Employment Relations Bill [back to previous text]

Mr. Boswell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 25, line 9, at end insert `unless he can demonstrate that to do so would conflict with his religious beliefs. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 105, in page 25, line 44, after `17', insert `except for reasons of religious conscience'. 5 pm Mr. Boswell: In the absence from Committee of my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on unavoidable, alternative business, I wish to speak to the amendment. It picks up the concerns about which they spoke with great eloquence and deep sensitivity when referring to the Exclusive Brethren. I am choosing my words carefully so that I do not breach parliamentary convention, but I am aware that members of the Exclusive Brethren continue to take a close interest in our proceedings. Whatever view one may take of such matters, members of the Committee want to be as sensitive as possible to persons of conscience. The amendment would exclude employers from the obligation to participate in the ballot when they had particular reasons of conscience for doing so. If that were to happen, the exclusions would need to be tightly secured. We must realise that there is genuine conflict between two principles. On the one hand is the Government's wish to extend employment rights collectively through the mechanism of collective recognition while, on the other, is the wish of all members of the Committee to support the conscience of the individual or group of individuals. Parliament has a certain genius for finding a solution, sooner or later, in such situations. It is important that all persons of good will should consider ways to achieve that. I have no particular solution, but perhaps we can find a way to ensure that such rights are confined only to cases when it is clearly the wish of the work force that there should be trade union recognition. Whatever its views might be, I suspect that the Exclusive Brethren would not stand in the way of a work force that was enthusiastic for that. Through representation either of the rights of the individual or collectively, it may be possible to redefine the provision to make it helpful to those with such beliefs. For example, in certain instances, members of such communities are willing to make use of lawyers. I accept that they are not trade union officials, but we may be able to find a way round the matter. It was raised with sensitivity and was well responded to previously. I am making a few private inquiries into means of finding a solution and I am glad that my hon. Friends tabled the amendment. Perhaps other members of the Committee who are concerned about matters of conscience will wish to contribute to the debate. I look forward to the Minister's response and, without wanting to claim individual credit, I hope that, one way or another, we can hammer out a mutually acceptable solution. Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh): I echo the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. There is a clash between the individual's rights to belong to a union, and the religious beliefs and consciences of other individuals with equal rights. It is a difficult issue. I stress that members of the Exclusive Brethren hold a genuine view. They have no axe to grind in terms of employer-employee industrial relations, but they have a genuine belief. From representations in my own constituency—I am sure that other hon. Members have had equally strong representations—I know that their convictions are so strong that they will cease to trade if they cannot find a way to satisfy the law and, at the same time, maintain their consciences. Mr. Boswell: I have constituency experience of the Brethren. I have recorded no complaint about their conduct as employers in respect of their employees. Mr. Chidgey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. There are probably at least 10 trading groups in my constituency, each employing perhaps half a dozen or 50 people—they represent the ultimate small business, in a way—and on no occasion have constitutents raised concerns about conditions of employment in that environment. Workers are not being oppressed by that working arrangement. They voluntarily enter into it, and it seems to be satisfactory in comparison with any other. A specific group of people are genuinely expressing their consciences. Those people have equal rights to live by their convictions, and we should be clever enough to accommodate their beliefs within the law. Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale): In common with hon. Members who have spoken, I have had representations from members of the Brethren at my constituency surgery. They were not constituents, but they had travelled from a Labour constituency to make their point once they heard that I was serving on the Committee. That does not alter the strength of their convictions. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the point that I am about to make, but I would like to put it on the record. In no sense are members of the Brethren exploitative and bad employers—ruthless, top-hatted capitalists—looking for a religious excuse to stamp over the rights of their workers. Quite the contrary is the case. I do not think that those members of the Brethren who came to see me would object if I were to state what they said, which was that they believed that the industrial relations balance in previous years in this country was often tilted too far in favour of employers and too far away from employees. However, they have a genuine religious belief, which we should try to accommodate in our deliberations on the Bill. I also ask the Minister and his officials to think about the fact that the members of the Brethren expressed to me a great willingness to seek some compromise. They are not taking the absolutist position that, unless they get exactly what they want in exactly the terms that they specify, they will not play ball. They are looking for compromise, and I hope that it can be found. Mr. Boswell: It might help if Ministers and their officials, following the precedent that was set last year when we debated the difficult issue of charities in proceedings on the National Minimum Wage Bill, would consent to meet interested parties at a professional level. They might also consent to meet Opposition Members to see whether we can find a way through the problem, as the common ground of the Committee is being well established. Mr. Collins: That would be the most productive outcome of what is likely to be a short debate this afternoon. If the Minister and his officials could further attempt to find compromise, we could find a way to reconcile the genuine clash of two equally valid and equally important human rights. Mr. Ian Pearson (Dudley, South): I shall be brief, as I do not want to repeat the contributions made already, which encapsulate the issue. I do not want to repeat my comments from our debate on the issue with regard to individual employment rights. Given our philosophy of continuous improvement, it should be possible to give comfort to members of the Exclusive Brethren and others who have genuine and religious problems in complying with the Bill. Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 would not do the job. I am a lay person in such matters, but I believe that the amendmens are technically defective. However, I hope that the provision is considered further and that a suitable solution is found on Report. Mr. Wills: We debated many such points when discussing amendments Nos. 81 and 90 on 25 February. I hope that we have made it clear that the Government wish to be sensitive to all matters of conscience. Religious conscience is something that we all respect. As members of the Committee know, a balance must be struck. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State explained, the question is whether one person's religious conscience should be allowed to deprive others of their rights. I cannot agree that workers should be deprived of their statutory rights to belong to a trade union because of the religious beliefs of their employers. It is important to keep the problem in perspective. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West said that the Brethren operated 1,200 mainly small businesses that employ about 6,500 people, most of whom are members of the Brethren. About 35 businesses have more than 20 employees and therefore could be subject to applications for recognition. There are likely to be few, if any, Brethren workplaces where a union could pass even the preliminary tests for recognition application, let along win a ballot. I recognise that the beliefs of the Brethren are held sincerely and that the Bill could pose serious problems for them. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Daventry, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) and other members of the Committee said. We shall continue to consider whether there is anything that we can reasonably do, for example, through the proposed code of practice on access for unions during recognition campaigns to take account of the specific situation of the Brethren, but without undermining the principles of the Bill. I undertake to report back to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State as soon as he is well enough all that has been said today so that he has the opportunity to consider how we can move forward. I make no promises, but we shall continue to consider the case sympathetically, bearing in mind that, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, we cannot allow individuals to be deprived of their statutory rights by something over which they have no control—in other words, the religious beliefs of their employers. The amendments are well meant and I hope that members of the Committee will take my next remarks in the spirit in which they are intended. We respect the sincerity of the religious beliefs under debate, nevertheless the amendments could unfortunately open the way to claims of supposed religious conscience for employers who were merely trying to escape union recognition. Some employers seem to have an almost superstitious fear of trade unions, but that is not the same as a religious objection. We do not want to open such a loophole—something that we shall bear in mind as we consider the matter further. I hope that I have said enough this afternoon to persuade the hon. Member for Daventry to withdraw the amendment.

©Parliamentary copyright 1999	Prepared 16 March 1999