| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Boswell: The Secretary of State correctly interpreted my intentions in relation to amendment No. 13, which I will not press in light of what he has said. However, I re-emphasise that it is important for unions to work together whenever possible. It will look odd if one union has not applied the four-weeks rule and another has. Circumstances could arise where that was the case.
New schedule 1 appears to be broadly acceptable. In certain respects--particularly the notice provisions--it seems positively sensible to enable unions to comply with a court order or an agreement with the employers to suspend the period. I wish to refer to proposed paragraph (2)(bb) because I simply do not understand what it means. Perhaps the Secretary of State could drop me a line about that.
Could the Secretary of State confirm that the intention is that, on the voting paper,
Mr. Byers:
I shall try to respond briefly to the specific issues that have been raised. The hon. Gentleman is right about overtime and call-out bans; they are included in action short of strike action. He also mentioned the health warning on the ballot paper, and I can confirm that we shall ensure that the attention of individual members is drawn to the effects of the measures--a point that was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).
As for non-balloted members being invited to take industrial action, the alteration is designed to deal with individuals who may have changed jobs in the period between the ballot and the taking of the action.
I think that those were the three main issues raised by the hon. Member for Daventry. If there are any others, I shall respond to them in writing.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Brady:
I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 5, line 38, at end insert--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 41, in clause 12, page 6, line 33, at end insert
No. 39, in schedule 1, page 26, line 23, after ''22', insert
Mr. Brady:
In view of the lateness of the hour, I shall endeavour to be brief. However, I would not wish any hon. Member to draw an inference from that that the matter was any the less serious. I tabled the amendment with particular regard to the rights of some of my constituents who are members of the Plymouth Brethren. Many other hon. Members also represent communities of Plymouth Brethren in different parts of the country.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and I spoke in support of amendments that would have protected the freedom of members of the Plymouth Brethren to practise their religion in the way that they believe is appropriate and right, and which they have followed for some 150 years in this country.
During that time, members of the brethren have benefited from the religious freedom and tolerance of which many of us are proud. They are a decent, God-fearing group of people who seek to live their lives strictly according to holy scripture. I note that some Labour Members seem to find that amusing. I find that rather disappointing; I regard the matter as having the gravest significance. Members of the Plymouth Brethren and other religious communities will be disappointed by the reaction of the Labour Members who find what I am saying amusing.
Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart):
It will not make the slightest difference to any Member of the House of Commons what the Plymouth Brethren thinks of us, because its members never vote in general elections.
Mr. Brady:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is important, because to some hon. Members, it matters what people in our country are free to do, regardless of their ability to reward either individual Members or political parties with their votes. I take pride in the fact that I am speaking for a group of people who do not participate directly in the political process. That is all the more reason why they need Members of Parliament who are prepared to speak for their interests.
I do not share the brethren's religious beliefs--and I do not wish to be diverted by Labour Members who clearly do not take religious freedom and tolerance seriously. It is disappointing, and embarrassing for the House, that some Members take that stance. However, I shall return to my main point.
The Plymouth Brethren is a fairly small community, but its members run 1,200 businesses, mainly small ones, which employ 6,500 people, all but 2,000 of whom are members of the brethren. In general, they are among the best of employers, and I have heard no one question that assertion. In the conduct of their businesses, and in the relations between employer and employee, they are beyond reproach.
The Plymouth Brethren's interpretation of scripture is that the master-servant relationship is God-given. It is not appropriate, therefore, for any organisation to intervene in that relationship.
Mr. Fabricant:
Does my hon. Friend fear that some people may claim to be members of the Plymouth Brethren in order to extricate themselves from the Bill's provisions?
Mr. Brady:
No. Members of the Plymouth Brethren live a particular type of life. My hon. Friend's point could be made on virtually any aspect of the Bill. Every other part of it can be established before an industrial tribunal, and I cannot see why the validity of someone's claim to be a member of a particular religious community cannot come into the same category.
The Plymouth Brethren's religious beliefs mean that its members do not think it appropriate for trade unions or trade or employers associations to intervene in the relationship between master and servant. That has important implications for the recognition aspects of the Bill and for representation in grievance hearings.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has pointed out that the Plymouth Brethren does not participate in the political process. That is no reason why
we should not seek to defend its freedom. This is not a party political matter. When it was debated in Standing Committee, Labour Members gave a more mature response than some of them have tonight. This is a fundamental matter of religious freedom and tolerance. Earlier debates have related to tolerance for other groups, and I cannot see why the Plymouth Brethren should be treated with any less respect, though others clearly take a different view.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), said in Committee that the Plymouth Brethren, of which he has had some experience in his constituency, is
The Minister of State also said that the accompanying person in a grievance procedure would be there to advise and support, not to intervene or answer questions. However, the Bill says, in clause 11(2)(b) and (c) that the person is
The Bill clearly intervenes in the relationship between master and servant, and between employer and employee. The amendment is of the utmost importance because it goes to the heart of the religious freedom and tolerance for which our country is known and in which we--at least, the Conservatives--believe. I hope for a constructive response from the Minister.
Mr. Bercow:
I am pleased to rise in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). In so doing, I say at the outset that I am genuinely saddened and shocked by the reaction of a number of Labour Members. In particular, it is a source of regret to me and--I suspect--several others that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who is a long- serving Member of Parliament and someone who sits on the Chairmen's Panel on behalf of Members of this House, should behave with such gross disrespect to a community of people who wish to defend and uphold their right to live their lives in the way that they think fit. If the hon. Gentleman does not have the nous to appreciate that he has behaved contemptibly, that says more about him than it does about the Conservative Opposition or members of the Plymouth Brethren. The same goes for other Labour Members, many of whom are in a tired and emotional state tonight. If they think such behaviour is funny or clever, or that it elevates them to a higher plane than the people on whom they sit in judgment, it is lamentable. Tolerance is not about putting up with people of whom or activities of which one
"action short of a strike"
should include an overtime ban and a call-out ban? Reference has been made to consideration in due course to a proposal to reduce the period of protection to four weeks. We would not wish to concede that at this stage.
'(1A) This section shall not apply to an employer who shows that to comply with it would conflict with his religious beliefs.
'but such a complaint shall not succeed if the employer can show that he was unable to comply as a consequence of his religious conscience.'.
'except for reasons of religious conscience.
"a religious community beyond reproach".---[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 25 February 1999; c. 164.]
He said that he had some difficulty understanding the community's position, and that difficulty goes to the heart of the matter. Many of us, on both sides, may find it difficult to understand the position adopted by the Plymouth Brethren. Perhaps none of us chooses to live as its members do. However, that does not make their choices any less valid, and it does not constitute a reason not to tolerate their religious views, or not to give them the freedom that we enjoy.
"permitted to address the hearing"
and
"is to be permitted to confer"
during the hearing.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |