| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.45 pm
Mr. Stewart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way.
My point is very clear and very simple. There is a dissuasive element in the Bill in relation to the compilation of blacklists, but the hon. Gentleman is right that a decision on whether a list is just a list or a blacklist must come after the list has been compiled. That dissuasive element must clearly be in place, so that people know that it is not right to do it in the first place.
Mr. Fabricant:
I do not think that the purpose of law is to influence opinion; I think that it is to legislate. I am saying that clause 3 is a bad clause because it is unenforceable in many ways. I think that it will be challenged in the courts, and I do not think that the question of when a list is a list is at all clear.
In fact, the whole clause is unnecessary in any case. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) was right to claim that she had consistently argued against blacklists. She may remember that on 12 April 1988 she presented a ten-minute Bill
We expected today, when a statement was made on the modernisation of government, to hear when there would be a freedom of information Bill, but nothing was said. Such a Bill would have given further access not only to blacklists held by individuals, but to blacklists that may well be held by the Government in relation to certain people. Why is there no such thing as a freedom of information Bill? What are the Government frightened of?
I believe that clause 3 is impossible in terms of legislation, and impossible to maintain in a court of law. I think that the amendment, which simply suggests that use of a blacklist should be deterred, is far more useful and sensible than the provisions in the Bill; and, as I have said, it is clear from the words "may make regulations" that the Secretary of State accepts my argument.
Mr. Byers:
For the record, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) is right to say that clause 3(2) gives the Secretary of State a power which he may exercise, and I certainly intend to exercise that power if I stay in my post long enough. To be blacklisted from employment--to be unable to work in one's profession or trade--simply because of trade union membership or activity is entirely unacceptable, and many of my hon. Friends have fought and campaigned for years for the day when, through legislation, we can ensure that such blacklisting is no more. That is exactly what clause 3 does, but we have to do this by way of regulation. I look forward to the time when we can debate in the House regulations that will, in detail, introduce the prohibition. There can be no place, in the last year of the century, for people being blacklisted for trade union membership.
The hon. Member for Lichfield spoke of points of law. There is a legal position underpinning the legislation, but we also believe that there is a responsibility in legislation to reflect public opinion. The message is simple. We do not believe that we should tolerate the keeping, the compiling or the use of lists that can be used to deny people work and the opportunity to earn their living, which is what blacklisting effectively does.
Mr. Fabricant:
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Byers:
No. We have heard many exchanges this evening; some have been significant, many trivial in the extreme, but the time has now come to make some progress.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 would ensure that it would no longer be a criminal offence to compile a list of people relating to their trade union activities. We believe that that should be a criminal offence. We also believe that it should be a criminal offence to use such a list for the purpose of blacklisting individuals.
With respect to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), there is no earthly reason why compilation should not be an offence. I agree with some of my hon. Friends that it is more of a wrecking amendment than one that seeks to deal with the issue of individuals being blacklisted from work. That is why I will invite the House to resist the two amendments.
On the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Daventry, it is true that compilation outside the UK will not be subject to our legislation; it is like any other area of law. It is a loophole, but one which it is not within our power to control. I regret that, but that is the reality. However, it is no reason not to move forward with clause 3.
The hon. Member for Daventry says that lists could be held for a number of reasons, but then fails to outline what those reasons might be in the context of clause 3.
Mr. Ian Bruce:
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Byers:
No; I am not giving way.
Our view is that it is inappropriate to give people a power to compile a list for the purposes that are outlined in clause 3. One must ask why people need to possess such a list if they are not going to use it for purposes that we believe are wholly unacceptable.
I had hoped that even the Conservative party in 1999 would support measures to stop blacklisting. I regret that it is unable to do that and that its two amendments seek to water down clause 3. I hope that the hon. Member for Daventry, the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, will reconsider the matter, look carefully at the effects of his amendments and agree that it is far better to keep the robust approach in clause 3 than to water it down.
Mr. Boswell:
I suppose that the Secretary of State might expect me to defer to his superior legal knowledge in the matter, but with respect, I do not think that he has entirely addressed himself to the legal difficulties that I sought to outline, other than to concede that some of them were valid because we could not control the compilation of lists outside our jurisdiction.
I also noticed that the Secretary of State inserted into the various tests what he described at one point as keeping a list and at another point as possessing a list; it is not clear whether he has taken the relevant powers under the clause, or whether keeping or possessing a list is subsumed under the use of a list. It will be a matter of some concern if people who have a list in their possession--however they have come by it; perhaps they have inherited it from a parent--are guilty of a criminal offence even if they have never used it or intended to use it.
Nevertheless, having raised those points and invited the Secretary of State to reconsider them in preparing his regulations, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Byers:
I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 2, leave out from beginning of line 22 to end of line 17 on page 3 and insert--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 13, in clause 5, page 3, line 17, after 'union', insert
Government new schedule 1.
Government amendment No. 52.
Mr. Byers:
I invite the House to resist amendment No. 13.
I will be brief but, obviously, in reply to the debate, I will try to answer any questions that might be raised. However, I hope that we can make progress because some important groups of amendments are coming up, on which hon. Members want to speak.
The Government have made it clear that they intend to retain the key elements of the law on industrial action. Nothing in the Bill or in the amendments infringes that principle. For example, ballots will still be held, notices must still be given and secondary action will remain unlawful. However, by common consent, current law on industrial action and, in particular, on balloting is extremely complex. In some cases, the burdens arising from the present procedures serve no useful purpose in extending democratic accountability within unions; nor do they always help employers to resolve a dispute or to mitigate the consequences of action.
Our amendments seek to make the situation easier for trade unions and employers. Our approach will ensure that both parties can concentrate on resolving a dispute, rather than being bogged down in detailed discussions about whether the complexity of the present procedures has been followed in all its forms. A number of proposals achieve those ends. They are relatively technical, and I hope that the House will be able to agree with them in that spirit. However, I will reply to any questions that hon. Members may have.
"to give persons a right of access to any information held by any organisation for the purpose of blacklisting."
I think that that was an excellent idea.
'. Schedule (Ballots and notices) shall have effect.'.
'(or, if acting together, unions)'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |