§ 3.36 p.m.
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, gave Notice of a Question which it is now appropriate for me to Answer.
During yesterday's proceedings in the case of Con-Mech (Engineers) Limited v, Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers (Engineering Section) the Court agreed to a proposal that a sum of £65,000 should be paid to the sequestrators on the instructions of donors who wished to 639 remain anonymous. This sum was sufficient to cover the compensation due to Con-Mech and to certain other judgment creditors, together with the costs awarded by the Court against the union. The Court therefore ordered that as soon as the payment had been made all the assets still being held by the sequestrators should be returned to the union. Subsequently, the union executive decided to call aff the strike which had begun on the previous day. Naturally, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment welcomed that decision. This case is yet another illustration of the damage which the Industrial Relations Act can do, and of the importance of getting rid of it as quickly as possible. That, my Lords, is what the Government intend to do.
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, I am sure all noble Lords are relieved that a pointless strike has been called off The engineers' action, mercifully short lived, would have been not only damaging to industry and to the country as a whole, but would also have been a very serious attack, whether intended or not, on moderation and on the rule of law. I understand that a statement has to-day been made by Sir John Donaldson, the President of the Industrial Court, in which he said that there had been no contact between the court and the Government on the payment of £65,000 compensation. Can the Minister also confirm to the House now that there has been no contact between the Government and the anonymous donors, or anyone acting on their behalf?
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, my right honourable friend was informed that such an offer was being made, but he was not aware of the identity of the donor or donors. He, or they, evidently considered it worth while to pay the money so that disruption of the national economy could be averted. The Government did not intervene to secure acceptance of the offer, which was finally made at a late stage in the Court's proceedings yesterday.
§ LORD GLADWYNMy Lords, while obviously welcoming the manoeuvre which resulted in the ending of the strike by the engineers, may I ask the Government whether the acceptance by the court of a sum provided by an anonymous donor sufficient to meet the claims of 640 Con-Mech and other interests involved had no relation to the question of contempt of court, and, if so, why was it that Sir John Donaldson did not accept this offer when it was made a week ago, in which case there would have been no strike at all?
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, I am afraid that that is a question that would be better directed to Sir John Donaldson than to the Government.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, then may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government are prepared to condemn the action of the union in calling a strike?
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State indicated to the union in a speech that he made at Worthing and has since repeated in another place that in the present circumstances it would have been wiser for the union to have appeared before the court. We have also to recognise that the existence of the Industrial Relations Act is a standing provocation. He welcomed, and I welcome, the action of the union leadership in so swiftly calling off the strike action yesterday.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, does that mean that the Government do, or do not, condemn the action of the union in calling a strike?
§ LORD WIGGMy Lords, before my noble friend replies, would he bear in mind that there is one useful result that has come from the action of the A.U.E.W. in that it has demonstrated to the young bucks of the Conservative Party—and they may have representatives on this side of the House—that any ideas they have of following the example of Chile and using troops in order to usurp political power—
§ LORD WIGGWill the noble Lord bear in mind that in Chile, that democratic country, there were those who thought they could do it? But this action has demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt, and will my noble friend affirm this, that so far as Great Britain is concerned—and the Conservative Party would do well to learn this, because they have thought along these lines in the past—it is not on?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, could I have an answer to my question?
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, I was about to answer it. I have told your Lordships of the advice which my right honourable friend gave to the union. If his advice had been taken, probably a strike would not have taken place. I do not think that it is necessary to express any further opinion as to the views of Her Majesty's Government on the strike.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that the general opinion, I am sure on both sides of your Lordships' House, is that we are delighted that the strike has not been continued? But is it not true to say that the calling of a strike was quite within the law? Therefore, it does not call for any condemnation in a legalistic sense. That is the first thing I wish to ask my noble friend, that that should be clear.
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, perhaps I could answer my noble friend's first question so that I do not forget it. I believe that the great mass of the people in the country and in your Lordships' House will be happy that the strike has so speedily come to an end. Perhaps those outside this House will be less interested in the technicalities of it, but they will be sufficiently grateful that it has come to an end. I have forgotten the second part of my noble friend's question.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, it was, whether the strike was within the law. That was the most important part of my question. In order to clarify the issue, which is my purpose, is it not true to say that to call a strike was quite within the law?
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, that was the point that I had forgotten. It was said that it was not illegal to call a strike. One of the things that has been brought very closely to the attention of all of us is the fact that a law such as the Industrial Relations Act, which people do not like, causes them to do certain things. It may be that there are other things that people do which they are entitled to do which do not break the law, and other people dislike that just as much.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that of course everybody is glad that the strike has been called off, but that there are a great many people in this country who are very sorry that it was ever called on?
§ LORD HUGHESYes, my Lords, but there are probably a much greater number who were equally sorry, or more sorry, that the cause of it was ever put on the Statute Book.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, may I now put my second question. In view of all the hullaballoo in several of the quality and non-quality newspapers this morning, and a great deal of talk that is going on about this matter, and the suggestion that some anonymous donor, or donors, whose name or names may be known to some people (I cannot say) have actually offered a bribe to the Industrial Relations Court, is this matter to be regarded by those who are worried as a form of corruption? If this is so, will it be dealt with in the usual fashion?
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, I have no knowledge that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment regards this as a form of corruption. Perhaps Sir John Donaldson would wish to answer that question.
§ LORD FRASER OF LONSDALEMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether Mr. Scanlon's organisation, as well as being a trade union, is also a charity? May I ask him further whether it is a fact that if it is not a charity then the donor will have to live seven years, whereas if it is a charity he will have to live only one year before estate duty will have to be paid? Who is contemplating paying the estate duty?
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, perhaps that is a matter which has not yet occurred to the donors. If I knew who they were I would draw their attention to what the noble Lord has said.
§ LORD POPPLEWELLMy Lords, is not my noble friend aware that we, on this side of the House, really do deplore the doctrinaire attitude adopted by Members of the Opposition, who are much more concerned with scoring a debating point that with the good of the nation? Would not my noble friend agree that whether or not we like the idea of the strike, the decision to call it off indicates 643 what a political action took place when the Conservative Party passed this Bill and established a political court to deal with industrial matters, and that now the good sense of the nation has rallied round to cut this measure's bloody throat?
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, I do not find it necessary to disagree with anything that my noble friend has said.
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, I do not suppose that we shall make much more progress on those lines because the argument has been so well marked out in the past. Let me ask the noble Lord this question which concerns a point of real principle. I am not clear from the first Answer that he gave how much knowledge the Government had of the identity of the anonymous donors or anyone acting on their behalf, but do not the public have a right to know the identity of this group of people, whose actions—I do not say whether the actions are good or bad; I leave that out of account—have had a considerable political and industrial effect? Is it right that this matter should be shrouded in secrecy? How can the noble Lord defend this?
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, it is not a question for the Government to defend or otherwise. The Government have no powers, or rather no duty, to extract from these people information which they wish to conceal. If they wish to make a donation of this kind and keep it to themselves, that is one of the privileges which still remain with private citizens of this country.
§ LORD GLADWYNMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the anonymous donor, although unknown to the Government, is known to the Inland Revenue authorities?
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, I made inquiries before coming to the House this afternoon because of something that I heard on the radio this morning about the possible effect that this might have on company accounts if these donations came from companies. It is not clear whether these donations would be regarded as political or charitable donations requiring publicity in a company's accounts. I would suggest that this must obviously be a matter for the financial 644 advisers of the companies concerned, if they are companies, but, of course, if they are from individuals the point does not arise.
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, this is showing, is it not, staggering complacency on behalf of the Government. Is the noble Lord saying that he is satisfied, that he is content, that the identity of the donors should remain anonymous? Is he saying that the Government intend to make no inquiries? The Press will make inquiries and I shall be very surprised if the identity of the donors does not become public knowledge. Would it not be better if the Government had taken the initiative?
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, if it becomes public knowledge who the donors are, either through the activities of the Press or of noble Lords opposite or of noble Lords on this side of the House, good and well. The fact is that the strike has come to an end as a result of it and I can see no useful public service being served by knowing who the donors are. I have no reason for keeping them secret. If I knew the answer I should be happy to tell noble Lords, but I do not know the answer.
§ LORD DAVIES OF LEEKMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that both sides of the House, and the nation and industrialists are delighted that this strike has come to an end? Is he aware that this sanctimonious threnody about who made the donation would have been better years ago when over £1 million a year was donated to the Tory Party by big business? Until the Labour Government came in, nobody knew who gave the donations, but now we know.
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, if too much attention is paid to the question of who gave the money, we are in danger of creating the impression outside your Lordships' House that some Members of this House rather regret that the strike came to an end, because of the particular fashion in which it came to an end. It would not be a service to Parliament if that impression was created.
§ LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELANDMy Lords, is it not true that when this Bill was going through this House some 645 of us forecast exactly what was going to happen? Is it not also true that on television yesterday, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said that if the fine were paid by a third party he would consider that to be quite legal? He at no time raised the question as to whether the name of the third party should be divulged. Is it not also true that where third parties have paid fines of delinquents in the dock for various reasons, this has been accepted and the question of the identity of the third party has never before been brought into question?
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, it is perfectly true that there are ample precedents of third parties paying sums on behalf of other people. It so happens, so far as I know, that this is the first time that this has happened in the Industrial Relations Court. It does not establish a new principle, therefore, but merely applies it in another court. One of the reasons why I said to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that I did not think there was any obligation on the Government to try to find out who the donors are, was simply because of the point attributed to the noble and learned Lord. Lord Hailsham, that there is nothing illegal in this action.
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, what the noble and learned Lord said yesterday does not bear on the point I am making. I was not questioning whether or not it was legal. I think the Government have a responsibility. They have a responsibility for the standards of public life and I question whether it is desirable practice that actions which have substantial political and industrial effect should be shrouded in secrecy. I am astonished that the noble Lord cannot see the significance of this point.
§ LORD WIGGMy Lords, is it not obvious that noble Lords opposite can hardly hide their chagrin that the strike has been settled? So far as the Conservative Party is concerned, it welcomed this strike because it looked as though it was creating a dilemma for the Labour Government which would be acutely embarrassing. What has been demonstrated is the tomfoolery, futility and political incompetence of the Party opposite in trying to enmesh industrial relations in the web of law. That has failed. They 646 have failed and they would do themselves a good turn if they belted up.
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, I hesitate to go as far as my noble friend Lord Wigg in that matter, but I agree with him in the sense that noble Lords opposite are not doing this House a service by creating the impression that they are more interested in knowing who are the donors of the money than in having the strike brought to so speedy a conclusion.
§ LORD BERNSTEINMy Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, the Leader of the Opposition, when he said that it was not profitable to go on, was quite right. He said that progress will not be made. I think that the only hope for progress is for Members on the other side to start reading the history books of the Conservative Party. They may remember that there was a famous man who was kept out of power in the Conservative Party for many years, and who said quite definitely, "Never bring industrial relations into legal matters at all". He warned against that. That man was Churchill, and he said one should never get industrial relations involved with lawyers, the law and judges. If noble Lords remember that, perhaps we will not have ever again the trouble we have had for the last two and a half years.
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House is not here but I think he would be intervening if he had been. I do not wish to pursue the matter now, but in the first words I said in these exchanges—and I have my note here—I said that all noble Lords would be relieved that the strike had been called off. I should like that in the Record.
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, I think it is appropriate that we return to feudal reform in Scotland. My only regret in parting with the question is that while the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said that in his opening remarks, the subsequent exchanges rather took from the value of his preliminary comment.
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, we are now back on feudal reform and I doubt that we can get Con-Mech into that.