HC Deb 26 March 1984 vol 57 cc106-7

'In section 7 of this Act the words "actionable in tort" shall relate only to actions begun by an employer of persons breaking their contracts of employment or who have been subjected to interference with their performance, and actions begun by other persons shall be prevented by section 13 of the 1974 Act.'—[Mr. John Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Smith

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We now move to part II of the Bill, which contains the proposition that, before an official strike, there must be a ballot of the members participating in the strike or industrial action under pain of the union losing its immunity from civil process in actions for damages caused by the strike.

The new clause is not the best that has ever been tabled. I tabled it as a damage limitation exercise. It seeks to limit the scope of this part of the Bill so that actions can be taken against trade unions only by employers, not by third parties. We do not desist from our opposition to this part of the Bill and to the proposition that employers should be able to take such actions. However, this gives us an opportunity to discuss this part of the Bill in a way that illustrates the inappropriateness of the so-called sanction that the Government are using.

The underlying supposition in part II, concerned with pre-strike ballots, is that somehow trade union leaders always want to take unwilling and reluctant members into disputes at the drop of a hat. Those who know about industrial relations know that that is not so. There have been many discussions. The underlying assumption upon which that supposition is based is unsound.

Many people will find it odd that when trade unions act officially, if they do not have a ballot, they lose their immunity from civil processes, but if they act unofficially they do not lose any of their legal immunities. It is odd that the Conservatives' contribution to industrial relations should be not only to give a stimulus to unofficial strikes but to create a distinction between official and unofficial strikes to the extent that unofficial strikes receive greater legal support than official strikes.

On what crazy notion of industrial relations systems that nostrum was formulated, I do not know. However, I know that many countries have considered whether there should be pre-strike ballots. I believe that a minority have concluded that there should and others have concluded that there should not. It would be hard to find people in Britain who have a knowledge of industrial relations who have settled views either way. Many personnel managers—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.