§ Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that there is going to be trouble in the House in that certain Opposition Members are trying to deny the leader of the Social Democratic party, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), his customary seat. In view of that, and in an attempt to be helpful and constructive, would it not be a good idea if the leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) vacated his seat and his expensive microphone so that the leader of the Social Democratic party could speak there? That would avoid the occurrence of any unseemly scenes in the House.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)There is no point of order.
§ Mr. Skinnerrose—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. There seems to be no point of order. What we have heard seems to have caused more trouble than it was suggested we might cure.
§ Mr. SkinnerFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that the only provision for securing a seat in the House is if hon. Members come in for prayers, having put in their prayer cards. That is what some of my hon. Friends have done in this case—as they always do. In view of the fact that this matter is about trade unions and ballots, we thought that the leader of the Social Democratic party should sit on the Tory Benches to deliver his speech.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I can see plenty of empty seats. I do not see any reason for any hon. Member to be unduly cramped. [Interruption.] Order. Perhaps the leader of the Social Democratic party will take one of the empty seats rather than occupy the Gangway.
§ Mr. CanavanOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an ex-heavyweight politician like the leader of the SDP to be sitting on the floor on my right-hand side and for the Whip of the SDP to be sitting down on my left-hand side? I have noticed that both of them have been throwing threatening glances at my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) because he is occupying the seat that they have their eye on.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerIt might be sensible if hon. Gentlemen made best use of the seating that is available.
§ Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East)Would it be helpful to suggest that, as the leader of the SDP is trying to outflank the Conservative party from the right, he should be offered a seat in the far right-hand corner which is empty?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerAll the so-called helpful suggestions do not seem to be very helpful at all.
§ Sir Kenneth Lewis (Stamford and Spalding)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I suggest in a purely neutral sense that the leader of the SDP, in view of his opinions on the political parties on both sides of the House, might take his seat up above the clock?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI have to tell the House that I have selected the amendment that stands in the name of the Prime Minister and her right hon. Friends. Dr. Owen.
§ Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)rose—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. When I am on my feet, hon. Members must sit down.
§ Mr. PrescottOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would appear that the Leader of the SDP has decided to speak from this Dispatch Box in order to move the Motion. Such a proposal is not normally dealt with in this way in the House. I wonder whether you would rule that the official Opposition spokesman speaking in the debate has the right to present the Opposition's case from this Dispatch Box.
§ Mr. John Cartwright (Woolwich)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I refer you to a number of cases in which hon. Members have spoken from the Opposition Dispatch Box when they were not speaking on behalf of the official Opposition? I refer, for example, to an occasion on 4 August 1980 when my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) spoke from the Opposition Front Bench and referred in his speech to the fact that he was speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. He said:
In speaking from the Opposition Dispatch Box, I am sticking to the long-standing tradition of the House under which any Privy Councillor may speak from the Dispatch Box." —[Official Report, 4 August 1980; Vol. 990, c. 352.1I refer also the occasion on 22 May 1984—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. At this stage, I do not think that it is necessary for the hon. Gentleman to go through that, because the question to which he is addressing himself has not been raised. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) asked me whether it was in order that the official Opposition spokesman address the House from the Dispatch Box. Of course that is the case. But I do not know—and he has not yet raised with me the question — whether that excludes the right of any other right hon. or hon. Member to address the House from the Dispatch Box —[Interruption.] I know of no responsibility or authority that I have to prevent any hon. Member from so doing.
§ Mr. CanavanOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for any hon. Member to be called to speak who is not sitting in his or her place?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI hesitate to suggest that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) is sitting in his place—it is not a matter for me.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerIf the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) will be patient a little longer, until we clear these points of order, we might have a more orderly start to the debate.
§ Mr. SedgemoreMay I draw your attention, Sir, to the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1959, under which you have a reserve power to call a psychiatrist to examine—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I think that the hon. Gentleman has the wrong day. Dr. Owen.
§ Mr. SedgemoreFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the SDP clearly thinks that he is the Leader of the Opposition. In my respectful submission, he should be submitted to the psychiatrist's couch because, if he is mad, he is not allowed to sit in the House.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThat is not a point of order. We have an important debate before us. All this is taking time out of that debate.
§ Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In ruling on the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), you seemed to imply that hon. Members can speak from wherever they like in the House, including from the Dispatch Box. Are you then saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that all hon. Members can deliver their speeches from the Prime Minister's Dispatch Box if they so wish? If that is the case and all hon. Members proceeded to do so, I submit that there would be chaos in the House. Therefore, there is a long-established convention that hon. Members of the House do not speak from the Dispatch Box except those who by convention are allowed to do so—those on the Front Benches. As that is the convention of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that it is your duty to uphold that convention.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI said earlier that I knew of no authority that I had to prevent any right hon. or hon. Member addressing the House from the Dispatch Boxes, but of course the hon. Gentleman is right to remind us of the long-standing conventions of the House. It is a universally recognised and observed convention that the Dispatch Boxes are used on the one hand for Ministers to address the House and on the other for the leaders and spokesmen of the official Opposition party to address the House. I can only ask the House to observe and sustain the convention, but I have no authority to prevent any hon. Member who decides that he will breach the convention.
§ Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I see the point of order, but can I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it will be impossible for the Leader of the Social Democratic party to speak from behind the line if he speaks from the Dispatch Box without thrusting the Members who were already sitting on the Front Bench from their places. If right hon. and hon. Members are already occupying their places in front of the Dispatch Box and a right hon. Member comes to try to force them out of the way or speaks from beyond the red line, how can he be in order? It can hardly be in order for a right hon. Gentleman to push other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen out of their seats. It can hardly be in order to speak from beyond the red line.
§ Mr. Wrigglesworthrose—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. That is not a point of order; it is a purely hypothetical matter.
§ Mr. WrigglesworthFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not also the convention that right hon. and hon. Members should be allowed to speak in the Chamber from the Bench upon which they normally sit — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] — and that there is a deliberate attempt by the bully boys and thugs of the Labour party, as we saw in the miners' dispute, to stop free speech in the House—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. When I am on my feet, hon. Members must resume their seats. We have debated the miners' dispute many times, but we are not going to have it re-run this afternoon.
The hon. Member has raised a useful and constructive point of order. If it is suggested that all will be well and tranquillity restored if the leader of the Social Democratic party was allowed to resume his usual seat below the Gangway, then I would address an appeal to the hon. Gentlemen who are occupying that Bench to allow him to do so. [Interruption.] It is only an appeal.
§ Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am temporarily occupying the seat of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, which is, incidentally, in the view of some people just another facet of the Conservative party. I am prepared to move out of this seat in order to allow the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) to address the House from here. I think that that is a very fair proposal.
§ Sir Anthony Kershaw (Stroud)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A joke is a joke, but is there anything in the rule book that says that this loutish and vulgar display by the Labour party should be permitted to prevent free speech in this House?
§ Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like you to advise me. When I came into the House at 2.30 pm to take prayers, there was a card on the Bench where my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) is sitting containing the name of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). Obviously, he managed to come in earlier and put down the card but could not get to the Chamber for 2.30 pm for prayers. Perhaps this incident has been sparked off by the right hon. Gentleman's inability to attend the House regularly. It is now 4.30 pm on a Tuesday afternoon, and all hon. Members know that the right hon. Gentleman attends the House for about half an hour on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons and that normally he would have left by now.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThat is not a point of order for me.
§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The motion that we are supposed to be discussing was, according to the Order Paper, tabled by the Liberal party and the SDP. We were recently told that another microphone had been introduced in the Chamber in order to facilitate the leader of the Liberal party who normally sits in the seat beneath it. As the leader of the SDP is now occupying a seat under the microphone which was provided recently at considerable 759 expense for the Liberal and Social Democratic parties, most reasonable people would see no reason why he should not speak from where he is sitting.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThat is not a matter upon which I can rule. The House is doing itself no credit whatever by proceeding in this way. Hon. Members should realise that there is a very serious debate before us and that the time for it is being spent on largely bogus points of order. Hon. Members should try to get on with the debate.
§ Mr. Ron Lewis (Carlisle)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have sat in this House for many years and I believe that the attack made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) was unwarranted—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is helping neither the House nor himself.
§ Mr. Robert Jackson (Wantage)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not true that the Social Democratic and Liberal parties drew a place in the ballot, and that we are now seeing a lamentable attempt to destroy their right to free speech?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThere is no question of ballots. The dispute revolves around the question whether a right hon. or hon. Member should have a particular place from which to speak. I can see many empty places in the House. If there is space, right hon. and hon. Members should try to get on with the debate.
§ Mr. LeightonFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the leader of the SDP is sitting, singularly appropriately, on top of the leader of the Liberal party, would it not be fitting to allow him to speak from the seat in which he has been quite comfortable for the past 10 minutes?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is neither a point of order for me nor a serious approach to what is becoming a serious matter. The right hon. Member for Devonport should be allowed to—
§ Mr. Doug Hoyle (Warrington, North)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I just want to know what your ruling is. Does it mean that any right hon. or hon. Member can speak from the Dispatch Boxes? If so, given the arrogance and political views of the leader of the SDP, would he not be far happier speaking from the Government's Dispatch Box?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerMy ruling was that I knew of no power that I had to prevent any right hon. or hon. Member from addressing the House from the Dispatch Box. I have reminded hon. Members of the long-standing and deeply held conventions of the House and appealed to the House to uphold them. I have no power to impose them, as is being suggested.
§ Mr. PrescottFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you will recognise that a serious point is involved concerning the conventions surrounding where right hon. and hon. Members speak from—[Interruption.] The issue involves not freedom of speech but the place from which a right hon. or hon. Member speaks. That is the only point at issue. Questions have been raised about prayer cards on seats as well as 760 about the conventions. Am I to understand from your ruling that it would be entirely proper for any right hon. or hon. Member to speak from either Dispatch Box at any stage during a debate? I understand that you are saying that this convention of the House does not have to be recognised, that it may be taken into account but that right hon. and hon. Members can speak at any time from any part of the House. Is that the point?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI have said that I have no power to impose that convention. Questions of propriety are a different matter, and I have not said that it would be proper to act in that way. The question is whether I have any authority to prevent any right hon. or hon. Member from addressing the House from the Dispatch Box. I remind hon. Members again of the conventions, and hope that they will be observed.
§ Mr. David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It should not be allowed to pass into the record that there has been a sudden outbreak of religious fervour on the Benches in front of me. The truth has nothing to do with prayer cards. It is well known to hon. Members that, ever since my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) became leader of the SDP, he has occupied a place on this Front Bench and has always spoken from there. You may not have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we noticed that throughout the Division that Bench was deliberately occupied by a movable group of hon. Members to prevent him from taking his seat. What we are seeing is not the Militant Tendency but the yobbish tendency in this House. I believe that there are procedures and conventions in this House, and that one of them is that my right hon. Friend should be able to address the House from the Front Bench without there being a conspiracy to prevent him from doing so.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me and that no right hon. or hon. Member has a seat in the Chamber as of right, other than is provided for in our Standing Orders by the prayer card procedure.
§ Mr. Guy Barnett (Greenwich)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House is clearly in a difficult position, partly because you cannot rule upon the matter as it is one that involves convention. I wonder whether you would be prepared to accept a motion on this matter from me as to where the right hon. Member for Devonport should speak from.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI think that the difficulty arises because of the determination of the leader of the SDP to disregard the long-standing convention. I have no power to prevent him from doing that. We should get on with the debate. Dr. Owen.
§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that it is the duty of any hon. Member who wants a particular seat in this House to make sure—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The right hon. Gentleman has heard me already deal with that point. I do not think that there is any need to go over it again. All these points of order, many of which are bogus, are only detracting from the fulfilment of our serious responsibilities and from the debate that we ought to have embarked upon quite some time ago.
§ Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Devonport)I beg to move, That this House calls upon the Government—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman must address me from where he is standing. He must not move around the Chamber.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. We cannot have this kind of nonsense. lion. Members must address the House and the Chair from the place where they rise.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. Hon. Members must resume their seats when I am on my feet. It seems to me that a very large number of hon. Members are seeking to disregard conventions this afternoon. Will the hon. Gentleman who now wishes to raise a point of order please address it to me from the place which he is now occupying?
§ Mr. BoyesIn view of the fact that we have been continuously harassed by Social Democratic Party members, did you notice that in order to get from the Front Bench and to speak from that Dispatch Box it was necessary for the leader of the Social Democrats physically to assault members of the Labour party? Did you further notice that the leader of the Social Democrats already had an established place?
You have just insisted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when I raised a point of order I had to speak from the place in which I was standing and that I had no right to go to the Dispatch Box. Why is it all right for the leader of the Social Democratic party to leave the place where he was sitting? He is only a Back Bencher, the same as I am, so why is it all right for him to move but not for me to move?
Mr Deputy SpeakerOrder. Perhaps I had better deal with one point of order at a time. The difference is that the hon. Gentleman started to address me and raised his point of order from the position which he at present occupies. The leader of the Social Democratic party started to address the House from the Dispatch Box and, to the best of my recollection, had not spoken earlier.
§ Mr. WilliamsOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I understood correctly, you gave a ruling a few moments ago that a Member must address the House from the place at which he is called. Will you confirm that when you called the leader of the Social Democratic party he was sitting in the second row below the Gangway, as we all saw? Should he not, therefore, in keeping with your ruling a moment ago, have to make his statement from that position?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI have given my ruling and it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is now challenging it. That he must not do. I will read to the House the relevant passage from "Erskine May", which we take as our guide on these matters. We find on page 418, running over to page 419, the following: 762
Upon a Member inquiring whether a private Member was acting within the conventions of the House in speaking from:he ministerial despatch box, the Chair declined to intervene and the Member concerned continued his speech from that place.It then goes on to say:A Member should not move his place while speaking.To the best of my recollection, the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Social Democratic party did not commence his speech until he put his notes on the Dispatch Box. The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), having raised a point of order, proceeded to move along the Gangway. It was on the basis of what is in "Erskine May" that I ruled as I did. I have ruled and I do not think that there is any need to go over that ground.
§ Viscount CranborneOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If hon. Members care to go along the corridor to another place, they will see an important debate being carried on by non-elected people in this Parliament. Any hon. Member who then returns to this more important Chamber will see that a debate on an important subject upon which many of us on this side of the House feel extremely strongly is being deliberately resisted in an undemocratic manner by democratically elected Members. [Interruption.] May I finish?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman may not, because quite clearly he is delivering a speech which is expressing his opinion. I do not question the strength of feeling or the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman holds his views, but the matters which he is raising are not matters for me.
§ Mr. HefferOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is quite clear that the situation in the House at the moment is reaching an impasse, and it has to be resolved. It can be resolved on the basis of common sense if the right hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Social Democratic party is prepared to occupy another seat. Obviously he is not. Have you no powers at all, as a Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, to make a ruling? It seems to me to be very strange that if you were the chairman of the Labour or Conservative party you would have such powers and could make a ruling, but that the chairman of the House of Commons—that is what the Speaker is—has no power to make a ruling. Surely the time has come for you to make a ruling to resolve this impasse.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe task of Mr. Speaker and his Deputies is to interpret and apply the Standing Orders and to seek to ensure the observance of the courtesies and conventions of the House. It is not for me or any other occupant of the Chair to make the rules, except by way of decisions which create precedents. I think that it would be very unwise for me, in what is for me and for the House a somewhat unprecedented situation, to make an off-the-cuff ruling that might be binding on other occupants of the Chair and their successors and have far-reaching implications for the liberties of the House.
It might be sensible for us to have a cooling-off period and for the House to have an opportunity to reflect on the situation and the impasse into which it seems to have got itself.
§ Sitting suspended.
§ 5.2 pm
§ Sitting resumed.
763§ Mr. CanavanOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I shall not take any further points of order.
§ Mr. CanavanOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) must resume his seat. We have had enough points of order for one afternoon. We ought to get on with the debate.
§ Mr. CanavanOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I am not prepared to take any further points of order. We have had a good run. I hope that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West will now allow the House to get on with its proper business, which is the motion set down for debate.
§ Dr. OwenI beg to move,
That this House calls upon the Government immediately to amend the Trade Union Act 1984 to ensure that, unless absolutely impossible in a particular case, all strike ballots, political fund ballots and elections for trade union executive committees are held on the basis of full secret postal voting conducted by independent returning officers and scrutineers so as to minimise the risk of abuse.This is an important issue, relating to the role of the trade union movement. First, it needs to be clearly established that in this country there are millions of trade unionists who belong not just to the Labour party, the Conservative party, the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party, but to the nationalist parties and to the Ecology party. It would be a great mistake for this House to debate trade union matters and think that any single party had a pre-emptive right to speak for all trade unionists. Furthermore, I believe that it is in the interests of the trade union movement, of trade unionists and of the prosperity of this country for the trade union movement not to feel itself to be politically bound or institutionally linked to any political party.It is a reflection of the inadequate financial support for political parties that the political situation is so polarised, and that because of long-standing financial links politics have come very close to the vested interests which financially support particular political parties. That is just as much a problem for the Conservative party, because of its links with big business and its funding by large companies, as it is for the Labour party. I believe that all of us wish that a better system could be devised.
§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Dr. OwenI should prefer not to do so but instead to develop my argument.
We need to reflect on the fact that at the last general election only 39 per cent. of trade unionists voted for the Labour party and that 61 per cent. voted for the other political parties. Therefore, the Labour party can no longer claim to speak for the majority of trade unionists. For that 764 reason, I think that we would all agree with the views of the Secretary of State for Employment, who said during the Third Reading debate on the Trade Union Bill:
We believe that the law should protect the whole community—employers, employees, union members and nonunion members alike—from the abuse of industrial power."—[Official Report, 25 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 832.]I believe that the right hon. Gentleman spoke for everybody when he used those words, but I do not believe that the Trade Union Act 1984 is fulfilling those expectations.We have before us the sad situation which is facing the Transport and General Workers Union. Most people are glad that there is to be an emergency meeting of the union on Thursday next. We must hope that, as press statements appear to indicate, the request of the general secretary elect, Mr. Ron Todd, for another ballot is agreed to, but I have serious misgivings about such a ballot taking place under the existing procedures. It is not my job to conduct a witch hunt into the procedures of the Transport and General Workers Union, and I do not intend to go into those matters. They have been fairly well discussed and other hon. Members will no doubt refer to them.
Ever since the scandal that affected the Electrical Trades Union, as it then was—it is now the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union—the view held in this country is that trade union balloting arrangements leave a great deal to be desired. It is important to realise that before the Trade Union Act 1980 some of the major trade unions were prepared to make payments out of their own funds in order to establish democracy. They were prepared to pay for postal ballots.
The Secretary of State ought to make it clear that some of his statements in recent weeks about the way in which the old ETU scandal first broke are incorrect. As was stated by its general secretary:
The postal element in this union's balloting system prior to 1961 was very limited."It was based upon branch returns. Mr. Eric Hammond, the general secretary, said yesterday:
"We do not wish to intrude into the TGWU's difficulties but we cannot allow the present burst of distortion to go on unchallenged. We regard our system as fiddleproof and we urged the Secretary of State to adopt it if he was intent on legislating. He failed to do so, and it is reprehensible that he and others who have ignored our advice should now misrepresent our position. The 1961 procedure was not a quasi-postal ballot. The Secretary of State knows that well, and I urge him now to listen, as he did not listen in Committee, on Report, on Third Reading or to the House of Lords, to the criticisms that have come from a substantial body of opinion—not, perhaps, within, the House but outside the House—from shop stewards in union after union who warned him that workplace ballots were open to great abuse.
What happens if on Thursday the TGWU decides to hold a re-ballot? The new Act will not stop what happened. Part 1 does not come into force until October. Even if the re-ballot were not held before then, the Act does not cover non-voting general secretaries. Most general secretaries, including that of the TGWU, are nonvoting. We have all realised that that is a gap in the legisation.
Even if non-voting general secretaries were covered, the Act allows unions to have a workplace ballot. The system used for the 1984 TGWU general secretary ballot could be used again. The only changes would be that all ballot boxes, not just most, would have to be at the workplace. Some were at the branches. The boxes would 765 have to be open for longer in some cases. The count would have to be more secure. No doubt arrangements will be made to change the cardboard boxes and a few other issues, but the substantive issue would not change.
Since the Act was passed we have seen how the National Union of Mineworkers has changed its rules. Mr. Arthur Scargill has arranged for his casting vote on the NUM executive to be taken away. [Interruption.] I agree that that has not happened yet.
§ Mr. SkinnerThe right hon. Gentleman is wrong again.
§ Dr. OwenMr. Scargill will not be covered by the Act, as I understand it. If I am incorrect, I withdraw that remark.
§ Mr. Alexander Eadie (Midlothian)The right hon. Gentleman will not want to mislead the House. He said that the president of the NUM has arranged for his vote to be given away. That is inaccurate. He never had a vote. The chairman of the executive had a vote. Whether the present chairman of the national executive or the president will have a vote will be decided at the national conference. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will correct what he said. A national conference will decide on the new rules.
§ Dr. OwenThe hon. Gentleman is a fair man. I said a "casting vote". As I understand it, the present chairman is Mr. Arthur Scargill. He uses his casting vote. The recommendation may not be followed, but it shows how the Act does not cover all circumstances.
I should like to consider the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union's election for the successor to David Basnett. It will be by branch block vote. A vote, for example, of 10 to 6 in favour of one candidate could cast thousands of votes for that candidate. The Act does not stop that, as the general secretary does not have a vote. The new general secretary, Brenda Dean—
§ Mr. SkinnerThe right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again.
§ The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King)Wrong again.
§ Dr. OwenThe right hon. Gentleman will no doubt make it clear whether the GMBATU election is covered. I think he will find that it is not.
We then come to the role of the certification officer under part 1 of the Act, which covers union executive elections. It comes into force on 1 October 1985. Unions can choose workplace instead of postal ballots. The right hon. Gentleman had better realise that there is a good deal of anxiety on his back Benches about that issue. There is a general feeling that if he had listened a little more he would not find himself in the mess that he is in. The right hon. Gentleman did a fiddle. He knew that that point would cause a great deal of trouble and he made an arrangement with the trade unions, which he now regrets.
§ Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton)The right hon. Gentleman is perhaps being premature when he refers to my right hon. Friend's Back Benches. The relevant part of the Act does not come into force until 1 October this year. Most of us wish to see how it will work.
§ Dr. OwenThat is a possibility, but it is also possible to anticipate some of the problems that will arise. The first thing that we have to face is that even if we argue about the role of the certification officer under part 1 of the Act we must remember that 47 unions, with 8.5 million members eligible to vote, will have to vote on political funds between April 1985 and March 1986. That will be the largest number of union ballots to take place in one year. They will take place not just under union rules but, nominally, under an arrangement made in the House to provide for true democratic procedures. The ballots must be held by 31 March 1986.
The unions have a choice between postal and workplace ballots on political funds. Three unions only at the moment—I hope that it will be more—are expected to use full postal ballots on the political fund. They are the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers and the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trades Union.
§ Mr. SkinnerThe National Union of Seamen.
§ Dr. OwenI hope that that is the case. I had always understood that there was a strong case for workplace ballots for the NUS. It has often been quoted as a case for special arrangements. The NUS is a special union. Most people recognise that there must be some flexibility. I shall be delighted if it holds a postal ballot. There is likely to be a postal element in most of the other ballots, with 10 per cent. of the members in the categories of being on holiday, sick, retired or applying for a postal vote.
§ Dr. OwenSome unions will operate a semi-postal ballot system with ballot papers sent to the workplace for distribution and then returned by post by each member to head office or independent scrutineers. What is wrong with workplace and semi-postal ballots? Why has there been disquiet about them for many years? The points at which workplace ballots can be open to abuse are in the number of ballot papers claimed for distribution at each location, in the unsupervised distribution of ballot papers, in the return of ballot papers, in the improper use of discarded papers, which, in many cases are over 50 per cent. of those issued, and in undue influence exerted on the voter. The variety of the form of pressure is legend. The abuse can be in the local count and in the national return.
Semi-postal ballots usually involve the distribution of ballot papers at the workplace and the posting back of the papers to union head office or the independent scrutineers. They are usually only a variant on the workplace ballot.
Why is there a resistance to postal ballots? The 1980 Act—
§ Mr. Canavanrose—
§ Dr. OwenThe hon. Gentleman can make his own speech. There has already been fairly substantial Labour party disruption during the debate.
The House must ask why there is such resistance. In the past one could understand that postal ballots were a costly procedure. For some unions it was not easy. I, like many other people, decided that some of those things had to change. We lived through some of the results of unrepresentative trade union decisions. The Government 767 were right, under the 1980 Act, to make it possible to provide funding for democratic postal ballots, and I support that.
§ Mr. Nichollsrose—
§ Dr. OwenIf the hon. Gentleman intends to make the obvious point that I did not vote for it, he is right. I voted against it, and I regret that. When we formed the SDP, we made it clear that we regretted it. We decided to back democracy in trade unions. We should like to have democracy in political parties and other organisations. Postal ballots, as the SDP knows, are expensive. We know that the Labour party will not trust its members to vote for its leader. We know that the Labour party will not trust the one-member, one-vote system,. We will not have lectures on democracy from the Labour party. [Interruption.] I have had those arguments. I went to the Labour party conference and urged it to adopt the one-member, one-vote system.
§ Mr. CanavanIf the right hon. Gentleman is so obsessed with the idea of secret ballots, why, when he set up the SDP, were he and all the other SDP MPs who defected from other political parties afraid to give their constituents the opportunity of an immediate secret ballot? The only one who did, Douglas-Mann, was thrown out on his neck.
§ Dr. OwenIt is clearly a constitutional issue. Once elected, a Member of Parliament is answerable to the House, not to the general management committee of the Labour party. He is elected to the House to speak for his constituents. When this issue was put the to constituents of Plymouth, Devonport, they well understood it, as did 7.75 million people who voted for the Liberal party/SDP, and of course the 3–5 million who voted for the SDP. It may stick in the gullet of Labour Members to realise that many of those people were trade unionists. Many of them want to see, as do the SDP and the Liberal party, a strong, democratic trade union movement in this country—
§ Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)So does the Conservative party.
§ Dr. OwenIf the Conservative party really means that, it will carefully consider making amendments to the legislation—and the sooner the better.
The Secretary of State appears to be taking the matter personally, as though we should not make any criticism. The legislation contains substantial achievements and he should not be ashamed of them. He knows that the Government changed their mind during the passage of the Bill. After all, the Paymaster General and chairman of the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who was the Minister of State, Department of Employment, during the passage of the legislation, had the grace to say on Report:
I admitted to him in Committee that I began by believing that postal ballots were the best, and perhaps the only, way of electing the executive committee of a union. I must explain why I moved from that position."—[Official Report, 26 March 1984; Vol. 57, c. 99.]The hon. Gentleman must be regretting that he moved from that position. It was not until an amendment was carried in the House of Lords that we put back into the Bill any presumption of postal ballots, and that is still only in part 1.768 The House must remember that that provision does not cover strike ballot procedures. Why is that important? It could be argued that in electing a general secretary there are many different views among the officials of the union. We know that this is true of the Transport and General Workers Union. A substantial body of people support Ron Todd, with an equally substantial body of officials and others supporting Mr. George Wright. There is a discipline within the union to ensure that there is no fiddling of the ballot—yet there have been serious allegations.
What about a strike ballot, when almost all the officials of a union want a strike? They will supervise the workplace ballot, and there is no provision for a postal ballot. They will have the temptation to take all the shortcuts involved in a workplace ballot.
More than 82 per cent. of the political fund goes effectively to support the Labour party.
§ Mr. SkinnerMembers of Parliament are sponsored.
§ Dr. OwenIt is for individual Members of Parliament to decide whether they wish to be sponsored. I was never a sponsored Member of Parliament.
§ Mr. SkinnerThe right hon. Gentleman had union money.
§ Dr. OwenIt is extremely difficult for members of the Labour party to examine the issues objectively, yet it would be in their interest to do so. Mr. Ron Todd appears to understand that if there is doubt about a ballot, there is doubt about the authority of the general secretary. Therefore, Ron Todd would not be in a position to carry credibility—
§ Mr. SkinnerThe right hon. Gentleman had £10,000 over the years.
§ Dr. OwenI hope that the hon. Gentleman will never make such an allegation. If he would like to say that standing up, I would be grateful. I was never sponsored, and no money was given to me—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)Order. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to a hearing.
§ Dr. OwenI beg the Secretary of State to look at this matter seriously. All the officials in the unions believe that the political fund should be involved, and they supervise the massive elections. Those elections will not simply be under union rules which we can all disown. If we hear reports of incidents, such as those affecting the TGWU, we will all be involved. This House will be involved. The workplace ballot on the political fund to support the Labour party is, in effect, a straight question of a political levy—it is Labour's levy. We are being asked to accept that the supervision of workplace ballots for the levy and for strikes should be undertaken by full-time officials of the union at their place of work.
Whatever the Secretary of State may say about the onus of proof in part 1—the reading of counsel is that the wording leaves it open to any union which so wishes to use a workplace ballot and not a postal ballot—the onus is not on the union to hold a postal ballot. The Government and the Prime Minister have misled their supporters. I do not believe that they did so deliberately, but the fact is that under part 1 any union which so wishes can hold a workplace ballot. If that is then challenged to the Certification Officer by an individual member of the 769 union, it is possible under part 1 for the Certification Officer to reject the workplace procedures and to insist on a tougher procedure or a postal ballot.
The Secretary of State has been on radio and television and given the impression that under part 1 the onus of proof is on someone to show why he should not have a postal ballot. The reverse is the truth. The alliance wanted the onus of proof to be on those who wished not to have a postal ballot to show why that should be so. For those unions with special circumstances, we suggested that they went to the Certification Officer and asked for an exemption. That is the right way. Postal ballots should be the norm, and workplace ballots the exception.
It is not quite an accident that SOGAT '82 has been chosen to be the first trade union in relation to the political fund. It is not an accident that this union has been carrying out its procedures with hardly any examination in the press. If the SOGAT '82 ballot is to become the hallmark of ballots for the political fund over the next year, the stories that we have heard about the TGWU will run on throughout the year.
§ Mr. GoldingWhere is the evidence?
§ Dr. OwenWe find the evidence if we examine SOGAT '82. Its official journal describes why its members should support the political fund. The Labour party is not mentioned on any page. It is well known that the only way that SOGAT "82 can get its members to support the political fund is to pretend that it has nothing to do with the Labour party; that the funds go nowhere near the Labour party.
Matters are even more serious than that. Members of SOGAT '82 are being asked to vote for a voice in Parliament. They are told that they will not be able effectively to carry out their union activities unless they have a political fund. It has been made clear time and time again that any normal trade union activity, including lobbying, can be provided for from normal funds. I hope that the Secretary of State will confirm that they do not need a political fund to campaign or to lobby.
§ Mr. LeightonIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that SOGAT '82 has a very good voice in Parliament? Is he further aware that our union wants the unfettered right to campaign on anything that the right hon. Gentleman might call politics? It does not want to be dictated to by him or by anybody else. No other country in western Europe dictates to a union how it will spend its money. When we want advice from renegades and turncoats, we will ask for it.
§ Dr. OwenThat is diametrically opposite to what the Act states. It states that the members should decide fully, openly and democratically whether they wish to make contributions to the Labour party. If they decide to do so, openly and democratically—[Interruption.] The Act is a bit like the SOGAT Journal. It does not mention the Labour party, but 82 per cent. of the political fund goes to the Labour party, and everybody knows that. It is not for normal, traditional lobbying.
In case anybody is in doubt about what the SOGAT Journal says, I shall read it out. It says:
'We would like to say on behalf of our members...' If we lose our rule which allows unions to be active politically we could soon be banned from campaigning publicly on questions which affect our members. And it would be illegal to lobby Parliament!770 The journal is entitled "Say yes to a voice". That will not lead to a fairly conducted ballot and everybody knows it. The tragedy is that the Secretary of State for Employment will be seen to be putting the veneer of respectability over this process. It is vital that we say no. These political fund ballots must be conducted democratically. They should be contracted in. If a political fund ballot is to take place, it should be postal and the cost should be borne by the country as an investment in democracy.Any of us who advocate fair elections in trade unions will be traduced up and down the country and will be told that we are anti-union. We are not. It is part of the assumption of a monopoly of conscience that the Labour party believes that only it can speak for trade unions. Many hon. Members of all parties believe in the need for collective action and for unions and members to organise. They believe that there should be some special safeguards in the law, as the present legislation rightly gives trade unionists.
However, these hon. Members desire from trade unionists that if they are given special privileges and protection in the law, they should have within their procedures a fully open and democratic mechanism so that the commonsense judgment of the members can be carried out. We would like to see that more widespread. I urge the Secretary of State and the Government to listen this time. They did not listen to the House of Commons or the House of Lords, and instead partially made an adjustment to the House of Lords amendment.
What has happened in the case of the Transport and General Workers Union is, I fear, the tip of a particularly ugly iceberg. It is giving too much temptation to any person with strong views in a trade union to ask him to supervise an election. We have not yet reached the stage where the Labour party, the Conservative party, or the alliance parties supervise the collection of the ballot boxes in a general election, or are involved in the counting of votes. The supervision of the ballot is completely separated from us as politicians, and rightly so. Supervision should be conducted independently, even if there is a workplace ballot, and even if we allow some unions to go ahead before the full operation of the 1984 Act. It is incumbent upon us to insist that there should be independent supervision at all stages of any workplace ballot. I urge the Secretary of State to think again.
§ The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King)I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the success of the Government's step-by-step approach to the reform of industrial relations law and to the strengthening of rights of individual trade union members; welcomes the new and stringent provisions of the Trade Union Act 1984 concerning secret ballots before strike action, for trade union elections and for the maintenance of political funds; notes the fundamental change in trade union attitudes and practices now taking place; welcomes in particular the increasing interest and involvement of trade union members in the conduct of their unions' affairs; and congratulates the Government on making the achievement of greater democracy in trade unions a central objective of its industrial relations policy.I took no exception in any personal sense to what the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said, but on an issue as important as this, he could have done the House the courtesy of being more careful about his facts. He was wrong about the position of the president of the National Union of Mineworkers, about the position 771 of the general secretary of the GMBATU and about the powers of the certification officer in the example that he used. He was also wrong in the letter that he wrote to me, and I sought to set out his inaccuracies. This is an important subject, and the right hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to come better prepared and equipped to deal with the argument.I assume that the right hon. Gentleman was not wrong in referring, as he does in the motion—I had assumed that this was a mistake—to the need for postal ballots before all strikes and presumably before those to end strikes. If that is what he intended—he referred only briefly to it—this is the first time that it has been mentioned. The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) sat through all the proceedings —Committee, Report, Third Reading and the debates on Lords amendments—and said nothing about it. Is this a new policy proposal or merely a mistake in the motion? If the right hon. Gentleman rehearsed his arguments on the merit of compulsory postal ballots before all disputes, he might find it difficult to rally the support for which he is looking.
We welcome this debate, not least because it is an opportunity to correct some of the gross inaccuracies that the right hon. Gentleman has perpetrated, not only in the House but outside. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are not embarrassed to discuss the cause of trade union reform. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Waverney (Mr. Prior) here. He initiated the step-by-step approach that has been such a significant success. I look across at some of the remainder of the participants in the battle on "In Place of Strife" and of the battles on the Industrial Relations Act 1971. Any honest observer will recognise the significant difference in the successes of our step-by-step approach. It is improving the climate of industrial relations, and its measures are here to stay.
The right hon. Member for Devonport was candid enough to admit that he voted against the first step of the step-by-step approach. He does not, however, rush forward to say that, while he supports the use of public funds for postal balloting, he voted against my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney when he introduced that proposal.
§ Mr. Cyril Smith (Rochdale)I did not vote against it.
§ Mr. KingIt comes as no surprise to find that different Members of the two alliance parties voted in different ways. The real surprise would be if they voted in the same Lobby at the same time. There have been some thoroughly unwelcome scenes in the House, but it is welcome to see the new development of such a good turnout from the alliance parties.
The right hon. Member for Devonport has chosen to lecture the Conservative party on the system of balloting for elections, secret ballots for union elections, a system of ballot before strikes and secret and periodic ballots for trade union funds. However, he would not have had the opportunity to comment on any of those items if we, as the Government, had not carried them through on to the statute book. We see this as a further development in our programme. We have tackled the abuse of the closed shop, have introduced financial support for postal ballots and 772 have outlawed secondary action. We have introduced secret ballots for the union elections to principal executive committees, for strike ballots and for political funds.
Many of our critics, some of them on the Opposition Benches, have said that these measures would never be used and that they would blow back in our face, but the record does not bear that out. The National Graphical Association may have second thoughts when it is £750,000 lighter because of its efforts towards intimidation and mayhem at the Stockport Messenger and have begun to realise that, in the end, the law will have to be observed.
The Transport and General Workers' Union learnt painfully and to its cost, at Austin Rover, that the car park meeting will no longer be tolerated and that the members must be consulted. The south Wales area of the NUM thought that it could black two hauliers with impunity. It found—it was another painful exercise—that unlawful actions will be punished and that the law must be observed. Most recently, in the Post Office at Mount Pleasant and even in the Civil Service, the requirement to consult the members, imposed through injunctions or through the serving of a writ, has ensured that disruption or strike action did not take place.
Our legislation seeks to give rights to union members, not to the Government. That has led to a major change of attitude. I cannot vouch for it, but according to a newspaper report, the TUC has referred to
the apparent wish of many members for ballots in any event, regardless of the provisions of the law".That underlines the fact that we are right to give members rights, and easier access to remedies when those rights are obstructed.Our determination has been to improve democracy in trade unions. Unions belong to their members. It is to the members that we must look and to whom the rights must be given. Many politicians jump up and down about ballot rigging and allegations of ballot rigging, but it is the members who are robbed and deprived of their rights by unfairness or injustice.
§ Mr. Cyril SmithWill the right hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. KingBecause of the exceptional circumstances, I owe it to the House to reply. I will give way in a moment.
The worst abuses in union practices took place either at branch meetings or in the car park voting procedures. I do not think that any hon. Member would dispute the fact that the Act will render both those forms of abuse illegal.
§ Mr. SmithIs the Minister aware that I was the Liberal party's spokesman on employment while the legislation to which he has referred—apart from the Trade Union Act 1984 — was passing through the House? Both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, I and my Liberal colleagues consistently supported the Government in the passage of those Bills. The right hon. Gentleman's claim that the legislation is the achievement only of the Conservative Government is not based on fact. Furthermore, if the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned that the unions should belong to the members, why is he tonight denying those members the right to vote by post, so ensuring that the results would be unchallengeable?
§ Mr. KingIs the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, in order to carry through the legislation, we had to depend solely upon the support of the Liberal party, or that we 773 should equate the Liberal contribution with the effort of the Conservative party? I cannot readily accept those propositions.
We have been at pains to tackle the problems. I note, for instance, the reference to the need to get away from branch voting. The right hon. Member for Devonport knows a great deal about such problems. I believe that he is a member of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs. The branch voting procedures of ASTMS may be among the most inadequate. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has raised the matter with the president or the general secretary of the union. I understand that, at the last election for their president, some 400 branches of the union either failed to return a vote or returned a nil vote. Some 10,000 members voted in the election — about 2 per cent. of the membership. It is interesting to note for how long the right hon. Gentleman has belonged to that union.
I wish to deal with the innuendos that the right hon. Gentleman introduced into his speech. Immediately after talking about the failure of the operation of the 1984 Act, he referred to the situation in the TGWU. However, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the procedures for secret elections will not come into operation until 1 October. The right hon. Gentleman said that the TGWU situation will give the green light to many other people, showing them the opportunities for rigging. I have come to the opposite conclusion. To the union's credit, the complaints were raised under the existing procedures. A cook in a secondary school in my home city of Bristol found that someone had incorrectly stamped her membership card. She raised the matter, and further procedures led, I believe, to the dismissal of two trade union officials. The message is that we are giving the members rights that they are prepared to use.
§ Mr. KingI do not wish at the moment to labour the point, but there is another message for us in the situation of the TGWU. Any senior trade union official standing for election and seeing the problems and difficulties that the TGWU is facing in connection with allegations of ballot rigging will not consider that he has been given a green light. The TGWU's problems will reinforce the determination of responsible unions to see that their procedures are properly carried out.
§ Mr. McNamaraWill the right hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. KingI must make progress, so that other hon. Members will have a chance to speak.
We outlawed branch voting and car park proceedings. Under the original provisions in the Bill, either workplace ballot or postal ballot requirements could meet the situation. Allegations have been made that I met Mr. Moss Evans and was completely persuaded by his arguments, and that as a consequence the Bill was weakened. In fact, the Bill, far from being weakened, was significantly strengthened.
There have been so many misleading allegations about the procedures in the Act—in some instances from ill-informed people—that I should like to make it clear what they involve. The Act lays down a whole series of new statutory requirements that will override existing 774 union procedures entirely. For the first time ever, it lays down statutory requirements about the frequency of elections, balloting arrangements, who can vote and who can stand. It lays down that elections must be secret, free from interference or constraint, that votes must be fairly and accurately counted, and that all those entitled to vote must be given an equal chance to do so at no direct cost to themselves.
Those are powerful new safeguards, and they are statutory. They do not depend on which union a member belongs to or what the union rule book happens to say. Any election that meets those standards will be a free arid fair election. From 1 October, anyone claiming that a union has failed to meet those standards will be able to apply to the independent certification officer for a declaration to that effect, or to the court, at no expense to himself.
That is one of the measures designed to help members with any problems connected with raising grievances. Conservative trade unionists attach great importance to the opportunity to be able to make representations.
We have added a new requirement that will pave the way for the opportunity for postal ballots on the widest possible basis. We have already imposed upon the unions a duty to compile and maintain a register of the names and proper addresses of their members. That duty was imposed upon the unions on Royal Assent. The registers must be completed by 1 October and kept up to date thereafter.
§ Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East)Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that such a register, like any other electoral register, will be open for inspection, so that all the members may be satisfied that it is in order?
§ Mr. KingIt should be available to members of the union.
Any failure to comply with the requirements of the register will make the union open to the risk of being challenged by its members in the High Court or before the certification officer.
We have gone further than that, as we have given much greater emphasis to postal voting. Postal voting is the system most likely to be free from interference and intimidation. The motion refers to "full secret postal voting", and I should like to consider why others think that an exception is justified. I should also like to tell the right hon. Member for Devonport why I have said that sections 2 and 3 of the 1984 Act introduce the most powerful presumption in favour of postal ballots.
A union that is considering holding a workplace ballot must meet all the existing requirements for free and fair postal elections, meet additional ones concerning the supply of ballot papers and giving electors a convenient opportunity to vote, and satisfy itself in advance of the ballot that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that any of the Act's electoral safeguards will be breached. A union member can go to the certification officer in advance of the ballot and get his support with a view to getting the High Court to act. That was the error of the right hon. Member for Devonport, because the certification officer has no power in this regard. If there is malpractice or intimidation, the ballot is put at risk.
If a union is not challenged by its members before an election, but the conduct of that election is found to have fallen short of the legislation's requirements, the High Court has a duty to order a re-run of the election to be conducted by a full postal ballot unless that is plainly 775 inappropriate. A few unions seem not to have taken those provisions fully on board as they are making fairly relaxed comments about them. It would be wise for union leaders to reflect on those provisions and the events of the past few months.
This is not an argument about mandatory full postal ballots. On 1 December 1983, the hon. Member for Stockton, South said:
We strongly favour the principle of one member, one vote and believe that postal ballots should be the norm. That is as far as we go. We do not say that it should be laid down as the only way of organising ballots within unions."—[Official Report, Standing Commitee E, 1 December 1983; c. 135.]On 25 April 1984, the hon. Member said:Postal ballots could not be adopted in every instance."—[Official Report, 25 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 844.]On 24 July 1984, the hon. Member said:There is a need also for some flexibility in the operation of postal ballots. We accept that it is wrong that postal ballots should be imposed on every union."—[Official Report, 24 July 1984; Vol. 64, c. 864.]My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) also accepts that there are cases when exceptions might have to be made. It is accepted that there is a case for postal ballots. The question is, therefore, under what terms and arrangements they are to be permitted. I am anxious to ensure the greatest possible democracy and to establish higher standards of democracy in trade unions where they have been lacking. I do not include all trade unions in that criticism. Two criteria must be met. We must ensure fair and secret elections, which are free from intimidation and malpractice, and we cannot walk away from the problem of encouraging every member to vote, because turnout matters in a democracy.If properly organised, workplace ballots tend to attract a much higher percentage ballot. The classic illustration of that is the National Union of Mineworkers. There was an 11 per cent. turnout in a fully postal ballot in the furniture trade union. For those who believe that workplace ballots can always be rigged by a union leadership, we should remember that Mr. Scargill was defeated twice in such ballots. He had polls of 87 and 93 per cent. and lost both ballots. Most recently he tried to persuade his members to vote for the 50p levy, which proposal was also defeated by a workplace ballot.
I have already said that the postal ballot can be the best solution if the avoidance of intimidation and malpractice is the overriding consideration. I accept that there must be postal ballots in some circumstances, because of the activities of the union leaders. There has been some interesting research on the problems of organising a postal ballot and getting the electoral roll in order. Right hon. and hon. Members know about the problems associated with parliamentary elections. I understand from the research that, in a fully postal ballot conducted by the AUEW, which has confirmed these findings, 200,000 members never received a vote and 20,000 received a vote to which they were not entitled. The Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union has tried hard to establish the best possible postal ballot system, but there are still problems. Right hon. and hon. Members know that people who come to our constituencies after October are not able to vote for us for 15 months — [HoN. MEMBERS: "After March."] I am grateful. I hope that I am better on union law than perhaps I am on electoral law. Democracy must be about giving the maximum number of 776 people the maximum opportunity to vote. However, they must be able to vote free from intimidation and malpractice in a secret ballot. Our legislation ensures that they have the best possible chance to do that.
The argument between us is whether it is better to give the power of determination of when there should be workplace ballots to a public officer—the certification officer—or to members, who should be given access to the courts. I have chosen the latter course. Our approach will succeed because it works with the grain of all union members. We are giving them rights, not imposing obligations on them. The defence of freedom and the avoidance of malpractice and intimidation, which all responsible right hon. and hon. Members deplore, will lie with the vigilance of union members. But it is our duty to see that they have proper rights and proper access to remedy. Because, in that spirit, our legislation embarks most effectively on that course, I commend the amendment to the House.
§ 6 pm
§ Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)I had better get to the Dispatch Box quickly, while I have the opportunity to do so.
The amendment reflects the Government's anti-trade union attitude, and their legislation applying to unions must be seen in the light of their overall policy.
SDP opportunism is reflected in the motion, which was not particularly ably moved by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)—[Interruption.] On the facts, the right hon. Gentleman did not make a good case. As he was motivated to initiate this subject at the first opportunity he had from the alliance point of view, he should have mugged up on the facts, particularly in relation to the unions to which he referred.
From the comments made in the debate, it would appear that neither side believes that the universality of the ballot is in issue. There are clearly problems in the trade union movement about how ballots should be applied. That is why flexibility and choice are allowed. Flexibility is necessary. It appears in the legislation and it even appears in the alliance motion.
We can assume, therefore, that the universality of the ballot is not in issue and that we are essentially concerned with proper practices in the development of ballots. We are also concerned with the democratic participation of union members and the importance of achieving the maximum participation in ballots.
I wish to make it clear from the outset that no hon. Member on the Labour Opposition Benches would have any truck with the interference of, or irregularities in, ballots, and the same goes for the proper democratic expression by trade union members on whatever issue may be in question. There need be no doubt or division on that aspect of the matter.
I speak as having been a seaman with 10 years' experience in the shipping industry. I recall taking part in debates in 1972 with the present Secretary of State, particularly on legislation about the closed shop. Exemptions were then made for seafarers because of the difficulties they face in relation to ballots. The right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) featured in the debates at that time. Clearly, therefore, my experience of the subject is bound to influence my attitude to the subjects of ballots and participation.
777 For 30 years I have been active in a trade union as an official and as an ordinary member. I have taken part in ballots — some postal— for executive councils, AGMs and delegates. Those ballots have occurred at the workplace, on sites, on ships, at branches, in executive councils and, for unofficial and official strikes, on sites. I can claim, therefore, to have participated in every type of ballot known to the trade union movement, including those covered by the Electoral Reform Society.
I learnt from those experiences. I am convinced of the role that ballots can play. My trade union actively ballots, in most cases by way of postal ballot, on matters concerning strikes, the election of officials, the political fund — the political fund will now be governed by legislation—and various other matters. In other words, ballots are an integral part of my union.
I recall one case when I was led to complain about a ballot irregularity. I complained through the normal procedures within the trade union movement and, as a result, the rules applying to ballots were tightened up. The ballot in question, with which I was closely concerned, was a postal ballot. The irregularity occurred because the postal ballot papers were sent to a ship which was due to remain in port at Southampton for only 24 hours. All the postal ballot papers were sent to the ship and we had a particularly active member who, in an effort to increase participation, collected all the envelopes and voted as he thought fit for members who had not received their voting papers.
I regarded that as a gross irregularity, which it clearly was, and, when I laid my views before the union and its executive, the procedures were changed. Indeed, the change was such that every member then had to sign for his or her ballot paper, to be sure of receiving it. The trouble was that, because everyone had to sign, so few participated in the ballot that a mockery was made of the vote.
There were bound to be difficulties because seamen cannot always be contacted. Indeed, the population of seafarers, so to speak, changes to the extent of 20 per cent. every year. Not only do their home addresses change, but seafarers may be out of the country for as long as a year or two years. That is the scale of the difficulty that my union has in dealing with ballots.
Every union, on receiving evidence of irregularity, will act. We do not need a commission or legislation to make it possible for people to take legal action. Many cases have arisen in the courts as a result of people pursuing breaches of union rules. Often the common law is invoked in that respect. In other words, the right of ordinary union members to pursue cases in court has always been available.
The interference directly in a ballot about which I am talking is improper. The sort of interference, as exemplified by Bernard Levin's article in The Times, however, is considered to be proper. He named candidates whom he thought should be elected in a ballot held by their union. He used the fact of his access to a national newspaper to influence a ballot. Apparently it is considered democratic for him to do that, even though he is not a member of the union concerned. He believes strongly, it seems, that moderates should be elected, and he uses The Times for that purpose.
I hope I have said enough to show that I need no lectures from alliance or Conservative Members about trade union 778 ballots and their importance. I have explained that I am well aware of the way in which ballots operate, and I have described my involvement in them.
In my notes, when preparing this speech, I wrote, "SDP evidence," and left a gap which I thought I could fill in when listening to the speech of the right hon. Member for Devonport. In the event, he did not produce a scrap of evidence to justify any of his assertions. [Interruption.] I shall deal with the various points that the right hon. Gentleman made, including that applying to SOGAT.
When speaking of the TGWU, the right hon. Member for Devonport said that he was prepared to leave the issue as it applied to that union. I wish that he had decided earlier not to proceed with that. He was prepared to make all sorts of scurrilous charges on the basis of what he said he had heard from individual members who were making allegations about ballots.
The Secretary of State was right to point out that that union acted, without recourse to legislation, firmly in the case of Bristol and dismissed two officials. [Interruption.] Whether or not my agreement with the Secretary of State is an alliance in truth I do not know, but the facts are clear on the issue.
§ Mr. Michael Meadowcroft (Leeds, West)The hon. Gentleman must know that I, as a member of the TGWU, wrote to Moss Evans and Norman Willis long before the wounding of the TGWU had continued for this length of time. In that letter I suggested, being aware of what was likely to happen— because of the way in which such matters tend to develop—that the best course would be for the TUC, as an independent and non-hostile body, to carry out an inquiry into what was happening. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would have been better if that course had been agreed to some weeks ago?
§ Mr. PrescottWhether or not the hon. Gentleman feels that the response to his letter was undertaken quickly enough is another matter. The fact remains that the union and the candidates in that election made their position absolutely clear. The union and Mr. B. Evans, have been calling for evidence all along. I should have thought that this debate provided a good opportunity for that evidence to be produced. Instead, we have had only innuendo. We have not been given information of any kind to enable us to judge why the right hon. Member for Devonport believes that everything should be done by way of postal ballot.
The position seems clear enough. The TGWU executive will meet and deal with the matter. It has a history of dealing correctly with such complaints, and a similar history runs right through the trade union movement. If the union does not act, there will then be cause for concern. Either way, those who make allegations must justify what they say.
In that context, we must consider some of the statements that have been made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). I have read his party's press releases on this subject. The hon. Gentleman makes various scurrilous remarks in press handouts and then, when he writes to the certification officer, produces no evidence whatever. He can only refer to what some trade union members have told him they think is going on. A campaign based on such a lack of evidence reflects the opportunism which we have come to expect from the alliance.
§ Mr. Michael Hancock (Portsmouth, South)Following the letter that I sent to the certification officer and Mr. Willis of the TUC, there was ample evidence for the TUC to step in and authorise a ballot to take place and for the certification officer to investigate the claims contained in the letter that was sent to him. In other words, ample evidence was provided for the investigation to take place.
§ Mr. PrescottIf the hon. Member is the SDP spokesman on industrial relations, if he believes that is the TUC's role and if he has been advising his right hon. Friend, it is no wonder his right hon. Friend made a mess of the facts. My point was that the letter sent to the certification officer had no evidence in it. I have a copy here. No evidence was given apart from conversations that the hon. Gentleman had with members of a trade union, whose support he presumably canvassed when he was a Labour party member, without one murmur about whether it was legitimate to receive such support. It is only since these people became members of the alliance that they are concerned about what they regard as matters of democracy. Therefore, this is an act of opportunism by the SDP.
If we want further evidence, we find that they voted for the Second Reading of the Trade Union Act 1984 and then abstained on Third Reading. When I looked through the debates on that legislation, I found that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) moved an amendment to a House of Lords amendment proposing that there should be a postal ballot for the political fund but then, at approximately 12.30 am, he said:
In view of the lateness of the hour, and the fact that we have discussed these matters on previous occasions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment." — [Official Report, 24 July 1984; Vol. 64, c. 492.]The right hon. Member for Devonport was not even in attendance when there were votes. On that occasion the SDP did not pursue the amendment, which it thinks is so important, to require a postal ballot on the political fund. Why did the SDP not pursue the matter then? I am perhaps cynical. Shortly after that there was a statement by Shirley Williams, about which there was much publicity in the press, offering a deal to the unions—that if they gave some money to the SDP, it would not lead a campaign against a ballot on the political fund.I do not know what happened, but now we have this motion before the House. Perhaps the SDP thought that it might get involved in bargaining and would have a case for saying, "Give us some of the money, Barney." When one considers the arguments and the statements that have been made, the matter does not seem very profitable for the SDP.
If the SDP's strong view on abuse of such political funds was reflected in the motion—companies giving money to political parties without balloting their shareholders—I might understand the motion. I think companies give donations to the SDP. It received £8,300 last year, and I think £5,000 of that was from the Norwich Union. The right hon. Member for Devonport is nipping round to companies, having lunch, and asking for money. If he thinks it is wrong to have political funds, it would be useful to legislate for postal ballots of company shareholders before companies decide that money should be made available to political parties. If the right hon. Member is nodding his head in agreement, why is he receiving money from companies when he does not know 780 whether the shareholders agree that the money should be given to the party? I do not think that things like that worry the right hon. Gentleman. So long as he is getting the cash, so long as he is making a political point and so long as he can get more votes in the process, that is all he is concerned about.
When one considers that that kind of money is given to the SDP it reminds us of the point that was made earlier about SOGAT. Of course, the SDP expressed its view about the SOGAT ballot. It bought space in The Sun. I have a copy here. It placed an advertisement, costing £6,000, to lead an attack on SOGAT. It had received £5,000 from the Norwich Union. Therefore, one could say that that money from the Norwich Union helped to pay for the advertisement to have a go at SOGAT. It was a scurrilous advertisement, seeking to intervene in the election going on in that union. If I may be more cynical, perhaps placing it in The Sun was looking for a bit of aggro with the printers. It might have been seen as a good investment if there had been opposition to printing the advertisement. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about the miners' strike, it might have been a good investment. That may have influenced the attitude of the SDP.
The SDP's concern seems to be mainly about political ballots. As we know, the strike ballot does not come into force until October. The right hon. Member for Devonport addressed himself only to the political fund ballot. I draw to his attention the fact that there is a dispute in Devonport at present. As I understand it, the men walked out without a ballot. Of course, the Government are closing down the yard, so one can understand the lads reacting about that. Did the right hon. Member demand a postal ballot before they came out?
I thought I had better read the intellectual newspapers in that area, so I scoured through the Western Evening Herald for comments. All I could find was that the right hon. Member had said:
Though anger and frustration may lead to protest today, by next week we must develop a constructive strategy for fighting back with alternative proposals.That is quite proper. That is what a Member of Parliament should be doing. But he did not say that the men should get back and have a ballot. He did not say that what they had done was illegal and that he had supported the 1984 legislation which laid down that they should have a ballot before taking industrial action. That was another act of opportunism by the right hon. Member, in line with accepting trade union money and trade union nominations, all of which he did in his earlier career but which he now rejects as undemocratic.I come to the Government's case.
§ Mr. GoldingBefore my hon. Friend does that, will he deal with the point on campaigning made by the leader of the SDP? Is it not true that if the main purpose of any literature used in a lobby is held to be to further the interests of any party or candidate, it can only be financed from the political fund? If there were no political fund, it would be illegal. We are telling members that they have to vote yes in the ballot so as to keep the unfettered right to campaign.
§ Mr. PrescottThat is a very sound point. It was the concern of the SDP when it put that advertisement in the newspaper that the question was not about whether people voted for the Labour party. That was another mistake by 781 the right hon. Member for Devonport. The question concerns whether a union has political objectives and uses its funds for those objectives. That question is determined by the certification officer and, as I understand it, by Parliament. It is determined by law and is carried out under the law. The question is not whether the money is given to the Labour party, the SDP or the Tories, but whether funds are used for political objects. That is the question that has been put to union members.
In regard to the Government's case, most of the conditions for ballots are determined by the Government. They set up the certification officer procedure. In some cases they pose the question. All these matters are determined by legislation, so in many ways this is direct intervention in trade unions which are voluntary bodies. No other voluntary body is faced with legislation like this.
It may be the Government's case that trade unions are different and have to be treated differently. I believe that the Government see the trade unions as different. They are a target to be dealt with. Therefore, a case can be made that the Government are anti-trade unions. The Secretary of State claims that his policy is different in that it is step by step. The objectives are no different from those of other Tory legislation in the past, but the Government are achieving their aims by stealth with a little assistance from the mass unemployment that they have brought about with their policies.
The Government's policy is to discipline the trade union movement. What else would one do with the "enemy within"? Is not that how the Prime Minister sees the trade unions? They have to be disciplined; they have to be made into friends; one needs legislation to bring them into order. The Government's language is entirely anti-trade union. Their legislation has been designed to cocoon the trade unions in court actions, where they are sued for damages and costs. Those are academically different from fines, but they are heavy on the funds. The legislation is designed to achieve a fundamental shift in power in the workplace. It is designed to attack the trade unions, impose legal controls on them and enforce the Government's ideas about ballots and how they will be conducted.
Therefore, the Government are not motivated by concern for good industrial relations. The idea is to strengthen management. We often hear that it is the right of management to manage. The Government want to influence the power structure in the place of work. It is one step towards weakening the trade union movement before they implement the rest of their policy, which is more unemployment, lower wages, reduced benefits, the reform of the welfare state and, indeed, the reduction of statutory employment rights.
§ Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North)Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. PrescottI must get on with my speech. The Government's attitude is influenced by those facts. We said that in the debates on the legislation although I did not attend them and had to read the reports. Since then, the same charge can be made against the Government. There have been further announcements about the reduction of employment benefits. There has been the abolition of the fair wage clause, which led to a 12-month strike at Barking, where the women faced lower wages and a reduction in their working week. It is proposed that the 782 wages councils should be abolished. The Government now talk of lowering the costs of industry by attacking maternity benefits, equal opportunities, and so on. All those things have been spelt out by the Government.
The one thing that brought home to me the Government's attitude was the press statement of 17 April on unfair dismissals. Now one needs to work at an establishment for more than two years to be able to bring an unfair dismissal claim. It is difficult to understand why the Government want to pursue that if they are not simply to be seen as vindictive. When I consider how many people are involved, I believe that the unfair dismissal proposal is, once again, a way of improving the strength of the manager at the place of work, and reducing the rights of workers to appeal against an injustice.
In support of that I refer to the statement made by the right hon. Member for Waveney in a Cabinet document of 17 July 1981. He was opposed to the suggestions, and he said that only 7 per cent. of all dismissals actually went to the industrial tribunals. In that document, he said to his Cabinet colleagues:
My conclusion, therefore, is that there is insufficient justification to amend employment legislation further in favour of employers. Moreover, I believe that any attempt to do so would alienate large sections of the working population trade unionists and others and would therefore be politically damaging to the Government.Now the right hon. Member for Waveney has been removed from the Cabinet, so there is action to reduce many employment benefits. That can be seen particularly in the Government's approach to unfair dismissal.The same two-year period will not apply to the man who might join a union with a closed shop. He might join it today, but go to the other side of the world and decide that he no longer wants to be a trade unionist. He has an action for damages against the union if he refuses to remain in the closed shop—he is a sort of bounty hunter for the money. The same two-year period does not apply in that case. That can happen from day one. That illustrates the Government's approach to trade union legislation. That is why many feel—
§ Mr. GaleI did not agree with much that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said today, but he did say that trade unionism was not the prerogative of any one political party, which is absolutely right. Will the hon. Gentleman concede that at the last election an assessed 5 million trade unionists voted for the Conservative party, that they are very well represented by the Conservative trade union movement, and that movement fully endorses the measures proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State?
§ Mr. PrescottI shall not go into those arguments. I do not deny the right of any politician to make the case one way or the other. I am simply saying that the people who are arguing against the trade union legislation are making those points to me. I am arguing that the Government are anti-trade union in their legislation. They are continuing that approach by bringing in such measures.
The Government say, "Look what our legislation did for British Leyland." But there was a strike. It is interesting to note that Jaguar at Coventry did not choose to use the courts or any form of intimidation, and settled a similar matter quickly. The matter dragged on in British Leyland for several days, but it was settled quickly at Jaguar.
783 Let me take the more recent case of the Post Office. Management took unilateral action with which the union and its members disagreed. Eventually they came out on strike, but the matter was settled quickly. We believe that as a result of the legislation there will be more unofficial quick strikes, such as we used to see in the 1960s. That is the way to bring management to its senses without recourse to the courts. Under the Government's legislation, the individual cannot be sued. Only the union can be sued. We shall have to wait and see what happens.
In their amendment, the Government talk of their concern for greater democracy. I was reminded of that when I read in The Guardian today of the fifth suicide at Government Communications Headquarters at Cheltenham. There was no ballot of members. They were not asked whether they wanted a trade union. The Government imposed their draconian power and used an Order in Council, which did not even have to be debated in the House. They denied those people the right to belong to a trade union. They were not asked whether they wanted a ballot. That was denied to them. All that they were offered was a £1,000 bribe to give up their trade union rights.
At the moment the other place is dealing with legislation that seeks to abolish democracy in the metropolitan counties and the Greater London council. Some time ago the other place was asked to consider passing a law to abolish elections when there was no Bill saying what would take their place. Therefore, how can the Secretary of State talk about democracy in these matters? There is no ballot for the people to enable them to decide whether they wish to keep those local authority structures. All the polls suggest that they want to keep them. The Secretary of State also talks about greater participation at the place of work. Why are we the only country in Europe that is refusing to implement the Vredeling recommendation that there should be more information for working people about their employment conditions?
At the same time, the Under-Secretary talks about the political godfathers in the trade unions giving money to the Labour party, but he does not comment on the money that has been given to the Tory party by companies. Some £3.5 million was given last year. The hon. Gentleman does not consider any of those companies to be godfathers. That is the sort of double-talk that we have come to expect from the Government, especially when it was the non-elected chairman of the Tory party, the hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who implemented the legislation.
We believe that the Government's legislation is an attempt to take us back to the old master-servant relationship. Labour Members believe, as we did in past legislation, in strengthening workplace participation, strengthening collective bargaining within the workplace, and bringing about greater industrial democracy and participation and harmony and co-operation in the workplace.
I want to make this clear to the Secretary of State, because he seemed to get a bit upset about it last time. I endorse the pledge given by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helen's, North (Mr. Evans) at Question Time on 2 April, that the next Labour Government will repeal Tory anti-trade union legislation and put in its place a new employment protection Act, which we are at present 784 discussing with the trade union movement, emphasising our belief in co-operation rather than in confrontation for all those at work. There will be many more at work when a Labour Government are returned at the next election.
§ Mr. Robert Atkins (South Ribble)I wish to make a brief intervention. I do so as a member for some years of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs and an office holder in my local branch, and one who has tried to serve on the so-called parliamentary committee of ASTMS, without any success, because it will not allow anyone on it who is not a member of the Labour party.
Secondly, I speak from the privileged position of being national president of Conservative Trade Unionists, an organisation representing a large number of members, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) said earlier. As a matter of information, we would probably represent the largest block vote at the Trades Union Congress if we chose to exercise it at all, which of course we would not like to do. We have a substantial following. All the officers are elected legitimately within the context of the rules of Conservative Trade Unionists, and there is no reflection upon us of any of the activities that have been observed recently in the Transport and General Workers Union and other unions.
I agree with one point that was made by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). He criticised the official Opposition for suggesting that they had the inalienable right to represent trade unionists and trade unionism in the parliamentary debate, and particularly in the House. We all know that that is not the case. The majority of trade unionists at the last election, and in the election before that, voted Conservative rather than for the right hon. Gentleman's party. In those circumstances, he cannot gainsay the facts as presented, whether or not he likes them. The facts are that we can speak with as much authority on trade unionism as he can.
The two points that I wish to make are brief. First, the misconceptions represented by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport have, I think, been dealt with extremely well by my right hon. Friend the Minister. It would waste time if I were to go over them in detail. However, they bear repeating in one context only, in that the four safeguards in the Act need emphasising time and again. They are, briefly: a .new right for members to complain to the certification officer about the arrangements for union elections before as well as after the poll, a new duty on the certification officer to investigate the complaint at no expense to the complainant.
§ Mr. John Evans (St. Helens, North)The hon. Gentleman has already said that.
§ Mr. AtkinsI emphasise it again because certain people who are not a million miles away appear not to have recognised what is involved.
Next, there is a new requirement that, when a court orders an election to be re-run, it will normally be done by post. Finally, there is a new duty on all unions to compile an up-to-date register of their members' names and addresses so that postal votes can be held. Let us therefore be clear about the four safeguards in the Act.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) has, I think, just lost his standing at the next election as 785 a result of the statements that he has made, which have been confirmed by his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). He has said that he will repeal all the trade union legislation passed by the Conservative party. He is referring to legislation which, if he talks to the trade unionists whom he is supposed to represent, he will find is popular with them, whether in my constituency or in any other, and he knows that that is the truth. That is the kind of approach that will lose him and his party the next election, and he had better recognise it here and now.
It is clear that the Labour party, as usual, has been nobbled by the trade unionists to take a stance which conflicts entirely with what ordinary trade union members believe in in their various trade unions. We observed the other day that at one moment the Leader of the Opposition was in favour of a re-ballot in the TGWU, and then somebody got on the telephone to him and said, "Look, this is not quite on, old boy," so he changed his view, and he is no longer in favour of a re-ballot in the TGWU.
As I said earlier, we have observed the hon. Member for St. Helens, North being supported by that man of principle, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who, perhaps seeing the way the wind is blowing, has decided that he is now in favour of a new social contract, which means that again trade unionists have been on the telephone to him making it clear where he must stand in the context of the Labour party.
Anybody who appreciates what is involved in this issue knows that the majority of people who are members of trade unions understand only too well that changes need to be made. Where we differ from the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport and his party is that we do not believe that the postal vote system as he enunciates it is the answer. There is a real possibility that the necessary organisation to operate that system would become the sort of quango which the extreme Left within the unions could choose to argue against more easily than it could the views of the members of trade unions which ought to carry more weight.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) said, we believe that we should give this legislation a chance. The legislation of 1980, 1982 and 1984 has proved that legislation can be put on the books to cope with some of the difficulties and problems, and, above all, with handing back the trade unions to the members who ought to be participating.
In those circumstances, I believe that the motion of the SDP and the alliance is wrong. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear why we believe that we are right to adopt the path that we have adopted up to now and will continue to adopt. The statement of the hon. Member for St. Helens, North, supported by all the Johnnies-come-lately in the Labour party, will be a contribution to the Labour party losing the election, and it will not be helped by the antics of the alliance.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The House will wish to know that the wind-up speeches are expected to begin at a quarter to 7, so time is now very limited.
§ Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)I should first like to make the point that, if I live long enough, in three years I shall get a 50-year badge in my trade union. I think 786 that I can speak with some experience of trade unionism at many levels, as an ordinary member, a shop steward and a district committee member, and as having once fought the assistant general secretaryship of my union and almost winning it when I did not want to—but these things happen.
I wish to make one point clear. The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) suggested that the Government's legislation would give the unions back to their members. As far as I am concerned, the trade unions have always belonged to their members. The Secretary of State made some reference to car parks or suchlike in relation to voting in branches. I have to explain to the Secretary of State that each union has its own different methods of voting. The Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers always voted at a branch, and I will tell the House how we did it. We voted at the branch meeting. There were two tellers and the chairman recorded the vote on the sheet. It was, of course, an individual vote for each person who was standing, so that one received 25 votes and another 50 votes, and that was recorded. At the end of that part of the meeting, the chairman read it back. Therefore, it was on the sheet, read back, recorded in the minutes and sent to the national executive. At the end, we received a booklet which recorded every branch vote for every individual member—the fairest method of voting that I know in the trade union movement because checks took place at every level. I never knew anything different from that in my trade union.
With regard to voting in relation to strikes, I will give a concrete example of workers who did not have a ballot, but who took an action which I think was one of the greatest actions of solidarity that I can remember. The Canadian seamen came into the port of Liverpool and they walked off their ship on the instructions of their union in Canada. A group of dockers were instructed to work the ship, refused to do so and were suspended. Within three hours, every dock worker in the port of Liverpool and Birkenhead was out on strike and remained on strike while that ship was tied up. It lasted six weeks. They did not get a penny. It was not for themselves; in my view it was purely an act of unselfish solidarity, the likes of which, incidentally, one does not often see. It was absolutely magnificent. I think that there were a few blue union members around at the time, but in the main they were members of the TGWU.
It is nonsense to say that there is no democracy in the trade union movement. As we all know, fiddles sometimes take place within every organisation. Can any hon. Member say that they do not take place within the Conservative party? I do not know how many votes take place at local level—[Interruption.] I understand that there are not any votes. Of course there cannot be any fiddles if people cannot vote. It is as simple as that.
But from time to time, something will go wrong over ballots in any organisation and there will be arguments about it. That is the law of nature. It happens. But it does not mean that the Government must interfere in that organisation's internal affairs. Members of the trade union movement are quite able to deal internally with the difficulties as they arise, as the TGWU and other unions are quite able to do. In all the years, only one exception to that rule is constantly trotted out, involving what was then the Electrical Trade Union.
787 The speech of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was as bad as that of any Right-wing member of the Tory party, and it made the Secretary of State look like a liberal. It was remarkable. That right hon. Gentleman was once a member of the Labour party and accepted everything that the Labour party could give him. He would not be where he is today if it had not been for the Labour party and the trade unionists and others who worked for him and backed him in the early years of his political life. I say to him as I say to others, "Don't turn your back" — although, of course, he has — "on the people who have sustained you in your political life."
I shall not make a long speech, as I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who is sponsored by the TGWU, also has a right to speak in the debate. Today, the SDP and the Conservative party have once again stressed their basically anti-trade union attitudes. That is what this debate is all about. The move began many years ago with a pamphlet published by a group of Conservative lawyers which was entitled, "A Giant's Strength". They believed that the trade union movement was too powerful, that working people were getting conditions that were too good and they had to be cut down to size. That is what this debate and the legislation is all about, and that is what the right hon. Member for Devonport and the Government wish to do, although perhaps with a slightly different emphasis. They are trying to prevent the trade union movement from fighting for decent conditions and for workers' rights.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerMr. Penhaligon.
§ Mr. David Penhaligon (Truro)rose—
§ Mr. McNamaraOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Today we have had a statement from the Secretary of State for Employment about my union's procedures. When I sought to intervene in his speech to correct him, he refused to give way. In addition, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) made scurrilous comments about my trade union without any evidence and did not give me—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman's point of order is.
§ Mr. McNamaraI was about to come to the point. Perhaps you can tell me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how there can be a debate which is designed to attack the trade unions without Members who are sponsored by unions being given an opportunity to reply. I remind you that 28 Members are sponsored by the TGWU, which is more than the combined total of alliance party Members.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI realise that the hon. Gentleman is one of several hon. Members who have been unable to speak in this very short debate, but he is a very experienced Member of Parliament, and I am sure that he will find another way of putting his point on the record.
§ Mr. Penhaligonrose—
§ Mr. Cyril SmithFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Might I suggest that if Labour Members had not attempted to prevent the debate from taking place, 788 and had not carried on for an hour, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) might have been able to make his speech?
§ Mr. PenhaligonI always enjoy the speeches of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), because those of us who have been in the House for some time know that he is clearly part of the trade union movement and understands it.
However, it was slightly ironic that the hon. Gentleman should criticise my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) for changing his party, because I understand that from 1941 to 1948 the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Communist party. I do not say that there is anything wrong with that, but he is not in a particularly strong position to criticise my right hon. Friend for changing his party. Another reason for enjoying the speeches of the hon. Member for Walton is that he now represents the Right wing of the Liverpool Labour party. That is clearly a mantle which the hon. Gentleman finds extremely difficult to bear in this House.
I should like to clarify several points that have been raised in the debate. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the executive of the NUM proposes at the July conference to change the rules to make it quite clear that Mr. Scargill does not have a casting vote and so may not be re-elected under the legislation. It was ludicrous of the Minister to claim that the earlier remarks of my right hon. Friend were wrong. The Minister should be well aware that we have always taken the view—and accordingly we abstained from voting on the previous legislation — that although we want strike ballots eventually, the Government's proposals for ballots are not necessarily the best way of achieving that aim. We still think that trigger ballots are best, and much of the criticism of Labour Members about the legislation causing unofficial strikes has some substance to it.
I deal now with the political levy. I listened to what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) said, and I do not complain, because what he said is true. If the political levy is voted down, the trade unions will not be able to use money to ask people to vote for Labour candidates. I have a good few farmers in my constituency and, as any hon. Member who has two cows and a pig in his constituency will know, the most effective campaigning group is the National Farmers Union. It does not specifically ask people to vote Tory, but I suspect that behind the scenes it gives a fair bit of encouragement in that direction. As I understand things, the NFU would come within the legislation as currently proposed.
§ Mr. GoldingIs the hon. Gentleman aware that on the ballot paper it specifically says that money has to come from a political fund if it is spent
on the production, publication or distribution of any literature, document, film, sound recording or advertisement the main purpose of which is to persuade people to vote for a political party or candidate or to persuade them not to vote for a political party or candidate."?Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that the Post Office Engineering Union found it impossible to persuade the Court of Appeal about our main purpose? We were defending jobs, but we were told that we were political. We lost the case because we could not persuade the court that we were pursuing trade union objectives.
§ Mr. PenhaligonI can only suggest that the hon. Gentleman's union should take some advice from the 789 NFU, which has had quite remarkable success and, indeed, as a rural Member of Parliament, I can say, has sometimes caused me slightly embarrassing results for the past two decades.
However, I shall move on as there are only 12 minutes left in which to speak. I still believe that workplace ballots have something to recommend them. The problem is that for such ballots to be seen to be above question there must be a system of independent scrutineers. That is my view, and it is the position that I have taken for some considerable time.
§ Mr. McNamararose—
§ Mr. PenhaligonThere is not time—there are 11 minutes to go.
I also take the view that the provision of independent scrutineers at all workplace ballots for great unions like the TGWU is a total impossibility in terms of resources and money. To take my own constituency, to offer scrutinised ballots the TGWU would have to employ the entire staff who man a general election. I do not believe that that is possible and realistic, so I am opposed to workplace ballots as currently constituted.
Clearly, the scrutineering is being done by parties which often have a very clear, firm view themselves. As I understand the legislation to be enacted in October of this year, that position will not change. If there is a ballot at a workplace, the scrutineers are likely to be the most partisan people in the entire campaign, because the chances are that they will be the leaders of the union. The Government are allowing that to continue and it is rather like, at a general election, allowing the Labour party to run the ballot in Durham, the Tories that in Surrey or the Liberals—to show that I am broadminded—that in Truro. I do not think that any of them would be the first persons to spring to mind to run an absolutely independent, above-board election in any of those areas. It is my view that sheer partisanship is bound to affect a minority and that it is bound to use the opportunities available. I believe that for a minority the temptation will be just too strong.
What is required are postal ballots with a register of members, and it is to the credit of the Government that at least eventually they will produce a register of members. The postal paper ballot should be sent to the members, and the individual members should send them to an independent agent. Anything less than that is open to adjustment.
Many of us recognise that some genuine ballots take place within the NUM, but one of the ironies—and this takes some explaining—is that at every important NUM ballot that I can recall since I have been a Member of Parliament we have been told the result, except when it has been a very close call, before the ballots have gone to the Electoral Reform Society for counting. That clearly means that somebody has been looking at the ballots and counting them. I am not saying that they have been adjusted, but occasionally the temptation so to do must be too much for the independent agent.
It is worth remembering that in the demonstration that took place it was by and large the most enthusiastic union members who sat on this Bench and denied my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport the opportunity to make his speech, and that they are the independent scrutineers whom the unions normally appoint. The truth is that the reliability of the trade unions in carrying out an absolutely independent, above-board ballot has fallen into disrepute.
790 The claim that 98 per cent. of the members of the TGWU and a whole series of unions voluntarily pay their political levy is quite incredible. The amazing situation that we now have is that the Labour party is arguing for the trade unions to maintain the position that is currently favourable to it, and the Government are coming to its defence in that. It is time that the Government recognised the logic of this motion and that Government Members voted for it.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Bottomley)I suspect that if the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) had been able to draft this motion, he would have put down a slightly different one. He has given a rather more acceptable face to it than did the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen).
The leader of the SDP went through the first half-hour of what ought to have been this debate in a spirit of good humour and tolerance and I would like to recognise that. What we saw at the beginning of this debate was the kind of behaviour that some complain of at trade union branch meetings and others have experienced at Labour party meetings. When this happens anywhere, we ought to condemn rather than support it.
§ Mr. BottomleyNo, I will not.
One reason why this debate is so important is the shoe that was not dropped by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). He did not talk much about political review ballots and the reason is that he knows that about 80 per cent. of that money goes to the Labour party and those who are not in the Labour party have a vested interest in stopping it. That is open and above board. What seems to me important is that, while people are saying things which are not right about the review ballots—one example was given in the SOGAT Journal and others are in the TGWU Record, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) could have said—there has been very little media interest in what anion journals are saying. I think that they might go through the list of unions with a political fund, as in the cerfication officer's report on SOGAT and get in touch with the editors of the jornals and ask if they believe what they are saying. When they give examples of what they claim requires political funds, they ought to ask whether that activity has in the past been funded by political funds or by the general fund. I suspect that in that way we would get many more people participating in the review ballots and I suspect that we would see some of the funds go.
I want to give a bit of advice to bank managers who are financing the political funds that are in deficit. They ought to be very careful about these, because if a union cuts off its political fund, the bank will be unable to get the money from any other part of union funds. That is one of the things that they ought to start looking at.
On the question whether we should have only postal ballots in this whole field, we need first of all to see what sort of employment protection Act we are promised by the Labour party. Are they going to keep the political fund review process? Are they going to keep regular elections for members of the executive of unions?
§ Mr. EvansI do not know what the party's policy is yet, because we are having discussions with the trade 791 unions. However, I can tell the hon. gentleman and the Tory party what I want. I want to abolish the necessity for trade unions to have political funds.
§ Mr. BottomleyWe will see. It is quite clear—this runs right across the political spectrum from Ron Todd to the leader of the SDP—that unions need to demonstrate that their affairs are in order. As Ron Todd himself has said, to have unity, trust and confidence, there must be election systems which people do not and cannot tamper with. To balance that with the sort of participation rates which my right hon. Friend was talking about requires discussion and debate not only in the House but outside. It is the sort of subject that the House can return to with advantage so that we do not just have the sort of demonstrations that, sadly, we have seen today. We should hear from the Labour party and from people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and get the kind of participation in union affairs which is essential. That is the only way that trade union activists can represent the interests of their members and increase interest in the unions.
There is no need for union leaders to be political godfathers. The normal and ultimately the natural posture of the trade union movement is one of neutrality towards each political party and co-operation with the Government in office. That doubles their influence. When there are trade union leaders who can demonstrate that they have the widespread support of their members, they are likely to be taken more seriously in all parts of the House and not just by those who want to barrack to get all points of view other than their own submerged in the sort of demonstration that we have seen today.
It is quite clear that trade union ballots and elections will never be the same again. Even in the Transport and General Workers Union, of which I am a member—
§ Ms. Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood)Who did you vote for?
§ Mr. BottomleyI did not vote this time, because it would have been a vote for the Labour party.
It is quite clear that, with political funds fairly run and with fair national executive elections, it is inconceivable that the general secretary should be elected in a different way. It is important to note that higher participation in union votes and elections is likely to result in a trade union movement that serves the interests of its members. Parliament will then serve the interests of trade unions.
§ Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 25, Noes 374.
794| Divison No. 191] | [7 pm |
| AYES | |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Beith, A. J. | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
| Bruce, Malcolm | Maclennan, Robert |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | Owen, Rt Hon Dr David |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. | Penhaligon, David |
| Freud, Clement | Prentice, Rt Hon Reg |
| Gregory, Conal | Sheerman, Barry |
| Hancock, Mr. Michael | Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE) |
| Howells, Geraint | Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Johnston, Russell | Wainwright, R. |
| Kennedy, Charles | Wallace, James |
| Wrigglesworth, Ian | Mr. John Cartwrith and |
| Mr. Michael Meadowcroft. | |
| Tellers for the Ayes: |
| NOES | |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Cook, Frank (Stockton North) |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) |
| Amess, David | Coombs, Simon |
| Ancram, Michael | Cope, John |
| Anderson, Donald | Corbett, Robin |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Cormack, Patrick |
| Arnold, Tom | Couchman, James |
| Ashby, David | Cowans, Harry |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Critchley, Julian |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Crouch, David |
| Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. | Crowther, Stan |
| Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) | Cunliffe, Lawrence |
| Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) | Currie, Mrs Edwina |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli |
| Baldry, Tony | Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I) |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Deakins, Eric |
| Barnett, Guy | Dewar, Donald |
| Barron, Kevin | Dickens, Geoffrey |
| Batiste, Spencer | Dixon, Donald |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Dormand, Jack |
| Beckett, Mrs Margaret | Dorrell, Stephen |
| Bell, Stuart | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. |
| Bellingham, Henry | Dubs, Alfred |
| Benn, Tony | Duffy, A. E. P. |
| Benyon, William | Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. |
| Best, Keith | Durant, Tony |
| Blackburn, John | Dykes, Hugh |
| Blair, Anthony | Eadie, Alex |
| Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Eggar, Tim |
| Boothroyd, Miss Betty | Emery, Sir Peter |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Evans, John (St. Helens N) |
| Bottomley, Peter | Evennett, David |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Eyre, Sir Reginald |
| Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n) | Fallon, Michael |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Fatchett, Derek |
| Boyes, Roland | Faulds, Andrew |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Favell, Anthony |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Fenner, Mrs Peggy |
| Bright, Graham | Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) |
| Brinton, Tim | Fletcher, Alexander |
| Brittan, Rt Hon Leon | Fookes, Miss Janet |
| Brown, Gordon (D'f mline E) | Foot, Rt Hon Michael |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Proven) | Forman, Nigel |
| Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) | Forrester, John |
| Browne, John | Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) |
| Bruinvels, Peter | Forth, Eric |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Foster, Derek |
| Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. | Foulkes, George |
| Budgen, Nick | Fowler, Rt Hon Norman |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Fox, Marcus |
| Burt, Alistair | Fraser, J. (Norwood) |
| Butcher, John | Fraser, Peter (Angus East) |
| Caborn, Richard | Freeman, Roger |
| Callaghan, Rt Hon J. | Gale, Roger |
| Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) | Galley, Roy |
| Campbell, Ian | Gardiner, George (Reigate) |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Garel-Jones, Tristan |
| Canavan, Dennis | George, Bruce |
| Carlisle, John (N Luton) | Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | Glyn, Dr Alan |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | God man, Dr Norman |
| Chope, Christopher | Golding, John |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Goodhart, Sir Philip |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Gould, Bryan |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Gow, Ian |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Gower, Sir Raymond |
| Clarke, Thomas | Greenway, Harry |
| Clay, Robert | Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) |
| Cockeram, Eric | Hamilton, James (M'well N) |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) | Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) |
| Cohen, Harry | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. | Hannam, John |
| Conway, Derek | Hargreaves, Kenneth |
| Harman, Ms Harriet | Madden, Max |
| Harris, David | Major, John |
| Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Malins, Humfrey |
| Harvey, Robert | Malone, Gerald |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Maples, John |
| Hayes, J | Marek, Dr John |
| Hayhoe, Barney | Marland, Paul |
| Haynes, Frank | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) |
| Heddle, John | Martin, Michael |
| Heffer, Eric S. | Mason, Rt Hon Roy |
| Hickmet, Richard | Mates, Michael |
| Hicks, Robert | Mather, Carol |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Maude, Hon Francis |
| Hind, Kenneth | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Hirst, Michael | Maxton, John |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) | Mayhew, Sir Patrick |
| Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall) | Maynard, Miss Joan |
| Holt, Richard | Meacher, Michael |
| Home Robertson, John | Mellor, David |
| Hordern, Peter | Merchant, Piers |
| Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) | Michie, William |
| Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) | Mikardo, Ian |
| Hoyle, Douglas | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Mills, Iain (Meriden) |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport East) | Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) |
| Hume, John | Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) |
| Hunt, David (Wirral) | Mitchell, David (NW Hants) |
| Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Moate, Roger |
| Hunter, Andrew | Montgomery, Sir Fergus |
| Irving, Charles | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Jackson, Robert | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| John, Brynmor | Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) |
| Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Neale, Gerrard |
| Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) | Nelson, Anthony |
| Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald | Newton, Tony |
| Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Kershaw, Sir Anthony | Normanton, Tom |
| Key, Robert | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| King, Rt Hon Tom | O'Brien, William |
| Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil | O'Neill, Martin |
| Knight, Gregory (Derby N) | Onslow, Cranley |
| Knowles, Michael | Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. |
| Knox, David | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Lambie, David | Ottaway, Richard |
| Lang, Ian | Page, Richard (Herts SW) |
| Lawler, Geoffrey | Park, George |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil |
| Lee, John (Pendle) | Parris, Matthew |
| Leighton, Ronald | Patchett, Terry |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Lester, Jim | Pawsey, James |
| Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) | Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth |
| Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Pendry, Tom |
| Lewis, Terence (Worsley) | Pike, Peter |
| Lightbown, David | Pollock, Alexander |
| Lilley, Peter | Porter, Barry |
| Litherland, Robert | Portillo, Michael |
| Lloyd, Ian (Havant) | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
| Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Lord, Michael | Powley, John |
| Loyden, Edward | Prescott, John |
| Luce, Richard | Price, Sir David |
| Lyell, Nicholas | Prior, Rt Hon James |
| McCartney, Hugh | Pym, Rt Hon Francis |
| McCrindle, Robert | Radice, Giles |
| McCurley, Mrs Anna | Randall, Stuart |
| McDonald, Dr Oonagh | Rathbone, Tim |
| Macfarlane, Neil | Redmond, M. |
| McKay, Allen (Penistone) | Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S) |
| MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) | Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover) |
| MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) | Richardson, Ms Jo |
| McKelvey, William | Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas |
| Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor | Rifkind, Malcolm |
| Maclean, David John | Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) |
| McNamara, Kevin | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| McQuarrie, Albert | Robertson, George |
| McTaggart, Robert | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| McWilliam, John | Rooker, J. W, |
| Rost, Peter | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Rowe, Andrew | Thompson, J. (Wansbeck) |
| Rowlands, Ted | Thorne, Neil (Ilford S) |
| Rumbold, Mrs Angela | Thorne, Stan (Preston) |
| Ryder, Richard | Tinn, James |
| Ryman, John | Torney, Tom |
| Sackville, Hon Thomas | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Sedgemore, Brian | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') | Walker, Bill (T'side N) |
| Sheerman, Barry | Waller, Gary |
| Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood) | Warren, Kenneth |
| Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE) | Watson, John |
| Silkin, Rt Hon J. | Watts, John |
| Silvester, Fred | Weetch, Ken |
| Skeet, T. H. H. | Wells, Bowen (Hertford) |
| Skinner, Dennis | Wells, Sir John (Maidstone) |
| Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E) | Welsh, Michael |
| Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) | White, James |
| Snape, Peter | Whitfield, John |
| Soley, Clive | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Spearing, Nigel | Williams, Rt Hon A. |
| Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) | Winnick, David |
| Stern, Michael | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Stevens, Martin (Fulham) | Wood, Timothy |
| Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) | Woodcock, Michael |
| Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) | Yeo, Tim |
| Stott, Roger | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Strang, Gavin | |
| Sumberg, David | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman | Mr. Michael Neubert and |
| Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) | Mr. Tim Sainsbury. |
| Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Question. That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments).
§ The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 167.
797| Division No 192] | [7.15 pm |
| AYES | |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Butcher, John |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Carlisle, John (N Luton) |
| Amery, Rt Hon Julian | Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) |
| Amess, David | Channon, Rt Hon Paul |
| Ancram, Michael | Chope, Christopher |
| Ashby, David | Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Clark, Sir W. (Croydon 5,) |
| Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. | Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) |
| Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) | Cockeram, Eric |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Conway, Derek |
| Baldry, Tony | Coombs, Simon |
| Batiste, Spencer | Cope, John |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Cormack, Patrick |
| Bellingham, Henry | Couchman, James |
| Benyon, William | Critchley, Julian |
| Best, Keith | Crouch, David |
| Blackburn, John | Currie, Mrs Edwina |
| Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Dickens, Geoffrey |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Dorrell, Stephen |
| Bottomley, Peter | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Durant, Tony |
| Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n) | Dykes, Hugh |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Eggar, Tim |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Emery, Sir Peter |
| Bright, Graham | Evennett, David |
| Brinton, Tim | Eyre, Sir Reginald |
| Brittan, Rt Hon Leon | Fallon, Michael |
| Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) | Favell, Anthony |
| Browne, John | Fenner, Mrs Peggy |
| Bruinvels, Peter | Fletcher, Alexander |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Fookes, Miss Janet |
| Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. | Forman, Nigel |
| Budgen, Nick | Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Forth, Eric |
| Burt, Alistair | Fowler, Rt Hon Norman |
| Fox, Marcus | Mayhew, Sir Patrick |
| Franks, Cecil | Mellor, David |
| Fraser, Peter (Angus East) | Merchant, Piers |
| Freeman, Roger | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
| Gale, Roger | Mills, Iain (Meriden) |
| Galley, Roy | Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Mitchell, David (NW Hants) |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Moate, Roger |
| Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian | Montgomery, Sir Fergus |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) |
| Goodhart, Sir Philip | Neale, Gerrard |
| Gow, Ian | Nelson, Anthony |
| Gower, Sir Raymond | Neubert, Michael |
| Greenway, Harry | Newton, Tony |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) | Normanton, Tom |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Onslow, Cranley |
| Hannam, John | Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. |
| Hargreaves, Kenneth | Ottaway, Richard |
| Harris, David | Page, Richard (Herts SW) |
| Harvey, Robert | Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Parris, Matthew |
| Hayes, J. | Pawsey, James |
| Hayhoe, Barney | Pollock, Alexander |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Porter, Barry |
| Heddle, John | Portillo, Michael |
| Hickmet, Richard | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Hicks, Robert | Powley, John |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Price, Sir David |
| Hind, Kenneth | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| Hirst, Michael | Pym, Rt Hon Francis |
| Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) | Rathbone, Tim |
| Holt, Richard | Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover) |
| Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) | Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas |
| Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) | Rifkind, Malcolm |
| Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| Hunt, David (Wirral) | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Rost, Peter |
| Hunter, Andrew | Rowe, Andrew |
| Irving, Charles | Rumbold, Mrs Angela |
| Jackson, Robert | Ryder, Richard |
| Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Sackville, Hon Thomas |
| Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Kershaw, Sir Anthony | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Key, Robert | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| King, Rt Hon Tom | Silvester, Fred |
| Knight, Gregory (Derby N) | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Knowles, Michael | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Knox, David | Stern, Michael |
| Lawler, Geoffrey | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Stevens, Martin (Fulham) |
| Lee, John (Pendle) | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
| Lester, Jim | Sumberg, David |
| Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) | Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman |
| Lightbown, David | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
| Lilley, Peter | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Lloyd, Ian (Havant) | Thorne, Neil (Ilford S) |
| Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Lord, Michael | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Luce, Richard | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Lyell, Nicholas | Walker, Bill (T'side N) |
| McCrindle, Robert | Waller, Gary |
| McCurley, Mrs Anna | Warren, Kenneth |
| Macfarlane, Neil | Watson, John |
| MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) | Watts, John |
| MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) | Wells, Bowen (Hertford) |
| Maclean, David John | Wells, Sir John (Maidstone) |
| McQuarrie, Albert | Whitfield, John |
| Malins, Humfrey | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Malone, Gerald | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Maples, John | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Marland, Paul | Wood, Timothy |
| Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Woodcock, Michael |
| Mates, Michael | Yeo, Tim |
| Mather, Carol | |
| Maude, Hon Francis | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Mr. John Major and |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Mr. Ian Lang. |
| NOES | |
| Anderson, Donald | Hughes, Simon (Southwark) |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Hume, John |
| Ashdown, Paddy | John, Brynmor |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Johnston, Russell |
| Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) | Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Barnett, Guy | Kennedy, Charles |
| Barron, Kevin | Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil |
| Beckett, Mrs Margaret | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Beith, A. J. | Lambie, David |
| Bell, Stuart | Leighton, Ronald |
| Benn, Tony | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) |
| Blair, Anthony | Lewis, Terence (Worsley) |
| Boothroyd, Miss Betty | Litherland, Robert |
| Boyes, Roland | Loyden, Edward |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | McCartney, Hugh |
| Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) | McDonald, Dr Oonagh |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | McKay, Allen (Penistone) |
| Bruce, Malcolm | McKelvey, William |
| Caborn, Richard | Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor |
| Callaghan, Rt Hon J. | Maclennan, Robert |
| Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) | McNamara, Kevin |
| Campbell, Ian | McTaggart, Robert |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | McWilliam, John |
| Canavan, Dennis | Madden, Max |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | Marek, Dr John |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Martin, Michael |
| Clarke, Thomas | Mason, Rt Hon Roy |
| Clay, Robert | Maxton, John |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | Maynard, Miss Joan |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) | Meacher, Michael |
| Cohen, Harry | Michie, William |
| Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. | Mikardo, Ian |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton North) | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Corbett, Robin | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| Cowans, Harry | O'Brien, William |
| Craigen, J. M. | O'Neill, Martin |
| Crowther, Stan | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Owen, Rt Hon Dr David |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli) | Park, George |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I) | Patchett, Terry |
| Deakins, Eric | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Dewar, Donald | Pendry, Tom |
| Dixon, Donald | Penhaligon, David |
| Dormand, Jack | Pike, Peter |
| Dubs, Alfred | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Prescott, John |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. | Radice, Giles |
| Eadie, Alex | Randall, Stuart |
| Evans, John (St. Helens N) | Redmond, M. |
| Fatchett, Derek | Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S) |
| Faulds, Andrew | Richardson, Ms Jo |
| Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) | Roberts, Allan (Bootle) |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) |
| Forrester, John | Robertson, George |
| Foulkes, George | Rowlands, Ted |
| Fraser, J. (Norwood) | Ryman, John |
| Freud, Clement | Sedgemore, Brian |
| George, Bruce | Sheerman, Barry |
| Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John | Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood) |
| God man, Dr Norman | Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE) |
| Gould, Bryan | Silkin, Rt Hon J. |
| Gourlay, Harry | Skinner, Dennis |
| Hamilton, James (M'well N) | Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E) |
| Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) | Snape, Peter |
| Hancock, Mr. Michael | Soley, Clive |
| Harman, Ms Harriet | Spearing, Nigel |
| Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Haynes, Frank | Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles) |
| Heffer, Eric S. | Stott, Roger |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Strang, Gavin |
| Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall) | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
| Home Robertson, John | Thompson, J. (Wansbeck) |
| Howells, Geraint | Thorne, Stan (Preston) |
| Hoyle, Douglas | Tinn, James |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Torney, Tom |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport East) | Wainwright, R. |
| Wallace, James | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Weetch, Ken | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Welsh, Michael | |
| White, James | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Williams, Rt Hon A. | Mr. John Cartwright and |
| Wilson, Gordon | Mr. Michael Meadowcroft. |
| Winnick, David |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the success of the Government's step-by-step approach to the reform of industrial relations law and to the strengthening of rights of individual trade union members; welcomes the new and stringent provisions of the Trade Union Act 1984 concerning secret ballots before strike action, for trade union elections and for the maintenance of political funds; notes the fundamental change in trade union attitudes and practices now taking place; welcomes in particular the increasing interest and involvement of trade union members in the conduct of their unions' affairs; and congratulates the Government on making the achievement of greater democracy in trade unions a central objective of its industrial relations policy.