6.
asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the procedures currently in operation in his Department for monitoring the extension of closed shop agreements in the public sector.
My Department does not monitor the establishment or operation of closed shop agreements in either the public or private sectors.
May we take it from the hon. Gentleman's reply that the Minister does not realise that 42 former employees of British Rail, some of them with more than 30 years' service, have been dismissed without compensation, solely because they refused to join a union? Will he take this opportunity of confirming that he agrees with what the Prime Minister said in the House on 4th April—namely that he would find it unacceptable that people should be dismissed from employment because of their political views, however objectionable those views might be?
I would not dream of dissenting from anything my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. The employees to whom the hon. Gentleman referred have not been dismissed for their political views, nor is the situation as simple and crude as he makes out. There are difficulties, and I hope that where union membership agreements are entered into they will be operated flexibly and tolerantly.
Will my hon. Friend accept that the Opposition's constant harping on this subject is another indication of their cynical opportunism in that although, on the one hand, they assert in the name of freedom the right of an individual to be employed in a closed shop, on the other hand they condemn those workers and ask for the trade unions to impose discipline on those who go on unofficial strike?
On the many occasions when we have discussed these matters relating to the closed shop, the House will have observed the Opposition's lack of concern about those who are denied the right to join a trade union and those who wish to exercise their functions as trade union members. I hope that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) will read the speech of Mr. David Basnett, who said that in pursuing the subject of the closed shop the Opposition are engaging in naked political opportunism.
Is the Minister aware that one very good reason for changing his staggeringly complacent attitude on this subject is the fact that the European Court of Human Rights has now agreed to hear what could be the tremendously historic case of Webster v. the United Kingdom on the grounds that a prima facie case has now been made out that the closed shop dismissals of British Rail employees, to which my hon. Friend referred, may be a violation of fundamental human rights and perhaps of the treaty which Her Majesty's Government have now signed? Will the Minister think again?
We are considering the implications of this narrow but complex matter. We are carefully studying the decision on the admissibility question, but so far the Court has not examined the merits of the issue. We must wait until we have seen the merits of the matter. Nobody has ever suggested that the Convention on Human Rights outlaws the closed shop in the way the Opposition sought to outlaw it in the Industrial Relations Act 1971, with such disastrous consequences.
In view of the gravely unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.
8.
asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many workers are currently covered by closed shop agreements.
Dr. W. McCarthy's study of "The Closed Shop in Britain", published in 1964, estimated that at that time about 3¾ million workers were covered by closed shop agreements. Reliable estimates are not available for subsequent years, but my Department has recently commissioned research which is designed in part to provide up-to-date information about the present extent of closed shop agreements.
Can the Minister confirm that in the negotiating arrangements for the closed shop with the Civil Service the Government are insisting on certain safeguards? Will the Government arrange for these safeguards to be put into a code of practice so that all employees, in both the public and the private sectors, can enjoy the same protection?
I tell the hon. Member and the House for the umpteenth time—at great public expense—that we believe that the matter of the closed shop and the precise form of the arrangements are matters for agreement and negotiation between the employer and the trade unions concerned. The Government are an employer, but it does not follow that the appropriate arrangements for a union membership agreement between the Government, as an employer, and their employees are of universal application. These arrangements are a matter for negotiation in the public sector, as in the private sector, and negotiations are currently continuing with the Lord Privy Seal and the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, who are responsible for the union arrangements in the Civil Service at present.
Did the figure of 3¾ million referred to in 1964 include lawyers, doctors and Church of England vicars?
I must confess that I am not familiar with the details in the professions to which my hon. Friend has referred.
Is the Minister aware that the continuous weasel words that he uses on this issue and his failure still to show how his supposed neutrality varies from that of Pontius Pilate destroy any claim that his Government have of being concerned about the individual rights of workers? Is he aware that the contribution by Mr. David Basnett at his union conference yesterday about the Conservative policy on this issue was a gross and grave misrepresentation? We are concerned about protecting the rights of individuals who are caught up in such agreements.
I think the House will feel that the role of a Roman governor is a most unlikely one for me. I try to handle this difficult and sensitive issue in an equally sensitive way, which contrasts with the crude approach of the Conservatives. They fail to face up to the inevitable consequences of the policy that they have openly declared of providing certain safeguards—a policy which must inevitably take them down the same road as had such disastrous consequences in 1972 and which produced the worst industrial relations record for any year since the General Strike. That is the road on which Conservatives want to embark yet again. Only fools fail to learn from their own experience.