HL Deb 23 February 1965 vol 263 cc684-8

2.49 p.m.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government—

  1. (1) whether they accept the principle laid down in Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948 (Cmd. 7662); viz., that "No one may be compelled to belong to an Association"; and
  2. (2) how they reconcile with that principle the introduction of a Trade Disputes Bill which will deprive persons refusing to belong to an association of their remedies at Common Law against those who, in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, threaten breaches of contract in order to deprive them of their livelihood.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lord Lindgren)

My Lords, the Government accept the principle laid down in Article 20. The Trade Disputes Bill is not concerned particularly with disputes over union membership but, like earlier trade union legislation, applies to all disputes. The question whether it is right that the protection of the law should extend to disputes over union membership is one which the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and employers' associations will doubtless consider.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask him this further question? Do the Government agree that, if this Bill passes into law, a man thereafter treated as Mr. Rookes was treated will have no remedy? If so, is the Government's view this: that it is wrong to force a man to belong to an association, but right to deprive him of his livelihood if he refuses?

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, owing to the length of the supplementary question, I am afraid that I missed the first part of it.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, I shall be delighted to repeat it. Do the Government agree that, if this Bill passes into law, a man thereafter treated as Mr. Rookes was treated will have no remedy? I will pause there, so that that can be answered before the next part of my question.

LORD LINDGREN

No, my Lords. This Bill will restore the law to what everyone thought it was from 1906 onwards.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, with respect to the Minister, I think that in saying "No" he said almost the opposite of what he meant, because he is saying that a man thereafter treated as Mr. Rookes was treated will have no remedy. Does he agree with that?

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, the noble Lord is a lawyer. Even lawyers disagree. This case went through three courts, and there were three different decisions.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, I really think the Minister is missing the point. What is quite certain is that Mr. Rookes did have a remedy. Surely the Minister knows whether it is, or is not, the intention of the Government that, when this Bill becomes law, any man treated thereafter as Mr. Rookes was treated will have no remedy. Either that is the intention of the Government, or it is not.

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, the intention of the Government, as I said on the first occasion, is to restore the law to what everyone thought it was from 1906 until the House of Lords judgment. I understand that the House of Lords judgment means that the law was always as we now understand it to be, right the way back to 1906. Equally, would the noble Lord say that it is wrong for professional organisations to make membership of those professional organisations a condition before a man can earn a living with them?

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, as the Minister is good enough to ask me a question, I would refer him to my speech on this proposal of the Government before they introduced their Bill, where he will discover what my opinion was. I also pointed out how wrong he is in thinking that the House of Lords decision was contrary to something that everybody had hitherto assumed. But my question to the Government is perfectly simple. Mr. Rookes had a remedy. Is it their intention that, when this Bill becomes law, a person treated as Mr. Rookes was treated will have no remedy?

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, I suggest that that will be a matter for the courts to decide.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: NO.

LORD LINDGREN

The Government's intention is simply to restore the law to what everyone thought it was from 1906 until the House of Lords decision.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, surely it is ridiculous to say that it is for the courts to decide what the Government's intention is. The question put to the Minister is quite a simple question, and I should have thought that the answer was obvious, and that it was in the affirmative. I would ask the Minister to answer the question that has been put to him.

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, I am not a lawyer, but a simple trade unionist. I thought it was plain that the intention of the Government is simply to restore the law which the House of Lords judgment upset.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: NO.

LORD BLYTON

My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are pleased with this Bill? There is no closed shop in it; nor is the Bill outlawing it—although many professional organisations, like that of the noble Lord who asked the Question have had a closed shop for many years.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!

LORD BLYTON

My Lords, is the Minister aware that a person who receives benefits that a trade union negotiates, and does not pay, so far as I am concerned, is repugnant to me? Is the Minister further aware that this Bill only restores what we always thought was our previous position until your Lordships decided otherwise, in the Rookes v. Barnard case, and also gives to the trade union officials the power to mention collective action to the employers without risk of legal action or intimidation? I hope the Bill will pass.

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, again, owing to the length of the supplementary question, I am afraid that I missed the point of it. But I am grateful to my noble friend for the respite from the fire.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, may I add my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, for making it clear that he welcomes the Bill, because he is confident that no future Mr. Rookes, after this Bill passes, will have a remedy. The noble Lord is quite right. That is what the Bill does. He has made it clear that that is why he welcomes it, and I thank him for this intervention.

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, with the greatest respect, that is an argument and not a question. May I say, too, that the noble Lord is putting half a question? Article 20 also gives the right of freedom of association of membership. I have never noticed the noble Lord enthusiastic in urging bank employers to recognise the National Union of Bank Employees, or the employers who refuse the right of trade union membership to give it.

LORD CITRINE

My Lords, is the Minister not of the opinion that this Bill is based on common sense? Is this not preferable to the alternative: that of men who believe that their liberty is being infringed by being required to work with non-unionists walking out in concert without giving the employers any indication as to their reasons?

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, I agree that this Bill is based upon common sense, and that may be the reason why lawyers cannot understand it.

LORD BROWN

My Lords, is it not the fact that there is nothing in this Bill that deprives a person of taking Common Law action directly against the person uttering the threat, and that, in fact, this Bill is directed to relieving a third party of the responsibility, for reasons of which we are all aware?

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, that is as I understand the position.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the last question shows that the noble Lord asking it has not read the Bill. It specifically relieves the person uttering the threat.

The MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (Lord Champion)

My Lords, may I call the noble Lord's attention to the point that he is not debating this with my noble friend behind me, or ought not to be, on a Question such as this. I rather think that the whole matter is one that we shall have to debate when the Bill is passed through another place and comes here.