Industrial Relations

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons am 12:00 am ar 4 Rhagfyr 1973.

Danfonwch hysbysiad imi am ddadleuon fel hyn

Photo of Mr William Whitelaw Mr William Whitelaw , Penrith and The Border 12:00, 4 Rhagfyr 1973

I will make my speech in my own way. I would not be fair to the House or to myself if I did not say that it is right that I should hear the views of the House. The Opposition have chosen a Supply Day on which to debate the Industrial Relations Act, and it is right that, on the second day I have held my new job, I should listen to the arguments—I hope they will be constructive—about the future of the Act. I am certainly prepared to listen to the arguments. That is any answer to the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon).

I turn now to the industrial court. No doubt some hon. Members in the debate will seek to cloud some of the central issues by endeavouring to show that the court, in some way of its own motion, has acted to the detriment of industrial relations generally and of trade unions as institutions in particular. It must be said at once to the right hon. Member for East Ham, North that the Government properly and rightly accept responsibility for the Act and are ready to receive and rebut criticisms of it. The court does no more and no less than administer the Act passed by this House. The proper target for attack is the Government, who steered the Act through the House and stand by it.

I do not believe that in this situation there is any justification for the Opposition attacking the court. To suggest that the court has a purpose of its own is both a contitutional and an actual nonsense. To seek to assail it, as some do, is a dangerous exercise. The right target—and the right hon. Gentleman said so—is Her Majesty's Government. That is the target—not the court.

The right hon. Gentleman then spoke about the Con-Mech case. No doubt much more will be said about it during the debate and about the action of the court. It is therefore right to recall exactly what did happen.

The AUEW not only neglected to represent its members' interests but also deliberately chose not to obey the court's order to end industrial action. The union being in contempt, the court had no alternative but to impose a fine.

It was a clear situation in law. No assets of any institution or any individual can be protected. What protection, can it be sensibly argued, should be provided by the law for the material assets of an institution which acts in defiance of the courts? To argue otherwise surely compounds the nonsense. This situation is not a consequence of the Act. It is common to any act of contempt against any ; court.

No doubt it will be suggested that in some way there was a deliberate decision to sequestrate part of the union's political funds. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will deal with that aspect in more detail, but if that argument is put forward then it is surely a contrived argument to obscure the union's responsibility for its own actions. Everyone in life is responsible for his own actions.