Trade Union Bill

Debate between David Anderson and Jim Cunningham

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Anderson]

This is supposed to be about modernising —that is the word the Minister used—ballots, but it is really about trying to limit people’s ability to take strike action. Let us be honest: he knows that if electronic balloting was allowed, the turnouts would go up, way beyond the limits set out. The lights have come on in the Conservative party and it has realised that it has set itself a trap and walked into it. In a situation where the Government are trying to stop people being able to take industrial action by setting ludicrous limits, they have set a precedent and had a debate that says, “If you are genuine, let us have as many people participating as possible.” Let us look at the history on this issue. In the 1980s, the Tory Government tried to control the right of people to take legitimate industrial action under the law and were told, “If you do away with workforce ballots, you will reduce the turnout.” The facts and figures have proved that for more than 30 years; the average turnout in workplace ballots was 80% but now if you get 40% you are doing well.

The proposals on facility time show the real ignorance of the Conservative party, tied to its arrogance; it just does not know what goes on in the workplace. Let me give two examples. In 1986, I spent every day for a fortnight visiting a man in hospital, 30 miles away from his workplace. He had been buried under 50 tonnes of coal and ultimately died, and we did not take evidence from him; we took what was used in a coroner’s case. Five years later, I was working for Newcastle City Council, encouraging home careworkers who had worked themselves into an early grave. I was saying, “Look, it is really in your interests to leave work on ill-health retirement agreements.” They would not talk to personnel officers because they were frightened of that sort of authority figure, but as a local trade union representative I was able to convince them it was the right thing for them to do and for the authority to do. We saved having to give people compulsory redundancy and we were helping to manage the system. Under what is being proposed now, the likes of me will no longer be there. There will be some clerk filling in forms to send down to London for a clerk there, and there will be thousands of these things. This really has to be stopped. It is nonsense and it should be thrown out.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend and I know, as does anybody who has been involved in these things, that for the past 50 or 60 years every Tory Government manifesto has had a clause attacking the trade unions. He referred to facility time, and the proposal shows how inexperienced Ministers are on industrial relations. Any major employer welcomes facility time as it saves them a lot of money in the end.

[Mr Anderson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. If instead of talking to the TaxPayers Alliance to get information, the Government had spoken to any reasonable employer in this country or any trade union that deals day in, day out with this, they would have got a picture of the real story, not just some made-up attack on the trade union movement, which is what this is really all about.

The Shrewsbury 24

Debate between David Anderson and Jim Cunningham

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Anderson]

My right hon. Friend asks a very valid question, and I hope that we get an answer from the Minister. It beggars belief. We know the context in which this case took place. We had industrial strife in a number of industries and obviously a lot was happening in Northern Ireland. We also know the context of police behaviour in the 1970s, because it is now coming out through things such as the Saville and Hillsborough inquiries, issues relating to the miners’ strike at Orgreave and the behaviour of the security services in relation to the Birmingham and Guildford bombings, for example. We are talking about 24 men among a larger group who went to a picket line. On the day, not one of them was charged, warned or arrested. If they had done something that warranted arrest, they would have been arrested there and then—not five months later, not after a fishing expedition, but on the day.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He has assiduously pursued this issue since he came into Parliament. One way in which the trade unions were undermined in the ’60s and ’70s, certainly in the building industry, was through something called lump labour, which kept wages down. Sometimes these things are forgotten in this day and age, but they happened then. Sometimes people were expected to work in appalling conditions, and if someone got blacklisted, it was like a life sentence: they never got another job.

[Mr Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us of that, because what the building employers were doing was not only bad in terms of people’s working conditions; they were actually breaking the law. They were encouraging people not to be paid properly. In effect, those employers were not paying income tax or national insurance contributions, so they were stealing from the public purse, while at the same time coercing the Home Secretary to pressure the police into bringing forward a case against 24 innocent men, whom the judiciary would then prosecute as a warning to others. That is exactly what this is all about, and I am convinced that the papers show that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) asked why the information release date has been extended to 40 years; I am not sure that we will get the answers even in 2022, if we are still around. The sad reality is that some of these men will not be around. That is a disgrace.

I look to the Minister as someone who, I believe, is an honourable man. I know that he does not have much time left over the next few days, but he may be in the same post in eight weeks’ time. Obviously, my colleagues and I hope that it will be someone from our party sitting in his place, because we have pledged to release the papers, and we have said that we will do it no matter what the Security Service or the spooks tell us. We will release them, because we see this as a debt to the people of the country, but we also see it as exercising the will of Parliament. Parliament spoke in January last year; that voice has been blocked deliberately by this Government. I look to the Minister today to try to help us to move that blockage and to move it now.

Shrewsbury 24 (Release of Papers)

Debate between David Anderson and Jim Cunningham

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Anderson]

I will run the debate; the hon. Gentleman should just sit there and listen.

In 1972, the unions, exasperated at the failure to achieve progress, called the first and so far only national building strike ever held. Four months later, the strike was called off after the unions forced their employers to concede the biggest increase in basic pay rates ever. It was a victory for the working man, but a bitter blow for the employers, who were determined on revenge. They were not alone. The Tory Government were rattled by the success of one of the least well-organised groups of workers in this country and were determined to help their friends in the building industry.

To pursue that revenge the employers’ body, the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, went on what can only be described as a fishing expedition. It wrote to its members on 20 September 1972, two weeks after the strike ended, seeking any information related to possible violence and intimidation during the strike. The clear intention of the federation was to pass the dossier on to the Home Secretary for his consideration so that he could tighten up the law on picketing in industrial disputes. The federation specifically asked its members for information on any incidents available to them, including signed statements from any eye-witnesses; copies of any photographs from local newspaper photographers of, as the federation said, “the more notorious occurrences” that would give strong support to the submissions; and any other kind of suitable evidence that members might have come across, such as tape recordings and personal photographs.

It was not just the members of the federation who were being written to. In a letter to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Robert McAlpine complained that there was no problem with the law governing pickets and their activities, but that the problem was rather down to

“the lack of enforcement of the law by the police”.

That was a clear shot across the bows of the people who had the responsibility of ensuring that the law was adhered to on the ground. The police, in whom we put our faith to ensure that the law is upheld properly, were being told by an employer that they had not done their job properly.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Anderson]

Yes, but will my hon. Friend please be quick?

[Mr Cunningham]

I will be as quick as I can. It is not only in the building trade that blacklisting has gone on since the ’70s; it has gone on in other industries. We have recently had debates about that. More importantly, the Tories have not changed. Look at the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, because that tells us a lot. They want to make the law worse for working people.

[Mr Anderson]

My hon. Friend is right. Some things, sadly, never change.

When the dossier was completed in October 1972, it was passed on to the then Home Secretary, Robert Carr, who immediately instructed the chief constables of West Mercia and Gwynedd to investigate events in one particular part of the country—that is, the area in and around north Wales. He obviously wanted to pursue the agenda laid out by the employers in the dossier despite reports such as those in the Financial Times—hardly the workers’ friend—that said:

“This document is itself flawed since it suggests the existence of a sinister plot without being able to substantiate the allegations.”

Those involved who are in the House to listen to the debate today believe that the Home Secretary gave the job to the police so that they would put bones on the case that the employers were trying to make.

Why was that important? If it could be shown that the activities of the pickets were deliberately planned to intimidate, the charges laid against them could be much more serious than those for the argy-bargy that was the norm on picket lines. In particular, if conspiracy could be proven, the potential to lock up some of the leaders of the dispute for a very long time became a reality.

The choice of north Wales as the focus for police action was not an accident. Despite evidence of much more aggressive activity in other parts of the country, the Home Secretary deliberately focused on north Wales. That might be purely coincidental, but I can assure the House that no one involved in the campaign believes that to be so. North Wales was a part of the world where the McAlpine family had a huge amount of political influence. They were not only influential players in the Tory party but one of the biggest developers in the building industry, including at the site in Brookside in Shrewsbury that was the epicentre of the case against the pickets. In addition—again, this may be purely coincidental, but I doubt it—the high sheriff of Denbighshire, the man responsible for law and order in the area, just happened to be the ninth member of the McAlpine family in succession to have held that post.

As the police investigation gained momentum, 31 pickets were arrested on 14 November—two months after the end of the dispute. The men were released without charge, but three months later, on Valentine’s day 1974, 24 of them were rearrested. A barrage of charges— 242 in total—were levelled at these men, all of whom were charged with intimidation. Much more seriously, the first six to go on trial were charged with conspiracy to intimidate contrary to common law. This was the charge that the employers’ body wanted to see, because it gave the establishment the chance to send pickets to jail for long periods. The intent was clear—lock these people up and the rest of the trade union movement will know that legitimate trade union activity, including picketing, could now be treated as a criminal act.

So how did these workers become embroiled in this legal minefield? On 31 August, a joint meeting of members of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians and the Transport and General Workers Union was held in The Ball and Stirrup pub in Chester. At the meeting, which was the first time many of those present had met each other, a request was read out from union members in the Shropshire area seeking support from other comrades throughout the north-west to successfully prosecute their case in their area. The meeting agreed that a group of pickets would travel down to Oswestry on 6 September to meet local activists and then decide which locations to picket.

That meeting is crucial to the issue. Anyone who has ever been involved in picketing, and looking round this room, I see a number of people who have been, knows that, especially when you are going outside your own area, you have to plan properly—basic stuff including where people are going to be picked up, when they can expect to get home, and where they are likely to be throughout the day. You also need to ensure that anybody going picketing is aware of the need to behave properly at all times and give them clear information in case there are problems. The meeting was simply a planning meeting, but crucially, when the case went to court, it was classed as a meeting to conspire to intimidate workers on the ground. No evidence was ever laid to substantiate that claim, but it was the crux of the case and it was what led to imprisonment.

The prosecution were so intent on getting jail sentences imposed that they even charged a person with conspiracy who was not present at the planning meeting. John McKinsie Jones had been collecting union subs in the downstairs bar of the pub, and he left before the planning meeting even began. He was nowhere near the meeting, yet amazingly he ended up being sentenced to nine months in jail for conspiracy to intimidate. How on earth can someone be part of a conspiracy when they are not even at the meeting where it is discussed?

It is interesting to compare what happened to the pickets who were charged with 242 offences between them and those at other courts who had been involved in similar activities. Earlier in the year, two trials were held in Mold. At the first trial, only minor charges were upheld by the jury and the maximum fine was £50. At the second trial, the jury found all defendants not guilty of anything. One of the main reasons for this was that in Mold, prior to the jury being selected, the lawyers for the defendants exercised their long-held right to challenge potential jurors. As was the right of the defence laywers, they were looking for people who might have connections with the building industry or might be hostile to trade unions. As a result of the cross-examination, a number of prospective jurors were excluded from the jury.

However—again, forgive my scepticism—after those trials, but before the Shrewsbury ones began, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, another part of the Tory hierarchy, unilaterally banished the right of lawyers to challenge jurors. This was done without warning and contrary to decades of practice, and without any prior consultation with the legal system or other interested parties. In order to try to get a fair trial despite these clearly deliberately motivated changes to the legal process, the defendants’ lawyers requested that the trial of those charged in relation to picketing in Shrewsbury be held in Mold or be moved to an area of the country that was more neutral than Shrewsbury would have been. The judge flatly turned down that request and set 3 October 1973 as the date for the first hearing.

The trial judge, Mr Justice Mais, was a surprise choice for such a high-profile, politically charged case. He had little, if any, experience in cases of this magnitude, or in criminal cases at all; his expertise was mainly in rural and ecclesiastical matters. His behaviour throughout the case led many to question his capability and impartiality. A number of issues gave rise to this concern. For example, when the jury were called to bring in the verdict, they were unable to come to a majority decision—they were tied at eight to four. The judge asked them to keep going but they said, “We’re too tired to go on today—we need to have a break.” So he agreed to give them a break and let them stop in a hotel overnight, but he closed by saying:

“You should go to the accommodation prepared for you…and I suggest that you continue your deliberations there.”

That was an extraordinary thing to suggest. The only place where a jury should consider any case is in the jury room and nowhere else, be it a hotel or anywhere else.

If that were the judge’s only error, it would still be wrong, but throughout the trial his behaviour was, to say the least, questionable. The campaigners provided me and other Members of this House with reports from David Altaras, a junior barrister who defended Ricky Tomlinson at the first trial. In 2012, he gave a statement in which he said:

“Given the fact that I regularly adjudicate criminal trials myself I have no hesitation in saying that, during the trial, the Judge’s conduct towards the defence frequently crossed the line between permissible and impermissible behaviour and amounted to a display of obvious hostility towards the defendants. He took particular exception to John Platt-Mills who represented Des Warren and to Des Warren himself. I vividly recall an occasion when Mr Platt-Mills was cross-examining a witness (probably a police officer) and the Judge took off his wig and threw it on the bench in irritation. I recall occasions when he threw his pen down and turned to face the wall when either a defendant was giving evidence or the defence were adducing evidence in cross-examination. In addition, I can remember his rather rude interruptions during cross-examination.”

He went on:

“During the Judge’s various outbursts, I remember members of the jury nudging one another. My own view at the time, a view shared by other members of the Defence team with whom I discussed the Judge’s behaviour, was that the jury (a) could have been in no doubt where the judge’s sympathy lay and (b) could have absolutely no doubt that he loathed Mr Platt-Mills.”

So we had a court case where the legal system had been changed to deny jury challenges, that was held in an area where the defendant’s legal team were genuinely concerned about the lack of neutrality and was presided over by a judge whose inexperience was matched only by his partiality.

But it gets even worse. The campaign team’s researcher, Eileen Turnbull, has trawled through documentation that is in the archives at Kew. She has uncovered a letter dated 25 January 1973 from the then Attorney-General, Peter Rawlinson, to the then Home Secretary, Robert Carr, in which he advised the Home Secretary that in his view, having discussed the case with Treasury Counsel and the Director of Public Prosecutions, these

“proceedings should not be instituted.”

That was the highest legal advice in the land. We remember how, in the previous Parliament, my party was, quite rightly, lectured by then Opposition Members about the failure of Tony Blair to listen to the Attorney-General in relation to the Iraq war. In this instance, the same authority advised the Home Secretary not to pursue the case. The Home Secretary ignored him, and we have to ask why. The people who went to jail are clear about the reason. They have no doubt that the pressure from the building industry, particularly from a man who would soon be appointed as deputy treasurer and chief fundraiser to the Tory party, was overwhelmingly more important than the views of the people entrusted with advising on legal issues at the highest level.

We must remember that this pressure had been felt by the police at the highest level, with the result that in the autumn of 1972 they set up a huge fishing expedition. A team of detectives were billeted in north Wales and 800 statements were taken, of which 600 were discarded. This was despite the fact that on the day in question—6 September 1972—not only were no arrests made, but the police actually congratulated the leaders of the pickets on the disciplined way in which they conducted their activities. We must also remember that this was all done at the behest of the building employers’ federation.

Another issue of grave concern was the decision during the trial to allow an inflammatory television programme to be aired on the very night of the prosecution’s summing up. Under the title, “Red under the Bed”, the programme was an attack on this country’s left-wing political parties and trade union activity. It specifically referred to the ongoing trial. The day after it was aired, Judge Mais dismissed the defence’s attempts to have the TV company charged with contempt. Indeed, he criticised the defence for having the temerity to raise the matter. What is of even greater concern is that the papers that have already been released show that the then Government, right up to the then Prime Minister, were involved in assisting the programme to be produced.

There is clear evidence in the paperwork already in the public domain that a special unit was set up in Government to undermine legitimate trade union activity and to paint left-wing political activity and parties as subversive, despite their legitimate right to agitate in a modern democracy. That was all being done behind closed doors and it would never have been exposed without the determination of those who still seek justice today.

These men went to jail as a direct result of the onslaught of the establishment over a prolonged period, which was clearly designed to deter the wider labour movement from using industrial action to pursue its legitimate claims. Des Warren was given a three-year jail sentence and Ricky Tomlinson a two-year sentence, and John McKinsie Jones—the man who was not even present at the so-called conspiracy meeting—went to jail for nine months. Other men received suspended jail sentences. At the second trial, three more pickets—Brian Williams, Arthur Murray and Mike Pierce—were given jail sentences. At this and the subsequent third trial, others were also given suspended jail sentences.

These men and those who have been campaigning for more than four decades contend that they went to jail and got criminal records as a direct result of direct political interference in this country’s political and judicial systems by very strong personalities who pressurised politicians, senior police and members of the judiciary to take part in a witch hunt and to send out a clear message of intent that people involved in industrial disputes would face exceedingly serious consequences.

Paid Directorships and Consultancies (MPs)

Debate between David Anderson and Jim Cunningham

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Anderson]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; I do not think the motion is wide enough. The motion says, “You’re a full-time MP and you’re nothing else.” Whether or not someone votes 30% of the time or 100% of the time, they should not be paid any more than the basic salary of an MP. That is what the people of this country want us to be: full-time Members of Parliament. They are sitting out there asking, “Why on earth do these people need to do more than they are doing already? Why should they be so different from us?” For at least the past five years, they have been asking, “Are these people on the same planet as us? Do they go to the same shops? Do they live in the same world?” They think that the answer to those questions is no, and unless we can convince them that we understand how they feel, they will not be interested in democracy. That is a long-term worry for the House. If we continue to be so unlike those people, they will become less and less likely to get off their backsides and vote for any of us, let alone those we are discussing today.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

The miners at Daw Mill lost their jobs recently. I wonder what they think about Members of Parliament having two jobs.

[Mr Anderson]

On Saturday I spoke to miners from Maltby colliery, which has closed in the last three months because of geological problems, and they were disgusted by the fact that Members of Parliament were making multi-millions of pounds. We are told that a Member once earned three quarters of a million pounds, and those miners are 35-year-old guys who face having no more work for the rest of their lives. They have dedicated themselves to an industry and worked hard for that industry, and now they find themselves ruined. What is happening to them is absolutely disastrous.

How can our constituents be confident that we are committed to them—to their issues, their problems and their concerns—when we are focusing on outside work? Is being an MP not an honour and privilege, and is an MP not worthy of respect? If not, why not? Should that not be the case? How can we expect people to believe that we care for them, that we understand them, that we feel for them, if at the same time we are checking our diaries to see whether we are late for our next board meeting or court appearance?

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between David Anderson and Jim Cunningham

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Anderson]

I am more than happy to follow that knowledge. If we want examples, let us look at Germany right across the board—at its employment legislation and practices, including on health and safety. It is a good example of an economy that is growing while having much tighter working rights and better regulation than this country does.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I was interested in what the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) said about Germany, but he forgot one thing—after the war, it was a Labour Government who, along with their allies, set up the German industrial and other structures.

[Mr Anderson]

That is absolutely right. We took the best of what we had in this country, and thankfully the Germans picked it up. It would be a good idea if we looked at what they did and brought it here.

To repeat, Adrian Beecroft talked about

“conversations with a sample of people, which is not statistically valid.”––[Official Report, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2012; c. 145, Q330.]

So there is no evidence base. It is a couple of guys talking in the pub, at a football match or out playing golf. It is two old guys sitting in deck chairs, saying, “Wouldn’t it be nice if we got rid of all this health and safety stuff and all these employment rights? Then everyone could make more money.”