. Gentleman has so often said, has not the Prime Minister encouraged the belief that there will be legislation? If the 1980 Act is moderate and sensible, why pursue further legislation, which presumably will be immoderate and insensible? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that Joanna Harris already has a statutory remedy, as has anyone else who has been unfairly dismissed, although she has not taken advantage of it? Will he repeat to the House what he has so often said: that the law in this area is unlikely to be effective unless it has the consent of those to whom it applies? Therefore, will he not legislate in defiance of the TUC?

Mr. Prior

I shall certainly consult fully before introducing any legislation. I make it plain to the House that the way in which the Sandwell and Walsall district councils have used their power to dismiss people in an intolerable manner is unsatisfactory. Changes should be made, but, as I have always said, changes in industrial relations law should be approached step-by-step, and abuses should be dealt with as they are seen to arise.