HC Deb 02 April 1985 vol 76 cc1045-8
3. Mr. Knox

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the operation of the Employment Acts 1980 and 1982 and the Trade Union Act 1984.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King)

It is already clear that the Employment Acts 1980 and 1982 and the Trade Union Act 1984 together represent a significant improvement in rights of union members both in protecting them against the abuse of closed shop power and in ensuring that their views are taken into account before being required to take industrial action.

Mr. Knox

Has the legislation been framed to deal with ballot rigging? Will the legislation deal with allegations of ballot rigging in the Transport and General Workers Union?

Mr. King

The election took place before the provisions of the 1984 Act are due to come into effect. That will happen on 1 October 1985. The first change is that, with effect from July last year, we require the setting up of a new register by 1 October to keep an accurate and correct register of members. A presumption in favour of postal voting will also apply. Those provisions will clearly help.

Mr. Hoyle

Does the Secretary of State agree that, rather than anti-trade union Acts, measures to strengthen the trade unions are required, especially to protect them from companies such as Exclusive Cleaning and Maintenance Ltd. at UKAEA, Risley where 130 women cleaners have gone on strike because their wages have been reduced by 21p an hour, from £25 to £22.50 a week, despite the fact that the firm's profits have increased by 32 per cent.? Will he advise his colleague the Secretary of State for the Environment to sack this anti-trade union firm from its cleaning contract for the House of Commons and the House of Lords? Will the right hon. Gentleman do so, despite the fact that this firm contributes to the Conservative party?

Mr. King

I fail to understand how the hon. Member could describe as anti-trade union provisions that give greater democracy to union members. I am reinforced in that view by the MORI poll carried out for "Union World" on Channel 4, which found that 75 per cent. of union members supported secret ballots before strikes were held and 70 per cent. wanted secret ballots for union elections. Those are precisely our provisions, and I am glad that they have the overwhelming support of union members.

Mr. Madel

In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) said about possible ballot rigging in recent Transport and General Workers Union elections, should not the TUC satisfy itself that everything was done correctly in those elections?

Mr. King

Without wishing at this stage to enter into the details of those union elections, clearly the stories that have emerged, the allegations that have been made and the disciplinary action already taken leading to the dismissal of union officers in Bristol give rise to serious anxiety. It is precisely because it is important that union elections carry credibility that we put through our provisions in the Trade Union Act. They will prove overwhelmingly to be to the good of unions' reputations in the future.

Mr. Wrigglesworth

Will the Secretary of State confirm that he and his colleagues rejected proposals from the Opposition and Conservative Benches for the introduction of secret postal ballots in the 1984 Act? Do not the TGWU irregularities confirm the evidence that we presented to the Committee and to the House at that time? Will he therefore reconsider the Government's position and introduce secret postal ballots as the norm for trade union elections?

Mr. King

The hon. Gentleman's memory fails him. He will recall that the changes that we subsequently made required that, so far as reasonably practicable, everyone entitled to vote in an election must have a voting paper sent to him by post at his proper address and be given a convenient opportunity to vote by post. My understanding is that it is likely that the TGWU will be changing its future arrangements for the election of its national executive committee because of the need to conform with the new requirements.

Mr. Bill Walker

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those Acts were put on the statute book to redress the imbalance brought about by the Acts put on the statute book by the Labour Government, who gave powers to trade union barons and leaders and removed those powers from the members? The Conservative Government put the power back where it belongs—with the membership—and made the leadership accountable.

Mr. King

I agree with what my hon. Friend says. I notice that Opposition Members are fond of criticising the trade union legislation. I want to hear from them whether they propose at some future stage—if they ever have the chance—to take away from union members the right to have a vote and a say before they are called upon to take industrial action.

Mr. Winnick

When will the Secretary of State realise that penal laws and sanctions against trade unions cannot make employees stay at work if they feel strongly over an issue, as we saw yesterday at the Mount Pleasant sorting office? Is he aware that, just as previously when anti-union legislation has been passed by a Tory-dominated House of Commons, this law will be repealed like the rest of them?

Mr. King

The hon. Gentleman shows by that question just how much he is out of step with the general stream of union thinking. My understanding is that in the postal dispute to which he referred, the union membership will invite its members to vote in a proper ballot. I hope that the whole House will welcome that development.

Mr. Galley

Does my right hon. Friend agree that whilst the 1984 Act was a valuable contribution to employment law, the time is now ripe for further action, and that the Government should issue a Green Paper about the possibility of making strikes illegal and making binding arbitration agreements legally enforceable in essential services, such as teaching, health care, gas, electricity and water? That would have considerable public support.

Mr. King

I note what my hon. Friend says. That is not what we put before the country at the election. We said that we would consult about essential services to ensure that they were governed by adequate procedure agreements, breach of which could lead to loss of immunity. I am considering that matter in the light of lessons learnt in the recent miners' dispute.

Mr. Evans

May I give the Secretary of State and the House an assurance that the next Labour Government will repeal every scrap of Tory anti-trade union legislation? Is the Secretary of State aware that there is mounting suspicion that some Ministers, in particular the Prime Minister, are urging industrialists in general and chairmen of nationalised industries in particular to use Tory industrial relations legislation to create industrial disputes so that they can take on the unions? Surely, employment Ministers should recognise that co-operation, not confrontation, is what is necessary to put right Britain's economic problems?

Mr. King

Obviously, we listen carefully to that statement from the Opposition Front Bench, made with the full authority of the Labour party. I think we now see that in future union members are to be denied secret ballots — [Interruption.]—and are not to be allowed to have a say before they are told by their union leaders whether they have to strike. We now see the party of the ballot riggers in full cry.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Winnick

Dirty slander.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We often hear things in the Chamber that we do not like.

Later—

Mr. Hoyle

On a point of order, arising from Question Time, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State for Employment to make a slanderous statement about the "party of ballot riggers" and is it the kind of conduct, that you expect from Ministers at the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Speaker

I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the whole House that moderation in language is the essence of our debates.