Trade Union Balloting Procedures

HL Deb 15 May 1985 vol 463 cc1153-86

3.5 p.m.

Lord Rochester rose to call attention to the need for trade union balloting procedures to operate so that they reflect the views of union members accurately; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will be generally agreed that the time is opportune to have this debate on a matter that is clearly of immediate public concern. It is particularly gratifying that so many distinguished former leaders of the trade union movement are to take part. The subject of trade union balloting procedures is potentially an emotive one, but I do not doubt that it will be discussed dispassionately, in accordance with the best traditions of your Lordships' House. I shall endeavour to give a lead in that direction by treating the matter as even-handedly as possible.

Accordingly, I shall begin by saying that I am a strong supporter of trade unions and of the rights of individuals, except in the most exceptional circumstances, to belong to them. Indeed, it is my view that management needs trade unions to keep them up to their job.

It is the publicity given recently to last year's election for the post of general secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union which has made this debate so timely. I should acknowledge at once that, along with other noble Lords, in our discussions last year I acquiesced in the Government's view that the provisions of the Trade Union Act 1984 relating to union elections should apply only to voting members of their principal executive committees. In the light of recent events, I have changed my mind. The chief executive officers of large, powerful and sometimes monopolistic trade unions may not in every case have a vote at the meetings of their governing bodies, but in the past 12 months their great influence has been amply demonstrated.

I naturally welcome the fact that having uncovered balloting irregularities in their leadership election, members of the Transport and General Workers' Union have, under their own rules, succeeded in bringing about a re-run of that election. But it is in my view regrettable that the union did not permit the director of the independent Industrial Society to carry out a full investigation into all the allegations that have been made. The second ballot is to take place under basically the same conditions as the first and there are no indications that, in that election, branch voting returns are to be published.

In the case of the forthcoming election for a successor to the retiring general secretary of the General, Municipal and Boilermakers' Union, I understand that voting is to take place under the unrepresentative and, I should have thought, now discredited branch block voting system.

As to the National Union of Mineworkers, which was formerly so much admired for its democratic processes, it appears that its present leaders are seeking to alter the union's rule book in such a way as to do away with the casting vote of the president, acting in his capacity of chairman of the National Executive Committee, in order to ensure that he does not have to submit himself for re-election at all.

In these circumstances, I believe that the time has come for procedures relating to the election of the chief executive officers of all trade unions to be brought within the law, as in the case of voting members of union governing bodies.

On the more general question of the relative merits of workplace and postal ballots, it is clear, first, that there is a duty on every trade union to have compiled by 1st October next a central register of the names and addresses of its members so that the presumption in favour of postal ballots under Section 1 of the 1984 Act can apply. Moreover, there are no financial impediments standing in the way of postal ballots, since under Section 1 of the Employment Act 1980 payments may be made to unions which hold them.

Beyond that it seems to me that it should now be made a statutory requirement that the distribution, counting and return of voting papers should be supervised by some suitable independent body. I do not see how in workplace ballots in many cases this independent scrutiny can be undertaken except by making arrangements so elaborate as to render them impracticable. It follows in my view that postal ballots should be the norm unless a union can itself convince the certification officer that an exception justifying an independently supervised workplace ballot should be made in its particular case.

It may be argued that in imposing such statutory constraints on the electoral procedures of trade unions an invidious distinction would be drawn between them and other organisations. To that I would reply that trade unions still enjoy exceptional legal immunities, and as has recently been all too clearly shown, more particularly in the public sector they wield enormous monopolistic power.

I turn briefly to the question of pre-strike ballots, and I should like, first, to reaffirm that my noble friends and I support wholeheartedly the principle that ballots should precede industrial action whenever that is feasible. Particularly is this so in the case of major national stoppages such as that we have recently had to endure in the coal industry. Last year I expressed misgivings, stemming from my own experience, lest in other cases the statutory means chosen by the Government to deal with industrial action authorised or endorsed by a trade union without the support of a ballot might give rise to even more unofficial action than there already is. But the Government's view on the matter prevailed, and as the problems involved are intricate I shall not now dwell on them further.

I turn instead to the question of ballots concerning the application of trade union funds for certain political purposes. Under the 1984 Act, all trade unions which have political funds and have not within the past 10 years held a ballot to approve them must, before 31st March next year, give their members an opportunity to vote on the matter. One such union, SOGAT, has already done so; others will follow very soon. More than any of the other ballots in question these are therefore of immediate concern and it is, in my view, imperative that the procedures under which they take place should operate so that they accurately reflect the views of union members. Yet there are no indications that in practice there will be independent scrutiny of these ballots.

Moreover, if they do produce a majority vote in favour of the retention of a political fund, that fund may continue for a further 10 years; but there are no safeguards to ensure that the money accruing from the levy that may then be imposed will be applied so as to accord with the political views of those who pay it. There will not even be a system under which union members have to contract into, rather than out of, paying the levy. Furthermore, the so-called check-off system under which the levy may be deducted from an employee's pay may still operate even where an individual has contracted out of paying the levy, unless he certifies to his employer that he is exempt from paying it or has notified his union that he objects to doing so. Surely, as a matter of principle, all this is wrong.

My noble friends and I consider that there is an urgent need to find ways of financing political parties that are different from, and fairer than, those that now exist. Indeed, I have come increasingly to dislike all forms of corporate political funding by either trade unions or business interests.

In conclusion—for there are many noble Lords who wish to speak in the debate—may I say that in this whole matter of balloting procedures, in my view much the best course would have been for trade unions to have put their own houses in order. However, to judge from what has happened, and has not happened, during the past year—most recently, if I may say so, from the inaction of the TUC Policy Committee on the question at its meeting last month—it appears that more legislation now needs to be enacted to protect union members from further abuses of power that have been identified over the past year. Unfortunately, this will do nothing positive to encourage management and employee representatives to work together to achieve what should be their common purpose; namely, the production of goods and services for the benefit of the community.

Much more conducive to that end is the private Member's Bill which has just been introduced in another place with the support of members of all political parties. It seeks to place on the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service a duty to promote the Code of Practice and Action Guide earlier drawn up jointly by the Industrial Participation Association and the Institute of Personnel Management, with the aim of stimulating greater employee involvement at the place of work. I very much welcome this development as a way of reinforcing the provisions of Section 1 of the Employment Act 1982. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, replies to the debate he will be able to tell us that the Government will do all that they can to facilitate the passage of that Bill through both Houses of Parliament. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

3.20 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, it is the pleasant convention of this House that subsequent speakers express gratitude to the opener of the debate for opening and initiating it, but on this occasion it is no mere empty convention. I am sure the House as a whole is very much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for introducing a debate on this most important subject, and perhaps I may also add that his sense of timing is clearly impeccable. I believe that that proposition is supported above all by the remainder of the list of speakers.

Your Lordships' House has the advantage of containing among its membership many of the leading figures of the trade union movement and no fewer than five leading figures, major figures, in the trade union world have put down their names to speak in this debate; and that of itself would justify the debate. Also, the fact that we in this House can muster a larger number of top level trade union leaders than can conceivably be found in another place is indicative of the way this House has developed so that it absorbs in its membership all the leading figures in all the important activities in this country.

The specific point that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has raised is that of ballots and I have no doubt that your Lordships as a whole will agree that if we are to have ballots, it is absolutely essential that they should be conducted fairly and in a way that is seen and recognised to be fair. Obviously, ballots which are fiddled or which can be even suspected of being fiddled are worse than no ballots at all because a ballot carries with it, as it were, a statement of the views of the members of a union, and if its outcome is not a true expression of the views of those members, it is positively dangerous and harmful.

I know there are some people who are doubtful about the value of ballots. On the other hand, there are in this country a number of unions which, without any compulsion or pressure from authority, have had a system of balloting for various important aspects of their work for many years; and therefore there is no doctrinal conflict about the value of ballots. What is essential—and I should have thought that your Lordships would agree entirely—is that ballots should be fairly and properly conducted. I have no doubt that in the great majority of cases they are, but your Lordships cannot but be impressed or depressed by the developments in the biggest of all the unions, the Transport and General Workers, in connection with the election last year of its new general secretary. That was a thoroughly depressing affair and I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that the union has acted very properly indeed in deciding to hold that election over again. But confidence will not be restored unless that further election is plainly seen to have been fairly conducted, whatever its outcome.

I believe in general in the value of postal ballots, but I do not want to seem dogmatic about it, and obviously there are occasions when all the machinery and expense of a postal ballot is not justified. For strike action, yes; for the election of very important officers, yes; for the institution of a political fund, probably yes; but where there are, as in some unions, a very large number of elections it would be cumbrous and expensive. Even though if the union so wishes, central Government will finance it, I think it would be extravagant and unnecessary to have it. Therefore, I am doubtful as to whether it would be sensible, as I believe some of my noble friends would like to see done, to make postal ballots compulsory. However, there is one point which I should like to put to your Lordships which has been put to me very strongly in the last few days by several very experienced trade unionists. It is the importance in any major ballot of publishing the results branch by branch. This is, I understand, laid down by the rules of the Transport and General Workers' Union, but was not in last year's case complied with. The advantage of branch by branch publication is obvious because certainly the local branch secretary and active members of the branch will have a very good idea as to how their members, particularly in the smallish branch, have voted, and therefore any opportunity for fiddling, for distorting the results, is very much diminished.

I very much hope that those who speak with far greater authority than I do on trade union matters and who will follow in this debate will say something by way of commendation of the suggestion that as a general practice in publishing the results of a ballot there should be given not only the total result, but also branch-by-branch figures. I believe that this is perhaps rather more important to the proper conduct of ballots and for confidence in them than might at first sight appear.

I have only one other point to make. It arises from something that I mentioned a moment ago. Under recent legislation where a union wishes to undertake a postal ballot Government finance is available. I am sorry that a great many unions—not all, but a great many, and I think basically they dislike the legislation as such—have taken the view that they will not take the Governments money to finance such a ballot. In this day and age to refuse Government money has almost a touch of rather engaging asceticism about it, but I hope unions which take that view will give it very serious thought.

The fact that a Government who are very keen on restraining public expenditure think it so important that ballots by these powerful bodies should in many cases be undertaken by post is indicative of the real anxiety that is felt about these ballots. The fact that the Government are prepared to put up money indicates that they really acknowledge that, and I hope that those who carry the great responsibility of leading these powerful bodies will give further and careful thought to this. I hope and believe that this debate can do nothing but good, and I sincerely trust that my small contribution will not be thought to have done any harm.

3.27 p.m.

Lord Murray of Epping Forest

My Lords, some 20 or so years ago a leading industrial correspondent wrote and published a book entitled What's Wrong with the Unions? I have long believed that a great part of the sales of that book must have come from people observing the title and thinking that if anyone can write a whole book about it, there must, indeed, be a great deal wrong with trade unions. I would not compare it in too narrow a sense with the Motion confronting us this afternoon, though there may be those on the other side who think that if this noble House can take time off from defending democracy in other parts of our society, there must, indeed, be something deeply wrong with balloting inside trade unions.

However, in indicating my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for introducing his Motion perhaps I may say that it is predicated on the proposition that we would not be debating this at all unless unions were themselves widely perceived as models of democracy, as organisations which inherently and differently from many other organisations are themselves democratic. To trade unions democracy is not a matter for debate. It is a matter for practice day by day, and day in and day out. At the end of the road, and sometimes it may be a tortuous and stony road, it is union members who make the decisions which bring their needs to account, as I know to my cost having had decisions turned over more than once by members.

However, it is right that the House and society should expect high standards from trade unions, and perhaps standards that we would not expect from other organisations in our society. After all, there would be little point in our debating a Motion expressing concern about defects in ballots relating to the election of those who own and control our great newspapers. We should not find very much time to spend on that, or, indeed—and I say this with the deepest respect—on a book entitled, What's Wrong With the Bishops? with a suitably lurid cover, which might command a wide and quite unjustified readership.

Noble Lords

Hear, hear!

Lord Murray of Epping Forest

But I am not going to talk about our noble House or, as has been proposed, the argument about whether we should be subject to annual reselection—although having seen the marvellously caparisoned Members this afternoon, I am perhaps tempted to wish that that were an annual occasion. However, I would suggest that people who live in undemocratic glasshouses should not be the first to lift a stone.

I am not by any means arguing that unions are perfect in their arrangements or procedures. There is a case to answer. Of course we all join in condemning deviations from the standards which should be maintained. Certainly I wholeheartedly join both the leading candidates in the election within the TGWU to which reference has been made this afternoon in demanding—indeed, insisting—that there should be a re-run of that election. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Rochester and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for adding their views to the general approbation of the conduct of those two leading candidates.

I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that I share his hope that in the re-run there will be the publication of results branch by branch. I see no reason whatsoever why that should not be done. I hope that that practice will be followed, although frankly—and I say "frankly"—I do not believe that there is any comparison between what has happened inside the TGWU and what happened inside the electrical trades union some years ago. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, with his great experience in the field of ballots and his knowledge of ballot rigging, will be able to illuminate us on that score. But however few deviations there may be—however exceptional this may be, and reference has been made to that—we should condemn them, seek to correct the situation, and above all seek to avoid it.

I suspect that implicit in this discussion are two propositions. The first is that balloting is the best—indeed, the only—way to give effect to democracy in the trade union movement. The second is more worrying—that trade unionists cannot be trusted to conduct their own affairs honestly. It is not a question of debating the value of balloting as such, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Many unions already hold that in their rules. In the guidelines laid down by the TUC in 1979 the strong recommendation was made that all unions should incorporate in their rules provisions for strike ballots, including provisions for ballots to be held where a strike is contemplated or during the course of a strike, and that those provisions should include strictly defined procedures for the conduct of the ballot, for sanctions, for breaches and for dealing with complaints. As has been said, many unions have these already.

The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, called in question what he described as inaction by the TUC. Let me tell the noble Lord and this noble House the problem of extending and developing the application of that code which goes well beyond ballots. The problem was resentment on the part of affiliated unions at the decision taken by the Government, with no consultation with the trade union movement, to impose legal shackles upon trade unions as part of what I can only, and with a heavy heart, describe as the anti-union ideology.

As bad currency drives out good, so bad laws drive out good voluntary practices, and moreover voluntary practices which are more effective than laws. I take leave to suggest that the TUC has sorted out or prevented disputes, which, with deep respect, no learned judge could have understood, let alone dealt with. But when I as general secretary approached one union in the course of a dispute I was told: "Keep out. We have laws now which deal with these matters. We shall deal with the law and the lawyers. We are not interested in the TUC's code of practice". That I found distasteful but understandable.

I am not opposed to the judicious application of law in industrial relations or in relation to trade union affairs. I believe that if in 1979 the newly-appointed Secretary of State for Employment had had the freedom to respond to our request that he should set out the issues and problems of industrial relations and of the conduct of trade unions which we asked for as a basis of discussion, accommodation might well have been reached with the Government. I am sorry that that was not available then, and I say almost with distress that I believe that it is not available now with the present Administration since the point of no return was reached over GCHQ some 12 months ago. I believe that that dashed whatever hopes there might have been of securing an agreement in that and other areas.

I still hope that means may be found, perhaps through discussions between the TUC and the CBI, to establish an agreed caucus of good practice in industrial relations—including a caucus of agreed law in industrial relations. In 1969 we were as near as a wafer's thinness to achieving that with CBI until the Heath Government introduced their new legislation in the wake of the election at that time. But I believe that it is in that direction and in that area that we should be looking for solutions to the problems such as those which have been raised this afternoon.

I would put one request to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. It is to join me in urging the Government to allow the members of unions to conduct secret ballots—properly supervised and properly monitored—on whether they should have the Government determine and lay down the rules under which that union has to operate or whether they themselves should continue to determine their own rules and practices. This is an offer which has been made to the Government previously. Since the whole purpose of this Motion, indeed the purpose of the legislation, is claimed to be the restoration of freedom to union members, that they shall control their own affairs and be seen to control them honestly, I should like to believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, would join me in reiterating that request to the Government that they should allow secret ballots to take place to that end. I would guarantee that the TUC would abide by that result.

I am appreciative of the occasion which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has given us. I hope that in the course of the Government's reply we shall hear from them a rather more co-operative and responsive attitude to the relationships between the trade unions and the Government than unfortunately has prevailed in recent years.

3.41 p.m.

Lord Denning

My Lords, so far as the general public is concerned, perhaps the most important provision regarding ballots was in the Trade Union Act last year, Part II: "Secret Ballots Before Industrial Action". Let us consider what that entails in law. Before the National Union of Railwaymen can call a one-day strike and put everyone to the greatest discomfiture, they must have a secret ballot of their members. Before transport undertakings can prevent coal being delivered to the steel works (that is blacking) they must have a secret ballot of the members who are affected. There must be a secret ballot before there is industrial action.

My Lords, what is the way in which it is enforced? If there is no secret ballot, the courts can issue an injunction. If the trade union goes ahead in spite of the injunction, if it disobeys it, it can be fined for contempt of court. If it does not pay the fine its assets can be sequestrated. If it tries to send those assets abroad they can be hauled hack. The law is now effective to deal with trade unions which disobey the law. It was not until 1982 that this could be done. From 1906 to 1982 the trade unions were immune from any processes of law. No action could be brought against them for any wrong done or to be done. No injunction could be sought, no fines imposed, or the like. There was no process whatsoever against trade unions. However, now there is.

I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, because he made a most important pronouncement in the Shah case. Your Lordships remember how the National Graphical Association wanted to have a closed shop in premises in Stockport, and how there was mass picketing and the like. Injunctions were granted by the courts against those illegal acts. Furthermore, those injunctions were disobeyed and the NGA was fined I think £600 or £700.

Then the NGA appealed to the Trades Union Congress for support. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, in a most important pronouncement, said the Trades Union Congress would not support action which was unlawful. That was one of the most important pronouncements which we have ever heard from that important body the Trades Union Congress. Thus I hope that in future the courts can deal with unlawful action.

This now brings me to the crux of the case. In regard to strikes or industrial action there must now be a secret ballot. However, although we passed the Act in the utmost good faith last year, it does not give any guidance or regulation as to how the ballot is to be conducted. We have recently heard about the Transport and General Workers' Union ballot. That was another matter, the matter of a ballot for the election of the general secretary. However, from the way it was conducted there could be ballot rigging in that place.

Your Lordships can imagine how such ballot rigging happens. The trade union official is given a whole hatch of voting papers which he has to distribute to the men as they come off work or come in to work. The men then make a mark, for example, in the case of the Transport and General Workers' Union, indicating whether they are in favour of that general secretary; or, in other cases, whether they are in favour of a strike or against it. What opportunities there are for ballot rigging!

If the men pass by and say, "Oh, I cannot be bothered with that", it is said that in some cases the trade union official himself can fill in the papers which are in his hand. If a man discards the papers, a trade union official can fill them in himself. In fact, one man boasted of having voted 130 times because he had been able to fill in the papers which were not used.

There are infinite ways of ballot rigging unless there is proper scrutiny and control. I am afraid that our statute of last year did not do anything about it. It simply said that the trade union must hold a ballot and the votes must be counted for "Yes" or "No". There ought to be guidelines as to how a ballot is to be conducted. There ought to be scrutineers. There ought to be independent people to see that the ballot is properly conducted. There is nothing in the statute about it.

Can there not be a code of practice drawn up? It would be better if there could be postal ballots. They would be much more difficult to rig than the others. However, why not have a code of practice? Perhaps it could be drawn up by consultation between the Trades Union Congress and the Department of Trade, or whatever it may be. Why can there not be a code of practice to say how these ballots are to be conducted; how there is to be an independent scrutineer to see how they are distributed and to watch. In other words, a code of practice should be drawn up to see that the ballot truly represents the votes and the feeling of the members. There ought to be a proper code of practice to deal with these ballots. There ought to be proper scrutiny in order to fill in the omissions which are in the statute which we already have.

I make a plea for the proper conduct of ballots, and for secret ballots, before industrial action. Then this country would be relieved of a great deal of trouble such as it has had in the past with all these sudden one-day strikes and the like which have been called without any consultation with anybody or any ballots. With regard to the mineworkers' strike against the National Coal Board, if only this clause in the statute had been on the statute book before that strike was called, the strike could not have been called unless there had been a ballot of the members. If it had been called, the courts could have granted an injunction. If the injunction had been disobeyed, then the courts could impose a fine for contempt and in due course sequestrate the assets of the union. The law in this country should prevail. It is the one way to restore the proper conduct of industrial relations.

3.49 p.m.

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, in the absence of the next speaker on the list I think I should follow on. I should like to endorse the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has done a great service to this House in raising this issue. My only disappointment is that today the official Opposition Benches are rather sparsely populated. Admittedly, they make up for that in quality, because there are three prominent ex-trade union leaders sitting on the other side of the House, and we shall listen with interest to what they have to say. I have just been counting the number of Members sitting on the different Benches. Perhaps this is not shown on television. There were 20 Members from the Alliance Party; 12 Members from the official Opposition; very large numbers of Cross-Benchers, and some 35 Tories. Thus the Opposition is very thinly represented, with scarcely a dozen Members.

No system that can be worked out in this matter can possibly be perfect. However, I cannot help feeling—and I think many moderate trade unionists must feel the same—that steps should be taken to reduce the chances and opportunities of ballot-rigging. I am sure that such a reform would strengthen the hands of the moderate, dependable members. Perhaps more importantly, it would weaken the influence and hold of the hard Left on the top jobs.

Last June and July, this House was pressing the Government to institute postal ballots of a nature that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has suggested, with independent scrutineers—a vital part of any such process—built into the 1984 Act. I recall that two of my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Beloff moved and seconded amendments at the Committee and Report stages. Sadly, neither is able to be here to take part in this debate. The voting on that occasion, with a lot of Alliance support—I think that we had 18 Alliance Members with us—was 85 for postal ballots with scrutineers and 65 against. It was a combination of the official Opposition and the Government party that defeated the Motion. The majority of the House pleaded with the Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. Tom King, in that vote, but he was not to be persuaded. He, together with the officials at the Department of Employment, and of course the trade unions, said that it should not be mandatory but that it should be done where possible. This was despite the fact that MORI polls at the time showed, and still show, huge majorities of union members preferring secret postal ballots with independent scrutiny. This is especially true in the big unions.

A year ago, 75 per cent. of Transport and General Workers' Union members were asking for secret ballots and only 18 per cent. were against that. In the NUM, 81 per cent. of members were for secret postal ballots, with 12 per cent. against. And in the General and Municipal Workers' Union, the other big one, 87 per cent. were in favour of postal votes. Yet the suggestion was rejected and time allowed in the hope that the TUC would press ahead and reform methods. I have re-read the Second Reading speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, at that time. The noble Lord has, I think, firmed up his view as a result of what has happened in the past year. He is now rather more in favour, whereas a year ago he had some reservations.

Much discussion has touched upon the Garnett report. I have re-read the report in recent days. We owe a debt to John Garnett of the Industrial Society for undertaking the report. However, I cannot help feeling that the restrictions placed upon him were unnecessary. The report would have been more valuable if it had been more comprehensive and less rushed. One has to ask whether the report would ever have been undertaken but for the publicity given by BBC Newsnight, the Observer and The Sunday Times. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, did not touch upon this. I cannot help feeling that without this publicity these matters would never have emerged. It is now a year since the Transport and General Workers' ballot when Mr. Ron Todd, one of the hard left, was elected. It was only following this publicity that the union moved gently and rather reluctantly. Then it acted in a tremendous rush so that John Garnett had to conduct the whole operation, as he says in the report, in 13 hours—13 hours to undertake a major investigation examining malpractices confined to the London area. He picked out 12 cases where more than 95 per cent. of the votes were cast for one candidate. That is a pretty high level. I would have thought that he could have examined cases involving more than 75 per cent. of the votes. But the figure was 95 per cent. Two of the cases have been widely publicised. In one, involving 800 votes, 799 were cast for one candidate with one spoiled paper. In another case of 150 votes, 149 were cast for one candidate with, again, one spoiled paper. That is the only regularly recurring item. It is, I am afraid just the tip of the iceberg that is shown in the report, good as it is and highlighting some of the points that need to be highlighted.

It has been suggested in the past—I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, will mention this again—that these are rare occurrences and that when they occur they must be put right. They are not so rare occurrences. In the parliamentary debates on the 1984 Act, reference to possible malpractices in trade union elections evoked outraged responses and shouts of "smear" and the like. We were told that it was not true. Such protestations of universal innocence are made perhaps on the assumption that although malpractices may be suspected, they can very rarely be proved. It is very difficult, especially a long time afterwards, to prove to what extent malpractices occurred.

In post war years, in many national unions, the election rules have been changed because members, quite rightly, were profoundly dissatisfied with the existing rules. This happened on very good grounds in the case of the National Union of Seamen, the Bakers' Union, the Furniture Trades Union, the AUEW and the EEPTU. I name just a few. In recent elections for general secretary, major disputes have arisen in the boilermakers' society, the National Union of Mineworkers and the TGWU. The current controversy in the TGWU is not the first in that union. In the 1977 election—I have been looking up the figures—in which John Cousins stood, he said, when the result was announced: There were irregularities but because of Mr. Moss Evans's wide margin of victory—230,000 votes—it was not worth contesting". That is a quotation from the Financial Times of 16th April 1985.

Leadership elections in the NUM have been generally held up by supporters of work place ballots to be the highest expression of the mode. One has felt oneself aligned sometimes in the past with that claim because the ballots seemed to have worked rather well for special reasons. But they cannot stand close scrutiny. The ballot is issued at the pithead by the branch scrutineers with active physical assistance—I stress—"active physical assistance"—as well as what is called "verbal guidance" as to how the member should exercise his democratic right. There is an abundance of spare ballot papers to hand should the scrutineer decide to improve on the member's choice. What prospect exists, with a red guard as ballot master, that this will be a faithful report on how people wish to ballot.

The Observer reported, following Peter Heathfield's victory in the poll for general secretary of the NUM, that John Walsh, the defeated candidate—a moderate—had listed a number of grounds for taking out an injunction. These included early closing of polling at some pits, failure to issue figures for unused ballot papers and an unusually high percentage of spoiled ballot papers. Many cases have reached the law courts despite the difficulties of proving corrupt practices in systems so open-ended that almost everything goes. In East Kilbride, however, two members of the AEUW were sent to prison in the early 1970s. This and other examples of abuse led to the present postal ballot system now used in the AUEW.

Public concern is based more on what is intuitively understood—little bits of the iceberg emerging—than on the findings of the courts. There has come into my possession a document—I have it here—handed out by polling officials when giving polling papers to members in an election currently going on for the CPSA, an important and one of the biggest Civil Service unions. It says: National elections. The branch executive committee recommends that you vote for the candidates listed below who were nominated at the AGM". And of course Mr. Ray Alderson, an accepted Communist, is recommended as president. So it goes on down the list in fairly bright terms which do not demand that you put on your glasses before you vote that way.

I stood in parliamentary elections for 20 years, always in a marginal seat. One knows that one is forbidden to approach a polling station. You cannot even operate a loudspeaker within 100 yards. I remember finding the Daily Mirror containing the statement "Whose finger on the trigger?" alongside a polling station. I had it very promptly removed at the time of the 1951 election because I reckoned that it was propaganda. On the whole, we are very good at keeping influence right out of the place where the vote has to be cast. That is not so, I am afraid, in trade union elections. Something must be done to strengthen the monitoring and the scrutiny, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said.

I come now to one or two points that must have an impression on moderate trade unionists 'when they read—if they read—the Garnett report or its summary. Both inside and outside the Transport and General Workers' Union, there is deep concern about its limited scope. I have already mentioned that it was hurried and limited to those places which showed 95 per cent. support for one candidate. There has been no examination of the basic methods of election and no reference to the possible and probable areas of abuse. This happens, I am afraid, for example, in the distribution of ballot papers from head office to the branches and in the inaccuracies of membership lists—we are constantly being told that postal ballots are not possible because the membership lists are not up to date. Then there is the distribution of ballots from the branch to various workplaces, with at the moment self-supervision and control of workplace voting by shop stewards and very energetic branch activists by their side. No investigation of a number of selected sites was conducted nor were comparisons made between the sampled results and the alleged returns at the regional office. A whole host of questions arise. Why has this not been looked at one year after and looked at with rather more maturity and thoroughness?

I should like to endorse what the noble Lord. Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said in his admirable and short speech when he remarked that surely the moment has come where we have to have scrutineers overseeing this—scrutineers of independent mind—and not rely on activists who are generally of the extreme Left. In moderate circles, the recommendations arising out of the report I think are seen as useful but cosmetic, not very thorough, and as an interim measure until full-scale revision of the system can be introduced There should be publication of branch and work-place results together with detailed lists of those who have voted, and the count should be independently verified.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, is it in order to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the 10 minutes of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, are now 13?

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lord, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway; I am most grateful for that intervention. I was in the middle of my peroration, perhaps I may just finish. Detailed lists of those who have voted should be published and the count should be independently verified. The provision of such lists creates no serious problems because presumably such lists are necessary and are the basis on which ballots are issued in any case.

4.2 p.m.

Lord Chapple

My Lords, before I refer to the subject under discussion, I should like to apologise to the House for my absence from the winding-up of the discussion on the airport inspector's report which was the occasion of my maiden speech. Your Lordships have my assurance that I will not do it again! I am very pleased on this occasion to be able to support the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, to secure procedures by which union members' views and wishes are more adequately represented by trade unions and their leadership, for, despite all protestations to the contrary, such an improvement in union affairs would strengthen the arguments and demands put forward by trade union leaders. At the same time, it would give at least some respectability to the block vote. Of course I am aware from the enormous number of letters I have had from trade unionists from all parts of the trade union spectrum of the disquiet they feel about the ballots taking place on the political front as well as those for executive councils and principal officers.

Inevitably there are more ways of rigging ballots than have yet been exposed by the numerous discussions which have taken place both here and in another place. For example, the manner of the question and the timing of the ballot are devices well understood by public opinion pollsters. Each vested interest has its own self-perpetuating preferences, but it flies in the face of all logic to claim, as some do, that fairer, easier, simpler, cost-free postal ballots would weaken trade unions.

It it understandable, of course, that those who manipulate or who see that the present chaotic state of union ballots advantages them should not wish to change. They feel that honest ballots will radically change the power structure that currently imprisons thousands of ordinary trade unions. Such an attitude, however, is not in keeping with the democratic traditions of our Labour movement or, indeed, of the trade unions. Trade unions need to be doubly sure that, in any respect in which they claim to be acting for the majority of the members, their view is really that of the members they claim to represent. Indeed, it is one of the lessons to be learned from the miners' strike—and not just by the NUM. Another important feature is the damage which can be inflicted on the whole of society: in my view, that requires the maximum accountability to the whole of society.

I would like briefly now to turn to two other matters which have recently come to cloud the issue of ballots. The report of John Garnett already referred to by other noble Lords, and his conclusion that it was all a mistake, reminded me of the case in which I took a prominent part in 1961, when Mr. Lawson, speaking for the then defendants, said that the defendants did not now seek to uphold the validity of the election and agreed that a new election must be held. It had come to their knowledge he said—and your Lordships can imagine that it had only just come (this was in the court)—first, that, owing to mistakes made by branch secretaries in their returns to head office of the number of members entitled to vote, a large number of papers had been issued by branch secretaries to persons not entitled to vote and, secondly, that a substantial number of members entitled to vote had not been issued with ballot papers at all. Further, in the course of election scrutiny, irregularities had occurred which made it impossible for the defendants to contend that the rules had been observed. He concluded: Since the rules of the union make it doubtful whether the union can declare an election void because of a lapse of time it may well be that your Lordships at some stage will make the appropriate declaration". Well, it was one of the findings of John Garnett, that there were some malpractices, but it was not a conspiracy and it was indeed mainly accidental mistakes—things that could be accounted for by rough working men not knowing the ways of handling ballot papers and clerical matters.

The other matter which has come to cloud this debate is the ballot rigging case to which the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, referred that I was involved in, and which I have just briefly touched on. It is alleged by none other than the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union in a recent broadcast that ballot votes were at the root of the rigging in that case. I should like to spend a few minutes in dealing with this issue to put it in perspective.

The case of the old ETU postal ballots was not a question of postal ballots of the kind being advocated—that is, that the ballot papers should be sent by an independent organisation at the behest of the union to the member with a prepaid envelope for return. The method of postal balloting in the case of the ETU was that the ballot papers were distributed to branch secretaries, who then redistributed them or not, as was their wont, either to workshops and shop stewards or by sending them in the post, when they felt like it, to the homes of members who they could not otherwise contact.

These votes were then returned via shop stewards in a block form as from workplace ballots or sent back to the branch by post, or delivered by the individual voting member to the branch, where they were then counted, or not, as the case might be, and a report made on a form duly signed by the branch chairman and secretary. That form was then posted to the head office.

In those cases where it became known to the leadership that the votes of that branch would not be for their man, they substituted a different return form, or in this case different envelopes, either to alter the result of the voting in the branch or to make it appear that the return papers had arrived at headquarters too late to be counted and therefore were disqualified. It was in no way a postal ballot of the sort that has been advocated in the debates both here and in another place.

For these reasons I think that the current second ballot for a new general secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union is essential; and it is also essential that the details of branch votes should be published branch by branch. Stronger cardboard boxes at polling stations are not enough. Supervision of the ballot by officers of the union who are committed to one or other of the candidates is not enough.

The Transport and General Workers' Union is a rather unique case. It is the largest union in the land. We depend on it for the sort of leadership that the Labour Party provides in this country, both in terms of political leadership and policy. It is vital that the people who speak on behalf of the membership of that union speak beyond argument for the views of the members and do not put forward a view that can be challenged in some form or other.

Therefore, I conclude my remarks by once more agreeing with the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester; and I hope and believe that, if there is the slightest doubt about even the second ballot for leadership of the Transport and General Workers' Union, further ballots will be held until the whole membership and, indeed, the movement are satisfied that the election has been conducted properly.

4.12 p.m.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, introduced this debate in a spirit of objective analysis of the very complicated problem. I listened to my noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest, as we all did, to see what his approach to this matter would be. I am sure that we all recognised the reproaches contained in his speech against the way in which the Government introduced trade union legislation last year and in earlier instalments. We had a good deal to say about that at the time; we deplored the lack of consultation and probably regretted the disinclination of the trade unions to enter into consultation. Both sides were probably reluctant in this regard.

However, I suggest that it would be a mistake to allow resentment at what happened in the past to make us indifferent towards the reputation, prestige, efficiency and integrity of the trade union movement in this particular connection. Whether or not we like it, the 1984 Act introduced a new phase in trade union management and organisation. I believe that that has come to stay.

I think that we must discard any belief that a future Government—even a future Labour Government —will repeal the parts of the 1984 Act which provide a wider franchise in the democratic process of trade unions. I believe that it would be a grave political mistake for the Labour Party to pledge itself to repeal the ballot procedures set out in the 1984 Act. I think that the Labour Party should stick to that view no matter what the trade unions themselves may say. One would no more justify repealing the ballot procedure of the 1984 Act than one would justify repealing the Representation of the People Acts and going back to the hustings. We now have a new system which will become entrenched in trade union practice. Therefore, we must make it efficient, effective and fair.

However, our problem is to define the role of the state in the more permanent balloting arrangements in trade unions which I think the 1984 Act has produced. In the course of the debate on the 1984 Bill I took the view that if the state compulsorily required institutions to adopt certain methods of electoral practice in the interests of members and of the public, it was the duty of the state to ensure that the methods adopted were fair, efficient and reliable. However, in the 1984 Act we did not do that. We laid down the basic principles that should be followed in organising balloting arrangements, but we said little or nothing about the way in which they should be conducted.

There is probably a feeling that trade unions are less efficient in this field than they should be because of some underlying resentment against being required to introduce balloting. In some cases we underestimate the inexperience of trade unions in regard to ballots on the scale now required in order to satisfy the requirements of the Act. I believe that the trade unions need more help than they have yet received to get the best procedures in order to apply the provisions of the Act.

I suggest that trade unions need an advisory service on ballot procedures. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that we ought to begin to introduce amending legislation to the 1984 Act this soon. Nor do I believe that the trade unions can put their own houses in order in every case. There are some houses that are so difficult and so complex that the people inside them cannot put them in order. It requires outside help to do so, and that does not apply only to trade unions.

I believe that ACAS is the body whose services should be used to advise trade unions on the best methods of adopting balloting procedures. I am all in favour of guidelines for conduct, advisory schedules, and so on, but what is needed here is the application of the trained and experienced mind to the particular problems of particular trade unions, which all have different types of organisation and different methods of government. What is right for one union may not be right for another. I believe that the Government should actively promote help to the trade unions from an independent source and one which can be relied upon as satisfying all reasonable requirements.

The choice between workplace ballots and postal ballots is probably difficult and depends on different circumstances in particular unions. However, I am quite clear that the message should go out to the trade unions that they are now part of the major institutions in the country, wielding enormous influence and in many cases very great power. That power can he used constructively or it can be used clumsily or inefficiently, but unions should now be efficient. Although it may require the installation of expensive forms of modern technology, unions should begin to get their records in good order and have full and proper lists of members, no matter how the personnel and membership numbers may change. The building societies and other large organisations have this problem of large-scale records and they have to overcome it in one way or another, and there is no reason why the unions should not do it too.

Another thing that must be borne in mind is that with the best will in the world, and the utmost confidence in the honesty and integrity of ordinary people, mischief does creep into these electoral arrangements unless they are properly monitored and supervised. Here I would say that a firm principle which should be put at the forefront of an approach to the balloting problem and which should be observed in all cases is that ballot papers should never pass through the hands of persons, or officials, who might have a bias to satisfy in the result. That was the point made a moment or two ago by my noble friend Lord Chapple.

This is a cardinal feature of our parliamentary and local government elections and it should be made a feature of our trade union elections. This has to be faced by the unions if they are going to meet the ordinary requirements of the public interest. After all, when a union is balloting on strike action, and may decide on a small margin of votes in a considerable total electorate between going on strike and not doing so, with disruption of public services involved in the decision, surely that ballot is just as important as one for the local parish council or even a parliamentary constituency, and it should be conducted with exactly the same high standard of integrity and efficiency.

Ballots, unsupported by vetted procedures which are not scrutinised in even an elementary way, can, where they are inflicted on members by statute, prove to be not a help, not an assistance to the democratic processes, but almost an inadvertent fraud upon them. To sum up, first, we should not embark on amending legislation to the 1984 Act at present. Secondly, we should not expect unions to solve all their problems by themselves. Thirdly, we should provide a satisfactory, comprehensive, and intelligent advisory service to meet the requirements of particular unions so that they can get their procedures right.

I think, fourthly, that we have to put it plainly to the unions that they not only have a statutory duty, they have a public duty which they must discharge more and more, and especially in the public sector where strike action is being debated and balloted upon. Strike action has been balloted upon in public service unions in the past few weeks which would have been undreamt of 10 or 20 years ago, where public servants regarded themselves as not being involved in strike action in any circumstances whatsoever because they were employees of the state. But now ballots are taken in the case of one union within a matter of weeks on whether first of all to have a one-day strike; and, secondly, to have a more permanent strike in an area of great public sensitivity and of likely disruption.

Lord Shinwell

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question?

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I am pushed for time.

Lord Shinwell

My Lords, just one point. If everything is satisfactory, all the rules are carried out, there is thorough efficiency, a secret ballot is taken, and even by, say, half a dozen votes they decide to have a strike, does that mean that the strike then becomes legal?

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I am not saying for a moment that the strike does not become legal, although I am not sure that I could pronounce on the legality of some of the strikes. All I am saying is that the result of a ballot may determine whether or not there is a strike. If that is so, then the ballot should, in the public interest, be seen to be fair and efficient. My final word is this: trade unions will never be privatised; they will always be publicised. I think they should bear that in mind in what they do in relation to their obligations to the public as well as to their own members.

4.25 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, especially on this occasion as I find myself in substantial agreement with everything that he has said in his approach to the 1984 Act in saying that there is no profit in jobbing backwards; in saying that in this we have to find the role of the state. In other words his philosophical approach squares with mine.

The subject of this debate in its true dimension transcends the trappings of party politics. It is a subject which is really of prime importance not only to all members of trade unions irrespective of party affiliations, or none, but to the status and authority of trade unions and of the trade union movement generally. It is common ground that there is the need to ensure that the balloting procedure should not be tainted with manipulations, malpractice, and intimidation, and so fail to reflect the views of the rank and file membership. The authoritative contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, is of crucial importance in this context; the cardinal feature, as it was put graphically by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.

The question is whether this need, which is common ground, can be fulfilled by self-regulation within the structure of the Act of 1984—the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Murray—or whether further statutory powers are requisite, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. On this matter I am on the side of self-regulation, which is understood to be the attitude of Her Majesty's Government. I support the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that, in consultation, codes of practice should be drawn up. I support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that an advisory service is requisite—it is not so easy to get things right—and that help is needed. Indeed I support both proposals.

The three areas in which the mandatory balloting procedures operate are as follows: the election of officers; taking industrial action; and the political fund. The political fund raises questions on balloting procedures which do not obtain in the other cases, and I wish to deal briefly with some of such questions. One of the problems is that the Act of 1984 on the political fund, although it makes useful amending provisions and provides for the 10-year ballot, still leaves the situation that the certification officer's model rules require the ballot paper to state whether there should be a political fund but do not require an answer to a question as to the destination of the political fund.

This is perhaps the question which should be asked because the union ruling bodies can still affiliate—and still do—to the Labour Party without the consent of their members. This brings in about £3 million out of the £4.5 million of the funds to the Labour Party, notwithstanding that the 1984 MORI Poll showed that 52 per cent. did not wish their union to pay for the Labour Party, and only 38 per cent. in favour.

This is an aspect of contracting-in and contracting-out. This has been a parliamentary shuttlecock since 1913 when the Liberal Government introduced the Act to rescind the decision of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House in the Osborne case and so enabled trade unions to collect and administer funds for political purposes. Then it was contracting out in 1913. Under the Act of 1927 it was contracting in; under the Act of 1946 it was contracting out, and so it has remained under the Act of 1971, and so it remains today.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, said, when he was Attorney: The question here is very simple—whether trade unions which by a majority have decided to have a political fund should benefit by it, if you like from human inertia, to the extent of throwing the onus on the dissident minority". Since then the situation has changed dramatically, as the dissident minority has now become the dissident majority. A poll taken after the last election speaks for itself: 39 per cent. of trade union members voted Labour, 31 per cent. Conservative and 29 per cent. Alliance.

On a Division in this House your Lordships rejected an amendment to the 1984 Act to introduce contracting in. No consideration was given to the inclusion in the ballot paper of the destination of the political fund or of the check off.

On the question of state funding of political parties, corporate political funding is, in my opinion, preferable to state funding. State funding is unacceptable as providing an even greater degree of artificial support than contracting out. So the resolution of this problem of ensuring that the balloting procedures reflect the views of members is left in the hands of the 38 per cent. who do not wish to subscribe to the Labour Party; and rightly so, because if one adopts the suggestions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, one will get a true reflection in due course.

On the question of self-regulation, now is not the time to introduce further legislation. The intendment of the Act of 1984 was interventionist in trade union affairs, albeit, but it was to leave a wide area of self-regulation in the hands of members of trade unions. It is the members of trade unions within the constitutional framework of the rules and the statutory balloting procedures under the Act who can themselves ensure that their views are reflected accurately in the conduct of trade union affairs. It was for this reason that the concept of mandatory postal ballots was rejected, and rightly so. Although there is a presumption in favour of postal ballots, workplace ballots tend to attract a much higher turnout and also are subject to mandatory procedures. Although the postal system is more likely to be free from malpractice, it is assuredly not impervious to it.

Irrespective of whether the Act of 1984 is working as well as it should or whether it is not, there can be no question of immediate introduction of an amending Act. If it is not working satisfactorily, give it a little time to work. No useful purpose could be served by rushing one's fences. The suggestion made by Dr. Owen, I think, and adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that an amending Act should be passed to introduce a mandatory postal ballot and to outlaw the traditional workplace ballot is not well conceived. Indeed, though such is not the intention, it would be seen by many trade unions as an act of unwarranted confrontation and could lead to a deal of trouble to no good purpose.

It would be inopportune and, indeed, premature that the amending Act should also introduce mandatory independent supervision of balloting procedures. That is not appropriate, for again it is open to the members of the trade unions, within the constitutional framework of the rules, to introduce such procedures. Again, it is a matter which was left to self regulation by the Act, and rightly so.

Surely the essential question is not whether we should have postal ballots or workplace ballots, but that procedures should be free from hint of malpractice and should reflect accurately the views of members. This lies at the heart of the Motion. The introduction of a voluntary system of independent supervision of all ballots and branch-by-branch publication would serve the best interests of any union which sought to put its house in order and ensure that it was kept in order. The hope is that the TUC, in consultation with trade unions, could take a lead on this, could take this on board, provide some initiative and offer some guidance. If they were to do this, it would stifle all argument about malpractice, it would silence all motivated criticism, it would afford a prudent measure of self-regulation, it would enhance the status and authority of the particular union and of the trade union movement generally. It would also be seen as an overt affirmation of the concept of fair play.

To conclude, this approach to balloting procedures is the correct approach, because law is but the servant of society. It should never move too fast or too far ahead of public opinion and so become its master. Far better that it should be derided, as Mr. Bumble's ass, but observed, than it should be feared as a tyrant and flouted.

4.35 p.m.

Lord Scanlon

My Lords, almost without exception every speaker has claimed that the main barrier to achieving what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, set out in his Motion, the one and only barrier, is somehow, someway, the malpractices that go on in the trade union movement. I want to give the lie directly to that. I want to go even further and say that those who utter it and, even worse, believe it, are either expressing naivety or effrontery. In case I am misunderstood, let me say at the outset that I am completely in favour of secret ballots, ballots for the political levy, for the election of trade union officers on a far wider scale than anybody has referred to here and on the issue of members being consulted and giving an affirmative vote before any industrial action is taken. I hope that those unequivocal words will allow your Lordships to consider what I am saying more dispassionately than would otherwise be the case.

We know that this Government in four years have introduced three separate Bills. The 1984 Bill dealt, in the main, with elections. I shall not deal in any detail with the ballot for the political fund. I think it is a blatant use of political force by a party which has power to ensure that the lifeblood of its political opponent is stopped. I say that here; I said it in the debate when the Bill was before your Lordships' House. If we are really concerned—the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, came perilously near and then backed off—that no corporate body should make donations to political parties without being sure that it is properly representing the views of its constituents, should we not have every shareholder balloted before any corporate body makes a decision? Should we not have contracting-out forms for all those shareholders? Should we not allow every shareholder to be given assurances that if he contracted out he would not be treated any less favourably than those who did not contract out? That is the penalty on the trade union movement. But nobody in the debate has raised this—except for a hint from the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. Nobody has raised this in the issue of fair representation of constituents.

Now we come to the question of ballots before industrial action. Have we yet realised the legal minefield that has been laid down for trade unions, with crippling financial penalties, if they as much as step over the line? I noticed the vigour with which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, relished the involvement of the courts. Of course, the courts have to administer justice—not fairness, justice! We all know the difficulties of any body in keeping up to date with the names and addresses of its constituents. This is particularly true of trade unions. One could even say that they have been prompted somewhat by the "Get on your bike!", and have gone to look for work elsewhere, with a consequent change of address.

So the difficulty of any trade union, and more particularly one with a million members, in keeping such a list up to date is apparent to all. Yet, waiting in the wings are those people within the trade union and outside, employers or suppliers or anti-unionists, who will receive all sorts of financial support to take the union to court if it can be proved that one individual did not get the vote to which he was entitled. These are the restrictions, notwithstanding the difficulties of the previous Act about picketing and so on, that trade union executives will have to take into consideration.

The danger is not that the trade unions will take industrial action based on some fiddle of a ballot. The danger is that they will be so apprehensive about the legal minefield that has been laid for them, with its crippling financial penalties, that they will not even dare to go along the line that perhaps the membership desire them to follow; but I will say no more in that connection.

On the question of ballots for full-time officials, again, notwithstanding the Acts of 1980, 1982 and 1984, and all the difficulties of the legal minefields there, I, with everyone who has spoken, am in favour not only of secret ballots but of ballots which can be demonstrably proved to be free from every type of fiddle or whatever people may like to call it.

Why do we stop at the election of an executive council? If democracy means anything, it surely means that the viewpoint of the people in the branch, in the district and in the region is equally important, if not more important, in the myriad of disputes that arise in those localities. And it is important that they have elected officials who can reflect that view. Therefore, it seems to me that one of the reasons why we stop at the executive is that we want an executive influenced by the media, elected on the basis of that influence, and then to appoint officials whose vested interest is to secure the continuation of that executive in office because they are the ones who can remove them from office if they fail to support them.

Is that democracy? Is that the widest representation of the trade union movement? Surely, if we are going for the election of officials, it is everybody from the shop steward to the national president, upwards or downwards, depending on your viewpoint. That truly is democracy and one would have been more convinced of the genuineness of the people who support this particular provision if it had spread as wide as I have suggested.

This brings me to my main point. All three Acts, in my view, have nothing whatsoever to do with either democracy in the trade union movement or ensuring the representation of the membership. All three Acts seek to establish a neutered, innocuous trade union movement; because an innocuous, neutered trade union movement is absolutely essential to the wellbeing of an economy such as ours in the present day based upon market forces. Noble Lords will disagree, but at the end of the day, in my submission, that is the purpose of the whole gamut of the legislation: to produce a minefield of legal difficulties leading to an innocuous trade union movement. And we can then all sit back happily because the only thing that market forces must not apply to is to the trade union leaders, who are selling labour, whether it be by hand or by brain.

These things, I know, will not be supported; nevertheless I have to conclude on this note. This policy of continually attacking the trade union movement, this policy of confrontation by the Government and, through its agents, opposing the trade union movement is going to have an awful backlash. And it is of no use appealing to trade union officials as we were appealed to in the 1960s and 1970s, "Be calm! Don't use your muscle! Get round the table!". All these things now are being operated in reverse. Political and industrial muscle is the order of the day. I regret it. I wish that we could do something along the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Murray. Why is it not possible for the trade union affairs to be regulated on the basis that I have suggested, outside the courts, outside the political arena and as a result of discussions between the trade union movement, the CBI and other groups of employers' associations? Of course it is possible if the political will and the industrial will was there.

Let me say that the strength of the trade union movement cannot be measured as you measure the strength of a multinational—not by money in the bank or by palatial offices. It is measured by the spirit, conviction and determination of the membership. And when that is put to the test, as it is put to the test now, that backlash will come if we continue on this policy of confrontation.

I finish, my Lords, on this note. On postal ballots, it is the order of the day in my union that matters be determined by a democratic vote. But, if postal ballots are so democratic, why do we not have them for parliamentary elections? Why do we not have them for municipal elections? I think the answer lies in the fact that it is not what is most democratic, it is what is likely to give the result that most people opposed to the trade union movement desire. I hope that we can get away from this attitude of mind that the trade union movement is built on fiddlers and get down to the real issue of how we can develop a spirit of co-operation as opposed to the spirit of confrontation which pervades the air at the present moment.

4.48 p.m.

Lord Aylestone

My Lords, the House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Rochester for initiating this debate. I think we are fortunate in that we have had contributions from three very distinguished trade union leaders. They have not agreed among themselves, but this is not unusual. There has been a criticism from one noble Lord that we have spent a half of one of our very few and precious days discussing the trade union movement. We felt that the subject was topical and we felt that the country was interested, and one has to remember that there are millions of individual trade union members who are watching what is happening in what is known as the T and GW case.

From time to time we on these Benches have made our position absolutely clear, and I hope that by now it is obvious that we support and recognise the value of the trade unions in our society. No sensible political party would do otherwise. The trade unions are here, they have been here for a very long time, and we must work within a society which has in industry, on the one side, organisations like the CBI, and, on the other side, the trade union movement. But this is not to accept that the trade unions are something apart. They are not organisations that are above the law, or which ought to be above the law. It is regrettable that there are still within the trade union movement, even at top level, people who feel that immunity from the law is an entitlement of the trade union movement; but it is not.

There are hundreds of thousands of members of trade unions who, while absolutely loyal and paying their subscriptions, never attend a branch meeting. I would go so far as to say that it is probably true that the majority never attend a branch meeting. It is certainly true that attendances are somewhat higher when there is an industrial dispute on and when there is a question of pay or conditions within an industry. But, even then, the vast majority take no part in the day-to-day running of their union and it is wrong for it to be said, as it has already been said this afternoon, that it is the individual members who are in charge of the unions. They are not. They ought to be—no one questions that; but they are not.

The result of that is that you leave very fertile ground within the branches for matters that are very often outside the trade union movement altogether, for purposes quite unrelated to trade union matters, and that have more political content than industrial. We see this in operation at the annual meeting of the TUC, we see it in operation at the annual conference of the Labour Party, where block votes in massive denominations are used in support of a motion or to oppose a motion which has not even been discussed by many of the branches, apart from many of the individuals. For example, you will get massive votes in favour of, if you like, abolition of the House of Lords, allegiance to the CND, or any other subject. There will be thousands of trade union votes at that conference in support, even though not a single item has been discussed at very many of the branches.

I find it very difficult to understand —and I was a trade unionist for many years until I retired on age grounds—why there is an objection to fairly held ballots for the election of officers, for the election of executive committees and for other matters that are important to the trade unions. Thinking back over the last 12 months, taking into consideration the distress, the misery and the unhappiness of the long miners' strike, we really must ask ourselves whether it would have occurred at all had the individual members been given a chance to vote on whether or not they wanted to strike. But they were not given such a chance. Every member of the NUM was entitled to be heard, but they were not heard.

This debate is about trade union ballots, which we know are not always fairly held—some are; some are better than others—and which can lead to corruption. But what frightens me rather more than corruption is intimidation by one colleague of another at the machine, at the workbench or in the mine—and it does happen. I believe that the unions will now, as a result of the 1984 Act, make every possible effort to get complete records of their memberships—they find no difficulty in doing it at branch level—and I suggest, as have done my noble friend Lord Rochester and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who has considerable knowledge of the trade union movement, that some responsible organisation should undertake the balloting. I should like to suggest that it could be a body such as the Industrial Society; or let us find an extra job for ACAS to do under the direction of a certification officer. I believe that ballots could then be carried out fairly and freely, which would be of great value not only to the trade union movement but, because of the results arising from them, also to the country itself. This cannot be the wrong thing to do if one believes at all in democracy. It may be a cliché—and I have said it before—but let us give the unions back to their members, which is what balloting means and what we believe.

4.55 p.m.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, perhaps I may first join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, on introducing this subject for debate, and on the moderate way in which he did so. It seems odd, when we have so many illustrious ex-trade union leaders who have led the national trade unions, for a mere shop steward to be sweeping up on behalf of the official Opposition.

I know that your Lordships will bear with me for a moment if I pay some regard to a colleague who was a very prominent trade union officer at a very high level, though he was not quite a national leader, who passed away suddenly on Tuesday morning. I am talking about Lord Donnet, who was known to his friends as Alec. Those who knew him in the Labour and trade union movements will certainly want to have on record their appreciation of his tremendous career in the trade union movement. He will be sadly missed by those of us to whom he was a very close friend, as well as a trade union colleague.

I have to ask myself what is the real purpose behind this debate, because this is not the first time that a debate has taken place on what happened in the Transport and General Workers' Union. Let me say immediately that I have no time at all for malpractices in union ballots on anything. One vote fiddled is one too many. I do not condone it, and I certainly would not encourage it in any respect. But the Alliance have already had one bite at the cherry in another place. I refer to a debate on 23rd April, which was led by the leader of the SDP, Dr. David Owen and, by leave, I shall quote from that debate as follows: I took no exception in any personal sense to what the right honourable Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said, but on an issue as important as this, he could have done the House the courtesy of being more careful about his facts. He was wrong about the position of the president of the National Union of Mineworkers, about the position of the general secretary of the GMBATU and about the powers of the certification officer in the example that he used. He was also wrong in the letter that he wrote to me, and I sought to set out his inaccuracies. This is an important subject, and the right honourable Gentleman owes it to the House to come better prepared and equipped with the argument."—[Official Report, Commons; cols, 768–9.] That was the first thrust on the ballot of the TGWU which has to be rerun. Those were not the words of the Labour spokesman. They were the words of the Secretary of State for Employment. So in another place, which is the more important debating Chamber, where the legislation would have to start if there were any legislation, the official spokesman for the Alliance was totally misinformed on the subject. In fact, I understand that he was an embarrassment to his own people who were there.

Let me first deal with some of the points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, in his opening speech. He gave as his reason for the debate the Transport and General Workers' Union issue and the fact that postal ballots ought to be the norm. I would not for one moment demur from that. I have been a lifelong member of the AUEW, and it is to the credit of my noble friend Lord Scanlon that the postal balloting which takes place was introduced during his presidency, and it has stood the test of time.

I would go along with most of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and other noble Lords have said about self-certification and a code of discipline that could be worked out. I would concur with the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, when he said that he thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for whom I have the utmost respect, seemed to relish that part of this speech when he almost had mythical trade union leaders in the dock.

I must say to the noble and learned Lord that I do not query that trade unions as corporate bodies appearing before the courts will receive justice. But in the opinion of the present Master of the Rolls—he said it quite clearly, and it was quoted in a debate in your Lordships' House last year—the present legislation is heavily biased against the trade union movement. Those are not my words but the words of the Master of the Rolls. How can people expect trade unions to respond objectively when that is said by people in such responsible positions?

I was a little disturbed by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, about a certain person. I do not like it when a person who is not a Member of your Lordships' House is mentioned in a debate and does not have the right to defend himself. The noble Lord, Lord On-Ewing, referred to Mr. Ron Todd, who I have never met and to whom I have never spoken personally, as a member of the hard Left. From my knowledge of him and from what I have been told, he is no such person in terms of how I would class hard Left. I think it is unfortunate if we fall into that trap.

I was greatly interested to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, on the subject, because I, too, have memories of the difficulties in his own union. He gave us a very interesting resume of what took place just over 20 years ago. At that time I was working at the massive Metro Vickers factory in Manchester, where a good many of his members were employed. I worked alongside some people who had been victimised by his predecessors, who were eventually dealt with. I acknowledge what he said, and I think he has done us a service by reminding us of it.

But I would differ from the noble Lord slightly when he talks about one of the practices that can be introduced into trade union organisation being a ballot which is run at the best time to produce the most favourable result. What is wrong with that? Do Prime Ministers of this country call general elections at the most unfavourable time? Of course they do not. Why did the present Prime Minister literally run for cover but come back with a commanding success on 9th June two years' ago? It was because she feasted on the success of the Falkland Islands war. I would not hold it against anybody to call an election at the most favourable time to suit them. It is up to people to respond accordingly.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, was making the point that nobody with bias should have access to the procedures. That is how I understood the noble Lord.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, I take the point, but I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord questioned the practice of people calling elections at times to suit themselves.

Lord Chapple

My Lords, I do not want anyone to put words into my mouth. Is the noble Lord suggesting that a single malpractice is all right?

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, no, I am not suggesting that any malpractice is all right—

Lord Chapple

Including timing, my Lords?

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, I do not think that one could argue about the timing of any election. Obviously, whoever is in charge, whether it is in the trade union movement or in the political field, can call the election at the time most suitable to themselves.

One point with which I want to deal very quickly in the few minutes I have left is the one made quite forcibly by my colleague and life-long friend, the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, regarding the provisions in the 1984 Act on ballots for political purposes. There is no question at all that the Act was a quite deliberate thrust at the political opponents of the Government. I said during the later stages of that Bill that a future Labour Government would have to legislate to correct the injustice. It may well be that they will legislate far more positively, because in the journal of my own trade union this month there is a list of donations to the Conservative Party by national companies. Not one of their shareholders was asked whether it was all right.

I recall that some weeks ago the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, put a question on this very subject to the Minister who is to reply. The Minister replied that of course the shareholders can protest—at the next general meeting. If there is a better case of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted, I do not know it. It is probably a political con trick of the worst kind.

There is one point on which I do disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and I think he would expect me to refer to it because there has to be some political context in a debate like this. Quite recently there were some questions in another place about a massive donation to the Liberal Party by the British School of Motoring. I do not suppose that people who have shares in the British School of Motoring were asked whether it was all right for them to make a donation of f 185,000 to the Liberal Party. There were other questions asked in another place as to the propriety of this donation, and whether it was to sabotage a very progressive Private Member's Bill dealing with minimum standards for driving instructors. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, who said that people in glasshouses should not throw stones. We have to be very careful indeed when we start on that trail.

I started by saying that I—and I speak for my party—am totally opposed to, and do not condone, any irregularity in a ballot in the trade union movement. Before I finish I should like to leave your Lordships with one thought on the question of a ballot before every strike. I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, mentioned it. I responded to an official strike call when my noble friend Lord Scanlon was president of the AUEW, and before that. On very rare occasions have I had to go on strike at the drop of a hat. But there are situations—I am not suggesting that I support illegal strikes; I do not—for which the law cannot cater.

I went on strike for a fortnight once at what they call the Big House in Manchester, where both the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, and I, and the late Lord Lee, worked at different stages. A shop steward who was operating on behalf of the men was sacked at a minute's notice in the most outrageous manner by the then employers. There was no point at all in bringing in the local officials because the problem had to be dealt with then and the feelings of the men had to manifest themselves immediately to make the management aware of the seriousness with which the workforce viewed what had happened.

Having said that, I realise that my time is up. I am glad to have had the opportunity to put the record straight for my party. Once again, I should like to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for introducing what could be a very fractious subject in a fractious debate, but which I think has been conducted mainly in a very constructive manner.

5.8 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, this debate has attracted a very distinguished list of speakers, and I have listened with very great interest to the many and varied speeches. Perhaps I may first of all say that when, at the end of his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Dean, said that he was putting on record the views of his political party, I accept absolutely that the noble Lord said not once but more than once that he believed that ballots must be scrupulously fair down to the last vote if they are to command general confidence.

An interesting remark was made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, early on in his speech when he very fairly said that he would not assert that trade unions were perfect in their arrangements and procedures. It is because the Government share that view that the legislation we introduced on balloting last year represents a part, albeit an important part, of a wider ranging programme of reform stretching back over the past four years.

The 1984 Act represents the third and most recent step in a programme of measures which we have been following. The first step was in 1980, when we introduced legislation to tackle the most urgent problems then facing us: the need to make secondary picketing unlawful, to deal with the worst forms of secondary action, and to provide some basic protection to individuals within a closed shop.

In 1982, as your Lordships will remember better than I, following extensive consultations by way of a Green Paper, we tackled some of the more deep-rooted problems in our system of industrial relations. We introduced into the law the concept that all closed shops should be put to the elementary test of having a secret ballot. At the same time we ended the anomaly which had existed virtually uninterrupted since 1906, under which trade unions had almost unlimited immunity against civil proceedings in tort when they and their agents acted unlawfully.

These steps, together with the 1984 Act, have, I suggest, transformed not only industrial relations practice in this country but also the very terms of the debate about it. For we have demonstrated once and for all that, far from having no place in industrial relations, the law stands at the very centre and heart of the matter. I was most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for bringing out this point with his accustomed clarity. Indeed, I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester—to whom we are indebted for today's debate—for recognising this very point in the Motion he has put down for discussion.

Today's debate is not about whether the law has a role to play: it is about detail. It is not about ends, or even about means, but purely about which i's to dot and which t's to cross. This change, which has come about literally in the past couple of years, must surely rank as a remarkable achievement in this country. I suggest to your Lordships that nowhere is this change of attitudes more clearly to be seen than in the 1984 Act. When your Lordships debated the Government's Green Paper at that time, my noble friend Lord Gowrie pointed out that the absence of legislative safeguards in respect of unions' internal affairs was quite remarkable when compared with the position of a great many other bodies.

For instance, the position of companies as legal entities has been statutorily controlled for more than a hundred years. The legislative safeguards for companies have always been seen as the quid pro quo for the great privilege of limited liability. By contrast, what has been the position of the trade unions? They, in common with companies, have had great privileges conferred upon them by law: the privilege of blanket immunity against civil proceedings in tort when they organised industrial action. Here was the great difference. While Parliament had imposed on companies a huge volume of statutory regulations in return for the privilege of limited liability, there was virtually no attempt to regulate the running of trade unions in return for their great privilege of immunity against action in tort.

First the 1982 Act and then last year's Act changed all of that. In particular, the 1984 Act (which I realise is what this debate is really about) transformed the position of individual union members—giving them, in effect, their first charter of rights. It introduced for the first time ever the statutory requirement that unions should consult their members on a regular and systematic basis as to their wishes before acting on their behalf. The Act makes unions systematically accountable to their members.

If a union now wishes to take strike action and to retain its immunity, it must first inform and ballot its members. If a union now wishes to spend money on political objects—a matter about which noble Lords have spoken with some feeling in this debate—then, according to last year's law, it must first inform and ballot its members. And as from 1st October, those who wish to lead their unions—with the caveat that, of course, it is those who are leading provided that they have a vote, which is another matter which your Lordships have been speaking about—will have to stand for periodic re-election and will have to inform and ballot their members.

I realise that during the passage of the Bill last year and again this afternoon some of your Lordships criticised the detail of the 1984 legislation. I remind the House that we responded to several of the comments made when the 1984 Bill was going through by amending it in respect of many points related to those which were made today. For example, we introduced the requirement that all unions should establish and maintain up-to-date registers of their members' names and addresses. We introduced the postal presumption in Section 3. We introduced also the requirement that courts will have to order that any re-run of an election must be by postal ballot, except in exceptional circumstances; and we introduced a separate, quick and informal route of complaint by union members to the independent certification officer as well as to the courts.

My noble friend Lord On-Ewing, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and other noble Lords argued that we should have gone further and made postal ballots mandatory in every case—although I was interested when my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said that he would not be dogmatic about this point. I agree, to this extent. The Government's view—and I am glad to give it today—is that postal ballots are by far and away the best means of conducting elections. While I admit that our legislation does not require that every single ballot should be postal, it does not stop very far short of that requirement. Sections 2 and 3 of the Act, taken together, present a very powerful presumption in favour of postal ballots.

A union that is considering holding a workplace ballot will have to bear in mind, first, that it will still have to meet all the stringent safeguards for free and fair elections which the Act lays down for postal balloting. Secondly, it will have to meet additional requirements concerning the supply of ballot papers and giving electors a convenient opportunity to vote—those enormously important words from last year's Act. Thirdly, the union must satisfy itself in advance of the ballot that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that any of the Act's electoral safeguards will be breached.

Those are extremely tough tests. Only if all those requirements are satisfied will it be safe for a union to opt for a workplace ballot. One case of intimidation, as I think we all agree (and picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick), is one case too many. It could put the whole ballot at risk, because if the requirements are not met then members will take their union to court, as they have shown they are very ready to do in their own and in their fellow members' interests.

I realise that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was critical nonetheless of the situation that exists at the present time for the holding of strike ballots. With respect, I suggest that there are certain criteria for the holding of strike ballots. There is the criterion that only members likely to be involved in industrial action should be given the entitlement to vote. There is the criterion that those so entitled must, so far as is reasonably practical, be given a convenient opportunity to vote. Also, it must be a properly conducted secret ballot, and so on.

I listened very carefully indeed—as we always do in your Lordships' House—to the noble and learned Lord's remarks also about the desirability of a code of practice. This point, I realise, has been raised before, and no doubt it will be raised again. I have to say in reply to the noble and learned Lord today that my right honourable friend is still not convinced that this avenue is one he should go down—particularly at the present time, when we are talking about legislation, some of which still has not been brought into effect. However, I give an undertaking to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, that I shall draw this point to the attention of my right honourable friend.

The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and my noble friend Lord Campbell also spoke, in slightly different terms, about the whole question of contracting in and contracting out. As your Lordships will very well know, my right honourable friend held discussions last year with the TUC as a result of which the TUC issued guidance to its affiliated unions. However, my right honourable friend has made it quite clear that he would be prepared to consider further legislation if the TUC's voluntary steps do not ensure that union members are able to contract out freely and effectively. If the two noble Lords, Lords Scanlon and Lord Dean of Beswick, will forgive me for saying so, I think that this is a very fair attitude by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I was surprised that both noble Lords feel that the whole issue of political funding, as it is now dealt with by the law, is something with which they cannot live.

Many of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, who made a very interesting speech, the noble Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Aylestone, towards the end of the debate, raised the whole question of the need, as your Lordships put it, for external supervision. It is suggested that the TGWU election shows that this need exists. I reckon that that is absolutely right, but we do not live in an ideal world. When we drafted the Bill we had to have regard to what we judged to be realistic and practicable to expect at this time. Those who advocate supervision sometimes fail to point out what might be needed. Not only would supervision in the counting of the votes be required but also in the compilation of voting lists and the dispatch of the voting papers. Considering that there are some 400 or so trade unions the scrutineers required would far exceed the resources of the Electoral Reform Society—a suggestion by one noble Lord—and I think it would suffer from that particular criticism. A veritable quango of inspectors might be required and the costs would far exceed the funds for trade union ballot schemes.

There is just one final point which I shall deal with, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on the need for advisory help for trade unions. If I may say so, the noble Lord was perhaps uncharacteristically a little less than generous in the sense that the Government have already made considerable help available to unions through the Employment Act 1980, which introduced the funding scheme for secret ballots. Of course, any union can apply for these funds and we all of us know what the situation there is at the present time. As to advice, I am sure that the Electoral Reform Society would be happy to provide advice and assistance to any union seeking it. Where political fund ballots are concerned, of course, the independent certification officer has already issued model rules for the unions concerned and is in discussion about them with a number of unions.

In conclusion, perhaps I may just make one more comment. The Government have introduced three major and powerful pieces of legislation in the field of industrial relations. We have brought the law back to its proper place, centre stage, in this area. We have introduced the Trade Union Act 1984, which puts the ballot box in place of strife. When the provisions of the Act come fully into force this autumn I believe that they will operate not only with the overwhelming support of the country at large but also with the full-hearted support and endorsement of trade union members.

5.24 p.m.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. For my part I have learned much from noble Lords who have spoken and that is hardly surprising in view of the great experience that has been brought to bear on the subject from all sides of the House.

A number of constructive suggestions have been made and I certainly hope to have time—and this may apply to other noble Lords—to read in Hansard tomorrow what has been said and thoroughly to digest and consider it. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, that his agreement that branch voting returns should be published, not only for the forthcoming election for the secretaryship of the Transport and General Workers Union but more generally, is greatly to be welcomed?

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, made a constructive suggestion about a code of practice. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, had a suggestion concerning ACAS. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, since there may be some misunderstanding between us, that I did say that I have come increasingly to dislike corporate political funding, whether by trade unions or by business. During our debates last year on the 1984 Act, I drew a specific conclusion and for the removal of doubt I make that explicit now. For so long as corporate political funding continues I think—indeed, I speak for my noble friends in saying this—that before any gift of money is made by a company for political purposes it should first be approved by a specific resolution of the shareholders of the company concerned. I hope that that removes any doubt there may have been in the noble Lord's mind.

The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, raised a somewhat controversial point. I did not raise it, he did. He did not take it very far but for the record I must respond in the two or three minutes that remain to me. It concerns the Road Traffic Driving Instruction Bill. In another place certain suggestions were made that the attitude taken by my honourable and noble friends in relation to this Bill might have been influenced by or have been the result of, certain financial pressure.

The fact is, I am happy to say, that we took the view that the Bill needed to be discussed. The changes we proposed were highly desirable and widely supported throughout the country. In our view it would have been absurd to ignore the advice given to us by someone with the experience that he was able to bring to bear on the subject simply because he was an active Liberal, or to disqualify that advice because of the fact that he was a contributor to the funds of the Liberal Party. I am happy to give to the whole House this categorical assurance that in this case the subscription by the British School of Motoring to the Liberal Party, in my understanding, was given with the specific support of the shareholders in that organisation.

There is one point I must make specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I did not suggest, if he will recall, that postal ballots should in every case be made mandatory. What I said was that it should, in my view, be a statutory requirement that the distribution, returning and the counting of voting papers should be supervised by some suitable, independent body. I said that I did not see for myself how that could be done without a postal ballot and that it followed in my view that those ballots should be the norm unless in a particular case a union was itself able to satisfy the certification officer that an exception justifying a workplace ballot under independent scrutiny should be made in that particular case.

I am sorry to have had to make all those points, but I think that it was desirable for the record. For the rest, perhaps I may again say how privileged I have been to introduce this debate, thank all those who have taken part, and beg leave, just in time, to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.