| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Brady: I am most grateful to the Minister for his typically courteous response. I shall not detain the House for long, but it was well worth flushing out the Government's position on this important issue.
My only real disappointment was the Minister's suggestion that the Prime Minister, by engaging people who were then subject to a conflict of interest, was behaving as no employer in his right mind would behave. From the Minister's point of view, that was an unfortunate suggestion, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) will doubtless point out, he is unsalaried already, so perhaps he has less to lose than other Ministers.
It is unfortunate that the Minister did not stress the seriousness with which the Government take these matters and did not send out a message that they wish to put behind them some of their own difficulties with conflicts of interest. It would have been nice if a stronger message had been sent out to the private sector that it is possible for higher standards to be observed than some of those in the public sector.
Mr. Redwood:
Does my hon. Friend find it curious that the Minister should take our line against more regulation in the only matter where he fears that the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers might be caught by the legislation?
Mr. Brady:
I do not find that curious at all; I find it entirely predictable and typical of the conduct of the Government. It is disappointing that there was not a more convincing condemnation of those practices, and a more convincing attempt to show that the Government have turned over a new leaf. However, having made my point, and having heard the Minister's rather disappointing response, I have no desire to press the matter to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Boswell:
I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 19, leave out 'compilation' and insert 'use'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 21, leave out from 'unions' to end of line 4 on page 2.
Mr. Boswell:
We move from the consideration of general issues to a more pointillist analysis of the Bill, and if we receive satisfactory responses from the Government, it may be possible to accelerate the pace slightly.
Clause 3 and amendments Nos. 11 and 12 relate to blacklists. We are far from certain that it is necessary to legislate on blacklists, but we are not reopening the issue of principle. However, a point in this regard arose in Committee which is embodied in the amendments.
If the amendments were agreed to, one of the two possible offences in connection with blacklists would be removed. As the Minister will no doubt wish to say when he replies, the clause is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We have not seen the details of what is to be proposed and they have not been consulted upon. However, the amendments allow me to outline some of our concerns.
The amendments would confine an offence to the use of blacklists by employers or employment agencies for the purposes of recruitment. They would remove the offence of compilation of blacklists, for which there are at least three reasons.
First, as I said in Committee--in our haste to make progress, the Minister did not respond--it is possible for the compilation to take place outwith the jurisdiction altogether. For example, an agency in, for example, the United States, where the practice of union busting is a little more prevalent, might compile the list and post it on the internet. It is unclear whether an offence would then take place in the United Kingdom. Where that might take place is one of my concerns. On the other hand, the use of the blacklist in relation to UK legislation would be an offence which was tied to UK employees and would take place in the UK.
Secondly, lists could be compiled for a number of reasons, which may or may not, within the Government's terms, be malicious. One could compile a list at random. One could compile a list of trade unionists because one liked them or even wished to give preference to them rather than to discriminate against them. [Interruption.]
I am interested in the comments made from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I am sorry that he is not addressing himself to the details of the point. It is important that we get the matter right. We are not contesting the principle; we are concerned that the legislation should be viable.
My third consideration relates to what might be termed the possession of a list. There is no provision in the Bill for the mere possession of a list to be an offence, nor am I canvassing for that. But the point at which the compilation is complete is a matter of interest. I can understand that a list which has been compiled with the
intention of being used to bust a union might be of concern to the Government, but what would happen if the list was in the process of compilation? When would we know whether it had been completed? When would we be able to say that it was definitely a list for the purposes of being used by employers or employment agencies for the purposes of recruitment? Those are legalistic points, but they have some merit.
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
Why does the hon. Gentleman not simply tell the truth? The truth is that the Tories favour blacklists.
Mr. Boswell:
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting--because if he is I am sure he will want to reconsider--
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
Why is the hon. Gentleman arguing for them?
Mr. Boswell:
The argument is simply about whether the offence that the Government are proposing should be confined to the use of blacklists.
Mr. Ian Bruce:
My hon. Friend will remember the debate we had in Committee. The Bill does not ban blacklists: it bans lists of trade unionists. Clause 22 requires the Secretary of State to have a list of trade unionists to appoint to the Central Arbitration Committee.
Mr. Boswell:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. The essential point is that, if the Government want to go down that road, they can probably insist on banning lists or blacklists, but it may be speculative to create a separate offence of compilation, however well secured by preparation of regulations and consultation on them and by the affirmative resolution procedure; and I cannot see that it is necessary. If there is a problem, it consists in the use of those lists for the purposes of employment, and I think that that is what the offence should be.
Mrs. Fyfe:
I am puzzled about what the Conservatives are contriving to do, because on three separate occasions in the past 10 years I have tried to make blacklisting an offence and on each of those occasions the Conservative Government used their majority to defeat those aims. Now we hear that the Conservatives do not support blacklisting: they merely want to ensure that the Bill is amended to prohibit the use of a list instead of the compilation of a list. That is an extraordinary proposition. Those of us who are against blacklisting--the Tories apparently include themselves in that--want such lists to be neither compiled nor used. They cannot be used if they are not compiled.
If a group of people in another country compile a list and put it on the net, that is obviously not within our jurisdiction. However, we can deal with offences within our jurisdiction and take action against those who compile or use such lists in this country.
Amendment No. 12 is plain silly, because it would prevent trade unions from making a list of members to ask them if they want insurance on loans, credit cards or holiday bargains. What is the sense in that?
I am glad to see this clause in the Bill. I have been campaigning on the issue for many years. In 1989, when I proposed this measure for inclusion in an Employment Bill, the Tories rejected it. That night, 170 hon. Members supported it, including my right hon. Friends thePrime Minister and the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I am pleased that this measure will go through the House on this occasion.
Mr. Fabricant:
I support the amendments because I believe that the days of the Economic League in the 1980s are past. I also believe that the Bill, as it stands, is unenforceable. I suspect that the Minister believes that too. Clause 3(2) says:
As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry(Mr. Boswell) said, when is a list a list? When is a list compiled, and when it is merely half completed or fully completed? There is no clarity in the law. Is a series of post-it notes a list?
Mr. Ian Stewart:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fabricant:
I shall not give way, because it is in the interests of the House that I finish my speech relatively quickly, and interventions take time. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to keep the House up, far be it from me to prevent him.
"The Secretary of State may make regulations".
It says not "will" make, but "may" make regulations. The Secretary of State knows that, if he were to make such regulations, they would be unenforceable.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |