SERVICE NOT TO PROCEED ON REFERENCE IF CERTAIN INDUSTRIAL ACTION TAKEN.

HL Deb 14 April 1978 vol 947 cc1820-57

'That the following Section be inserted after Section 11 of the Employment Protection Act 1975— 11A The Service shall not proceed on a reference under Section 11 above if strike or other industrial action has been taken or threatened in support of the recognition claim by the independent trade union concerned either since the reference was made or during the twelve months previous"'.—[Mr. Hayhoe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.7 a.m.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe (Brentford and Isleworth)

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

On Second Reading I made it absolutely clear, as did my colleagues, that we were firmly opposed to the Bill. In order to paint the background for the new clause, I wish to make it clear that our belief is that any changes in the trade union recognition procedures in the Employment Protection Act 1975 must be fair and even-handed.

We do not suggest that Section 11 and subsequent sections of the Act, and the way in which these have been interpreted, and the experience we have of those sections, indicate for one moment that the present position is perfect. We recognise that there are difficulties. But we believe the Bill to be unfair and highly partial in its effect. Although we have sought to improve it in Committee and made some changes, we now wish to continue that process on Report.

In Committee, the Government and the Bill's sponsors were somewhat stiff-necked and intransigent in the way that they reacted to our suggestions. It is not at all characteristic of the Minister of State to behave in that way. Having debated many Bills with him in Committee, I know that usually he tries to be helpful, but I thought that his performance in Committee on this occasion fell far below the reasonable standards that we have come to expect from him.

Incidentally, the opposition to these measures, and, I think, the support that we would get for the new clauses and the amendments that we are moving, come from very wide sections within the population. I have had representations from the Federation of Building Society Staff Associations, from the Royal College of Midwives, from the trade union concerned with the retired officers of the Civil Service, from the Confederation of Bank Staff Associations, and from many other bodies. They are all concerned about the recognition procedures which are covered by the Bill.

Parliament first decided in 1971, when there was a Conservative Government, and reiterated in 1975, when there was a Labour Government, that it wanted, through legislation, to provide a means of solving union recognition disputes in a peaceful fashion. This new clause reinforces those arguments by saying to trade unions "You cannot have it both ways. You cannot seek to win recognition on the swings of industrial action as well as on the roundabouts of statutory procedures. You cannot have a situation where, "heads", trade unions win by industrial action and, "tails", employers and often employees lose through statutory procedures. That would be a wholly unfair situation.

We Conservatives—I hope that this view will be supported by other hon. Members—want to discourage strike action or other industrial action in support of recognition claims or, indeed, in other respects. All too often when strike action or industrial action is taken it is the general public—wholly innocent and wholly uninvolved in the dispute—which suffers as a result. I hope that all of us will always be seeking ways in which we can reduce such action.

If we look at the figures we see that in 1977 nearly 10 million days were lost as a result of strike action. That was three times the 1976 figure and more than in 1973, the last year of the Conservative Government. It is significant that within those totals we see some rise in the number of industrial disputes which are centred on matters of trade union concern and recognition.

Mr. Stan Thorne (Preston, South)

Against the background of the hon. Gentleman's known opposition to strikes per se, will he indicate how trade unionists will draw attention to their problem if this new clause is accepted?

Mr. Hayhoe

As I proceed I hope that will unfold, because the new clause says that as there is a statutory procedure available under Section 11 of the Employment Protection Act trade unions should be encouraged to use those provisions and not seek to go along lines where they will be saying "'Heads', we try and win by industrial action and 'tails', we try to ensure that our case is accepted as the result of the statutory procedures".

In bringing those statutory procedures on to the statute book Parliament indicated to the country that it wanted these sorts of disputes to be resolved through a peaceful system of inquiry and recommendation. We believe that some penalties, in the sense that the statutory procedures would not be available—that being the penalty—should follow the taking of industrial action or strike action by a union in pursuit of a recognition claim.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell (Ealing, Southall)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the real world of industrial relations there are always very mixed feelings among work people about whether or not to strike? While the strike is on, the situation in terms of whether or not it should continue is always very fluid. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has not taken these matters sufficiently into account because what he is proposing would tend to prolong the strike—since he cannot allow the right to strike—if ACAS cannot move in in order to try to clear it up.

Mr. Hayhoe

Perhaps because of his unfamiliarity with this legislation, and with the arguments, the hon. Gentleman has fallen into the tray of thinking that I am seeking to inhibit the right to strike. That I am not doing. I shall come to some comments about this later. What I am saying is that Parliament having established peaceful procedures for the resolution of recognition disputes alone we in this House should now be reinforcing it. If the hon. Gentleman will listen to the whole of my argument he will see that I shall draw attention to the most flagrant cases where Parliament ought to be ex pressing some sort of view.

11.15 a.m.

I made clear on Second Reading that there were other aspects of trade union recognition procedures, apart from those covered in the Bill, which we believe to be absolutely unsatisfactory. I said: Many, many more people inside and outside trade unions, would give much higher priority to changes in the law about union recognition which would deal with the appallingblackmailing gangster-like tactics of SLADE than to the provisions included in this Bill".—[Official Report, 20th January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 852.] I believe that to be profoundly true. I believe that the majority of people outside would support that, because the whole poisonous business of SLADE—the Society of Lithographic Artists, Designers, Engravers and Process Workers—the way in which it blackmails individuals and firms and its blockading tactics to win recognition and membership, have nothing to do with proper trade unionism and nothing to do with the spirit which animated Parliament—when there was a Conservative Government in 1971 and, again, with a Labour Government in 1975—to pass legislation relating to trade union recognition.

It would surely be absolutely intolerable if SLADE, after behaving as it is now behaving, could go to ACAS and ask it to help resolve a recognition dispute using the Section 11 statutory procedures of the Employment Protection Act. As a result of the marauding tactics which it follows, SLADE jeopardises the livelihood of individual artists, designers, illustrators and photographers. The very people whom SLADE is supposed to protect are the people whom it threatens and terrorises by its own activities. It would be absolutely intolerable if, after doing all this, SLADE could cheerfully put in a claim for recognition under Section 11 of the Employment Protection Act.

Mr. Nicholas Scott (Chelsea)

My hon. Friend said that SLADE had jeopardised the livelihoods of people involved in these activities. In my constituency alone I have had three cases of people being driven out of business entirely by the activities of SLADE.

Mr. Hayhoe

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. There are people, not only in his constituency but in many parts of the country, whose livelihood has not just been threatened but severely damaged as a result of the activities of SLADE. Substantial parts of the work which for many years they have undertaken has been taken away from them by trade union action. This is not trade union action against some remote boss, or something of that kind; this is trade union action against craftsmen and working people. I believe that it should be condemned in all parts of the House.

In my judgment it would be quite wrong, in these circumstances, for Parliament to do nothing about this poisonous SLADE affair. The new clause at least goes some way as an expression of disgust at SLADE's tactics and as an indication of our concern. Let me make it clear that this new clause, even in the circumstances that I have described, will not deny to SLADE the conciliation procedures which exist under Section 2 of the Employment Protection Act.

If SLADE has a change of heart and wants to use the good offices of ACAS to resolve, through conciliation, some of the disputes that exist, this new clause does not deny that avenue to it. What it would do, at least for a period of 12 months, would be to deny SLADE the possibility of going to ACAS and seeking to use, in support of its claim for recognition, the statutory procedures which Parliament has laid down.

Mr. Ron Thomas (Bristol, North-West)

If the hon. Member reads through his proposed new clause again, he will discover that it is worded so widely that its real intention seems to be to try to prevent a number of claims going to ACAS. It talks about industrial action having been taken or threatened in support of a recognition claim. It would only require a shop steward of an independent union to say "If we cannot get recognition by negotiation, we shall take action", for the clause to come into operation immediately.

Mr. Hayhoe

I am not sure whether the hon. Member's intervention means that he agrees with my argument and that he is now merely nit-picking round the edges of it, or that he has not the guts to attack my central theme, which is the disgraceful behaviour of SLADE. When we last debated SLADE, no Government supporter was prepared to say a word in its favour. We shall see whether any champions of SLADE's anti-union behaviour appear today. I am sure that no one who is a real supporter of trade unionism will be able to defend the activities of SLADE in pursuit of membership and recognition.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) has attacked SLADE and said that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) was nit-picking, although my hon. Friend's brief intervention struck at the very heart of this amendment. I sat with the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth throughout the proceedings in Committee. He has condemned SLADE. Can we expect him now to give us his view about the Grunwick boss, George Ward—[Interruption.] We all know that this Bill came about because of the Grunwick affair. What does the hon. Member say about the Grunwick gaffer, George Ward, and what he did?

Mr. Hayhoe

I am speaking to this new clause, and I am sure that Mr. Speaker would take me to task if I wandered into matters that I dealt with on Second Reading or in Committee. I am saying that the Employment Protection Bill is not an argument about, or for or against, what happened at Grunwick. I know that Government supporters sitting below the Gangway, whose shortage of any sensible arguments on the issues involved in the Bill has been so noticeable, have time and time again made standard speeches, which presumably they made on the picket line outside Grunwick and which they are now repeating ad nauseam in this House, but I ask them to turn to the matters dealt with in the clause.

I do not defend the wording of the new clause in detail. I am not a parliamentary draftsman. But the clear, firm, central intention of the clause is quite plain. It is to deny to unions which take or threaten industrial action in pursuit of a recognition claim access to the statutory procedures that Parliament has laid down.

Of course, the best solution to the SLADE problem would be for its membership to do something about it. I think that the majority of its members do not support the tactics followed by their leaders. I am worried to see the way in which members of the SLADE Art Union are prevented from taking a full part in their union's affairs. It is not without significance that when we debated the Second Reading of this Bill, a group of members of the moderate SLADE Art Union were taking SLADE to the High Court to prevent SLADE taking action which was against the interests of the members of the SLADE Art Union.

I believe that if all the members of SLADE, including those of the SLADE Art Union, were free to express their views on this matter, they, like many of us here, would condemn what is being done in their name. However, since that is not happening, in my view it is deplorable that the TUC and its printing industries committee, which is well aware of these problems, have done so little to help. Broadly speaking, their attitude might be described as shame-faced, so unwilling are they to take any effective action to deal with the problem.

It is a pity that Ministers have not sought to intervene to indicate their abhorrence of the activities of SLADE. That view alone would be enough to create support for New Clause. No. 1. It was not all that long ago that the Prime Minister quoted the remark of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) about the unacceptable face of capitalism. Far more unacceptable is the unacceptable face of trade unionism, which we see in the activities of SLADE, and I hope that the Minister of State will condemn them roundly in the intervention that he is about to make.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker)

Apparently the hon. Member has forgotten that we debated SLADE's conduct last year and that from this Dispatch Box I expressed the Government's concern about its tactics.

Mr. Hayhoe

I readily acknowledge that. However, in a Written Answer to a Question towards the end of last month, the right hon. Gentleman said that no further effective action had been taken. We know that the Government wring their moral hands about it, but they are not taking any effective action. I hope that at least this new clause will provide a toehold for those who wish to express a view on this issue.

The new clause should also be seen in the context of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) in the debate to which the Minister has just drawn our attention. On that occasion, my right hon. Friend made reference to recognition procedures and asked the Government: Will they also look at sanctions applying to unions who dodge the procedure? Surely no one would suggest that unions who fail to use the appropriate methods should be entitled to the legal immunities for inducing breach of contract that make the threat of blacking so menacing and so effective. That goes to the nub of the problem. There is no case for having the procedures under Section 11 of the Act, which allow a union to take a case for recognition to ACAS, and yet, at the same time, allow a union to black and to bring about a breach of contract while retaining the immunities under Sections 13 and 14 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. The Government and the House must consider these problems. We must consider the general problems of persuading the TUC and its Printing Industries Committee to take the action that we have suggested. We must draw attention to the practices of SLADE, which are deeply resented and detested by people outside the House as well as by hon. Members."—[Official Report, 29th June 1977; Vol. 934, c. 469–70.] Those were my right hon. Friend's remarks in June last year. In tabling this new clause, the Opposition have sought at least to begin to put some flesh upon the ideas that my right hon. Friend expressed on that occasion.

I have concentrated upon the activities of SLADE in opening the debate on this new clause. However, the clause goes much wider. I believe that it corresponds to feelings which are deeply and widely held by the vast majority of our fellow countrymen. They are fed up to the back teeth with seeing strike action and industrial action taken when other remedies for resolving disputes exist.

Again, I think that we are striking a very deep chord if we support the new clause—a chord which is in no way anti-trade unionist or anti-trade union. It is a clause which will help to support the better and more responsible elements within trade unionism and which will also be well in tune with the feelings of a very large number of our fellow citizens. I commend it to the House.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Philip Holland (Carlton)

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) dealt with the new clause in the round, as a complete whole. I want to deal with it in two sections, because it deals with two distinct situations. First, it deals with strike action after a reference has been made. Then it deals with strike action before a reference has been made. I should like to take those two halves separately.

In the first situation, all that the new clause really says is "Let us not have any unfair pressure on ACAS to prepare its reports on recognition with the kind of undue haste that could provide an excuse for sloppy workmanship." What the first part of the new clause does, in a sense, is to outlaw blackmail in circumstances in which an arbitration service has been called in to seek a solution to a problem in a way that will be fair to everyone concerned. It is perfectly reasonable to say that ACAS should not have to give consideration to a recognition issue whilst the members of the union that made the reference, or that may be affected by it, behave in a disruptive way.

It is, of course, not unusual for employers in the public sector as well as in the private sector to refuse to negotiate a settlement in an industrial dispute when under duress. In many cases, employees on strike are required to return to work before negotiations can be reopened. There is nothing revolutionary about this; it is common practice in a large number of companies, in a number of industries.

In such companies, trade unions and employers have a recognised procedure which is fully understood by both sides. It is a kind of folk dance. A strike is called to concentrate the employer's mind on a grievance that seems to be dragging on a bit. The employer recognises the importance of the dispute and indicates his willingness to try a little harder to reach an accommodation with the unions concerned. This is quite a recognised gambit. The employees return to work and positive negotiations are reopened with renewed determination to find a solution in a way that will enable both sides to get off the hook of their own previous obduracy.

As I have said, it is a farly well recognised formula that puts in its proper context what is euphemistically called "industrial action" but which usually means industrial inaction. Provided that it is not overdone or unduly prolonged, withdrawal of labour used in this way in relation to an employer makes a point without causing unnecessary hardship or indulging in reprehensible forms of blackmail to achieve its ends.

I have, of course been making a general point about how unfair it would be for ACAS to have to seek solutions to recognition problems whilst under the duress arising from industrial action, but there are, of course, other points to be considered. It would not only be unfair to indulge in strike action after a reference has been made; it would be both unnecessary and stupid, because in these circumstances this kind of prolongation of strike action would impose unnecessary hardship on the families of those on strike. It would deny those who had sufficient faith in the enterprise to put their money into it a proper return on their investment. In many circumstances it might well inconvenience the general public. Finally, it would dull competitiveness and destroy adherence to the delivery dates of the company providing employment.

The one section of the community that would not be in any way inconvenienced would, of course, be the council of ACAS. Distracted by what was happening—perhaps; its judgment clouded by the continuing recalcitrance of one of the parties to the dispute—very probably; but it would not in any way be suffering as a direct result of the strike action.

So what purpose would be served by employees remaining on strike after a reference had been made? It would certainly not be to the employees' advantage or to the trade union's advantage, for it would probably merely serve to antagonise the very people whose friendship they need.

So why cannot Labour Members accept this new clause, which is concerned merely to protect the potentially foolish from their potential folly? Resistance to this very sensible safeguard may imply a desire to see confusion worse confounded. Some Labour Members—I hope that this is true—may take the view that at least the first part of the new clause is acceptable since they may find difficulty in accepting the final words of the clause about strike action. during the twelve months previous. I shall spend a moment or two on that point.

This, of course, raises a slightly different issue—the issue whether strike action is ever justified where good and adequate procedures exist under the control and direction of impartial and objective bodies. Whilst I would always support a law that enabled a man to withdraw his labour in the last resort, I believe that grievance procedures ought, of themselves, to be good enough to outlaw strike action. This is not something in which politicians ought to get involved; it is something for managements and unions to work out sensibly between them.

It may be that Labour Members are not satisfied with the recognition procedures set up by their own Government under the grossly misnamed Employment Protection Act. Their disillusionment over the employment protection provided by that Act is not very surprising—for unemployment has trebled since it got on to the statute book. It may be, of course, that they are suspicious of the adequacy of the recognition procedures because they are not convinced of the impartiality and objectivity of the controlling QUANGO—ACAS. Having studied a number of ACAS recognition reports, I have to confess that even I have harboured doubts on that score. But that is no reason why unions should take their members out on strike to obtain recognition before they have even tried the clear official procedures laid down.

Of course, we know that there are those who seek to profit by causing trouble. For them, any peaceful means of achieving a settlement to a dispute is to be deplored, but I cannot believe that the present Government and the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher), the Bill's promoter, are motivated by that kind of reasoning. I think that they are really just afraid of placing even the most innocuous legal restraints on their trade union masters. In this matter, nevertheless, I hope that on mature reflection they will conclude that the clause really does make sense and that any impact it has will be only on the irresponsible.

Surely, the big unions cannot object to it, for they know to what an extent the official procedures are now all heavily weighted in their favour and how much influence they already exert through their nominees on the controlling quasi-autonomous national government organisations.

This clause will merely exert a restraining influence on the irresponsible minorities, and I should have thought that very few hon. Members would quarrel with that objective. Indeed, I hope that a majority in the House will support the new clause, as I do.

Mr. Ted Fletcher (Darlington)

First, I express the hope that we shall make rapid progress on Report and Third Reading. However, I am not very optimistic, in view of the fact that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) took half an hour to introduce the new clause. There are 11 groups of new clauses and amendments to be discussed today. Therefore, I express the hope that Opposition Members are not deliberately engaged in a filibuster to hold up the Bill. We shall see later in the day whether that is so.

Mr. Holland

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fletcher

Not at this stage. I have hardly begun my contribution.

We had eight sittings of the Committee on the Bill. This is a two-clause Bill, and many of the arguments that we have heard in the two speeches this morning were rehearsed in Committee. I should have thought that the Bill had adequate discussion in Committee and that we might proceed rapidly on Report to Third Reading. We are anxious to make progress, and I intend to reply as briefly as possible to the new clause and later new clauses and amendments in order that we may make progress this morning.

The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth said that he was not a parlimentary draftsman. That is obvious, because the new clause is unworkable. The Opposition have not taken into consideration the real world in which we live. The clause proposes that ACAS would have to refuse any application from a trade union if its members had been on strike, or even threatened to go on strike, in the preceding 12 months.

Mr. Hayhoe

The hon. Gentleman said that according to the clause ACAS would have to refuse an application by a trade union. That is not what it says. It would make ACAS refuse to go on processing the application. It would not make ACAS refuse it. As I read the clause, it would go into cold storage until such time as the industrial action ceased and 12 months had elapsed.

Mr. Fletcher

I see little distinction between not proceeding and not taking any action. That would be the effect. It is apparent that Opposition Members have little knowledge of industrial relations inside factory establishments. It may be that an employer will deliberately provoke a strike if he wants to get round a recognition issue. That has not been unknown. Unscrupulous employers will seize on the clause to provoke industrial action in the hope of staving off for at least 12 months any application by a trade union to ACAS for union recognition. That is a big obstacle to be overcome.

Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)

It is nonsensical to suggest that it is in the financial and commercial interests of employers to provoke strikes merely to stave off recognition for 12 months. The hon. Gentleman suggested that Opposition Members had no knowledge of industrial relations. I suggest that he has absolutely no idea about commercial undertakings.

Mr. Fletcher

I assure the hon. Gentleman that disputes have been deliberately provoked by employers to frustrate the intention of a union to seek recognition.

Another matter which has not been taken into consideration is the nature of a dispute which involves recognition. In the majority of instances, industrial disputes do not start over the issue of recognition. A dispute may start in a non-organised establishment where the workers have applied for a wage increase or may be incensed about the dismissal of one of their colleagues. They may not be organised in a union. As a result of the action that they take—they may possibly come out on strike—they may join a union, as happened in the Grunwick dispute, and then say to the union "Will you discuss with our employer our particular grievance?" It may be a wage application, hours of work, overtime, holiday entitlement or a mass of things which are the basis of conciliation between union and management. At that stage, the management may refuse to see the union. It may say that it will not recognise the union.

11.45 a.m.

How in the new clause is a distinction drawn between a dispute which starts over terms and conditions of employment and then develops into a dispute on recognition because the employer will not talk to or be prepared to recognise the union? I suggest that deciding whether a dispute is a recognition dispute or an industrial dispute which developed into a recognition dispute will provide many meals for barristers in the courts.

Mr. David Madel (Bedfordshire, South)

Is not that point covered by the precise wording of the new clause, threatened in support of the recognition claim"? It does not say "threatened in support of a wages claim" or anything else which may be amiss in a factory. As the wording is so precise, why is the hon. Gentleman so fussed about it?

Mr. Fletcher

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might look at the Grunwick dispute, which is a classic example of a group of workers who came out on strike because a number of their colleagues had, in their opinion, been unjustifiably sacked. That was the origin of the dispute. They then joined APEX, and APEX asked the employer "Are you prepared to negotiate on a return to work on the basis of no victimisation?" As a result, the Grunwick dispute is now a dispute about union recognition. If we talk to anyone about the Grunwick dispute, he will say that it is a dispute about union recognition. But it is not. It originated as a dispute about what the workers regarded as un-fair dismissal of some of their colleagues. That is a classic example of how difficult it is to define action taken in defence of standards inside a factory and action taken to get union recognition.

Mr. Holland

The new clause makes it plain that, if the strike at Grunwick or wherever else was about unfair dismissal, that would not preclude the union concerned making an application to ACAS. That is the point of the new clause. If the new clause is included in the Bill and if this happens at any time in future, there will be no question but that a reference can be made. It will be made fairly and legally, even though the employees might be on strike over the unfair dismissal of a colleague.

Mr. Fletcher

Who will define the nature of a dispute? The House of Lords considered the Grunwick case purely as an industrial dispute involving union recognition. But any historian who goes into the background knows that that was not what sparked the union off. The 140 workers who came out on strike at Grunwick were not at that time in the union. Someone must define what is a dispute about union recognition and what is an ordinary industrial struggle for better conditions on the part of the union. I suggest that that would lead to more litigation. More cases will be brought to the courts. Therefore, the new clause is unsatisfactory because in practice it will prove to be unworkable.

At the outset I said that I intended to make a brief contribution. Therefore, I suggest that if the new clause were adopted it would frustrate the efforts of trade unions to get recognition and would prolong industrial disputes. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House are agreed that it is better to have conciliation than confrontation. If the new clause were carried, it would lead to greater confrontation.

A union that is frustrated in bringing its case to ACAS might well seek the only way out, which is to take industrial action. The members might say "We are not prepared to wait for 12 months until our case is considered because it might be six, eight or 12 months after that before any decision is reached". They might take the view "We are prepared to use our industrial might and strength to resolve the issue here and now".

If the clause were carried, it would lead to greater industrial confrontation. Somebody must decide the difference between official and unofficial disputes. In many instances industrial disputes arise unofficially where a group of workers, incensed with the management's actions in certain directions, down tools, march out of the factory and go on strike. It is only after that has happened that the union is called in, considers the circumstances and in many cases makes the dispute official. Originally, the industrial action is not taken with the backing of the union but is taken unofficially by shop stewards or a group of workers in an establishment, and only afterwards is it endorsed by a union.

We must define whether the clause will include unions and whether they have a share in the matter in initiating the dispute or whether it has been embarked upon unofficially. For all these reasons, it is highly undesirable for the clause to be adopted.

The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth trailed the SLADE issue across the argument, yet that issue does not arise in any respect. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman was making a party political broadcast in order to express views that we have heard him advance on many other occasions against that union. As far as I know that union is not involved in any way. I understand that SLADE has never taken a case to ACAS. Although the attitude taken by that union might be regarded as reprehensible to Conservative Members, that union is not in a position of having been refused recognition by employers and has not taken any issue to ACAS. Therefore, the new clause would not help that situation in any way. If the hon. Gentleman wants to alter that situation, he must take a different course, but not through the provisions of the clause.

It is irrelevant for these proposals to be brought forward in support of the new clause. I ask the House to reject it because it is not drafted correctly, it would be unworkable and it would increase rather than resolve industrial disputes. It would open the gates to more litigation in the courts in seeking to define whether disputes related to recognition or other matters. It would involve the courts in deciding whether action had been initiated by a trade union or unofficially by trade unionists. It contains so many loopholes that it would make the Bill unworkable. For those reasons, I ask the House to reject the clause.

Mr. Esmond Bulmer (Kidderminster)

The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) has urged us to make progress rapidly. He has raised a number of technical difficulties, which show clearly that once we try to legislate, particularly on the basis of a hard case—and hard cases often make bad law—we run into all kinds of difficulties and inevitably our exchanges take a great deal of time. I find it difficult to accept the arguments put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

The central case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) still stands—namely, that we have tabled a clause which will have the effect of making people think twice before they come out on strike. I am quite sure that trade unionists will understand, if the clause becomes law, that it is in their interests to make it clear why they are coming out on strike. If they have to come out on strike for a particular reason and they fear that the two reasons to which the hon. Member referred may be linked, they will go back to work, and if they come out again it will be clear why they did so. However, it would not be in their interests to do so.

We believe that it should be in the interests of people to stay at work and to go through the statutory procedure. We understand why the trade union movement feels so strongly about recognition. Recognition is the key to organisation and to a boost in membership. From that process follow the funds that allow unions to grow and to represent their membership in a better fashion. We also accept that there are bad employers who still have a hire-and-fire mentality. We desire to encourage responsible trade unionists, and where there is a good relationship there are no problems.

If we consider the employer by whom recognition is often resisted, we have to ask ourselves how far that resistance is promoted by some of the policies which trade unions are arguing. If a man has built up a family business and hears trade unionists arguing for wealth tax and capital taxes that would break up his business, he would not instinctively react favourably to approaches by people who argue in favour of taxes that would fundamentally affect his business and might well result in its break-up.

There are legitimate reasons for not recognising a claim or not doing so immediately. If some of the other clauses and amendments which we have tabled are accepted, the willingness of employers to accept recognition will be very much improved—and certainly that argument applies to their willingness to co-operate with ACAS. The first of the reasons that employers might have for resisting an immediate approach is that they wish to sound out their employees to establish the will of the majority. There have been cases—there is one that is very well known—where the will of the majority has not been accepted. That raises serious and fundamental points which one hopes we shall have an opportunity to debate at a later stage. Where a group of people wish to obtain a certificate to the effect that they are an independent trade union, that process may take time. It is understandable that an employer will not wish to have a significant number of his work people put in a situation in which they may be dragooned into joining a union that is not of their own choice; or a situation might be created in which managers see that in the long term they will be compelled to become part of a manual union which they feel will not recognise their best interests.

There is also the possibility that the nature of the business will change fundamentally. There may be a merger or a major sale in the offing. In that situation, the interests of the business may dictate delay because the long-term character of the company may change in such a way that a different union would be more appropriate. Equally, there could be a situation in which an employees' council was being set up, or significant moves of that type were being pursued in developing industrial democracy, and the advent of another union could make for difficulties. The employer might feel he wished to avoid such difficulties, and the recognition issue could be accepted on all sides very much more easily.

The character of the local union leadership might be an important point. If an employer thought that he would have to negotiate with somebody like Alan Thornett, he might well have a natural reluctance to allow such a person to have formal standing in his company. Furthermore, it is no secret that trade unions are sometimes at loggerheads. An employer might well wish to see that Bridlington procedures were gone through and that a solution was arrived at between unions so that he could see which union could come out on top.

These are all arguments that an employer could reasonably produce for delay or for feeling that the case should be investigated by ACAS, particularly if ACAS was, as a result of further amendments which we hope to introduce, charged with the duty of taking into account the interests of the company and its good industrial relations rather than simply the extension of collective bargaining.

12 noon

There are all sorts of reasons why inter-union disputes might grow. Improved technology means that some unions have to strive hard to stay in business. There is a growing conflict between unions representing those in management and manual workers. There is the growth of the closed shop, which can have an effect on professional codes of conduct. Conflict can arise as a result of statutory policies being pressed. It seems that there is an overwhelming case for giving some backing to the employer and allowing him to say to ACAS "These are the problems and we hope that you will consider them in addition to your statutory requirement to extend collective bargaining." There is also the example of the union with a bad case which may wish to use its muscle.

I have had an experience of such a case in my constituency. I wonder whether any hon. Member does not have an example of the activities of SLADE, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has rightly described as operating in a way which savours of the worst form of protection racket. In the case I have in mind, an employer in a small advertising business was visited and told that unless all his employees became members of SLADE their work would be blacked. This was at a time when the Government were trying to sell their paper and interest rates were being pushed up to about 17 per cent. There was no chance of that small business being able to hold out.

The employer summoned all those in the business and asked whether they wished to join SLADE. They said that they did not. He said "If you are not prepared to join, we shall go out of business. I will undertake to pay your subscriptions." The employer is now paying the subscriptions.

The Minister of State cannot rest on his statement of last year. He must say what protection he is prepared to offer to the small employer. We hear a great deal about the work of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in defence of small businesses. It would be a great step forward if the Department of Employment could produce a measure which would ensure that small businesses were not subjected to such pressure.

I have tried to develop a case showing why I believe it is infinitely preferable that the statutory procedure which has been introduced rather than industrial muscle should be used by those at work. It is surely in the long-term interests of everyone that it should be. Those who have run a company know the effect that bad industrial relations can have. They will know the effect of strikes on the company. They have an effect on credit and upon orders. The Government require no reminder from me about our reputation abroad concerning delivery by certain crucial industries. It is vital that we improve that reputation. There is also an effect upon the public as a result of bad industrial relations. Industrial action is often taken regardless of the effect on fellow citizens. I would like to say how much I support my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth on the new clause. The path of peace is infinitely to be preferred to that of conflict.

Mr. Bidwell

The Opposition are taking up a theoretical position when they seek to amend the Bill. They are not dwelling in the real world of industrial relations. The amendment is designed to prevent ACAS from getting on with the duties which the House saw fit to lay upon it when the parent legislation was approved.

Many hon. Members have referred to SLADE. This is a special case. It is possible to go even wider and say that members of SLADE should be running business enterprises because of the enormous power that they have acquired. It would be much better if SLADE were to run the businesses. There would not then be many of these struggles. The union needs to take managerial responsibility. However, hon. Members have mentioned cases of excess which do not represent the norm in industrial relations. The norm is free trade unionism in relation to employers and private enterprise.

Earlier I tried to show how people can become bloody-minded when all that sensible and sane trade unionists want is to get round the table with management. Sometimes there is intervention from outside, as occurred in the Grunwick dispute, when there were mass street demonstrations and other developments. What needs to happen is that the work force and the employers should be able to get together round a table and reach civilised and sensible arrangements about trade union recognition and such matters as holiday pay and sick pay.

The Opposition have made a meal out of the SLADE situation. They are seeking to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I have had long experience with members of SLADE as a result of my work as an education officer in the trade union movement. I met many of these SLADE lads at my summer schools. They are men of high skills. They have a lot to sell to the employer and are prepared to sell it dearly. I do not know much about their current problems, but I say good luck to them.

I want to deal with the lesser mortals in the trade union movement and to refer to the Garners Steak Houses dispute, which involves my union, the Transport and General Workers' Union. The union is enrolling mainly immigrant workers in the catering trade. It is seeking to achieve an elementary standard of trade union recognition so that it can sit down to discussions with a backward employer. These workers have terribly low wages. I know that there are other factors which enter into this. This employer seems to be a particularly bad one.

All approaches by the workers have been brushed aside. There is no provision for sick pay. There was a staff organisation, as distinct from a free trade union. They could make no headway, so they turned to the TGWU. There is a gathering storm. Enormous sympathy is building up for these young immigrant workers who are struggling for elementary union recognition. They need ACAS to have the freedom to assist them, which it does not have now.

Mr. Hayhoe

Why cannot that union—the hon. Member's own union—apply for recognition under Section 11 to the management of Garners and have that resolved through the procedures laid down by Parliament rather than take industrial action, to the disadvantage of those involved and their families, quite apart from the inconvenience to the general public?

Mr. Bidwell

That is what the union is involved in at present. The workers were in such despair that they were forced to take strike action. ACAS cannot test the opinions of those still working. Unless it has the strength now proposed, without the impediments suggested by the Opposition, there will be a mass demonstration in support of these workers.

I attended one of their meetings last night. Many of us are disposed to give them the maximum assistance. They are asking not for revolution but for the elementary rights to bargain with the boss and to have opinion tested. The backward boss understands that the majority of his workers, given the freedom to choose, would opt for union membership, because he is a bad employer. Like Ward, he knows what the outcome would be. He has to be brought into the real world and understand that he is not employing coolie labour. We in the Labour movement will not stand for it.

Mr. Holland

Since there has been an official procedure for recognition disputes since 1975, devised by the hon. Gentleman's own Government and supported by him—the Employment Protection Act—why is it necessary for his own union to call a strike to obtain recognition?

Mr. Bidwell

Because, since the Grunwick affair, many people have lost faith in the ability of ACAS to function on their behalf. That is the reason for the Bill—not to make workers join unions but to test whether they want to do so. There was an obstacle to that in Grunwick, as there is in this affair. The union official concerned complains that the boss is arrogant and lays down conditions which make a meeting very difficult.

I was accused of not having the experience of the tedium of Committee debates. I would point out that not one Tory Member has been on the other side of an industrial dispute; not one has been on strike in his life. Tory Members know nothing about what can happen at any stage.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

I am surprised that Labour Members do not accept the new clause, which aims to discourage strikes. They tell us that they want peace in industry and they want unions to get along with the boss and be able to recruit. We are not against unions recruiting in a bona fide way, if they do not recruit pressed men.

I am sometimes concerned when Labour Members say that we on this side know nothing about unions. Some of us have quite an experience of unions in our backgrounds and in our working lives. Many Labour Members have not worked in a factory for years. They were superannuated years ago and have spent longer in the House of Commons than on the shop floor. That goes for many hon. Members here today.

Labour Members have an interest in this matter, but they should not accuse us of having no experience or concern Even if few of us have shop floor experience, many of us have some concern with the management side and are just as interested in trade union activities because managements have to work with unions every day of the week. The only way they can run their businesses successfully is with good labour relations.

Although it may not be worded perfectly, the new clause should be acceptable to Labour Members. It would make discussion and agreement much easier. Sometimes it is difficult to discern whether a strike is about recognition or about discipline. For instance, the strike at Claridge's—whatever the reasons for it which are not clear—has been made into into a recognition issue by the union. The union has said not that it will recruit voluntarily but that it wants recognition and is determined to have it.

Is it suggested that in those circumstances ACAS should come in? It would be in a very difficult situation. Would it not be better to agree that any threats made should be withdrawn, that the strike should stop and that there should then be discussions about ACAS coming in? The resultant atmosphere would benefit ACAS, which is an arbitrating body. It is not easy to arbitrate under duress, which is the situation of the employer and of those employees who may not want to belong to a union.

Mr. Holland

My hon. Friend has echoed the view expressed by Labour Members that sometimes the reason for a dispute is not clear. But is it not true that the union usually says clearly why it is calling a strike and that if the issue is not clear the fault is that of the union?

Mr. Lewis

I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is sometimes very clear to those striking why they are striking, but they do not necessarily make it clear to the public or to the boss. They may pretend that they are striking for one reason when in fact they are striking for another reason. The members of SLADE have made it clear why they would strike and why they will try to force many small bosses to give way. I have suggested to some employers that they should encourage some of their employees to join another union, not SLADE.

Today there is a battle among trade unions for members. One union competes with another. Some recognition disputes arise because one union wants to prevent another from getting in.

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

The hon. Member said that people did not really understand what the trouble at Claridge's was about. In fairness to the management of Claridge's, it should be made clear that a statement was made on the wireless yesterday by the chairman or managing director of Claridge's when he made the matter perfectly clear. He said "The trouble was that a trade union representative kept making representations to the management. He made a bit of a nuisance of himself. So we sacked him". That merely engendered the ancient British reaction of "one out, all out". The union members wanted their colleague taken back, and then they would discuss the matter properly.

Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, it does not mean that people have not given explanations. The explanation given by the management irritated the ordinary people. The chef was representing the workers. According to the chairman or managing director, he made a nuisance of himself by his constant representations on behalf of the workers, so the management thought that it would be a good thing to get rid of him. That brought to the surface a good old British reaction, and all his mates came out as well. The hon. Gentleman should say what he would have done in the circumstances.

Mr. Speaker

Order. That was a very good speech for its length.

Mr. Lewis

I understand that there was some question of lack of efficiency on the part of the employee concerned in serving the very expensive tea and wads which people pay for at Claridge's. In such a situation, it is better that the workers should return to work and that ACAS should be able to deal with the situation peaceably.

The new clause would provide that industrial action would not take place when there was a recognition dispute. It would have to be defined whether it was a recognition dispute. ACAS is well able to undertake such a task. It is often clear that the main objective is to secure recognition and that other "reasons" are mere excuses.

Mr. Harold Walker

The hon. Gentleman is telling the House that those engaged in dispute at Claridge's should call off their dispute, have the matter referred to ACAS and seek recognition through ACAS. That would be a wholly commendable course of action, except that the hon. Gentleman is advocating a new clause which would provide that if there had been industrial action the issue could not be referred to ACAS for 12 months.

Mr. Lewis

The point about the new clause is that after the referral the industrial action should stop. However, at present the strikes continue. There is no doubt but that the strike at Claridge's is an attempt to recruit members to the union concerned.

Mr. Ted Fletcher

Cannot the hon. Gentleman understand that if the new clause were accepted it would not be possible for the matter to be referred to ACAS? As the workers were on strike, 12 months would have to elapse before an application could be processed by ACAS. So how does the new clause help him out of his difficulties?

Mr. Lewis

It would help in that the strike would not have taken place in the first place. Many strikes are attempts to bring about increased trade union membership. We do not approve of that and we cannot applaud it.

Mr. Hayhoe

The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) said that the strike at Claridge's had arisen because a worker was dismissed because of his trade union activities. That would obviously have nothing to do with the new clause, which refers to strike action in support of a recognition claim. The Employment Protection Act provides redress by means of a claim for unfair dismissal, when exemplary damages are available if someone is dismissed for trade union activities.

Therefore, the hon. Member for Ealing, North is wrong on both counts, because there is a way of resolving the dispute, whether it be of recognition or of unfair dismissal. Parliament has prescribed procedures whereby such disputes can be resolved without industrial action.

Mr. Lewis

There is dispute about the reason for the strike at Claridge's.

The new clause should be acceptable to Labour Members because it would assist in bringing about peace rather than causing conflict. If the proponents of the Bill reject the clause, they are, in effect, saying to the public that in the recruitment of union members they are prepared to resort to the boot rather than arbitration.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew (Royal Tunbridge Wells)

The key to the dispute which has been opened up helpfully in this debate lies in a remark of the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher), to the effect that he is opposed to the new clause, amongst other grounds because it would frustrate the efforts of trade unions to secure recognition.

Implicit in that argument is the proposition that nothing must be allowed to frustrate a trade union that wishes to secure recognition. Conservative Members, as has been made clear repeatedly, are greatly in favour of the recognition of trade unions where such recognition is proper in all the circumstances.

The whole purpose of Section 11 of the Employment Protection Act, which the Bill is designed to amend, is surely that in recognition disputes, in place of raw muscle power there shall be substituted civilised debate followed by the recommendation of ACAS—an independent body—followed by an attempt to conciliate if that is not accepted—

Mr. Ted Fletcher

That is just as in the Grunwick dispute.

Mr. Mayhew

—followed by, if the recommendation is still not accepted, reference to the appeal court—the conciliation arbitration committee—which must then adjudicate. That is the whole purpose of the Bill introduced by the Government.

12.30 p.m.

Lying behind the new clause is the thought that there are circumstances in which it is not right that the wish of a trade union to secure recognition should be conceded, namely, where a trade union has sought to give effect to its wish by raw muscle power. That goes clean against the whole purpose of the Act, which we have always supported in this respect.

The new clause provides that if there has been strike action by a union after a referral to ACAS of a recognition dispute, ACAS should not proceed with the reference. It also provides that ACAS should not proceed if there has been strike action by the union in the previous 12 months. These are variations on the same concept which can be considered separately.

Our new clause that was not selected restricted the proposition to industrial action that was taken after a referral. We have made clear that we are not sticking by the exact wording of our selected new clause and we should look at both propositions.

The Minister and the hon. Member for Darlington should tell us whether they believe that a union that wants recognition should, in all circumstances, be allowed to receive it. If the answer to that question is "No", they should define the circumstances that would preclude recognition. Are there any circumstances, such as bullying or strong-arm tactics, which would, in their view, preclude recognition? If there are such circumstances, what are they and how are they to be defined?

The hon. Member for Darlington said that SLADE had never referred a case to ACAS, but the relevance of the SLADE history is surely that it demonstrates that in real life, certain unions—fortunately not the majority—resort to bullying tactics. In an intervention, the Minister said that he had expressed concern. One can find something for everyone in his speech about SLADE last year, but at one point he said: If, in general, not only attempts by trade unions to increase membership or secure closed shop agreements are lawful and legitimate but so is sympathetic action in support of those and other industrial objectives, one might be tempted to ask why there has been so much concern about the current activities of SLADE."—[Official Report, 29th June 1977; Vol. 934, c. 477.] That passage was not redolent of the concern for the activities and tactics of SLADE that the Minister suggested in his intervention. The SLADE case is relevant to our debate because it shows what can and does happen in real life.

Under the Employment Protection Act, ACAS has to take the opinions of the workers concerned, explore all the circumstances of an industrial dispute about recognition and, having weighed all the evidence, make a recommendation. If we accept that ACAS has a quasi-judicial role, it must surely be right that it should be allowed to carry out that function without a strike continuing. That is why we say that if a strike goes on after a referral, ACAS should not proceed with it.

There is a stronger case for the first part of the new clause, dealing with a strike continuing after a referral, than for the second part, though an attractive case can be made for that as well.

Those who object to the new clause as a whole should tell us whether they believe that it is conceivably excusable that a strike on a recognition issue should continue after a referral to ACAS. What purpose can that have, unless it is to extract advantage from strong-arm tactics?

One of the matters that ACAS takes into account in deciding whether a union should receive recognition is the number of members that the union has in the factory concerned. The Minister had to admit in Committee that ACAS would not be precluded from recommending recognition even if the union did not have a single member in the factory. Absurd though it sounds, that is the position under the law, and the Minister, in an unguarded moment, admitted that it was absurd.

The real question must be whether the members that a union can point to are true volunteers or pressed men and women. We all know that SLADE and its Art Union, which is specially reserved for these unfortunates, have secured recruits by virtue of the blacking and blackmail that has been threatened against employers who may be employing only four or five people.

SLADE has said that it would stop the Kent and Sussex Courier, perhaps, or close an engraving works, unless the employer ensured that his employees joined the union. Rather than face ruin and extinction and unemployment for the employees, employer after employer has told SLADE "Very well, you had better go ahead". That is how numerous recruits have been acquired.

It is essential that the members to whom a union seeking recognition can point should be true voluntary recruits and not those who have yielded to the tactics of the press gang. That is why we say that if a strike about recognition has persisted after the matter has been referred to ACAS to be determined by a judicial examination of all the evidence, the union shall be deemed to have put itself out of court and must wait 12 months before the referral can proceed.

Mr. Harold Walker

We have spent a long time on this new clause. It had not been my intention to intervene in the debate, because I feel that private Members' time is so precious that Ministers should trespass on it as little as possible, but, since we have a heavy programme before us and I am sure that the House will want my hon. Friend's Bill to have a proper run of the course—especially as it was drawn as No. 1 in the Ballot—I feel that I should say something in response to the comments which have been made, in the hope that we can reach a conclusion.

One hon. Member on the Opposition Benches said that hard cases make bad law, but then many of his hon. Friends, having nodded in acknowledgement of that view, went on to build a great case based on the single issue of SLADE. I think that only the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) seemed to recognise that, although the Bill and the new clause are concerned with recognition, the tactics of SLADE, about which hon. Gentlemen are understandably concerned—I have already expressed my concern about them—are tactics arising not from pursuit of recognition but, in the main, out of recruitment campaigns. In that sense, therefore, they are not closely relevant to the issue before us.

Mr. Mayhew

Indeed, they are.

Mr. Walker

I come now to what was said by the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland). I know that the hon. Gentleman has some first-hand experience of industrial relations, so I found it all the more astonishing that he should assume that one can always readily identify what a strike is about. I see the hon. Gentleman protesting at that, but he certainly gave me that impression, and I thought that the House gained the same impression, namely, that he believed that one could identify the issue which caused a strike.

Mr. Holland

I said that in most cases the unions or the employees themselves who went on strike made quite clear why they were going on strike. I said "in most cases", and I am sure that that is the general experience.

Mr. Walker

I apologise if I misrepresented the hon. Gentleman's argument, and he has now made his position clear. However, I must say that I disagree. I acknowledge at once that I am one of those Members who have been a good while away from the tools, and it is 13 years since I was a shop steward in industry, but in all my years as a shop steward I was astonished at the way in which issues became so interwoven that one found it difficult to separate one from another. It has long been the experience that the immediate issue which causes a strike is only the spark which ignites a gunpowder barrel which has been building up for a long time from many different elements.

That is a relevant point to be made in support of the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher), that very often one cannot disentangle the subsequent pursuit of recognition from a strike or dispute which arises over something quite separate or different.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) exposed the tangle into which the Opposition have got themselves. He said that the purpose of the new clause is to prevent strikes. I must tell him that, whatever he may see as the purpose of the new clause, it would have a very different effect. In fact, it would be quite the opposite, through barring workers from use of the Act.

This Government were, as it has been put, the architects of the machinery by which trade unionists can seek recognition not through the old hard ways of industrial conflict but in a proper and civilised fashion. One hopes, therefore, that all workers will always use that machinery. But the hon. Gentleman would deny them access to that machinery, since that is just what the new clause is designed to do.

The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) seemed to have some dichotomy of approach. He said that trade unionists seeking recognition should use the procedures of the Employment Protection Act, but he then said—I am sure that I quote him almost verbatim—that those who threaten strike or other industrial action should not have access to those procedures. In other words, at the very point when they are in dispute, the only way in which they can resolve it or seek a remedy is by persisting in that action instead of having opportunity to use the decent, sensible and civilised procedures which we have laid down.

I turn now to the terms of the new clause itself: The Service shall not proceed on a reference under Section 11 above if strike or other industrial action —that is wide open to a lot of contention— has been taken or threatened —I am not sure how one is able in all cases to establish whether a threat has been made— in support of the recognition claim by the independent trade union concerned —and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington put his finger on the difficulty here of deciding whether an action has been taken or will be deemed to have been taken by the union if the action is unofficial, taken by its members. Indeed, it would be an incitement for the union not to make the action official if the effect of so doing would be to deny the union access to the Section 11 procedures.

Then we have the closing words of the new clause: either since the reference was made or during the twelve months previous". Not only is the new clause contrary to the purposes of the Bill, but it would be detrimental to the sensible ways which we have sought for establishing trade union recognition in support of collective bargaining, the extension of which I thought everyone favoured. I hope, therefore, that the House will reject the new clause. If the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth is not persuaded by the arguments from these Benches to think again about his proposal, I feel that the House will wish speedily to reach a conclusion and reject the new clause.

Mr. Thorne

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet (Bedford)

I support the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe), but I wish to point out one difficulty. My hon. Friend says that if there is a strike or industrial action, there should be suspension of the reference by ACAS. The Donovan Commission considered recognition cases and came to the view that a dispute over recognition was a trade disput within the words of the present definition". It came to that conclusion on the basis of the decision in the case of Square Grip Reinforcement Company v. Macdonald and Others, giving the reference thereto. Therefore, one would have to be absolutely certain here whether the extent of what is termed a trade dispute or a strike was so clearly defined as to be satisfactory.

However, I see every reason to support the new clause, and I am fortified in that view by what the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) told us—which I did not know—namely, that SLADE had not taken a single reference to ACAS. I have had opportunity to look at the ACAS annual report for 1977, and I see no reference there. I take the hon. Gentleman's word for it. Nevertheless, that was the very thing which SLADE should have done, but in its own interests it decided to adopt the heavy muscle procedure.

Another case was brought forward by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell)—I am sorry that he is not here at the moment—which he said was a case giving him grave concern. But that could be answered simply by reference to Report No. 42, Commodore Business Machines—at page 91 of the ACAS annual report—in which it was found that, even though an employer may prove recalcitrant, it is still possible for a union to take a case to ACAS for inquiry and to have the whole matter thrashed out.

The purpose of the new clause is to show that we are against any effort made to resort to strong arm tactics, and bullying in particular. The Minister, naturally, has said that this will be the exceptional case—one has SLADE in mind—but there are exceptional employers, too. Most employers are reasonable men, and I should like to believe that most trade unions are reasonable in their conduct, too.

I recognise that a number of hon. Members wish to conclude the debate, so I shall not take much longer, but I must put one or two further points to the hon. Member for Darlington. If he wants to get his Bill through, let him accept this thoroughly reasonable new clause. That will conclude the entire discussion. It would not damage his Bill; indeed, it would strengthen it.

There are two ways of approaching this issue. As my hon. Friend put it, one way is to penalise a union that is adopting bullying tactics and say that if that is what it does, no reference can be made to the procedure and machinery laid down in the Act.

On the other hand, there is the position of ACAS itself. Should ACAS hear a case when a strike has broken out? The Minister will know that the annual report of ACAS was published only two days ago. It is very full in its reference to the criteria which it should adopt, and for this we turn to paragraph 16 on page 45: The Act gives ACAS no guidance as to the criteria it should adopt in deciding whether or not to recommend recognition in individual reports beyond the general duties with which it charges ACAS under Section 1". Many people today are saying that it is high time that we established a few sets of criteria for ACAS. I acknowledge, on the other hand, that the council of ACAS has set out, on pages 46 and 47, what it considers to be some of these criteria. For example, it mentions the practice in industry and trade unions, employees' wishes, and so forth. But it has occurred to me that if the Minister did not like the observations of my hon. Friend he could say that one of the criteria that ACAS would bear in mind would be the behaviour of a union prior to a reference or the behaviour of a union whilst the case was being heard. But I can find no indication amongst any of these references that such a statement is being contemplated or even considered.

Surely the Minister must know that recognition is so important to trade unions because it is the key to recruitment. The hon. Gentleman knows what is going on in the baking industry and in insurance, in each of which one union is trying to secure places ahead of another union. The National Union of Bank Employees is trying to get a foothold in insurance, and the TUC is trying to prevent it.

I would like to feel that ACAS was guided in this matter by its own criteria, but it has no such criteria—if it had, there would be no need to put anything in the Bill. As it has not, it is reasonable to suggest that we should in the Bill give it a specific directive. Nothing could be more reasonable.

If the Minister were prepared to say "You need not put it in the Bill but I will make recommendations to ACAS that this is one of the matters that it should consider, that is, the behaviour not only of the employer but of a union prior to a reference being made or during the conduct of that reference", I would be prepared to receive such a statement.

I shall draw my remarks to a close because I want to give the hon. Member for Darlington full opportunity to get his Bill on to the statute book if he can, but it must be fully considered. The Minister referred to a letter from the chairman of ACAS, part of which was read in Committee on 8th March.

It said that ACAS must pay regard to the desirability of seeking a settlement of the issues by agreement. I should add that we do not regard the latter injunction just as a duty; it is in fact fundamental to the ACAS approach to industrial relations problems that the best way to settle them is by agreement. He stressed that aspect. He emphasised that once there is a dispute one cannot get the facts; once blood has spilled, it is impossible to come to an accommodation.

I agree that ACAS's job is to establish the facts, bring the parties together and hope that they will resolve their diffferences. That is why I suggest that the hon. Member for Darlington should weigh what we have said and bear in mind that my hon. Friend is only making a recommendation which would improve the contents and the fabric of the Bill. If the hon. Member for Darlington responds in that spirit, he will surely be prepared to accept the new clause. That would also help to curtail the arguments that we are putting forward.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale (Harwich)

I shall make only a short intervention, as I know that the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) wishes to get his Bill. One of my reasons for speaking is my wish to draw attention to the fact that, at a time when the Government are trying to deal with serious unemployment and to get expansion in small industry, many informed people, including members of the Government—particularly the Minister who deals with small industry and who was at the Bar of the House a few minutes ago—know what a barrier the Employment Protection Act has been to the expansion of small business. Therefore, anything that can be done to allay the fears of small business men and small industry about the Act will help towards expansion.

What disturbs me is that the hon. Member for Darlington has introduced a Bill which will also be a barrier to the expansion of small industry and small business. I therefore welcome this new clause, introduced so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) because he realises only too well the difficulties that the Bill presents as an obstacle to employment in small industry. At least the new clause, which is important, brings to the attention of the people in small industry and small business that an attempt is being made to restrain the influence of an irresponsible minority which can and does cause such damage to industry, as has been the case with SLADE.

My hon. Friend said that we abhor the activities of SLADE, and most certainly we do. SLADE's activities are the unacceptable face of trade unionism. The Minister expressed concern about the activities of SLADE. His use of the word "concern" surprised me.

The Minister is a Yorkshireman and I thought that Yorkshiremen were capable of expressing themselves in rather tougher words than "concern". When a Yorkshireman uses the word "concern", he is speaking very mildly indeed. I hope that the Minister will say something rather tougher than "concern" when he refers to his feelings about the activities of SLADE. In the vales of Yorkshire, many Yorkshiremen, as practical people, would use much tougher language about SLADE's activities.

Division No. 165]	AYES	[12.58 p.m.
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)	Gould, Bryan	Moonman, Eric
Atkinson, Norman	Graham, Ted	Moyle, Roland
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)	Grant, John (Islington C)	Newens, Stanley
Bates, Alf	Grocott, Bruce	Noble, Mike
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood	Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)	O'Halloran, Michael
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Harper, Joseph	Orbach, Maurice
Bidwell, Sydney	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Ovenden, John
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Heffer, Eric S.	Park, George
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur	Hooley, Frank	Parker, John
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)	Pavitt, Laurie
Canavan, Dennis	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Prescott, John
Clemitson, Ivor	Huckfield, Les	Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Cohen, Stanley	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Conlan, Bernard	Hunter, Adam	Rooker, J. W.
Cowans, Harry	Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)	Sedgemore, Brian
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)	Sever, John
Cryer, Bob	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	Johnson, Walter (Derby S)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Kaufman, Gerald	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Kelley, Richard	Skinner, Dennis
Dormand, J. D.	Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Snape, Peter
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Lamborn, Harry	Spriggs, Leslie
Duffy, A. E. P.	Lamond, James	Stallard, A. W.
Edward, Robert (Wolv SE)	Loyden, Eddie	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
English, Michael	Luard, Evan	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Evans, John (Newton)	McCartney, Hugh	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Faulds, Andrew	McElhone, Frank	Tinn, James
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.	Madden, Max	Urwin, T. W.
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)	Mallalieu, J. P. W.	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Flannery, Martin	Maynard, Miss Joan	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Meacher, Michael	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Mellish, Rt Hon Robert	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Forrester, John	Mendelson, John	Ward, Michael
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)	Mikardo, Ian	Ward, Michael
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald	Mitchell, Austin	Watkins, David
Garrett, John (Norwich S)	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)	Weitzman, David
Gilbert, Dr John	Molloy, William	Whitlock, William

I merely wish to underline the case for the new clause and to stress that we feel strongly about it as an attempt to restrain the influence of an irresponsible minority. All of us who are concerned about industrial relations, unemployment and other things, and wish to see good relations in industry and believe in arbitration, want to see a solution to the problems proceed in a correct way. We do not believe that the hon. Member for Darlington has done any service. Indeed, he has shown up the divisions within the Labour Party in the House of Commons, instanced in the egging on of a moderate man like the Minister to express no more than his "concern" about SLADE's activities. I hope that the House will accept this very reasonable new clause.

Miss Jo Richardson (Barking)

rose in her place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:

The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 29.

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick	Young, David (Bolton E)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Wise, Mrs Audrey	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Woodall, Alec	Miss Jo Richardson and
Wrigglesworth, Ian	Mr. Stan Thorne.

NOES
Bell, Ronald	Lawrence, Ivan	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Berry, Hon Anthony	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Scott, Nicholas
Biggs-Davison, John	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Scott-Hopkins, James
Braine, Sir Bernard	Mates, Michael	Silvester, Fred
Carlisle, Mark	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Skeet, T. H. H.
Costain, A. P.	Mayhew, Patrick	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)	Weatherill, Bernard
Elliott, Sir William	Newton, Tony
Glyn, Dr Alan	Prior, Rt Hon James	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Grieve, Percy	Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)	Mr. John Gorst and
Holland, Philip	Ridsdale, Julian	Mr. David Madel.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 125.

Division No. 166]	AYES	[1.09 p.m.
Berry, Hon Anthony	Hayhoe, Barney	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Biffen, John	Holland, Philip	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Biggs-Davison, JOhn	Lawrence, Ivan	Scott, Nicholas
Braine, Sir Bernard	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Scott-Hopkins, James
Bulmer, Esmond	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Silvester, Fred
Carlisle, Mark	Mates, Michael	Skeet, T. H. H.
Costain, A. P.	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Speed, Keith
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)	Mayhew, Patrick	Trotter, Neville
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)	Newton, Tony	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Elliott, Sir William	Normanton, Tom	Weatherill, Bernard
Forman, Nigel	Prior, Rt Hon James
Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Glyn, Dr Alan	Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)	Mr. John Gorst and
Grieve, Percy	Ridsdale, Julian	Mr. David Madel.

NOES
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Atkinson, Norman	Foot, Rt Hon Michael	McElhone, Frank
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Forrester, John	Madden, Max
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)	Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)	Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Bates, Alf	Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald	Maynard, Miss Joan
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood	Garrett, John (Norwich S)	Meacher, Michael
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John	Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Bidwell, Sydney	Gould, Bryan	Mendelson, John
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Graham, Ted	Mikardo, Ian
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Mitchell, Austin
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Grant, John (Islington C)	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Grocott, Bruce	Molloy, William
Canavan, Dennis	Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)	Moonman, Eric
Clemitson, Ivor	Harper, Joseph	Moyle, Roland
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Cohen, Stanley	Heffer, Eric S.	Newens, Stanley
Conlan, Bernard	Hooley, Frank	Noble, Mike
Cowans, Harry	Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)	O'Halloran, Michael
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Orbach, Maurice
Cryer, Bob	Huckfield, Les	Ovenden, John
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Park, George
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Parker, John
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Hunter, Adam	Pavitt, Laurie
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)	Prescott, John
Dormand, J. D.	Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)	Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Duffy, A. E. P.	Johnson, Walter (Derby S)	Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)	Kaufman, Gerald	Rooker, J. W.
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)	Kelley, Richard	Sedgemore, Brian
English, Michael	Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Sever, John
Evans, John (Newton)	Lamborn, Harry	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Faulds, Andrew	Lamond, James	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.	Loyden, Eddie	Skinner, Dennis
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)	Luard, Evan	Snape, Peter
Flannery, Martin	McCartney, Hugh	Spriggs, Lesile

Stallard, A. W.	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)	Woodall, Alec
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)	Ward, Michael	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)	Watkins, David	Young, David (Bolton E)
Tinn, James	Weitzman, David
Urwin, T. W.	Whitlock, William	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick	Miss Jo Richardson and
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)	Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)	Mr. Stan Thorne.

Question accordingly negatived.