HC Deb 08 February 1983 vol 36 cc865-6
6. Mr. Wolfson

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss the political levy.

Mr. Tebbit

I wrote to the general secretary on 11 January asking for comments on the Green Paper and I have made it clear in earlier correspondence that I am always ready to discuss any aspect of trade union reforms with the TUC. However, the general secretary has replied that the TUC will not be making representations to me about the issues discussed in the Green Paper.

Mr. Wolfson

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is completely inaccurate to describe the proposals, as some trade union leaders have done, as an attack on trade union funds, since the option to contribute voluntarily remains?

Mr. Tebbit

Indeed. The 1913 Act gave protection to people to make it possible for funds for political purposes to be donated voluntarily. The purpose of the Green Paper is to explore how we can make a reality of that Act, which has been grossly abused.

Mr. Ashton

As the Secretary of State has now written to the general secretary of the TUC, will he also write to all the customers of Mothercare or Marks and Spencer and tell them that every time they shop there they are contributing to Tory party funds? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do to protect shareholders in such industries who do not wish to give money to the Tory party?

Mr. Tebbit

The hon. Gentleman is as confused as ever. There is no more reason why the customer should have control over a company's profits and what is done with them than he should have over the wages of workers and what is done with them. The hon. Gentleman knows that while there has been considerable concern from many trade unionists about the political levy and the arm twisting that goes on, no such concern has been expressed by shareholders. The amounts involved are wholly disproportionate. Indeed, the Companies Act amply protects shareholders today.

Mr. Lawrence

Why should the trade unionist who has no wish to contribute to the Labour party—and who could blame him?—be forced into having to opt out? Is that not the gravest infringement of the liberty of the individual to choose how he spends his money?

Mr. Tebbit

It is not only the practice of opting out as opposed to opting in which has given grave cause for concern, but the fact that that process is frequently abused and people are prevented from exercising their right to opt one way or the other.

Mr. Varley

I should like to press the Secretary of State on the question that was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). Is he being serious? Will he at some stage place before the House a Green Paper telling us how individual shareholders will be consulted and allowed to contract out before they contribute to Tory party funds? If he does not do that, the existing paper will be seen for what it is—a vindictive and spiteful measure against the Labour party.

Mr. Tebbit

The right hon. Gentleman knows that that will not do. As the Secretary of State for Employment I am concerned to make sure that the protection in the 1913 Act is extended to trade unionists. If the right hon. Gentleman has any complaint about the Companies Act, he had better make it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.

Mr. Skinner

Fascist state.