asked the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he intends to take to extend employment and training opportunities for women.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that the MSC's training opportunities scheme will continue to provide a wide range of courses for all of which women are eligible equally with men. In addition the commission is currently sponsoring a number of training and research initiatives specifically designed to encourage the training and employment of women in fields in which comparatively few have hitherto been employed. These are at present on only a small scale but it is hoped they will be capable of wider application. A working party set up by the MSC has recently produced a report about ways in which its special programmes might be developed to meet the needs of women and girls, and the MSC will be following this up.

I thank the Minister for the last part of his answer. It is good news that the Government are taking on board the need to train women in new skills. However, is the Minister aware that a serious situation is developing where large numbers of women with jobs in service industries and in the public service—who are generally badly paid anyway—are losing work opportunities?

It is clear from my answer that the Government are conscious of the fact that women need to be trained for a wider range of opportunities than they have been in the past. It might please the hon. Lady to know that placings for women far exceed those for men, as do registrations on the register.

In view of the present high level of unemployment would it not be right to give preference to breadwinners—

Women often are breadwinners.

Would it not be better to give preference to breadwinners rather than to women as a class? May I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind the necessity for breadwinners to be employed, rather than that opportunities are given to married women and mothers to go out to work?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is difficult in this day and age to define who is a breadwinner. Clearly, many women are breadwinners in their own right, and for many families two wages are essential to meet their needs.

Does the Minister agree that a precondition for industrial revival is a well-trained work force? How many men and women will fail to be trained because of cuts in skillcentres, cuts in the MSC programme and cuts in the STEP and TOPS programmes? Are not those cuts a disadvantage to women, and certainly to men?

If the hon. Member reads the report of last night's debate he will see that most of our changes are designed to increase the effectiveness of training and to direct that training to where it is most necessary. The changes relating to skillcentres are designed to increase the overall number of places.

Why does not the hon. Gentleman come clean with the House and tell us what will be the real impact of the £170 million that has been cut from the training and employment measures provided by the MSC? Why does he not tell the House how severely women will be affected by the cut-back in the TOPS programme, from 99,000 trainees in 1978 to 60,000 next year? Why does he not tell the House what will be the impact on the training of women of the cutting of 20 skillcentres out of the skillcentres network? Is it not time that we had some decent, honest answers on these matters?

The right hon. Gentleman knows how many women are trained in skillcentres. I said last night that if 20 skillcentres were closed—and they are not to be closed—there would still be enough places in the remaining centres to accommodate all the trainees. There is a shortage of trainees in every region. That deals with skillcentres.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has held with the industrial training boards with a view to easing bureaucratic controls over their activities.

I have had discussions with the Manpower Services Commission and with ITB representatives to see whether the degree of control over the pay and other conditions of service of ITB staff could be reduced consistently with the statutory provision. I have recently written to the chairman of the MSC outlining our proposals.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that training boards have to deal with three separate bodies, namely, the training services division, the Department of Employment and the Civil Ser- vice Department? Is not the system rather cumbersome? Will he reconsider the rather similar statement that he made before Christmas about training board waste?

No, I do not want to reconsider what I said before Christmas. There are economics that may be made and should be made. I know that the way in which the boards have to seek permission before they can increase the salaries of individuals is an unsatisfactory statutory provision from the point of view of the management of ITBs. I am keen to put that right, and I believe that I have taken a good step in that direction. In the long run we should consider whether the ITBs should be responsible to industry, and perhaps be paid for by industry.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best thing to do with industrial training boards is to scrap them?

No, I do not agree. Some boards are doing extremely good work. It is right for us to wait for the report on the ITB system and on training generally. The report has been commissioned by the Manpower Services Commission, and it will be available in July. I hope that it will enable the House and the Government to make far-reaching decisions on how we are to train our people for the last 20 years of the century, which is a matter of supreme importance.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any specific proposals to assist unemployed young people living in rural areas to obtain training opportunities; and if he will make a statement.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that every effort is made to provide a full range of training opportunities for unemployed young people in rural areas under the youth opportunities programme. As my hon. Friend knows, I recently visited the South-West and I was impressed by the quality of youth opportunities programme provision which I saw there.

Does my hon. Friend realise that in rural areas transport to training centres may present genuine problems? Thus, the work experience and short-term employment schemes have been most valuable and should be retained. Will my hon. Friend be more experimental in his approach and consider the possibility of introducing mobile training centres in conjunction with existing school and similar facilities?

I thank my hon. Friend for his supplementary question. We shall always be prepared to consider suggestions for the better use of available resources. I accept that transport is always a difficulty in rural areas. My hon. Friend will know that the Manpower Services Commission has a flex-able range of methods to try to deal with difficulties, which vary from area to area, including the provision of minibuses and residential courses. Any suggestions for improving the service will be considered by the Government.

Is the Minister aware that the removal of transfer of employment grants creates especial difficulties in areas such as the one represented by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) and in my constituency, where the provision of minibuses does not solve the problems? Difficulties arise when it is necessary to move entirely out of one's area to find employment.

I shall consider the right hon. Gentleman's question and reply in due course.

Notwithstanding any statistics that the hon. Gentleman has quoted this afternoon or last night, does he accept that the cuts in the skillcentre programme that he has announced will disadvantage many young people who live in rural areas? Bearing in mind the Government acceptance of the continuing rise in unemployment, is not this the most lunatic cut of all?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, no decision has yet been made on the closure of skillcentres. Consideration will be given to that on 28 January by the Manpower Services Commission. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the basic design is to improve placings and to do away with the centres that are costing and not serving. The finished scheme will lead to an improvement in training and placing, and in more people passing through the skillcentre network.

Will my hon. Friend consider the employment potential of farms? Every farm could usefully employ at least one extra man if profitability were present.

Of course we shall consider employment prospects on farms. However, agriculture has been demanning over a considerable period. We hope that farms will provide a worthwhile form of employment for the younger generation that is coming along.

In view of the increased cost of travel in rural areas, and the danger of rural bus services disappearing completely, will the hon. Gentleman be especially sympathetic to the maintenance of courses at skillcentres and technical colleges for training young people in rural areas? If skillcentres are closed and technical college courses stopped, it will be almost impossible in many areas for young people to travel outside their catchment areas to attend technical colleges.

We have considerable sympathy with those who have to experience the problems of travel in rural areas. However, grants are available to those attending skillcentres to help to overcome the problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what changes he expects in the level of unemployment in 1980.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what changes he expects in the level of unemployment within the next 12 months.

The figures published by my Department today regrettably confirm an upward trend in the level of unemployment. There is no short-term answer to this problem. Our success in reducing the level of unemployment will depend on the ability of our industry to respond to changes in consumer demand at a time of rapid innovation and keen price competition.

In view of the latest deplorable figures, is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman stood up to the monetarist fanatics in the Cabinet, whose policies can so easily ensure that we return to the mass unemployment misery and deprivation of pre-war years?

The figures for January 1979 were no lower than those for January 1980. The hon. Gentleman will have to consider that, but that does not alter the fact that we all have a responsibility to do everything possible to avoid high unemployment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman attempt an assessment of the period required to reduce unemployment to an acceptable level? Does he recall that when the Labour Government were in office none of the reasons advanced at that time for the level of unemployment was acceptable to those who are now on the Government Benches, especially the Prime Minister? What is so different about the measures that the Government propose to reduce unemployment to an acceptable level, especially in view of today's figures and the fact that unemplayment has soared since the election of May 1979?

I presume from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he accepts that the measures taken by the Labour Government were not successful. The number of unemployed more than doubled during his Government's term of office. One of the problems that we face is that we start this world recession with a far higher level of unemployment than that in any other previous recession. If we produce goods at the right price, of the right quality and at the right time, we shall be able to stop importing other people's unemployment.

As the economy is projected to decline over the next year or so, is it not a fact that unemployment is bound to rise unless trade unions manage to display more responsibility and realism in their collective bargaining and a more constructive attitude towards technological innovation?

I think that unemployment is bound to increase. The more that managements and unions can hold wages to reasonable levels, the more chance we have of coming through the recession without severe damage. I appeal to both sides of industry to co-operate to achieve that.

There is agreement that we are facing a world problem, but will the right hon. Gentleman concede that the Government's policies—for example, the projected cuts in public expenditure—will aggravate the problem? Will he reconsider the decision to implement the cuts, in the interests of the unemployed and local authorities?

There is a world problem, and it will be a serious one for all advanced countries. After the IMF cuts were imposed by the Labour Government in 1976, unemployment started to decline. The prerequisite for reducing unemployment is a better balance between Government and private expenditure, which is now out of hand. That has resulted in higher interest rates. Indeed, higher interest rates are probably the most damaging factor in trying to create employment.

Does the Secretary of State agree that employment is a means to an end, rather than an end in itself? If that is so, is it not time that the Government started talking about full productivity rather than full employment'? When that has been achieved, ought we not to say that the labour force available is too large to work 40 hours a week until a man is 65 and a woman is 60? Ought we not to do something about reducing the size of the available labour force or the hours that it is required to work?

Once productivity is right and we are producing more efficiently, it will be correct to start talking in terms of a shorter working life and, perhaps, a shorter working week. The trouble with the British—and I am not saying this in a derogatory sense; it applies to everyone in the House—is that we are ambitious for the things that we wish to do, without actually getting the work done first.

Is my right hon. Friend in a position to make any estimate of the number of jobs that will be lost this year, or beyond, as a consequence of the pay norms of the previous Administration being substantially exceeded last winter?

Undoubtedly, the high level of earnings last winter has been a contributory factor in the rate of inflation this year. It is the high rate of inflation that is so damaging to employment prospects.

Will the right lion. Gentleman tell us how many jobs he has saved and how many jobs he has helped to create in the nine months that he has been Secretary of State for Employment?

No, Sir. Nor would I, as a Minister, be so conceited as to believe that that lay entirely within my power.

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has scrapped the Labour Government's job help schemes? Is it not true also that he has dismantled some of the training programmes? Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman started using his minority voice against some of the mad monetarist policies of his colleagues in the Cabinet?

; My reply to the great cry against monetarism is that when I speak to people outside the House I find that they believe that the sort of monetarist policies that we are following are not unlike those followed by the previous Labour Administration.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future work of the Clegg commission.

The Standing Commission on Pay Comparability has a number of outstanding references, and the Government are continuing to keep the commission's work under review.

My right hon. Friend has told the House that we all have an obligation to reduce unemployment where we can. Will he make a start by sending this ageing Marxist back to Warwick university to muddle the heads of students there? Surely the commission exists, was appointed, and can exist, for but one purpose, which is to add to unemployment and to inflation. Therefore, will he please terminate it as soon as possible?

I do not agree with my hon. Friend's remarks about Professor Clegg. We are keeping the commission under review. It has a number of unfinished tasks to perform, and the time to decide its future will be when it has completed them.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the evidence that the Government gave recently to the Clegg com- mission has placed the commission in an entirely new situation in that they have said that the commission ought not to take account of historical comparisons in determining levels of pay, and that the going rate for the pay round in question, or the economy in general, is no longer to be regarded by the commission as a proper method of determining levels of pay for the groups of workers being considered by it?

The Government have been right to give evidence to the commission. The hon. Gentleman's question bears out the difficulties of comparability exercises. If we are not careful we shall merely enter the circularity of comparing one set of figures with another set of figures created by the same people. We should be careful about the evidence given and the views expressed to the commission.

As there is no entirely scientific measure of what any differential should be, does my right hon. Friend agree that even under conditions of free collective bargaining it is useful to have some machinery, such as the Clegg commission, available when it is agreed by the parties to refer to it?

I do not think that there is any unanimity on the matter. It would be better, in a pragmatic way, to say that we had better see how we proceed.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the special temporary employment programme.

The special temporary employment programme is subject to annual review. The Government's proposals for 1980–81 will be announced before the end of the present financial year.

Is the Minister aware that in the special temporary employment programme the enterprise workshop scheme is the only part of that programme that can involve the creation of permanent jobs in viable enterprises or workers' co-operatives? Is he further aware that the Manpower Services Commission has decided that it wishes to scrap that part of the programme, for what I can only describe as bureaucratic reasons? In view of the support not only in the country but on both sides of the House for the enterprise workshop programme, will the hon. Gentleman use his power or influence with the MSC to ensure that that programme is not only saved, but expanded?

We have considered the matter carefully. The sad fact is that the enterprise workships—in spite of the good will held for them—have not performed well. Most of them have not proved their viability within two years. It is for that reason that the MSC has considered the whole programme. It feels that it is not the right agency to handle the scheme when we have already the Co-operative Development Agency, the Small Firms Advisory Service, the Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation and COSIRA, which are much closer to the form of enterprise workshop that we should all like to see succeed.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that because the STEP programme works in the special assisted areas and helps the long-term unemployed, the Government will continue to support it as actively as possible?

I ask my hon. Friend to await the outcome of the review. I am pleased to be able to tell him that, following the changes that have been made, we are reaching 70 per cent. of the target group, which is the long-term unemployed, and that is more than the 40 per cent. achieved by the previous Labour Administration.

Does the Minister recognise that it is important to make an announcement on the future of such programmes well before the beginning of the financial year? Is he aware that the temporary employment subsidy scheme, which is extremely important and affects textile areas, is due to end in March of this year? The textile and clothing workers are anxious that an announcement should be made within the next few days to continue the scheme.

I recognise that any period of waiting is always difficult. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the timetable is no different from that of the previous Administration. As soon as we can make an announcement, we shall.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further steps he intends to take to promote industrial harmony.

We shall continue to encourage management and unions to develop better communications and greater employee involvement within industry. We shall ensure through our Employment Bill that there is a fairly balanced framework of law within which these improvements can be achieved.

Does not greater employee involvement imply that employees would have the right to be consulted over matters that affect their livelihood? Does not my hon. and learned Friend think that in any democracy all employees should have the unfettered right to be consulted in a secret ballot on matters such as whether they should come out on strike? Will he see whether the steel workers in the private sector can be given that right at the earliest opportunity?

Secret ballots for important union decisions and elections are highly desirable and, indeed, are widely desired. As my hon. Friend knows, the Employment Bill makes provision for public funds to be made available to pay for that. I cannot hold out any prospect of an advanced implementation of that provision in the Bill.

Are not the Government deliberately setting a course for 2 million unemployed? Does not that carry with it the risk of grave social consequences? Do not the Minister and his right hon. Friend despair of the inflexible and aggressive policies of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Industry? Is not the steel industry a case in point?

The Government are not setting the deliberate course that has been suggested, nor do we accept the description of the policies that have been mentioned. Therefore, the rest of the question does not call for an answer.

With regard to industrial harmony, can my hon. and learned Friend quantify the harm that is being done to industry by secondary picketing in the steel strike? What action does he intend to take?

As everyone knows, there has been widespread secondary picketing during the course of this damaging strike. One has only to look at reports on television and in the press to see how effective a weapon secondary picketing is. That underlines the importance of the provision in the Employment Bill to restrict privileged picketing to the place at which the picket works.

Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that Government policies in general are creating industrial disharmony and creating a divisive society by making the very rich richer through massive tax handouts and the great mass of the population much poorer?

The taxation reforms, especially those in regard to income tax, were substantially voted for by those who work on the shop floors of industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further plans he has to increase employment in the Northern region.

By concentrating regional assistance more sharply on areas of greatest need, such as the industrialised parts of the Northern region, the Government aim to encourage firms to invest there. This will both create new jobs to replace those that are being lost in the region's traditional industries and will expand still further the region's industrial base.

Has the Minister seen the figures published today, which show that for every 100 men and women in the Northern region unemployed last month, 107 are unemployed this month? Can he explain how public expenditure cuts in a constituency such as mine will affect local employers, who employ the vast majority of people in the area? Can he also explain how the great betrayal of the siting of INMOS in a non-development area will help anyone?

The question about INMOS is one for the Department of Industry. We regret the increase in unemployment as much as the hon. Gentleman does. As to the reduction in public expenditure, I must point out that in January 344,000 people were being helped by the special measures, as opposed to 255,000 a year ago.

Before my hon. Friend considers the difference in employment in the Northern region this month as against last month, will he bear in mind that unemployment in the Northern region was exactly doubled in the four years during which the Labour Party was in office?

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am very conscious of that fact. What we must do during our period of office is create new jobs and reduce unemployment. The policies that we are applying, which will provide a better balance between public and private expenditure and create an expansion of real jobs, thus providing goods and services that people need, are the only real hope for the Northern region.

Did not the hon. Gentleman learn anything from yesterday's debate? Does he not recall being told that such things as the very high minimum lending rate stop small businesses from expanding? Does he not appreciate that all the measures which the Government are applying as so-called "shock medicine" provide no cushion at all for areas such as the North-East? Does he not appreciate that the Government's policies are driving the Northern region into a position where ordinary working people will rebel against what is happening to them?

I visit the Northern region, and intend to do so frequently, and I have seen no signs of rebellion. The minimum lending rate has been brought about because of the debt that we inherited from the previous Administration.

In view of the serious unemployment figures announced today, does the Minister accept that the Northern region and other regions could be better helped by better use of EEC money? In that regard, has he seen reports that Commissioner Vredeling said in Strasbourg that the British Government have not approached the Commission for available EEC funds to deal with steel industry redundancies, and, far worse than that, that the Government have rejected £70 million that was specifically earmarked for that purpose? If that is so, is not that wanton irresponsibility on the part of the Government? Why have we not had a statement to the House explaining the situation?

My information is that those facts are not correct, but I shall be happy to check them. I am assured that my Department makes ample use of EEC funds and that it makes every possible claim that is available to it on the European social fund.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement about the Government's intentions regarding the quota system for employing disabled people.

The Manpower Services Commission is currently reviewing the quota scheme and will be making recommendations to Ministers later this year. In the meantime, I am encouraged by the interest shown in the "Fit for Work" campaign. I recognise that the employment prospects of disabled people is a matter of great concern to this House, and this concern I fully share.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, with growing unemployment, this category of person is even more affected than the ordinary worker who has all his faculties? If the 3 per cent. quota scheme is not working in its present form, we urge the Government to introduce a viable alternative quickly.

As I have said, we are awaiting the review of the quota system which the MSC is carrying out. The real problem is that many disabled people do not register and are taken into employment. That sometimes gives the impression that the 3 per cent. figure is not working, whereas we believe that on the whole it is. This is a serious problem, and it will undoubtedly become more serious if unemployment rises.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the reasons why the present quota system is not working is that the 3 per cent. target is set too high? Will he consider reducing it to 2 per cent. and strictly enforcing it to ensure that all employers contribute to the employment of disabled people?

I think that we must wait for the report. I suspect that the House will then wish to debate the matter. We must recognise that the quota is now probably not the best or most satisfactory way of ensuring that the disabled are employed.

Although it is true that many disabled people do not register, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is the worst possible time to drop legal safeguards for disabled workers, because the rate of unemployment is very high? The quota system should be implemented and strengthened by the imposition of a levy on those bad employers who never have responded, and never will respond, to the "Fit for Work" campaign.

I shall, of course, bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman said. I recognise that there are a number of bad employers in this respect. However, many other good employers employ well over the 3 per cent. figure, although not all those employed are necessarily disabled people. Therefore, I think that we must wait for the review.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government have cut contracts for some of the items produced in workshops for the disabled, notably the Birmingham workshop for the blind? This is having a serious effect on work for the disabled in the area. Will he look into the matter?

If my hon. Friend will send me details of that case, I shall, of course, have it looked into.

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the previous Government introduced a number of measures to try to maintain and improve the position of disabled people seeking employment? We assure him that if he continues those measures, or improves upon them, he will have the support of the Opposition. However, I also assure him that he will incur our bitter resentment if changes to the quota system, which we recognise needs review, which are nothing other than a cover for further public expenditure cuts at the expense of disabled people.

With regard to the last point, I am seeking to protect the disabled in every way I can from any cuts in public expenditure. I may not be able to do so entirely, and I if I cannot I shall tell the House where I am not able to do so. As to the hon. Gentleman's other point, the House has always adopted a bi-partisan approach to problems of disablement, and I hope that we can continue that.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on employment prospects in the North-West region of England.

Future levels of employment depend upon a number of factors which we cannot predict with any degree of certainty. The Government's policies, however, are aimed at creating the economic conditions in which employers will be encouraged to invest in industrial and commercial enterprise thereby creating new jobs. The success of our policy depends upon the cooperation of both sides of industry, and not least upon the matching of pay increases with higher productivity.

Is it is not time that the Minister stopped giving rubbish answers such as that to the House? Is not the real answer that employment prospects in the North-West are the same as those in every other region which has had its regional assistance slashed by this Right-wing, monetarist Government? Are not the employment prospects in the North-West appalling?

The hon. Gentleman knows that suggestions for changes in regional aid have yet to take place, so they can hardly be seen to have had any effect yet. Clearly the policies of the previous Government were no help to the North-West region. As the hon. Gentleman knows, unemployment increased by 106 per cent. in the North-West region.

In view of the serious situation facing the textile industry and its effect on employment in the North-West, will my hon. Friend consider urging his ministerial colleagues to press Signor Giolitti, the Regional Commissioner for the regional fund in the European Parliament, to include textiles in the second tranche of the non-quota section of the regional fund, which he is now considering and which Ministers will then have to sanction?

I am delighted to take my hon. Friend's advice.

Is the Minister aware that if we are to get back to full employment one of the investments that will be needed will be in the training of skilled workers? Why is the Minister preventing that by cutting down on the training of apprentices and the retraining of people changing their jobs in the North-West?

The number entering apprenticeship training has not changed. The hon. Gentleman referred to skill-centres. The problem in the North-West is that there are far more places at skill-centres than there are people to fill them.

the Secretary of State for Employment, in view of the House of Lords' judgment in Express Newspapers Limited versus McShane and Another, whether he intends to bring forward any additional proposals for the law on blacking.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on his proposed response to the judgment in Express Newspapers Limited versus McShane on trade union immunities.

The judgment has interpreted the Labour Government's legislation in a way which, when in opposition, my right hon. Friend foresaw and warned against.

In view of my hon. and learned Friend's reply and the fact that the House of Lords rejected the Court of Appeal's concept of remoteness in connection with blacking, will he take advantage of the Employment Bill now before Parliament to introduce a suitable amendment to ensure that there is some limit on how far from the point of dispute blacking can be carried?

It is clear that there is a need to restrict the now very wide interpretation of immunity that derives from the recent judgment. The route to that objective which my hon. Friend has suggested—I know that he takes great interest in these matters—is one of the routes that we are considering.

As the test of what constitutes action in the furtherance of a trade dispute was clearly intended to be subjective in the Trade Disputes Act 1906, the Act of 1976 and in the recent House of Lords' judgment, why cannot the Minister leave it as it is?

There is more than one means by which it is open to the Government, in the interests of employees as well as employers who may be remote from the origination of the dispute, to restrict that immunity. We are looking at all available routes and will be consulting shortly.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the main reason for the effectiveness of secondary action is that few men who come from a closed shop are prepared to break blacking or cross a picket line when they know that by so doing they risk losing their job? Does he also agree that until the Government are prepared to bite on the bullet and say that the closed shop will be illegal no effective action will be taken against any form of secondary picketing or blacking?

My hon. Friend is right to point to the significance of the closed shop in the effectiveness of secondary picketing. However, I do not agree that it would be practical or wise to make the closed shop illegal. There is great significance in the proposal contained in the Employment Bill, which will give the right of appeal to an independent tribunal to anybody who considers that he has been unreasonably expelled from his union because of a closed shop.