§ 14. Mr. Brittanasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will 1105 review the composition of the panel set up by him from which lay members of industrial tribunals are chosen.
§ Mr. Harold WalkerNo, Sir. I am satisfied with the composition of the panel.
§ Mr. BrittanIn view of the vastly increased powers of industrial tribunals and the fact that many employees who apply to them are members of unions not affiliated to the TUC, what possible justification is there for the Government's continued insistence on appointing employee representatives to industrial tribunals solely from the ranks of TUC-affiliated unions?
§ Mr. WalkerIn making these appointments my right hon. Friend must work within the statutory framework laid down in 1971. The Secretary of State was then required by statute to consult with organisations representing employers and employees. The TUC speaks for 90 per cent. of the trade unionists in this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, the figure is 90 per cent. I do not know of any organisation that speaks for non-unionists.
§ Mr. AshtonWill my hon. Friend examine the composition of the tribunals dealing with equal pay? Is he satisfied that there are enough women sitting on the tribunals which consider equal pay for women?
§ Mr. WalkerNo, we are not satisfied with the number of women on the panel. We have made a special effort to increase the number, so as to have regard to the requirements of the equal pay legislation. At present, women form only 22 per cent. of the total. We should very much like to see the number increased.
§ Mr. HayhoeDoes the hon. Gentleman accept that the TUC unions represent 90 per cent. of the union representation? Is it not wholly wrong to exclude the other 10 per cent. by not accepting nominations? Would it not be reasonable to allow, for example, 10 per cent. of the places on the industrial tribunals coming from the workers' side to be nominated from other sources? Certainly the TUC should not have a monopoly.
§ Mr. WalkerI am sure that we have told the hon. Gentleman on previous occasions that we do not share that view.