HL Deb 24 February 1987 vol 485 cc94-102

2.58 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now make a Statement on the rights of trade union members.

Since 1979, we have proceeded step by step to introduce a succession of measures which together have helped achieve the least number of working days lost to industrial action for a generation. We have sought to restore a proper balance of bargaining power between trade unions and employers. We have sought to establish democratic rights for individual members within their unions. Above all, we have sought to promote an environment in which both sides of industry can work together to generate the wealth the country needs.

We have observed closely the impact of our legislation. In general, progress has been marked and encouraging. However, some unions have declined the opportunity to put their house in order, and union members have not always felt able to take a stand and ensure that abuses are corrected. It is therefore clear that we need now to take another step both to strengthen the rights of individuals within a union and to reinforce their ability to exercise those rights. That is why we are today publishing a Green Paper, Trade Unions and Their Members, which sets out a number of possible changes, on which comments are invited, as a basis for further legislation.

The Government have always believed that individuals should be able to choose for themselves whether or not to belong to a trade union. We also object strongly to attempts to coerce an employer into putting someone out of work on the ground that the person does not belong to any union or to a particular union. Our earlier measures have certainly reduced the scope for the worst excesses of the closed shop. However, I am afraid that in some industries the power of the closed shop still remains.

We therefore propose measures which will end the legal protection of a post-entry closed shop in any circumstances. The present law allows a closed shop to be enforced if a weighted majority of employees vote for it in a ballot. Few major employers have yet been affected by this provision. But, in the cases where ballots have produced a lawful closed shop, the rights of many individuals to choose whether to join a union or not have been extinguished.

Experience has shown that unions' legitimate interests are not seriously weakened where the closed shop is not protected by law. The repeal of balloting provisions for the closed shop would give any individual dismissed for not belonging to a union the right to compensation for unfair dismissal. We also propose to end all legal immunity for industrial action designed to force an employer to create or maintain any closed shop. In short, we are proposing to end completely the use of the law in any circumstances to sustain the closed shop.

The most important feature of democracy within a trade union must be the right of the members to a secret vote in the direct election and re-election of their union leaders. The 1984 Act established such a right for the election of the voting members of union executives and created a presumption that postal ballots would be used. A large number of trade unions have retained workplace ballots and the conduct of such ballots continues to give rise to controversy. Now is the time to act against these abuses. When we legislated in 1984, many trade unions did not have lists of membership of sufficient quality to serve as electoral rolls. Since 1984 they have been required to have such lists, and they have now had the time and opportunity to draw them up. There is, therefore, no longer any reason why we should not move to the most secure method of balloting available—the secret postal vote under independent supervision.

The process of election is intended to ensure that the leadership of a union is, and remains, responsible to its members. In practice not all trade union leaders have been required to be elected. We now propose to make presidents, general secretaries and any others with seats on the executive subject to direct democratic election.

The right to choose to go to work during industrial action is an essential freedom. We believe that union members are entitled to a vote on whether their union should call them out on strike. We also believe that they are entitled to continue to go to work and honour their contract of employment if they disagree with their union's call. At the moment, legislation does not give union members any right to take action to restrain their unions from calling a strike without a ballot. Nor do they have any statutory protection against disciplinary action by their union if they cross a picket line or carry on working during a dispute. We propose to give them both.

Recent events have thrown light on the unusual ways in which some unions run their financial affairs. Union members ought to be seriously concerned about some of the manoeuvres which have been used to evade or circumvent the jurisdiction of the courts when unions find themselves in conflict with the law. The Green Paper considers possible safeguards which might be enacted in legislation, of which the most fundamental is a right of access for every member, accompanied by a professional adviser, to current union accounting records.

It is not enough to provide rights and protections for individual citizens if they in practice find it too daunting to claim them. As things stand, trade union members need to be exceptionally determined and courageous if they are to embark on the process of enforcing the full rights which the law now gives them. Parliament has provided agencies to help employees to complain against employers about discrimination on grounds of race or sex. It is clear that there is now a need for a new commissioner for trade union affairs to advise and support union members who need to make a formal complaint and perhaps take legal action against unions and their officials who appear to be failing to comply with statutory duties. The new commissioner would help to make sure that trade unionists can defend both their existing rights and the new rights we propose giving them in this Green Paper.

These next steps which I am announcing today, and which my right honurable and learned friend the Paymaster General will shortly be announcing in another place, are wholly consistent with our whole approach to trade union reform through the period of office of this Government. We believe that trade unions behave more responsibly when they are in close touch with the views of their members and take steps to ensure that their actions command members' support. We have watched closely developments since 1984 and the Green Paper is based on our experience of events since the last legislation. Its proposals frame sensible solutions to specific problems which can be expected to work in practice. Consultation has of course always been an important part of our process of law reform in this area and the Government will welcome informed comment on these latest proposals

That concludes the Statement.

Lord McCarthy

My Lords, I must begin by thanking the Secretary of State for the explanation which he has given of the forthcoming Green Paper. It is difficult for us to react to this very substantial set of proposals having had very short notice of them. I suppose therefore that I must thank not only the Secretary of State but also the Guardian. I know that the Secretary of State does not like reading the Guardian and does not believe what it says. However, over the last two weeks, the Guardian has given us a good idea of what would be said this afternoon, and got it right this time.

We need time to consider these proposals. However, the noble Lord will not be surprised when I say that we do not like them. We regard them as "Operation Scapegoat". We think that the lady wants to say with Lady Macbeth, that she has not killed the snake but only scotched it.

I want to go very quickly through the provisions which the noble Lord has advanced. I believe there are five, possibly six. The first matter is the total illegality of the closed shop. Once again, as we said when the previous legislation on closed shop cases came to the House, no evidence has been given of abuse. Very few cases as regards the closed shop have been taken under unreasonable exclusion provisions since the 1980 legislation, and in half of them the trade unions sustained their case.

We have heard nothing about proposed analogues in the professional associations. I ask the Secretary of State if that is why he wants to abolish the post-entry closed shop and not the pre-entry closed shop, since that is what professional associations use. What is the evidence he can put before us, and may we have that evidence in detail, when he says that most unions can sustain their positions without the closed shop? That is not the evidence I have; and it is not what the unions say. I hope that the noble Lord will be giving us more evidence when we come to debate the Green Paper.

The second proposal concerns the rights of members to a ballot before a strike. We are not against that. We are not against membership rights to a ballot before a strike, especially if they are in accordance with the rule books. However, will the Secretary of State tell the House whether, if he is going to take that sort of step for members, it is fair to retain what the Government provided in the 1984 legislation—the right of employers to take action in parallel to force ballots and deny unions protection and immunities unless those ballots take place? If one gives such rights to members, why should one give them to employers as well?

. The third proposal concerns no right of discipline on crossing a picket line. Once again, what is the evidence of abuse?

Noble Lords

Oh!

Lord McCarthy

I hope that the people who are carrying on in this way will get up later and give their evidence to the House. There is plenty of evidence of violence on picket lines; there is also plenty of evidence that we have laws to deal with that violence. But there is no evidence that we have the kind of abuses with which this type of legislation will deal. If there is, I hope that noble Lords opposite will get up and give me chapter and verse.

Then we come to the non-voting member of the executive; to what might be called the Scargill clause. What is the evidence of systematic abuse of members of executives who do not have votes inducing other people to vote? What is the precedent? Do we have this legislation in companies, in professional associations, in political parties, in any other country in the civilised world? I believe that the answer is no. What is the evidence of the degree of abuse that justifies introducing yet another regulation of trade unions in this way?

Finally, we come to the question of the independent commissioner. What will be the functions of this independent commissioner? Who will be the independent commissioner? How will he be chosen? Will he be in any sense acceptable to trade unions or will he be by definition unacceptable to trade unions? Is he to be an enemy, or a friend or an independent observer?

In making these points were are not opposing the principle of the regulation of trade unions. We are not saying that trade unions are perfect democracies; merely that they are more democratic than companies, universities or most political parties. We are not seeking to justify their breaking their own rules. We are not seeking to justify their being intolerant or illegal. We say that there is no evidence—and the Secretary of State has put none before us today—for the kind of proposals that he justifies and advances; and we shall oppose them.

3.15 p.m.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, from these Benches I should like to join in thanking the Secretary of State for making this Statement. It is long, detailed and in some respects potentially controversial. We therefore wish to give it the closest examination before arriving at a considered conclusion.

I am glad that a Green Paper is to be published today. That leads me to ask the Secretary of State whether he will agree, or at any rate suggest to his noble friend the Chief Whip, that there should not only be wide consultation with bodies such as the CBI, the TUC and other interested parties before legislation is introduced, but also an opportunity for debate on the whole subject in both Houses of Parliament.

Perhaps I may make a preliminary response on the specific measures referred to in the Statement. Your Lordships will remember that at the time the Employment Act 1980 was being considered we on these Benches opposed the immediate ending of the closed shop on the grounds that such action might drive the closed shop underground. Since then, seven years have elapsed. For my part, I agree that the case now for ending post-entry closed shops and the legal immunity for industrial action designed to force employers to maintain them deserves re-examination and that we shall certainly give it.

As regards postal ballots, perhaps I may remind the Secretary of State that in discussions on the Trade Union Act 1984 we on these Benches were prepared to go further than the Government were at that time. I shall not elaborate on that point now but it enables me to say that we are therefore favourably disposed towards moving further in this direction, as proposed in the Statement. At first sight there seems a strong case also for obliging chief officers of unions to subject themselves to election and re-election at periodic intervals rather than that they should be exempted from that process simply because they may not exercise a vote at union meetings. The proposal about strike ballots is perhaps more controversial and wide-ranging but here too we shall examine the Government's new proposal realistically in the light of experience over the past few years.

There are still more proposals in the Statement, such as giving union members access to union accounts and the appointment of a new commissioner for trade union affairs. At this stage we do not necessarily oppose those steps. Perhaps I may express a certain general concern lest legislation concerning trade unions should go too far. I say this in all humility as one who has had some experience of conducting industrial relations on the ground. With that in mind, perhaps I may ask the Secretary of State whether he agrees that in the last resort good industrial relations depend on co-operation between management and employees and that there is therefore a limit on the extent to which legislation in this field is desirable and can be effective.

Lord Young of Graffham

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. At the outset I wish to assure the noble Lord that I would not deny anything I have said in the past. I should like to confirm that I read the Guardian every day; it is just that I do not always accept everything I read in the Guardian every day, particularly when it comes to its opinions.

In turning to the basis of the argument, I notice that the noble Lord asks why we do not do anything about the pre-entry closed shop. The answer is that there is no legal support for the pre-entry closed shop. What we are saying is that we want to take away legal support for the post-entry closed shop. I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that those on the Benches opposite are not against balloting before strikes. My Lords, you could have fooled me. I read very closely the policy of the Labour Party. It is for balloting, not before strikes but at some distant time when the strikes have had some effect. It seems to me that what we are about and what this Green Paper is about is restoring and reinforcing democracy within trade unions.

The noble Lord said that there is no evidence of abuse. I seemed to detect a certain element of disbelief within your Lordships' House, and we shall have time to look at that. I certainly fail to see what is so difficult about the concept that we have elections for all on executives of unions whether or not they have votes. Let me assure all noble Lords that whether or not the independent commissioner would be acceptable to trade unions, he would be acceptable to trade unionists because it is for the support of trade unionists that we are looking.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for his desire to give close examination to our proposals. I have no doubt that through the usual channels arrangements can be made to debate this matter in your Lordships' House. I am aware that there are those on the noble Lord's Benches who wished us to go further at some time. We have adopted a step-by-step approach and I believe that when we look at the Green Paper proposals we shall find that there may indeed be a desire to go further on the postal ballot.

The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred to our desire to look into the financial affairs of unions. Of course we cannot legislate for good behaviour. That is probably the great divide between us and those on the Benches opposite. There are probably few in your Lordships' House who did not have the impression that during some notable industrial disputes in the past few years there were what appeared to be financial irregularities. It may be that some of those irregularities could bear further examination.

I hope that we can look closely at this Green Paper. I hope that it will lead towards a world in which we no longer speak about two sides of industry but about the one side of industry with the other side being the customer.

Lord McCarthy

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask him to make one point clear? He said that he wants the new commissioner to be acceptable to trade unionists. Is he going to ballot the trade unionists on that?

Lord Young of Graffham

No, my Lords, but I hope that should we have such a person—after all, this is but a Green Paper and a proposal—we would have someone who is approachable and supportive of individual trade union members in this country and not necessarily the power brokers in trade unions.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to clear up one point in the Statement in connection with postal ballots? Do the proposals contain any provision to prevent the postal ballot papers, when returned to the union office, being either lost, fiddled with or dealt with improperly? My noble friend will know that there have been cases where that is alleged to have happened. May I also ask my noble friend whether I understood him correctly when he confirmed to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that your Lordships' House would shortly be debating this Green Paper?

Lord Young of Graffham

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The date of the debate or the possibility of a debate must be arranged through the usual channels. The suggestion concerns independent postal balloting, which means that presumably the postal ballot papers would be returned to a third party.

Lord Mellish

My Lords, can it be emphasised at this stage to the Secretary of State and, via him, to the Leader of the House that many of us have very strong views on these matters—and this is a fundamental Statement—and feel that the Green Paper should and must be debated in some detail so that we all know what we are talking about?

Lord Young of Graffham

My Lords, I have no doubt that those concerned will pay full attention to what is being said this afternoon.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, is the Minister aware that as a life-long trade unionist I have had the right to ballot since pre-war and have always exercised it, albeit at a much lower level than is envisaged in this Green Paper? Will the Secretary of State kindly tell the House, bearing in mind that the Government will now fund imposed trade union ballots—and they are to be imposed on trade unions—whether any quantification has taken place on the cost of this exercise if it comes to pass? May I also say this to the Minister? From past experience it is clear that you may pass all the legislation you want about closed shops but the question of who people work with on the shop floor depends on the people who actually work on the shop floor. The noble Lord may find himself embarking on a long and tortuous exercise on legislation which when it reaches the shop floor will be absolutely useless.

Lord Young of Graffham

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am well aware that many of the laws which we pass in practice turn out to be rather different. I hope that we will have an opportunity to discuss this paper at length. With the permission of the noble Lord, at that time I hope to bring to the House details of what the cost may be. I think it will be more suitable to do so on that occasion.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, does my noble friend anticipate that when this investigation gets to the point of legislation it will deal with the appointment of officers for life instead of for a fixed term? Is that likely to come within the ambit of legislation?

Lord Young of Graffham

My Lords, this is another matter which I hope any debate in your Lordships' House will cover and which we can then take into account. The Green Paper is just that—it is Green. These are by no means fixed proposals but are matters on which we want to consult as widely as possible.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, is the Minister aware that we welcome the conversion of the Government to the cause of secret postal ballots with the ballot papers being sent to the homes of union members? Is he further aware that these Benches twice divided the Chamber on precisely that question during the Committee and Report stages of the 1984 Bill? Is he also aware that we are not at all surprised that many unions have. as he said, retained very unsatisfactory workplace ballots? Does not the noble Lord agree that it might have been slightly better if the Government had accepted those amendments and thereby prevented the abuses which have taken place since then at many workplaces?

Lord Young of Graffham

Alas, my Lords, I was not a Member of your Lordships' House when that legislation was debated. All I can say is that I am grateful for the support given today to our measures. I heard clearly what the noble Lord said.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton

My Lords, before your Lordships debate the matter further—which will be very welcome—will the Minister place somewhere on the record or in his publications a precise indication of the few employers he mentioned who today suffer from closed shop problems? Will he give the particular trade unions and occasions in relation to the abuses which he stated have occurred and the particular experience of the legislation in detail to which he referred? The noble Lord has come up to the gate in naming names. It is very easy to laugh and say that of course it exists, but unless he gives names he will not substantiate the allegations made in today's Statement. Will he undertake to do so before we debate the matter?

Lord Young of Graffham

No, my Lords. I cannot hope to give such an undertaking for the simple reason that if I were to make any disclosure it would not be full and complete because much of this discrimination remains unrecorded and comes within the general tenor of working practices. Your Lordships will have, I hope, an opportunity to debate this matter in full and that is the time when we can ventilate all these issues.

Back to