Employment Bill

HC Deb 19 May 1982 vol 24 cc370-405

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Order for Third Reading read.

4.39 pm

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The House has now completed its detailed scrutiny of the Employment Bill. It is appropriate that in moving Third Reading I should remind the House of the aims of the Bill and its main features.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in his statement to the House on 23 November last, said that further legislation was needed, first, to safeguard the liberty of the individual from the abuse of industrial power and, secondly, to improve the operation of the labour market by providing a balanced framework of industrial relations law. That is what the Bill does.

More that half the clauses in the Bill deal with the closed shop. We make no apology for that. The Government's view of the closed shop is perfectly clear. It is contrary to the traditions of personal liberty in this country for someone to be required to join a trade union in order to obtain or hold a job. Of course it is entirely legitimate for a trade union to seek 100 per cent. membership by voluntary means, but what is not acceptable in a free society is for a trade union to enforce membership as a condition of employment by means of the closed shop.

I hope that hon. Members in every part of the House accept that it is entirely fitting that our first priority in considering questions about the closed shop should be in terms of personal freedom and the rights of the individual. After all, it is to champion such rights against powerful corporate interests elsewhere in the realm that Parliament exists. We should not lose sight of the fact that a collective such as a trade union or a closed shop exists in essence and in origin for the sake of the individual, not the individual for the sake of the collective. So when the closed shop becomes not a protector, but a persecutor, of the individual, then it becomes a perversion, and it is right and reasonable for Parliament to step in. There is evidence not only that the danger of persecution lurks potentially in the very notion of a closed shop, but that it has broken out in recent years in many actual individual cases and acts of persecution.

As to the potential danger of closed shops, I remind the House of the Donovan commission report, which, in paragraph 598, states: The Closed Shop as it operates at present is not always in the best interests either of workers or of the community as a whole. It is liable from time to time to cause substantial injustice to individuals from which they have no effective means of redress. It also contributes to a system of training which is out of date and inadequate to the country's needs". Or, again, let us consider the words of Lord McCarthy in his book, "The Closed Shop in Britain". He said that the closed shop undoubtedly sometimes results in a restriction of individual liberty, and probably it sometimes has disadvantageous economic effects. Non-unionists and employers are often coerced and existing members are forced to obey union rules and orders by means of the threat of expulsion from the job. In its pre-entry form it is sometimes used to deny whole classes of workers the right to compete for particular jobs". These potential dangers, latent in the very concept of a closed shop, have found scandalous expression in a number of ugly cases in recent years. Perhaps the most famous, or infamous, was the sacking by British Rail of the three railway workers Mr. Young, Mr. James and Mr. Webster in 1976 for non-union membership in a closed shop. The European Court of Human Rights, to which they took their case, found that their sacking was a specific violation of article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In reaching their verdict, the court's judges, referring to article 11, stated: It strikes at the very substance of this Article to exert pressure, of the kind applied to the applicants, in order to compel someone to join an association contrary to his convictions".

Mr. Harold Walker (Doncaster)

I do not want to correct all the Minister's selective misinterpretations and misquotations, but one is repeatedly used by the Government. In all fairness to the author, that quotation should be completed. It is from Lord McCarthy's book on the closed shop. After the passage quoted by the Minister, Lord McCarthy says: The inevitable restrictions on personal liberty that they involve"— that is, closed shops— and even the possible maldistribution of economic resources which result, seem to me to be the price which must be paid if the unions are to be allowed the freedom they require in order to pursue such objectives in the most effective way. In all fairness to Lord McCarthy, when the Minister is quoting that part of his book, he should read that passage too.

Mr. Alison

The right hon. Gentleman accused me of misinterpretation and misquotation. I did not interpret what Lord McCarthy or the Donovan commission said; I made accurate quotations.

I shall demonstrate the validity of the facts set out in those quotations. It was not only the Strasbourg three who suffered in that period. We know that about 40 British Rail employees were sacked in similar circumstances to the three who took their case to Strasbourg. We believe, and have some evidence for our belief, that several hundred other individuals lost their jobs in that period under not dissimilar circumstances. Such was the rigour of the law—the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976—in this period that many of those dismissed would have been in danger of a charge of vexatious litigation if they had even tried to complain of unfair dismissal before a tribunal.

The worst excesses of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976 were put right by our last Employment Act in 1980. But even since then the tiger of persecution, which is ever potentially on the prowl in the framework of the closed shop, has shown its claws again. This time it was in the Sandwell case. In July 1980 NALGO balloted its members at Sandwell council over the possible introduction of a closed shop agreement. Only about half of its members voted and there was a small majority in favour of a closed shop—810 to 671 votes. An agreement was introduced and subsequently, in a well publicised case, Joanna Harris was dismissed for refusing to join a union, despite the fact that she was an existing non-union employee when the agreement was introduced, and that was clearly in defiance of her rights under the 1980 Act. The resulting furore led NALGO members to ask for another ballot on the closed shop. That further ballot in April 1981 produced a 2:1 majority against the closed shop, following which NALGO gave six months' notice of withdrawal from the closed shop agreement. The council has so far refused to accept this notice, resting on the supposed justification that the other three unions party to the agreement, which in total represent 255 employees only as opposed to NALGO's 3,500, do not wish to withdraw. The whole episode shows clearly that the results of such ballots cannot be ignored.

That episode throws into comic relief the bitter hostility of the Trades Union Congress to the idea introduced in the Bill of validating ballots on closed shops, when such ballots are common practice in one of the biggest TUC affiliates, NALGO. It also shows that when one is dealing with a ruthless, idealogically motivated Socialist local authority, one must ensure that compensation for unfair dismissal is on a perceptible scale. For example, no district auditor will pay much attention to the goings on at Walsall council, when one of the four sacked dinner ladies qualified for a basic award of only £98.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex)

I should like to ask one question as my right hon. Friend is referring to secret ballots in NALGO. Will my right hon. Friend take cognisance of the fact that, despite the conference decision of NALGO last year to affiliate to the Labour Party, when that decision was put to a secret ballot of the NALGO membership, the majority decided by eight to one not to have a political fund and not to affiliate to the Labour Party? Does not that underline the importance of having secret ballots?

Mr. Alison

I join my hon. Friend in noting with perception and enthusiasm the record of NALGO in holding ballots on the closed shop and matters connected with affiliation to the Labour Party. We rejoice in that and hope that it will be widely emulated by other affiliated members pf the TUC.

I need not spell out further details of the Walsall sackings. That was a classic case of coercion. I know that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) is a little sick of that, but he has often quoted other examples, such as Taff Vale.

However, I will say this to some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who argue defensively that the fate of the Walsall four is no worse than, or different from, other dinner ladies elsewhere who may have been made redundant on economic rather than ideological grounds and who receive relatively modest compensation. Such a defensive argument—and the hon. Member for Newham, North-East regularly advanced it—is wholly specious and fallacious. There is all the difference in the world between a situation where, on the one hand, everybody—unions, employers and the Government—is trying concertedly to save an individual's job and, if they do not succeed, trying unitedly to find him another and helping and supporting him meanwhile; and, on the other hand, a situation where, either in collusion or singly, the union and employer, on ideological grounds, drive out an individual for whom there is a job, which he is qualified to do and is doing well, in circumstances which may make it impossible for him to get another.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Does the Minister acknowledge that many Tory councils, especially in recent times, have sacked many direct labour workers on ideological grounds or others as a result of the policy of reducing the staff? A classic case has occurred in Southend where the Tory council, despite a vote by the dustmen to carry on the services of the direct-labour 'organisation, accepted not the lowest tender but the second lowest tender submitted by one of its buddies, who is a Tory councillor in St. Albans. His firm, Exclusive Cleaning Ltd., was given the right to take on staff. All the refuse workers who were members of a trade union are now out on the stones. Not one employee of Exclusive Cleaning Ltd. in Southend is now a member of a trade union. What does the Minister think about that?

Mr. Alison

The Bill is not red, blue, pink or green. It is even-handed. If there are unfair dismissals on ideological grounds, compensation will be available whether the council concerned is SDP, Labour, Conservative or whatever.

These realities and factors are the background to the Bill's provisions on the closed shop.

I am glad that by a massive majority of 107 votes on Second Reading and by massive majorities in votes in the House yesterday culminating in a majority of 235 to 12 in a Division late last night when only the SDP voted against, Parliament has given its whole-hearted endorsement to the Bill. Parliament faithfully reflected the views of our constituents.

The MORI poll of November 1981 showed that four out of five, or 79 per cent., and 77 per cent. of union members agreed there should be regular secret ballots on whether closed shops should continue or not. Three out of five, 60 per cent., and 54 per cent. of union members agreed that unions should have to pay substantial compensation—which could be over £20,000—to workers sacked for refusing to join a closed shop which has not been balloted on.

I have no hesitation in repeating the words that my right hon. Friend used on Second Reading in relation to the closed shop: when the Bill reaches the statute book it will provide the most comprehensive and the most effective statutory protection for non-union employees that we have ever had in this country". We will be reflecting the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the British people.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

What the Minister is now saying was said during proceedings on the Industrial Relations Act. Then it was said that that measure was widely popular in the country, that it was necessary, and so on. No doubt at that time the Minister voted accordingly in the House of Commons. Does the Minister agree that the Act was quickly discredited and that, by the 1974 Parliament, there was no enthusiasm in the Conservative Party to try to preserve it?

Mr. Alison

The appropriate comment is to reflect on what will happen at the next general election. My bet is that there will be no majority in the House of Commons in the next decade for the repeal of the Act, as it will be, or any of the steps that we propose in it.

I turn now to the later clauses in the Bill. Again our objectives are specific, limited and reasonable and, in the words of my right hon. Friend "essentially modest", like himself. The exaggerated scaremongering of the Opposition shows that they recognise that as clearly as everyone else. But there has been a lot of misleading talk by the TUC and others about Taff Vale and other episodes in trade union demonology.

Because of that misleading talk I must take a few minutes to remind the House what the Bill does not do. It does not take trade unions back to the position that they were in following the Taff Vale judgment when trade unions and their officials had no immunity at all and their funds were at risk for any and every strike or other form of industrial action. As my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading: There is nothing in the Bill that prevents trade unions from organising, gaining recognition, bargaining collectively or from organising industrial action by their members in pursuit of improvements in their pay and conditions or in defence of their jobs."—[Official Report, 8 February 1982, Vol. 17, c. 742, 744.] The Bill does two things in these later clauses. First, it corrects the extraordinary anomaly whereby since 1906 trade unions themselves have enjoyed a virtually total immunity from actions in tort—an immunity wider than that enjoyed by any other person or organisation in this country, including, as the Donovan commission pointed out, the Crown. In practical terms, that immunity has meant that if a trade union orders one of its officials to do something unlawful, the official can be sued for an injunction and damages, but the union itself is virtually never liable and its funds always protected, save in a few narrowly defined circumstances. No other trade union movement anywhere in the world has ever had that degree of legislative protection. The truth of the matter is that it is unnecessary and indefensible, as the Donovan commission recognised when it recommended that the immunity of trade unions should be limited to action in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. The Royal Commission of 1906, whose report led to the 1906 Act, recommended against a blanket immunity for trade unions. I make no apology for quoting again from its report: That vast and powerful institutions should be permanently licensed to apply the funds they possess to do wrong to others and by that wrong inflict on them damage … and yet not be liable to make redress out of those funds would be a state of things opposed to the very idea of law and order and justice".

Mr. Giles Radice (Chester-le-Street)

The Minister is repeating a number of misstatements which we heard in Committee. We have tried to correct him. I hope this will be the last time. The Green Paper pointed out that we have a system of immunities instead of positive rights which other countries have. They are not privileges. They are alternatives to rights. Therefore, they are not wicked or sinister. They make up the system that we have to enable trade unions to operate. I wish the Minister would learn that simple fact which every O-level student knows.

Mr. Alison

The hon. Gentleman is again misleading the House. I am not concerned with the way in which the present position has arisen. Whether it has arisen through our common law provisions and the derogations made from it, or by whatever other means, the fact remains that no other trade union movement in the world has had the degree of legislative protection that is enjoyed by ours. I repeat that because it is valid.

The Bill restricts the immunity for trade unions as the 1906 Royal Commission and the Donovan commission recommended. Why is it so necessary for a trade union to have immunity even outside a trade dispute when its own officials have never had such an immunity? These are the questions the Opposition must answer if anyone is going to take their opposition to this part of the Bill at all seriously.

When considering these matters, we should remind ourselves what the concept of immunity means. It means that people who would otherwise have been able to bring civil proceedings to secure redress against unlawful behaviour are prevented from doing so. In that sense an immunity is a privilege—a privilege which must be used responsibly, with proper regard for the interests of others and of the community as a whole.

Immunity should not be used as a cloak for indiscriminate industrial action, for strikes or blacking directed at those who have no interest in a trade dispute and no means of affecting its outcome, but whose jobs and businesses may be severely damaged as a result. That is why the Bill amends the definition of a trade dispute to exclude disputes which are not predominantly about terms and conditions of employment or other matters listed in the statutory definition, to exclude disputes which are purely between workers and workers, to exclude disputes which are exclusively about matters overseas, and to exclude disputes which are not between an employer and his employees. These changes were urged on us by many people in the course of the consultations on the Green Paper.

I have seen reports that the TUC intends to urge employers not to take advantage of the protection that this and other parts of the Bill will give them. It is, of course, for employers to decide whether to make use of the common law rights which are restored to them by the Bill and by the Employment Act 1980. No one—despite the wild claims of the Opposition—expects a rush of court cases. That is not how the effectiveness of any legislation is measured. But when the TUC goes on to threaten industrial action against any employer who seeks redress at law against unlawful action, it is presuming that it knows the minds of its members. Every opinion poll on this issue shows that it does not. All the proposals that we put before Parliament in the 1980 Act and in the Bill have been shown—and I have quoted some of the evidence—to command the overwhelming support of the British people and the approval of a majority of trade unionists and a huge majority in the House. That may not be a palatable fact to Opposition Members, any more than it is to the leaders of the TUC, but it is a fact none the less. They will have to come to terms with it sooner or later. I move the Third Reading of the Bill so that it may be sooner.

5.1 pm

Mr. Eric G. Varley (Chesterfield)

We have come to the last two hours' consideration of the Bill in the House of Commons. We spent 130 hours over four months considering it in Committee. No substantial changes have been made to the Bill and we remain implacably opposed to it. We shall vote against it to a man. I expect that every Tory will vote for it. The Liberals will be consistent and vote for it. Their alliance partners, the members of the Social Democratic Party, after splitting three ways on Second Reading, are now unanimous in their decision to abstain. That is a sorry state of affairs, not only for them but for the House of Commons. I do not know how their other partners will regard their behaviour.

During our proceedings, some hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), said that the Bill was a modest measure. It is nothing of the kind. Taken with the 1980 Act it represents the biggest threat to trade unionism in Britain since 1971. Its impact has to be seen alongside the Government's economic measures. The Government's economic and investment decisions have been detrimental to job prospects. They have contributed to the inexorable rise in the number of men and women out of jobs and the bleak outlook for job prospects for the young in particular. The Bill must also be seen alongside the Government's determination to privatise some major nationalised industries and cut expenditure on public services.

I have no doubt that the ideological belief—perhaps sincere—of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister is that the market works better without trade unionism, or at least with weakened trade unionism. As the Minister of State has just said, the Secretary of State believes that the Bill will improve the operation of the labour market. He really means that it will improve the operation of the market generally.

Industrial relations in Britain are not all that bad. Mercifully, neither the Secretary of State nor any of his colleagues have been able to point to a deterioration in industrial relations in Britain in the past few years. They have not been able to say that to justify the measure.

Days lost as a result of industrial disputes in the last year were at their lowest level since 1941. That has been brought about to some degree by the Government's unique achievement in turning the whole of the country into a depressed area afflicted by mass unemployment. I am prepared to admit that had we maintained a reasonably high level of employment there may have been more industrial disputes. During the passage of the Bill no Minister has been able to claim that there has been a great deterioration in industrial relations. The Bill and the 1980 Act are more to do with restricting trade union activity, when and if the economy starts to pick up again. It will be there to block collective bargaining.

For all his bluster, I believe that the Secretary of State is hesitant about the powers that he is taking. The only part of the Bill that needs to come into operation immediately is clause 1 and schedule 1. That gives retrospective power to pay out £2 million in taxpayers' money, at the Secretary of State's sole discretion, to an alleged 400 people who refused to become trade unionists between 1974 and 1980. The Secretary of State can decide when any other part of the Bill comes into operation. Clause 1 and schedule 1 give the Secretary of State powers to set aside any of the industrial tribunal judicial findings involving any such cases in those six years.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit)

I must put the right hon. Gentleman right. It does not give me power to set aside industrial tribunal findings. I cannot make fair a dismissal that was found to be unfair. I cannot change the findings at all. I am given power only to compensate people who would have been adjudged to be unfairly dismissed had the law been what it became in 1980.

Mr. Varley

I do not disagree with that. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State can pay fairly large levels of compensation to people who, under the law as it was, were judged not to have been unfairly dismissed. I accept what the Secretary of State says. By any rational interpretation it seems that the provision is retroactive. Perhaps retrospective is the wrong word. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) was right to use the words that he used.

The Secretary of State is hesitant about bringing the other parts of the Bill into operation. Why is he hesitant? Could he be becoming nervous about some of the powers that he is taking? If he is not, some who will have to try and operate the legislation are extremely nervous about it.

The Financial Times of Friday 30 April contains a report on an industrial relations conference organised by that newspaper, at which Dr. James McFarlane, the director general of the Engineering Employers Federation, had something to say. That federation is the country's largest employer group and the largest constituent of the Confederation of British Industry. In the engineering industry about 40 per cent. of manual workers and 10 per cent. of the rest of its staff are covered by a closed shop. Dr. McFarlane said: In general, we have no enthusiasm for the 1982 Bill's proposals for the review of existing closed shops. We can be quite confident that unions are not going to co-operate in holding ballots of existing closed shops: and it is certain that this factor combined with the relatively large compensation available will excite a good number of unfair dismissal cases and industrial relations trouble in the factories. Dr. McFarlane accepted that little can be done about the present position, given the Government's political will, and said that employers will have to live with the consequences of the legislation as best they can. He added: But we do believe that the Government would do well to defer bringing in the provision for the review of existing closed shops until after the next general election". There are many who say that that is precisely what the Secretary of State will do. It is said that, having taken these powers, and appreciating the difficulty that could arise, he will delay implementation until after the next election. When he replies to the debate I hope that he will reveal his views and explain them in clear terms. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) tried to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to do so yesterday and he received a dusty answer.

The balloting and reballoting provisions on union membership agreements will be a source of anxiety to all serious employers. We know that the Institute of Personnel Management, the Industrial Society and the General Council of British Shipping all have reservations. Some organisations are extremely hostile to the Bill's provisions.

There are other areas of the Bill that will be much more dangerous than the attack that will be made on union membership agreements—for example, the provisions that will make unlawful all commercial contracts that require union labour-only contracts. Again, these provisions will create difficulties for employers. The liabilities cover a wide area and could be so uncertain in their application that any person could sue for damages if the law were broken. The words in the Bill are "adversely affected".

Employers who want to maintain good relations with their trade union work force will find that their contracts are undercut by firms that employ non-union labour. Their businesses will be put in jeopardy. This is entirely in line with the Government's thinking. They believe that non-unionism is better than unionism. The Bill tries to squeeze the concept of a trade dispute out of our understanding of industrial relations. It tries to do so in a way that in my view will be shown to be impractical.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

Does my right hon. Friend accept that by using non-union organised labour on building sites, for example, the green light will be given to lowering safety standards that have been built up over the years? Industrial injuries are responsible for the loss of more working days per year every year than strike action. If the Government were really concerned about raising health and safety standards and providing better working conditions, they would not be providing "lump" labour with an "open sesame".

Mr. Varley

Some employers regard union labour-only contracts as a safeguard to ensure that proper skills are used, that safety arrangements are properly observed and that accidents are held to a minimum. I am sure that some employers have made that view known to the Secretary of State.

There are other considerations. Disputes between worker and worker are to be unlawful. We know that few if any disputes between worker and worker do not involve management. Demarcation disputes may involve which skill should be used in a certain process, the application of new technology, differentials or grading, but managements are not innocent bystanders. Some strikes will be declared unlawful because they are political. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not rush to intervene to tell me that all political strikes are unlawful, and always have been under labour legislation, and that "political" does not appear in the Bill. I know that.

Mr. Tebbit

The right hon. Gentleman is making progress.

Mr. Varley

I have always known that. I shall explain to the right hon. Gentleman what people really mean when they talk about political strikes. By narrowing the range of disputes to those that relate mainly to industrial matters, instead of being connected with them, there is a redefinition that excludes from legality, or restricts, great areas of industrial action that have been normal and lawful for decades.

A strike against the Government's privatisation schemes in public industries may be declared unlawful. For example, if gas workers want to take action to ensure that gas showrooms are not privatised, their action could be adjudged unlawful. Industrial action may be taken against public expenditure cuts and it may be banned. The courts will have to decide, and it is to that that we object.

Lord Justice Scarman once said that it is not a good thing to put judges in the driving seat of industrial relations. Judges are not notoriously good at dealing with industrial relations problems. Furthermore, the Government are removing the immunity of trade unions and their funds from liability in tort, and cases will come before the courts. If the Bill's provisions are implemented, cases will come before the courts as sure as night follows day. Injunctions will be granted. The instructions that will go from national presidents to general secretaries, executive committees and on to local or junior lay officers will in some instances become opaque because of the nature of the organisation and government of trade unions. The instructions will not be clear, issues will find their way to the courts and damages will be awarded. At that stage the balloon will go up. When that happens there will not be only 20, 30, 45 or 50 Members in the Chamber. The Secretary of State will have to tell the House that something comparable to the Con-Mech case has arisen.

Mr. Renton

rose—

Mr. Varley

The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Bill will not take us back to Taff Vale. There are doubts about that. However, it will take us back to the Con-Mech type case. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that case arose when the Industrial Relations Court ordered the sequestration of some of the AUEW's assets. Damages of £122,000 were awarded. A national engineering strike was called and, to the huge relief of the Government of the day and the engineering industry, a rich business man decided to pay the damages. The same thing could happen under the legislation that is now proposed.

Mr. Renton

Apart from saying that the balloon will go up in a grandiose way, what precise argument can the right hon. Gentleman advance that the trade unions, which have assets of £250 million and an annual income of £200 million, should retain total immunity from civil damages when neither their officials nor individual members have such immunity?

Mr. Varley

We are aware of the difficulty that this causes. No amount of injunctions and no amount of fines, or threatened fines, will necessarily divert men and women who believe that they have a genuine grievance. Injunctions and fines will not solve the problem. To bankrupt trade unions by imposing fines of up to £250,000 in any one case—damages could take the penalty up to £750,000—will not improve industrial relations. At least the House of Commons and the country generally are interested in good labour relations.

The balloon will go up and it is no good the right hon. Gentleman thinking otherwise. It is no good saying that sensible employers will not take action because matters might be taken out of their hands. Any person who believes that his interests or business has been affected will be able to take legal action. The Government may feel euphoric at seven o'clock this evening when the Division takes place. They will probably get some cheap cheers from the Tory faithful at Brighton in October, but I believe that even the Government will rue the day they enacted the Bill. When all the sections of the then Act are activated the Government are likely to blunder into one of the most bitter periods of industrial relations that we have ever seen, especially if the economy ever starts to recover.

I have never wanted to keep the law out of industrial relations. Some of the major benefits to workers have been spearheaded through trade unions arguing and succeeding in getting Parliament to enact legislation. Health and safety, legislation on equal pay, sex discrimination and employment protection have all helped tremendously.

There will be more legislation along those lines, but what distinguishes that legislation from the Bill is that on the whole it has benefited workers and their organisations and has been welcomed. This proposed law will never be accepted by the trade unions because it shackles them, promotes non-trade unionism and restricts collective bargaining. It is no good the Secretary of State and the Minister of State abusing trade union leaders and telling them that they are all bureaucrats and out of touch with their members, and that they have seen a public opinion poll that supports that view and supports the introduction of this measure. That is precisely what the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said when he was Prime Minister and when he took part in the Second Reading debate on the Industrial Relations Bill in 1971. We all know what happened to that Bill and that Prime Minister.

This Bill has little to do with individual freedom. In any case, even at this late stage, we are not taking lessons from the right hon. Members on the Government Benches about individual rights. Any Government who, after a debate lasting one and a half hours, can take away individual protection from over 1 million workers, as they did in 1979, have no right to lecture us about the individual worker. The position of the individual workers is still extremely weak compared with that of the employer and the huge financial strength of the transnational company, which is a mighty power in comparison. The only real protection that the worker has is through his trade union.

This Bill will damage industrial relations; it will do nothing to overcome the formidable economic problems that face this country. We shall continue to proclaim responsible free trade unionism as one of the absolute safeguards of our liberty. This Bill is dangerous, and that is why we shall oppose it. I repeat that we shall take it off the statute book at the first opportunity.

5.23 pm

Mr. Reg Prentice (Daventry)

The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) has told us that the Opposition will continue to fight for responsible free trade unionism in Britain. That is exactly what we on the Government Benches will fight for and why we shall support the Bill.

It is a great temptation to follow the right hon. Member for Chesterfield on many of the points that he made. Indeed, I could easily double or treble the length of the brief speech that I shall make by doing so, but I refer to two points only. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was in favour of industrial relations legislation provided that it was in the interests of working people. He does not really mean that. He means provided that the legislation is demanded by the TUC bureaucracy. That is not the same thing.

The Bill increases the rights of the individual worker in relation to the closed shop where, over many generations, those rights have been damaged by the operation of trade union bureaucrats and militants. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State quoted a MORI poll. The Government's proposals are supported by working people and by the majority of trade unionists.

On this issue, as on so many others, we are speaking for working people. We are not speaking for the vested interests of the TUC. What the right hon. Gentleman confirmed is that the Labour Party will never—literally never—come to the House and oppose the views of the TUC bureaucracy. I challenge the Opposition to quote any occasion over the past two or three years on which they have taken a stand at the Dispatch Box against the views of the TUC.

Mr. Winnick

Will the right hon. Gentleman hark back to 1969, when the Labour Government introduced, or proposed to introduce, legislation that was opposed by the TUC? He will remember that he took the view of the TUC at the time.

Mr. Prentice

Yes, I took the view of the TUC at that time. I have suffered from interventions on this matter in recent debates and I do not want to go back over history. The Labour Party in Opposition over the past three years, to the best of my knowledge—I hope that I can be contradicted—has not taken a view on any matter, large or small, that is different from that of its trade union paymasters.

The right hon. Gentleman concentrated on the Con-Mech case. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) answered his points fully and the right hon. Gentleman did not respond. The AUEW was in contempt of court. Does the right hon. Gentleman support a situation in which a large trade union, a responsible national body, defies the court, will not attend and will not respond to court decisions? The sequestration of funds was for contempt of court and for nothing else. The political fund was involved. Clause 15(2)(b) precludes that happening. It would be wrong for political or the other special funds mentioned to be touched by sequestration. The Con-Mech situation could not arise in the way suggested.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the balloon would go up. It will do so only if people deliberately intend it to go up, if trade union leaders, through a mixture of masochism and a desire to be martyred, deliberately act in contempt of the law.

I support the Bill as one of a series of measures which were described by the previous Secretary of State for Employment as a step-by-step process. The Government, rightly, have not gone down the same road as the Conservative Government of the 1970s, by having one large Bill on labour relations. They have, bit by bit, identified abuses and introduced modest measures to put them right. The 1980 Act was a useful first step, and this is a useful second one. I hope that we shall have yet more steps, not too far apart, and of reasonably substantial dimension.

The next step should be a Bill to provide for compulsory secret ballots for the election of senior union officers and in major industrial disputes. New clauses 1 and 2 were on the Order Paper last night. The Labour Party was so afraid to face a debate on the need to extend democracy in the unions that we had a series of artificial votes to keep the House occupied until the guillotine fell at midnight.

Mr. Allen McKay (Penistone)

I have worked with the secret ballot in the NUM for ages, without problems. The membership asked its leadership for secret ballots. If the members of other unions want secret ballots, surely they would say so and the rules would be changed.

Mr. Prentice

It would be much better for the unions to carry out the necessary reform themselves. The democratic system within the NUM has been of benefit to the country. Last winter, and the winter before, rank and file miners rejected executive advice for industrial action. I wish that ASLEF had had a similar system. It might have avoided the hardship that has been caused during the past few months to other workers who rely on the services of British Rail. We have waited for reform for many years. In the absence of progress, there comes a time when Parliament must act. I hope that it will do so before long.

I hope that we shall hear the SDP view. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) has suggested that it is wrong to play legislative ping-pong with industrial relations, with Labour and Conservative Government srepealing each other's measures. I should much prefer the two parties to reach a consensus on what is right for industrial relations law and for that situation to prevail over many years, thus enabling British industry and society to benefit from the continuity that would result. How can that consensus be established so long as the Labour Party is locked so closely with the trade union bureaucracy and so long as the trade union attitude to these matters is so reactionary that it will never look at any constructive reform of the law? If there were changes in that situation, we could work for consensus. We cannot have consensus when an attitude that is so utterly wrong is taken by the so-called Labour movement.

It is our duty to legislate to improve these matters step by step. It is for the electorate to avoid the disaster of another Labour Government who would get us back into such a mess again. I say that in the knowledge that recently the TUC and the Labour Party leadership, through their liaison committee, have once more been discussing how another Labour Government—if there ever were another Labour Government—would repeal these measures and put something in their place. I speak, sadly, with experience of membership of the liaison committee many years ago. I can explain the procedure. It is for the Labour Party leadership to ask the TUC what it wants and for the Labour leadership to do exactly what the TUC wants, not simply in general terms, but detail by detail, without any original thinking of its own.

The question has been asked whether the Bill positively helps industrial relations. I agree with those hon. Members who say that no piece of legislation can solve the problems of industrial relations. It is a matter of human relations, depending upon thousands of people in thousands of different situations on the management side and on the union side. I believe, however, that the Bill helps in two ways. The practical effect of the closed shop provisions will be to reduce the number of workers who are imprisoned in a closed shop situation. The main reason for that reform, as argued by the Minister today and by many hon. Members in the past, is to be found in terms of human freedom.

I also submit, as I attempted to do yesterday when skating on thin ice in terms of the rules of order on an amendment, that voluntary trade unionism is better trade unionism and that it can lead to better industrial relations at the workplace. If a trade union can say that it has voluntarily recruited the majority of people in a workplace, and can say to management that it is still enrolling new recruits who are joining of their own free will because they believe in what the union is doing, that carries more authority and represents a much more constructive situation than if people simply sign on with the union because they have to and are then taken for granted by shop stewards or trade union officials.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

Union membership in the teaching profession has been voluntary, although there has recently been more pressure upon people to join. Those teachers who have voluntarily joined unions of their choice are often more inclined to take part in union discussions and affairs than is the case when union membership is compulsory. That seems a positive aspect of what my right hon. Friend is saying. Does he agree?

Mr. Prentice

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend's comment. I had some experience, as a Minister in the Department of Education and Science, of dealing with teachers' unions. It was sometimes a frustrating experience. Sometimes one got angry with them. However, they are lively and vigorous bodies, because they are voluntary. The fact that they compete with one another for membership means that they are all the more responsive to the views and needs of their members than would ever be the case in a closed shop situation. Management is also put on its toes when it has to deal with trade unionism of that character.

I have had working experience as a trade unionist in a closed shop and in a voluntary membership organisation. I know which I preferred as a worker, and I believe that that is generally the case. It is wrong for a closed shop to be forced on people by union labour only contracts. The pressure comes from outside the workplace. Within the workplace the employers and the workers, whether or not they are members of unions, may have worked out their own arrangements to their mutual satisfaction. It is wrong that that should be changed at the dictate of an outside body.

I believe that the Bill will improve industrial relations because of clauses 13 to 16, which provide for unions to be made liable for action in tort. I disagree with the assessment of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. The practical effect will surely be that fewer industrial disputes will spread outwards to affect firms and workplaces that are not party to the original dispute. In other words, there will be fewer occasions on which production is stopped and fewer occasions on which workers who are not in dispute are laid off as a result of a dispute. That will mean improved industrial relations.

The Opposition have constantly argued that people will want to become martyrs and that they will deliberately invite a situation in which they are subject to actions for damages, refuse to pay the damages, are found guilty of contempt of court and go to gaol. I do not believe that Parliament would be worth its salt if we always legislated in terms of being afraid of what would happen if people were to exploit the law in such an unnatural way. If there are those who want to emulate the blessed martyrs of Pentonville, they will find ways of getting to gaol without any need to change the law. I do not believe, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield seemed to suggest, that senior union officials or senior union lay members of executives will get themselves into this sort of trouble. In the Pentonville incident it was Bernie Steer and his four friends who went to gaol; it was not Jack Jones and members of the general executive of the Transport and General Workers Union.

This is a modest and useful Bill. If the unions are sensible, they will stop all the extreme rhetoric and drop the proposals for protest strikes. They will accept the fact that they are just as much subject to the sovereignty of Parliament and the law of the land as anyone else. This Bill presents a challenge to the unions, which at present have a credibility problem. It is credibility that is affected by the callous strike today of Health Service workers at the expense of the sick, credibility that is affected by the fact that ASLEF continues to rat on its obligations to improve productivity on British Rail, and credibility that is affected by the decision of the biggest union in the Civil Service to elect a Trotskyist as its president and a Communist as its vice-president. It is they who have the problem. The future of trade unionism in Britain is not threatened by the Bill or by the Government. It is threatened by the continuing failure of the unions to put right their internal problems.

5.38 pm

Mr. Cyril Smith (Rochdale)

The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) said that hon. Members are reaching the end of a long and weary process—a process that has clearly demonstrated the stupidity of not properly timetabling Bills. That is, however, an issue that the House can debate on another occasion.

There are certainly those who have huffed and puffed to try to work up some great euphoria of opposition to the Bill. The trouble is that much of that opposition is a little synthetic. I pay tribute to the efforts of Labour Members on the Standing Committee, but the sittings were hardly as bloodcurdling as we had been led to believe would be the case.

Mr. Radice

The hon. Gentleman was not there all the time.

Mr. Smith

The hon. Gentleman says I was not there all the time. That may be true, but I do not think that I missed much on the occasions when I was not present. What is certain is that there were occasions when Labour Members could have been present, but were not, even after the guillotine motion had been passed. It was they who approached the Government to finish at 7.30 pm instead of 11 pm on two successive evenings. That is how bloodcurdling was the opposition of Labour Members to the Bill. Last night they could have kept the House voting on Government amendments until 2 am or 3 am to show their opposition to the Bill, which I understand happened on the Employment Bill 1971. This Labour Opposition have done none of that, which is why I describe them as a little synthetic. I do not object to the fact that the Opposition are synthetic. I simple draw attention to it.

We now have veiled threats from outside the House about what will happen to the Bill if and when it becomes law. In the past 24 hours the leadership of ASLEF, not being satisfied with the great damage that it has already done to the future of British Rail, has said that it wishes to disrupt it further. That is because of the gross misunderstanding that has been worked up about the Bill.

I said in an intervention on Report that I had heard no objections to the Bill at meetings that I had addressed or at the doors on which I had knocked during the past few weeks. As a Member of Parliament who receives about 300 to 400 letters every week, I have received about six to eight letters about the Bill from people who are worked up about it or who seem to object to the fact that I voted in favour of it. The great euphoria about opposition to the Bill is not justified and it does not represent the views of the people.

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East)

Will the hon. Member tell us whether one of those letters was from the national council of the Liberal Party, which takes a rather different view from him?

Mr. Smith

I did not receive a letter from the national council, but the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that it takes a different view from me. That shows that some of us are not puppets of our party, but can make up our minds and act accordingly.

There is not as much in the Bill to which one can object as some hon. Members would have us believe. I suspect that the shouting about the Bill by trade union leaders has more to do with party politics than with trade unionism and industrial relations. It is significant that the shouting is done by union leaders rather than by trade unionists.

What does the Bill do? First, it gives individuals who are sacked for refusing to belong to a trade union the right to claim damages for unfair dismissal. It does not make the closed shop illegal. I wish that it did. It does not force a trade union to have a ballot about a closed shop, but says that if an individual is sacked when there has not been a ballot, a claim for unfair dismissal is established. It does not say that if there is a ballot and the necessary percentages are not obtained the closed shop is illegal and cannot continue. The object of the ballot is merely to establish the right to a claim for unfair dismissal. I cannot understand why people become so worked up about that.

The Bill also provides that one cannot stop a company from obtaining work solely—I repeat the word "solely"—on the ground that not all of its employees belong to a trade union. There is nothing to become worked up about in that. The Bill also provides that trade unions, like everyone else, must be answerable in law for their actions.

Those are the three principal points of the Bill, and I cannot understand the opposition to the measure. It does not make trade union membership illegal or take away from trade unionists the right to strike against their employer. I do not understand why it is supposed to be a trade-union-bashing Bill. I interpret it as a Bill that offers protection to the individual against a large movement in Britain—the trade union movement—which, if it is not controlled, can injure seriously the right of an individual to work and to continue to work.

I said on Second Reading that the Bill does not deal with industrial relations. Matters such as industrial democracy and worker participation are much more relevant to industrial relations than the Bill. However, the measure is before us and we must judge it on its merits.

It follows from what I have said that I do not find the Bill objectionable in principle. I should have supported some changes, especially on the size of penalties, but in principle it is acceptable. That is why I shall vote for its Third Reading.

There is an alternative to the way in which I act on Third Reading. I could have considered abstention and, clearly, in the present political circumstances I gave a little thought to that. However, I am not an abstainer by nature, certainly not in political matters. This issue is much too important for one not to express a definite view either for or against it. The only interest that I am here to protect is that of the individual, and I cannot protect that interest by abstaining tonight. I believe that I shall help that interest by voting for the Bill.

That is what I intend to do and it is what I have advised my right hon. and hon. Friends to do. Whether they take that advice is a matter for them. I see colleagues as individuals rather than as Lobby fodder, but if, as I believe, they are interested in the liberty of the individual, his right to run his life as he wishes and to belong to that which he chooses and nothing more, my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby this evening to support the Third Reading of the Bill. I have no reason to believe that they will not do so.

5.47 pm

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex)

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). I listened carefully to what he said because throughout the passage of the Bill he has been extremely persuasive in supporting the cause of the individual. I wish only that his colleagues in the SDP had been as united and determined to do the same. Their speeches and their attitude to time—I include the Opposition Front Bench—reminded me of the words of Henry V before the battle of Agincourt. When he said: That he which hath no stomach to this fight, let him depart; his passport shall be made, and crowns for convoy put into his purse". That is precisely what has happened to the SDP. Its members will abstain—the privilege of the eunuch through the ages. The official Opposition, on two evenings when we should have been debating until late at night, had crowns for convoy put into their purse, their passport was made and they departed early, rather than fight the Bill through. That will stand on their record.

The Opposition has been largely synthetic and the same goes for the TUC. It issued the great campaign pack against the Bill—"Fight Tebbit's Law". The best thing that it can do with the campaign pack is to hire an aeroplane and drop it on Buenos Aires. It would frighten the Argentines if this red and white document, several pounds in weight, came hurtling through the air, but it will not frighten or impress any British trade unionists. No working trade unionist in Britain, who is not an active trade union official, opposes the Bill. He does not care about it.

Mr. Allen McKay

rose—

Mr. Renton

The hon. Gentleman can make his speech later. I wish to continue with mine.

There is no serious shop floor opposition to the Bill—quite the opposite. The TUC is trying to stir up a synthetic campaign, full of sound and fury, that is signifying nothing. It will quickly disappear.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the cleverness of the Bill. However, there is one significant omission that my right hon. Friend touched on earlier. There is no requirement in the Bill for trade unions to extend secret ballots. I can understand why the Government are hesitant, even reluctant, to require trade unions to change their rule books. Clearly that requires a great deal of thought and it is most important that we should get the formula right. Therefore, it is disgraceful that the two new clauses that were on the Order Paper for debate between 11 o'clock and 12 o'clock last night could not be considered. Although the official Opposition agreed through the Business Committee that there should be an hour for the debate, they were so frightened of having any discussion about more democracy in the trade union movement that they abused the procedures of the House and forced a series of votes on technical matters so that a debate could not take place.

There is no doubt that that was an abuse of the procedures of the House. Why are the official Opposition so worried about a discussion on more democracy in the trade union movement? Is pressure put on some members of the Opposition by some of their friends among the union leaders? I refer to such lifers as Clive Jenkins, who was appointed for life in ASTMS, Moss Evans, who was elected for life, Alan Fisher of NUPE, who was appointed for life, and Geoffrey Drain of NALGO. Are the Opposition so swayed by these influential men that they want to protect them from having to stand for election? If that is not the reason—

Mr. Allen McKay

rose—

Mr. Renton

I shall not give way. I know that the hon. Gentleman is an active member of APEX, which is my union too, and I hope he will have an opportunity later to make his speech.

If the Opposition are not frightened, why do they constantly resist a debate on more democracy and more secret ballots in the union movement? Surely it is abundantly plain that the spread of balloting in the movement is in the public interest. It must equally be true that it is in the interests of the trade union movement that union leaders should be representative of those they claim to speak for.

The events of the past week in the Civil and Public Servants Association should make the Labour Party welcome the spread of ballots for the regular election of national union officials. Kevin Roddy, a member of Militant Tendency, was elected as president of the CPSA. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) grins at the mention of his name, but as a moderate member of the Labour Party and opposed to Militant Tendency he should be very worried about Kevin Roddy's election.

Kevin Roddy was elected president of that important union despite the fact that there were only 100 members of the Militant Tendency in the CPSA. He was elected with only 23,000 votes out of 208,000. He achieved that because of the mechanism of the branch block vote. If only 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. of the membership turn up—a normal figure—none the less the total membership of the branch is deemed to have voted for the candidate decided on at the meeting. Clearly that is an undemocratic procedure. It leads to results, as in the election of Kevin Roddy, that do not reflect the wishes of the membership.

Recently, Frank Chapple, under the Daily Express headline "Chapple spills the Beans", pointed out that delegates from his union were regularly elected at meetings where only 1½ per cent. of those entitled to attend bothered to do so. Surely it is in the interests of Labour Members who oppose the Militant Tendency to encourage more secret ballots within the trade union movement. That was the purpose of new clause 1 that should have been debated last night.

I do not suggest that the Government should force unions to hold secret ballots, but if after a period unions have not changed their rules to allow regular secret ballots, a group of trade unionists within that union—large enough to put off the frivolous and small enough to be achievable—should be able to ask the Government of the day to change the union rule book for them. That would be a major, and by far and away the most important, step in changing the trade union movement.

As the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said earlier, what the trade union movement has to worry about now is not this legislation but the spread of extremism within the movement that is not representative of the majority of trade unionists.

Many hon. Members know that this call for a mandatory right for groups of trade unionists to be able to ask for secret ballots was made by Conservative Trade Unionists. I am proud to be president of that organisation. It is a change for which it has campaigned, supported by all its branches, for many years. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us that shortly, either before the next general election or when the Conservative Party has been re-elected, the Government will commit themselves to bringing forward legislation to enable changes to be made in the rule books of those unions that have not yet made the change, but only when union members ask for it.

Nothing would change the unions more than if officials who are at present elected or appointed for life had to stand for regular election at least every five years. We have to in this House, so why should not leaders of the trade unions do so? Regular secret ballots for the election of national officials will be more fundamental in reforming the trade union movement than anything in the Bill. They will drag the trade unions, screaming in some cases, pleased in others, into the last decade of this century.

6 pm

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford)

The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), who is president of the Conservative Trade Unionists, did not do a bad job of trade union bashing in most of his speech. I could not follow his logic in the remainder of it. Trade unions have their own rules. If they want to alter them or the method by which they adopt their officers, they can do so by passing a resolution at the annual conference. The hon. Gentleman's argument is irrelevant, because the opportunity already exists for trade union members who wish to use it.

I shall be brief, because we do not have much time and other hon. Members wish to speak. Therefore, I shall curtail many of my remarks. I shall also generalise, because many of the specific points that I wished to make have already been referred to. It is not my habit to make cheap political points. They serve no useful purpose, but the debates of the past two days have shown that many hon. Members feel that the more that they can deceive the public and kid them, the more successful they will be.

The Government are making a big mistake by introducing the Bill. I think that I know why they have been pushed into doing so. After the 1978 winter of strife—I did not condone union actions that resulted in people having to bury their own dead—the Prime Minister went on television, held her fist in the air and said "By God, I will take them on." That attitude has resulted in the presentation of the Bill.

The Bill is designed to stop the excesses of those engaged in purely political activities and to prevent them from using their power base to achieve political objectives, but it is a punitive legal framework to impose on the trade union movement and it includes extreme financial penalties for unions, officers and individual members. If Conservative Members do not agree, let them tell me why the Government have not taken similar punitive measures against employers and their federations.

Clauses 13 to 16 are the heart of the Bill and raise fundamental issues relating to industrial relations. I shall not go into detail, but I regret that the Gennard report has not been available. The House should have had the opportunity to see that report before passing the Bill.

Clause 2 on the closed shop can have only a disruptive effect on the trade union movement. It will create nothing but chaos in the mining industry, in which I spent all my working life before being elected to the House. A closed shop could not work in the mining industry. The activities and policies of the NUM are a model to other trade unions, and the closed shop could not work without creating tremendous friction among the workers in that industry.

I can speak with some knowledge, because half of my career in the industry was spent at the coal face and the other half as a personnel manager. Before being elected to the House I was personnel manager at a large pit, and I know that the closed shop could not work in the mining industry without creating chaos.

Mr. Allen McKay

My hon. Friend says that the closed shop would not work in the mining industry. I think that he meant to put it the other way round and say that the industry could not work without the closed shop.

Mr. Lofthouse

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I apologise if I was not communicating my views clearly.

Mr. Tebbitt

We understood the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lofthouse

I was always taught that the art of good English is to communicate. As long as hon. Members understood me, I made my point.

The Secretary of State said yesterday that my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) did not understand clause 13. If that is true of my hon. Friend—and I do not say that it is—it may be true of me. The clause deals with trade disputes that are authorised or endorsed by a responsible person.

I do not understand how the clause can be operated without many court hearings. Which officers of a union will be responsible for trade disputes? Nowhere can I see how a local official, who is not employed by the union can be deemed to be responsible for calling a strike. Who will fine him? Without long court hearings, how will anyone be able to decide who is responsible? It will be extremely difficult.

Clause 17 was deleted yesterday, without debate, and I understand that new clause 25, which was approved without a debate, replaces it.

I oppose the Bill, not because of political dogma, but because I believe that it is not needed. We should not pass legislation that will create problems. The Bill is already doing that, as was made clear by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex when he held up the poster referring to "Tebbit's Law". The Bill is creating such problems throughout our society. It will provoke unnecessary bitterness.

With regard to the matters that would have been covered by clause 17, where continuance of service is taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing redundancy payments, I hope that the Minister will consider introducing a clause to protect those unfortunate people who have been caught by the provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. I am sure that when that measure went through the House it was not intended that it should catch them.

In the mining industry there are men who, unfortunately, have suffered severe injuries. By agreement between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, for administrative purposes such men are taken off the colliery books after 18 months. Eventually, some of them return to work with arms and legs missing; some of them lose both legs. If at some later time they are made redundant, the time that they have spent off work as a result of their severe injuries is taken into consideration and the years of qualification are calculated only from the day on which they re-started work.

When a man has worked for about 40 years in the mining industry and loses a leg, he should not be jeopardised because, through no fault of his own, by agreement between his trade union and his employers, he is taken off the books. His redundancy payment should not be jeopardised as a result of that action.

If the Secretary of State wishes to change his image as a hard-hearted hatchet man, let him start with the miners and show that he is concerned with cases of the nature that I have mentioned. Let him introduce the appropriate legislation, through the Bill, in another place.

6.12 pm

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) down many of the paths that he took, but I particularly challenge him when he says that the Bill is not needed. I shall try to show why I think that it is very much needed and why I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing it.

I enjoyed the Minister's opening speech, but I was sorry to have missed some of the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley). I have always regarded the right hon. Gentleman as a compassionate man, and I cannot understand how he is able to hold the views that he does on trade union matters.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) made a telling point when he said that voluntary union membership is the best. It certainly is the best. I have had long experience of it. Voluntary union membership induces, encourages and sustains participation of a high order on the part of the members. There is a large attendance of members at meetings. Members who belong to unions voluntarily are much more inclined to speak up and put their points of view than are members of closed shops. A much greater percentage of such members take part in union elections.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) quoted example after example of unions in which only 1½ per cent. of the membership took part in important national elections. That needs to be put right, as do many other matters, particularly those concerning the closed shop.

I speak as the president of the Conservative teachers trade union organisation, and I am very proud of that fine body of admirable men and women. They, like me, feel that the two values that best sum up the British approach to life are tolerance and freedom. A belief in individual freedom of action under the law, and the tolerance of individual differences, have pervaded our nation's history. We have fought against tyranny in two world wars. We call for human rights to be allowed in countries where they are denied—currently in countries such as Poland and Argentina, to mention but two. Yet in Britain we have endured the tyranny—it is no less—of the closed shop.

The closed shop denies human rights. It denies freedom of action to individuals. It denies the mutual respect of employees in a workplace, because it imposes a trade union tyranny that is immune to the law. The closed shop takes power from the individual and diminishes him. Power must move from the State to the individual, to enlarge the individual, if he is to have that important feeling of self-dignity that is fundamental to happiness and a sense of general satisfaction.

The Bill provides the opportunity to curtail the tyranny of the closed shop. I am delighted that the House has grasped the opportunity with both hands and in doing so has upheld the principle of the freedom of the individual employee.

The Trades Union Congress held a day of action on 14 May 1980. It was not a strike in furtherance of a trade dispute. Under the Bill, political disputes of that kind will not have the protection of the law. How can anyone honourably oppose that provision?

The Bill will give some hope to people who are victims of the abuse of trade union power, as was one of my constituents, Mr. Graham Hunter-Gray, recently. Graham did not object in principle to the closed shop as a matter of interest. He had applied to join the Transport and General Workers Union, but he objected to the TUC's day of action on 14 May 1980. He arrived for work on that day expecting to do a day's work, which his employer had led him to believe would be possible, and which the union had said would be acceptable to it. However, as a result of his arriving for work on that day his application for union membership was turned down at a special union branch meeting at which Graham—a man of only 21—had to face 26 hostile union members.

In a sense, it was like retrospective legislation. Graham was refused union membership because he had not complied with union intructions before they could even apply to him, since he was not a member of the union at the time. He was not allowed to join the union because he had not complied with union instructions. He was also censured because he happened to say that he was a Conservative voter. What sort of freedom is that? He lost his job because he was not a union member, and because the plant operated a closed shop the employer had no choice.

Graham gave notice of appeal on 5 June 1980, and on 23 July the Transport and General Workers Union regional committee wrote to him saying that it stood by the branch decision not to accept him into membership. In the same letter he was advised of his right to appeal to the independent review committee. That hearing did not take place until six months later, on 13 January 1981. Not only did Graham have to wait all that time for a final decision, but he was denied a job on the false premise that he was against the closed shop in principle.

As Graham's local Member of Parliament, I raised the matter on the Floor of the House on several occasions. We took legal advice and did everything that could be done in a democratic society, but the union was above the law. Graham had no rights and lost his job. There was no redress, even in Parliament. He was also victimised. Three other members of the TGWU who worked on 14 May 1980—the so-called day of action—were fined. The important fact is that they were members of the union. Graham says that if he had been a union member who had not followed the decision of the branch he would have expected to be disciplined—though the thought of it baffles me.

I welcome the Bill, for the sake of Graham and other victims of the closed shop. It provides a remedy for an employee who is unfairly dismissed. He or she can complain to an industrial tribunal, which may award compensation, and, if it thinks it practical, reinstatement. The Bill goes some way towards minimising the tyranny of the closed shop and upholding the liberty of the individual.

Graham never regained his employment. He was not given membership of the TGWU. Graham finally appealed, but was entirely on his own. He had to face four professionals from the union putting its case. I was not allowed to be with him, nor was anybody else. I cannot see that that is justice. How can the House possibly stand by while that position pertains? How can right hon. and hon. Gentlemen pretend in a weak and pious way that that is justice for the individual? It is not, and the House must be the bastion of individual freedom.

Graham's case is symptomatic of the freedom that is being restored to individuals who have suffered grievously, unfairly and miserably at the hands, of tyrannical union leaders and when large numbers of union members join in an aggressive, unfair and inconsiderate way to deny a man his right to employment and freedom. We have always fought for those principles and I shall continue to do so.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)

I understand that the Front Bench speeches will start at 6.30 pm.

6.23 pm

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East)

Most legislation is, like the curate's egg, bad in parts. Having looked through this Bill, I cannot find any good parts. It is a thoroughly bad Bill. I should like to remind the Minister that the trade union movement was born in this country and has many millions of members. It is a reputable and patriotic body of people. It is not an alien institution to be attacked. I should have thought that any Government would seek the co-operation of the trade union movement and not its hostility.

We were told that industrial relations were improving. The last year for which we have the figures shows 4 million days lost in strikes, 371 million days lost through sickness and 780 million days lost through unemployment. The Government seem determined to enter into conflict with the trade union movement. My impression is that the Minister regards trade unions as does General Galtieri. He does not approve of them. I understand that there is more legislation to come and that the step-by-step approach is to continue to squeeze trade unionism gradually out of our society, and to leave everything to the workings of crude market forces. The Government want a union-free society.

The Minister's ire has been aroused by 100 per cent. union shops. He wants to neuter them. In Committee the Minister of State referred to what he called the Strathclyde research. We pricked our ears up because that interested us. We discovered that it was Professor Gennard's research, which was instituted in 1978. It is thorough and reputable research on the closed shop. The right hon. Gentleman said that the fieldwork had been done but that he had not seen the results. I find it almost impossible to believe—of course I believe what he says—that he has not had a peep at it. It is almost a dereliction of duty for him not to have looked at the research. There was a leak in The Observer which said that only 12 per cent. of managers thought that the closed shop encouraged inefficiencies while 53 per cent. believed that they received benefits from the system.

Why is there such a hurry to introduce legislation? The Under-Secretary of State for Employment told us yesterday, quite wrongly, that since 1980 there had been an increase in the number of victims of the closed shop. In fact one can count the number on one hand. Why legislate and then get the facts from Professor Gennard? Why not obtain the facts first and legislate on the basis of that examination? It seems that the Minister and the Government are prejudiced and do not want to be confused by the facts.

The question of the privileges of trade unions is absurd. We know that there is no written constitution and there are no rights under it. Under common law interfering with contracts by a trade union would be a breach of the law and therefore Parliament has seen fit to give them immunities. Translated into plain English, that means rights and freedoms. Those rights and freedoms apply only in the contemplation or the furtherance of a trade dispute. What constitutes a trade dispute? The definition is being narrowed and is now imprecise. What does "wholly or mainly" mean? Nobody knows. The judges will have to interpret the law and there will be many grey areas. Quite often we shall not know what is or is not lawful.

In Committee we were told that trade union presidents and general secretaries should keep their mouths shut. Unless they repudiate actions, union funds could become liable. After the Industrial Relations Act 1971 every piece of paper that went out from my union had on it: "This document is not legally binding." In future trade unions will have to have letters printed saying: "I repudiate this action." Whenever there is action, the union will have to send out that letter. If trade union officers want to organise action, they should see the chaps and tell them what to do. They should then say, "Here is a letter repudiating your action." The Bill puts a premium on unofficial action. Unless the union officers repudiate the action, the union funds could be plundered.

Surely this is leading us in the direction of anarchy. Under the 1980 Act, the employer was given his remedy, but it was up to him to decide whether to use it. Now third parties can trigger this mechanism, and in that way employers will lose control of their own industrial relations.

Then we have these enormous fines of £250,000. The unions will not pay these huge fines. They will not consider them just.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington)

Rubbish.

Mr. Leighton

I tell the hon. and learned Gentleman to wait and see. We shall soon see who has been talking the rubbish.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Mr. Harold Walker.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are the safeguard of the interests of Back Benchers. I sat through a great deal of yesterday's Report stage. I have sat through a great deal of today's proceedings hoping to make my contribution as the Bill passed through the House of Commons.

May I ask why all those right hon. and hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee and who made major contributions to yesterday's Report stage appear to be given precedence over those hon. Members who wish to contribute once only to the passage of a vital Bill? I look to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to safeguard the interests of hon. Members who believe that they have important contributions to make to this Third Reading debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is making a serious reflection upon my predecessors in the Chair, because he knows that I took the Chair only about three minutes ago.

Many hon. Members wished to take part in this short debate. The hon. Gentleman has been unlucky today. He may be lucky on another occasion. Mr. Harold Walker.

6.32 pm

Mr. Harold Walker (Doncaster)

With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I point out that I had not sought to catch your eye when the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) rose on his point of order? My view was that since the debate was being curtailed for obvious and very proper reasons, it would have been sensible for the two Front Bench spokesmen to act with some restraint and give Back Benchers a greater opportunity to participate. In the circumstances I felt that it would not have been unreasonable if I had taken 10 minutes of the time available on behalf of the official Opposition and if the Secretary of State had taken an equal amount of time so that we could still have the Division at 7 o'clock. However, I understand that the Secretary of State insisted to the Chair that I should be called at half-past six and that he expected to have 20 minutes in which to reply on behalf of the Government.

The Secretary of State may ride roughshod over the trade union movement, but it is intolerable if he thinks that he can do the same to the House of Commons. I shudder to think what tactics that man would adopt if he had the opportunity. The trade union movement can see now what kind of Secretary of State is responsible for the legislation that will govern the conduct of our industrial relations until the next general election.

Mr. Waddington

Cool it,

Mr. Walker

The Under-Secretary of State advises me to cool it. He is the hon. Member who ought to learn a little about cooling matters, bearing in mind the abusive venom that he heaped on the trade union movement in the Standing Committee and elsewhere, denouncing trade unions for their villainy, and so on. The House of Commons must watch itself carefully when it allows itself to be pushed round by Ministers of any Government—

Mr. Renton

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not it a fact that the House was pushed around by the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and others of his right hon. and hon. Friends last night when we were unable to debate new clauses, which the Opposition had agreed should be debated for an hour, because the right hon. Gentleman insisted on voting on a great many purely technical amendments? It was the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends who pushed the House around.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I must tell the hon. Member that that is in no sense a point of order.

Mr. Harold Walker

rose—

Mr. Bill Walker (Perth and East Perthshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I remind the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) that we are debating this Third Reading under a guillotine.

Mr. Bill Walker

I understand that, but I am sure that the Chair will appreciate that my point of order is relative to time. The time allocated for the Bill in Committee was not used fully. Therefore I suggest that it is irresponsible of any Opposition Member to suggest that we have not used the time available properly.

Mr. Harold Walker

I shall take note of the interruptions and assume that I am entitled to injury time. What is more, if the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) had contained himself for a minute he would have found that I wanted to refer to the events of last night—[Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I am subjected to sedentary interruptions, especially from hon. Members who have taken no part in our proceedings, matters become rather difficult.

I wanted to deal with the serious point raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex about the new clauses which both sides of the House had tabled. I ask him to remember that the official Opposition had tabled a string of new clauses which were neither called nor likely to be called. We had equal reason to be resentful because important new clauses much cherished by us had no opportunity for debate and decision. I make no complaint about the Chair. I say simply that the reason was that Government supporters voted in favour of guillotining the Bill. In the circumstances, it is a bit much for them to vote for curtailment of debate and then to complain that they have been unable to pre-empt some of the limited time available.

Mr. Stan Crowther (Rotherham)

Perhaps my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the fact that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) failed to persuade his own Government to include in the Bill the matters of which he is now complaining. He can hardly blame the Opposition for the fact that they were not in the original Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that we shall not attempt to discuss new clauses which were or might have been considered yesterday. This is the Third Reading debate.

Mr. Harold Walker

I make no complaint that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex took the opportunity today to make the speech that probably he would have made yesterday if he had been given the chance. But I put this serious point to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because there is a difficulty about determining the priority in which new clauses are considered on Report. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that it is the pure chance timing of submission or the random chance selection of the printer which determines the order in which new clauses shall be considered.

I am not sure that that is good enough, and it may be that if we could devise a more sensible system which took account of the merits of new clauses, we would avoid the position that we reached last evening.

Mr. Renton

The right hon. Gentleman has been in the House a long time, and he knows the procedure of the House much better than I do, but the order in which new clauses are selected for debate is not a haphazard process at all. It is decided by Mr. Speaker's Committee. It is that Committee which decides the order in which new clauses shall be considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I say again to the House that we are now on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Harold Walker

I may be quite wrong in my assumptions about the way in which new clauses are selected, and I accept your reproach, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I turn immediately to the very serious point made by the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), and I speak in this matter only for myself. The right hon. Gentleman repeated his challenge to the Opposition about whether we believed that people should observe the law passed by Parliament. In my view every hon. Member ought to be here because he believes in the rule of law and in parliamentary democracy. We ought to expect that if the law bears heavily on certain groups or individuals, their way to seek redress is to have a change of Parliament which will enable the election of a Government more sympathetic to their point of view. That is the was that we all hope and assume that our system of parliamentary democracy works.

That is all very well as a theory, and I endorse it. But is the right hon. Member for Daventry really saying that there are not people in his own party, for example, who do not seek to frustrate or evade the laws that we pass? We hear of people with funds in the Cayman Islands or in Swiss numbered accounts. There is a range of tax evasions and avoidance that is carried on. All that is held to be perfectly legitimate. Some right hon. and hon. Members who support the present Government argue that if Parliament imposes certain laws, they have a legitimate right to employ professional expert advisers to tell them how to evade or cheat those laws.

Mr. Greenway

Name them.

Mr. Leighton

Vestey.

Mr. Greenway

He is not an hon. Member.

Mr. Harold Walker

Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that no one should ever try to resist what is manifestly and patently an unjust law? Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that if the majority discriminate against a minority, there should be no resistance? Does he suggest that if the two-eyed people passed a law that bore heavily on one-eyed people, we should complain when the one-eyed people said, "We are not having it"? Throughout our history and that of other countries are there not examples of people who have defied the law and who are now regarded as heroes because of their actions? Those who have deliberately chosen the consequences having been given the choice of observing the law or of accepting he consequences of their defiance. In Britain, when we pass a law, we do not say that a person must not break it or else he may face the death penalty, for example. We say that he must be prepared to accept the consequences. Even the Prime Minister is among those who have endorsed and applauded the trade unionists who have defied their lawfully elected Government in Poland. I may be wrong. If so, I must apologise.

Mr. Prentice

When the Bill is on the statute book, will the right hon. Gentleman condemn any official or unofficial trade union action in defiance of it?

Mr. Walker

Perhaps I may complete my point about Poland.

Mr. Christopher Murphy (Welwyn and Hatfield)

Answer.

Mr. Walker

I shall make my speech in my own way. The less time I have as a result of interruptions the less time will be available to the Secretary of State. It is the Secretary of State's speech that is being eaten into and interrupted. The hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy), who, to the best of my knowledge, has not been here throughout the proceedings, might bear that in mind.

Mr. Murphy

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is inaccurate and I should like him to withdraw his allegation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Walker

I said "to the best of my recollection". It remains the same. I share others' abhorrence of the political system that elects the Polish Government. I understand that the Prime Minister has endorsed the actions of Solidarity, which is opposed to its own Government. The right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) cannot have it both ways. I speak only for myself. The right hon. Member for Daventry asked whether I will condemn union action. I must wait and see. Neither he nor any other right hon. or hon. Member can say categorically what their view will be, as it is based upon a hypothetical circumstance.

The Secretary of State repeated the extraordinary assertion that the Bill is an employment Bill. The title is inappropriate. I do not know what it has to do with employment.

Mr. Dickens

It deals with workers' rights.

Mr. Walker

I can see only one additional job—that of the assessor who will disburse the bribes to non-unionists as provided by clause 1. Moreover, it creates much extra work for lawyers. To assert that one of the purposes of the Bill is to help to produce a balanced labour market is extraordinary in the light of the Government's record on unemployment. They have created well over 3 million unemployed. They have dismantled the industrial training boards and damaged the existing trading system. There have been reports of a threat to close jobcentres or for them to be relocated in back streets. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or any hon. Member believes that the Bill is seriously intended to help the labour market, you will believe anything.

It is undeniable that the closed shop often entails some loss of individual liberty. Conservative Members nod at that. It is understandable. They are right to do so. It must be borne in mind, however, that every time we pass an Act, we curtail someone's liberty. This Bill curtails many people's liberty. The Secretary of State is proud of that. He is proud to curtail the rights of trade unions and trade unionists. There are both collective and individual rights. We must be prepared to balance the interests of the one against the other. In the light of the difficulties that have arisen from the attempts to impose a statutory framework on the closed shop, I prefer the much more practical approach of leaving it to the parties in industry mutually to agree the best way of conducting the matter.

Despite what I said about injury time, I do not want to eat into the time available for the Secretary of State. I shall deal with what may seem a small point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer)—that of safety. The Secretary of State has shown himself to be anxious lest people suggest that his measure will affect safety. He has referred to safety on ships, but it applies elsewhere.

One of the most important recent developments in industrial occupational health and safety has been the provision of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act which provides for the appointment of work people safety representatives and statutory safety committees. They are both linked to the trade unions involved and recognised by the employer. They were accepted by the House and fully explained in 1974. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley was absolutely right to raise the issue.

I have spoken rather longer than I intended mainly because of interruptions. I have been dismayed by the way in which the Secretary of State and his team have handled the matter. They have completely disregarded the basis upon which, until the appearance of this Bill it was assumed that industrial relations were established. They have disregarded collective bargaining between strong trade unions and employers or employers' associations. I have also been dismayed by the style with which they have conducted themselves. They have made absolutely clear at every twist and turn their dislike, amounting to hatred, for the trade union movement, trade unions and trade unionists.

The Minister of State shakes his head. I recall what he said today. He called trade unions tigers of persecution and examples of ruthless ideological motivation. If there is any ruthless ideological motivation, it is seated on those Benches now. That is the kind of language that is employed. In Standing Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the villainy of the trade unions. Such comments demonstrate the Government's attitude to the trade union movement. It is no use the Secretary of State shaking his watch or knocking it. He will not push me around even though he may try to push the House about.

I look forward to the day when the Labour Party sits on the Government Benches. We will cleanse the statute book of the Bill, its predecessor, any successor that may arrive and of all the attacks on workers' rights that the Tories have perpetrated since they took office. We will replace them with more constructive and beneficial legislation that recognises the rights and role of workers in our modern society.

6.47 pm

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit)

One of the reasons why the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) will never sit on this side again is that the public, as much as his colleagues, have no time for a man who breaks an undertaking.

Mr. Harold Walker

rose—

Mr. Tebbit

I would be trespassing beyond the limits of veracity if I said that any remarkable, or unremarkable, new points—

Mr. Walker

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that if a right hon. or hon. Gentleman makes a serious allegation against another hon. Member he must substantiate or withdraw it? As I made clear, there was no undertaking.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Serious allegations are frequently made in this place.

Mr. Tebbit

So are bargains and they are usually kept. Whatever efforts have been made to generate passion, no one has been able to generate even synthetic passion until the right hon. Member for Doncaster had his tantrum which led him to express sympathy for those who break the law. Poland is no comparison. There are no free elections there.

The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) got it right when he said that he and trade union leaders favour legislation that takes away the common law rights of ordinary working people and gives the power and the privilege to the TUC and the leadership of the unions. He said that he and the TUC would always oppose legislation that trimmed that power and privilege and returned common law rights to ordinary people. The right hon. Gentleman may have used slightly different terms, but that was the meaning of the early part of his speech.

The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the attitude of the Engineering Employers Federation. I think that he may have been misled by selective quotation in the press. Dr. McFarlane, the director of the EEF, was so concerned about this that it may help if I quote what he said on "The World at One" about it. The interview included the following: Mr. Jones: How far would you say that you are going then in supporting Mr. Tebbit in view of your concern over the closed shop? Dr. McFarlane: I would say that everything in Mr. Tebbit's Bill are things that we as a Federation have asked for to be implemented at some stage. Where we perhaps have a difference with the Secretary of State is that his order of priority is not the same as ours. That is the extent of the difference between myself and the EEF. I have overwhelming support from the EEF, the CBI and all the other employers' organisations.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman also misled himself about the effect of changes in the law affecting the definition of lawful industrial disputes. A worker in dispute with his employer about whether he or another worker did a particular job would not on that ground be outside the protection of the law. A worker in dispute with his employer about redundancy would not be outside the protection of the law on the ground that his redundancy might arise out of a Government decision on, for example, public expenditure. I have made that plain before, as have my hon. and right hon. Friends, but the right hon. Gentleman insists on not understanding.

The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) reflected his lifelong experience in these matters and I would scarcely differ from a word of it.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State outlined the provisions of the Bill once again, so in view of the short time that the right hon. Member for Doncaster has left me I shall not go over the provisions again.

The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) made the same speech as he made yesterday, even introducing the same addled curate's egg. His only new point was that General Galtieri does not like trade unions. I hope that he will tell that to his right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), as it might change the right hon. Gentleman's attitude of support for that regime.

The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) referred to the case of a miner's loss of the right to redundancy pay. I know that he has written to the Department about that case. It raises serious issues and I shall examine it to see whether we can help. As he knows, however, there are more complications than he could explain in an understandably short speech.

The right hon. Member for Chesterfield asked about the coming into force of the Bill. I repeat that clause 1 and schedule 1 will come into effect immediately upon enactment. As I have made perfectly plain, the closed shop balloting provisions will come into force one or two years after enactment, when I have considered how much notice might be required to ensure that all unions and employers have had time to make suitable arrangements. The remainder of the provisions will come into effect without abnormal delay. That is what I said in Committee and again yesterday. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) asked about future legislation, and in particular about legislation on ballots. Unions are powerful bodies both in relation to the community at large and in relation to individuals. In many cases, their balloting procedures for senior offices are highly unsatisfactory. Time and again, there are challenges in the courts alleging ballot-rigging and similar malpractice. Sometimes people are elected for life on tiny and perhaps unrepresentative minorities in ballots which are disputed. Public concern about these matters is growing and I am conscious of that pressure.

I still hope that unions will reform their own procedures. That is the best way to allay the well-founded public concern about this. I am ready to help the unions to do that. Money is available to finance secret postal ballots, and if more help is needed I will see whether I can give it. I hope, however, that trade unions will not try the patience of the public too far or they will build up an irresistible pressure for legislation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), in his account of the persecution of a man who was deprived of his job merely because he did not go along with an unlawful act by a trade union, made the case for the Bill in his speech alone. If there were no other case for the Bill, that case would be ample and sufficient. Indeed, depending on the date and circumstances, a case might even have been brought under the 1980 Act, although I rather doubt it. Certainly further reform is needed to put that beyond doubt.

The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) made a very fair speech about the Bill. Indeed, I go so far as to say that it was the speech of a true Liberal—not only with a capital "L", but also with a small "l". I disagree with very little of what he said, except his order of priority of legislation and his view of employee involvement where my view may be slightly different on some issues.

In the Bill, we have dealt with the abuse of industrial power, but I hope that no one will make the mistake of thinking that legislation alone can improve industrial relations. The prime responsibility falls on management and work forces, and it has been willingly accepted of late. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield fairly said that after the winter of discontent which was caused by the Labour Government's policies and did so much to bring that Government down, industrial relations have greatly improved. Last year was the best year in relation to strikes since 1941, and this year has started very well. Of course, these things are always open to change and we must keep working to improve industrial relations as they have been improved in the past three years.

We heard again about the closed shop today. The Opposition say that it is wrong to allow workers to ballot on the closed shop. We are told that the closed shop is flexible, tolerant and popular but not popular enough to risk a vote. It is flexible and tolerant and can deal with the mavericks, but if those mavericks were allowed to have their way, there would be an avalanche of dismissals by trade unions to enforce discipline against those who do not pay dues to the unions.

There has been talk of free riders, but no conclusive evidence that the unions have always brought benefits to their members. Indeed, there is often evidence to the contrary. What benefit was brought to the workers of British Leyland by the union protection that for years was given to the destructive activities of Red Robbo? Anybody who paid union dues that were used to protect that man should promptly ask for his money back.

There was talk in Committee, but not on the Floor of the House, about the case of the British Rail workers—not, I hasten to add, from the Opposition, who still have not said whether they accept the judgment of the European Court in this case or whether they want to put the law back to the position in 1976 which was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Even at this late hour, I should be happy to give the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) the opportunity to say whether or not he accepts that judgment, but he clearly does not wish to take it.

We come to the end of the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons. The House has endorsed not only its principles but its detailed construction. Amendments and improvements have been made in the light of our discussions, but no credible arguments have been put forward to undermine the Bill. We were told that it would be fought line by line, but the Opposition did not always seem to have their hearts in the job. I know that they were discouraged by the majority of 106 on Second Reading. That may have been increased by the Hillhead effect, just as the Beaconsfield and Mitcham effects may erode that majority a little today. I understand that, rather than risk another three-way split, the SDP will take a positive, courageous decision to abstain en masse. The party that began by trying to get the don't-knows to join it has itself joined the don't-knows.

For whatever cause, the opposition has faded. Yesterday, our majority ranged from about 70 to about 200. Once the timetable was agreed, the time allocated was never fully used in Committee. That is because in their hearts Opposition Members know full well that, in the next Parliament, there will not be a majority to repeal the Bill—rather the reverse. It is more likely that there will be a majority for further measures—perhaps, for example, to democratise the trade unions.

The Bill is another step on the road to improving our industrial relations, making our work force more effective and our industry and commerce more successful and profitable so that they can offer more, better paid and more secure jobs. The Bill deserves its Third Reading. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friend to support it with me in the Lobby.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 224.

Division No. 163]	[7 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert	Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Aitken, Jonathan	Eggar, Tim
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Elliott, Sir William
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Emery, Sir Peter
Ancram, Michael	Eyre, Reginald
Arnold, Tom	Fairbairn, Nicholas
Aspinwall, Jack	Faith, Mrs Sheila
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)	Farr, John
Atkins, Robert(Preston N)	Fell, Sir Anthony
Atkinson, David(B'm'th E)	Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)	Finsberg, Geoffrey
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Fisher, Sir Nigel
Banks, Robert	Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Beith, A. J.	Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Bendall, Vivian	Forman, Nigel
Benyon, Thomas (A'don)	Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)	Fox, Marcus
Best, Keith	Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Bevan, David Gilroy	Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Freud, Clement
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Fry, Peter
Blackburn, John	Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Blaker, Peter	Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Body, Richard	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Glyn, Dr Alan
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)	Goodhart, Sir Philip
Bowden, Andrew	Goodhew, Sir Victor
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Goodlad, Alastair
Braine, Sir Bernard	Gorst, John
Bright, Graham	Gow, Ian
Brinton, Tim	Gower, Sir Raymond
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Brooke, Hon Peter	Gray, Hamish
Brotherton, Michael	Greenway, Harry
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)	Grieve, Percy
Browne, John (Winchester)	Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Bruce-Gardyne, John	Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Bryan, Sir Paul	Grist, Ian
Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.	Grylls, Michael
Buck, Antony	Gummer, John Selwyn
Budgen, Nick	Hamilton, Hon A.
Bulmer, Esmond	Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)
Burden, Sir Frederick	Hampson, Dr Keith
Butcher, John	Hannam, John
Butler, Hon Adam	Haselhurst, Alan
Cadbury, Jocelyn	Hastings, Stephen
Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hawksley, Warren
Carlisle, Rt Hon M.(R'c'n)	Hayhoe, Barney
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda	Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Chapman, Sydney	Heddle, John
Churchill, W. S.	Henderson, Barry
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Hicks, Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Clegg, Sir Walter	Hill, James
Cockeram, Eric	Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)
Colvin, Michael	Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Cope, John	Hooson, Tom
Cormack, Patrick	Hordern, Peter
Corrie, John	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Costain, Sir Albert	Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)
Cranborne, Viscount	Howells, Geraint
Critchley, Julian	Hunt, David (Wirral)
Crouch, David	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Dickens, Geoffrey	Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Dover, Denshore	Jessel, Toby
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Dunlop, John	Johnston, Russell(Inverness)
Dunn, Robert(Dartford)	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Durant, Tony	Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Dykes, Hugh	Kaberry, Sir Donald
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Kitson, Sir Timothy	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Knox, David	Rathbone, Tim
Lamont, Norman	Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Lang, Ian	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Langford-Holt, Sir John	Renton, Tim
Latham, Michael	RhodesJames, Robert
Lawrence, Ivan	RhysWilliams, Sir Brandon
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel	Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Lee, John	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Rifkind, Malcolm
Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Loveridge, John	Rossi, Hugh
Luce, Richard	Rost, Peter
Lyell, Nicholas	Royle, Sir Anthony
McCrindle, Robert	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
MacKay, John (Argyll)	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.	Scott, Nicholas
McNair-Wilson, M. (N bury)	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)	Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)
McQuarrie, Albert	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Madel, David	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Major, John	Silvester, Fred
Marlow, Antony	Sims, Roger
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Marten, Rt Hon Neil	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Mates, Michael	Smith, Dudley
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus	Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)
Mawby, Ray	Speed, Keith
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Speller, Tony
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Spence, John
Mayhew, Patrick	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Mellor, David	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Sproat, Iain
Miller, Hal(B'grove)	Squire, Robin
Mills, Iain(Meriden)	Stainton, Keith
Mills, Peter (West Devon)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Miscampbell, Norman	Stanley, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Steel, Rt Hon David
Moate, Roger	Steen, Anthony
Monro, Sir Hector	Stevens, Martin
Montgomery, Fergus	Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)
Moore, John	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)	Stokes, John
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)	Stradling Thomas, J.
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)	Tapsell, Peter
Mudd, David	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Murphy, Christopher	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Myles, David	Temple-Morris, Peter
Neale, Gerrard	Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Needham, Richard	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Nelson, Anthony	Thompson, Donald
Neubert, Michael	Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Newton, Tony	Thornton, Malcolm
Normanton, Tom	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Nott, Rt Hon John	Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Onslow, Cranley	Trippier, David
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.	Trotter, Neville
Osborn, John	van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Page, John (Harrow, West)	Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Page, Richard (SW Herts)	Viggers, Peter
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil	Waddington, David
Parris, Matthew	Wakeham, John
Patten, Christopher(Bath)	Waldegrave, Hon William
Patten, John (Oxford)	Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)
Pattie, Geoffrey	Walker, B. (Perth)
Pawsey, James	Wall, Sir Patrick
Penhaligon, David	Waller, Gary
Percival, Sir Ian	Walters, Dennis
Peyton, Rt Hon John	Ward, John
Pink, R, Bonner	Warren, Kenneth
Pollock, Alexander	Watson, John
Porter, Barry	Wells, Bowen
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)	Wheeler, John
Prior, Rt Hon James	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Proctor, K. Harvey	Whitney, Raymond
Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Wiggin, Jerry

Wilkinson, John	Younger, Rt Hon George
Williams, D. (Montgomery)
Winterton, Nicholas	Tellers for the Ayes:
Wolfson, Mark	Mr. Anthony Berry and
Young, Sir George(Acton)	Mr. Carol Mather.
NOES
Abse, Leo	Forrester, John
Adams, Allen	Foulkes, George
Allaun, Frank	Fraser, J. (Lamb'th N'w'd)
Anderson, Donald	Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Ashton, Joe	Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Atkinson, N.(H'gey)	George, Bruce
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Golding, John
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)	Gourlay, Harry
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Graham, Ted
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)	Grant, John (Islington C)
Bidwell, Sydney	Hamilton, James(Bothwell)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Hardy, Peter
Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)r	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)	Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)	Heffer, Eric S.
Buchan, Norman	Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.	Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)	Home Robertson, John
Campbell, Ian	Homewood, William
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Hooley, Frank
Canavan, Dennis	Howell, Rt Hon D.
Cant, R. B.	Hoyle, Douglas
Carmichael, Neil	Huckfield, Les
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Cohen, Stanley	Janner, Hon Greville
Coleman, Donald	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.	John, Brynmor
Conlan, Bernard	Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Cook, Robin F.	Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Cowans, Harry	Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)	Kerr, Russell
Crowther, Stan	Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Cryer, Bob	Kinnock, Neil
Cunningham, G.(Islington S)	Lambie, David
Cunningham, Dr J.(W'h'n)	Lamborn, Harry
Dalyell, Tam	Lamond, James
Davidson, Arthur	Leighton, Ronald
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)	Lestor, Miss Joan
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Deakins, Eric	Litherland, Robert
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Dewar, Donald	Lyon, Alexander (York)
Dixon, Donald	McCartney, Hugh
Dobson, Frank	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Dormand, Jack	McElhone, Frank
Dubs, Alfred	McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Duffy, A. E. P.	McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Dunnett, Jack	McKelvey, William
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.	MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Eadie, Alex	McMahon, Andrew
Eastham, Ken	McNamara, Kevin
Ellis, R.(NE D'bysh're)	McTaggart, Robert
English, Michael	McWilliam, John
Ennals, Rt Hon David	Marks, Kenneth
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)	Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton.)
Evans, John (Newton)	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Ewing, Harry	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Faulds, Andrew	Martin, M (G'gow S 'burn)
Field, Frank	Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Fitch, Alan	Maxton, John
Flannery, Martin	Maynard, Miss Joan
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mikardo, Ian
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Ford, Ben	Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)	Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)	Snape, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Soley, Clive
Morton, George	Spearing, Nigel
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland	Spriggs, Leslie
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick	Stallard, A. W.
Newens, Stanley	Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Stoddart, David
O'Neill, Martin	Stott, Roger
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Strang, Gavin
Palmer, Arthur	Straw, Jack
Park, George	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Parry, Robert	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Pavitt, Laurie	Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Pendry, Tom	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)	Tilley, John
Prescott, John	Tinn, James
Price, C. (Lewisham W)	Torney, Tom
Race, Reg	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Radice, Giles	Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)	Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
Richardson, Jo	Watkins, David
Roberts, Albert(Normanton)	Weetch, Ken
Roberts, Allan(Bootle)	Welsh, Michael
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)	White, Frank R.
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)	White, J. (G'gow Pollok)
Robertson, George	Whitehead, Phillip
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)	Whitlock, William
Rooker, J. W.	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)	Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)
Rowlands, Ted	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Ryman, John	Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)
Sever, John	Wilson, William (C'try SE)
Sheerman, Barry	Winnick, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.	Woodall, Alec
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Woolmer, Kenneth
Short, Mrs Renée	Young, David (Bolton E)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)	Tellers for the Noes:
Silverman, Julius	Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.
Skinner, Dennis

Question Accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.