Secondary Action

Part of Orders of the Day — Employment Bill – in the House of Commons at 4:15 pm on 17 April 1980.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr James Prior Mr James Prior , Lowestoft 4:15, 17 April 1980

The hon. Gentleman is not right in what he has said as to the effect of the new clause. The consultative document we published was criticised in a number of directions but chiefly because it left the judges so much in the driving seat. That was a common complaint chiefly because it incorporated the tests of extraneous motive and reasonable capability, and also because of the use of the word "substantial".

I believe that the new clause provides a clearer and more effective way of protecting innocent third parties than limiting secondary action to employees of a firm conducting a substantial part of the business, which is what the consultative document said. "Substantial" would have posed very difficult problems of definition and might well have penalised in particular the small firm which could be doing a substantial part of its business with a bigger firm which was engaged in the primary dispute. Therefore, I think it would have penalised the small firm. As for the tests of capability and motive, these are now incorporated in the new clause in a way that we think is simpler and more precise.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman's detailed question, may I say that the clause makes it perfectly plain that the action taken at a first customer or first supplier has to be principally directed towards the primary dispute, and, if it is not but is aimed at other people, whether they be sub-suppliers or other customers of the firm where the secondary action is being taken, it will not have immunity. So it has to be proved that it is principally directed towards the original dispute. That is some tightening up on what we said in the consultative paper.

What we need if we are to achieve success in creating stability is nothing less than a change in behaviour, a movement away from bad practices and everything that encourages them. In Disraeli's phrase, It is not so much to the action of laws as to the influence of manners that we must look. It is not possible to change habits just by changing the law, and nowhere is that more apparent than in industrial relations.