§ 2.47 p.m.
§ Lord ORR-EWINGMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the protest strikes taking place today are, in the words of Mr. Frank Chappie, "a political demonstration" and whether if so they are protected by trade union immunity legislation.
§ The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)My Lords, the statutory immunity under Section 13 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 is only applicable where the action is in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. There is an additional immunity in tort, not extending to individuals as such, under Section 14, but this is more complicated than can be made the subject of a short answer to the Question. It is clear that the immunities in actions of tort under this section— that is, Section 14— extending to actions arising from situations resulting in personal injury, or from a breach of duty imposed in connection with the ownership, occupation, control or use of property, do not apply if no trade dispute exists.
§ Lord ORR-EWINGMy Lords, while I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his very learned and detailed reply, did he see Mr. Len Murray in a BBC television interview— of which he has given many— last Sunday, when he claimed that it was the democratic 261 right of 12 million trade unionists to follow the TUC's lead and stop work? One would ask how many of the 12 million trade unionists had in fact been democratically consulted and how many of the 112 unions affiliated to the TUC had also been democratically consulted before this futile day of action was called.
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, in answer to my noble friend's question, I did not in fact see the television programme to which he refers. I do not know at all what degree of consultation took place between Mr. Murray or the General Council and the rank and file, but I doubt whether there was much, if any. I do not myself see how you can effectively protest against the economic policies of the Government by taking it out of your fellow citizens.
§ Lord BLYTONMy Lords, is the Minister aware that after 61 years of the trade union movement we are used to legal enactments, injunctions, threats and using the establishment against the bona fides of the trade union movement, but we have still survived? Is the Lord Chancellor aware that the only mistake the TUC has made is that the day of action should have been on Derby Day, glorious Goodwood or Royal Ascot, so that trade unionists could have enjoyed a day of inaction with the wealthy who spend the wealth they create?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, the sections of the Act to which I referred in my Answer were passed by a Labour Government. Therefore, I do not quite understand why the noble Lord should pose the first part of his question to me. It might, however, occur to him in his moments of contemplation that the trade union movement on this occasion has given the Tory Party the best propaganda weapon that it has had for 30 years.
§ Lord UNDERHILLMy Lords, instead of this pinpricking type of Question, would not the noble and learned Lord agree that it would be better if the Government got down to the real reason why millions of workers are dissatisfied with conditions today and why millions of workers are taking action and losing a day's pay in order to put their point of view?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, so far as I know, the millions of workers were not consulted, but were told what to do, and there is increasing resentment on the part of the rank and file at the incompetence and stupidity of some of their leaders.
§ Lord ELWYN-JONESMy Lords, while not commenting on the joy that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has apparently enjoyed from the political propaganda that comes to his party and his notable display of such political sentiments from the Woolsack, may I ask whether it is not now the important duty of this House, above all, to avoid further exasperation, further increasing of the tension and the confrontation which the Government are now building up between themselves and the trade unions of this country?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I cannot help noticing the failure of the noble and learned Lord to defend what has been done. As regards joy, I do not myself feel any joy at this discomfiture of my fellow citizens, but when one is bowled a long hop there is no reason why one should not hit it for six!
Viscount ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, will not the noble and learned Lord agree, especially after his exchanges with me on Monday, that this business has revealed that the ordinary private citizen, when affected by these actions against his will, has great difficulty in protecting himself legally in any way from them, and that this matter needs looking into if this kind of thing is to continue?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORI certainly agree, my Lords, that irresponsible action by any set of people leads to suffering on the part of our fellow citizens from which, not in every case, our fellow citizens can get individual redress.
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, may I say that I am rather surprised? Is the noble and learned Lord not aware that the people he has talked about are good British citizens? They were the men who, basically, produced the wealth of this country, and in a time of crisis they were the people who supplied the troops and the weapons which defeated the Nazis 263 years ago. I dislike people attacking trade unionists in the way that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has done.
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I should have thought that it was the people of this country who produced the wealth and not the trade union council.
§ Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTONMy Lords, in making these remarks, would the noble and learned Lord be associating himself, or on behalf of the Government dissociating himself, from the scurrilous press campaign of the last two weeks against what the Daily Express called Mr. "Lenin" Murray? Secondly, would the noble and learned Lord take into account the fact that yesterday tens of thousands of Frenchmen demonstrated against social policies, equally upset at being unable even to talk with their Government, and that no one reached for a writ and called that unlawful? Therefore, while accepting his description of the law— as one does from him— may I ask whether it does not illustrate the very limited lawful area of activity for trade unions in this country?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, as regards the Daily Express, the Government are not responsible for its statements of opinion. But if Mr. Lionel Murray is defamed by the Daily Express he has his remedy in the courts and I shall endeavour to provide facilities for the action to be heard. As regards the French, I do not think that we need imitate them.
§ Lord ORR-EWINGMy Lords, does not the comparatively small response today show that the great majority of British people and good British citizens are sick to death of political gestures and want to get on with the job of rebuilding the prosperity and the power of Great Britain?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I think that the failure of the action which we have been discussing is probably the best answer that I can give to my noble friend.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTONMy Lords, while expressing some sympathy with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at being asked to answer a Question of this complexity in under two hours, I would ask him to apply his mind to the following. First, are the words "political" and "industrial" mutually exclusive? Cannot the two apply to the same thing? When one talks about not consulting members, does not the whole democratic system consist of people answering through the representatives whom they have elected both in the trade union movement and in Parliament?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, what I do think is clear is that my Answer referred to action taken in furtherance or contemplation of a trade dispute or otherwise, and that the words either "industrial" or "political" were not used.
§ Lord ARDWICKMy Lords, can the noble and learned Lord find some sympathy in his heart for trade unionists who feel that they are facing an elective dictatorship?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I have often found myself facing what I regarded as an elective dictatorship, but I did not consider that the proper response was to take it out of my fellow citizens.