HC Deb 25 April 1978 vol 948 cc1164-6
9. Mr. Ron Thomas

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in regard to the setting up of effective collective bargaining machinery covering members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces.

Mr. Mulley

The current debate on this issue began last November. Since then, apart from parliamentary representations, I have received resolutions from two constituency parties of the Labour Party and I have seen a delegation from the Asociation of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs. I have also received 10 letters from members of the public which offered comments on the subject of corporate representation for the Armed Forces, but none of these was in favour of the idea.

Mr. Thomas

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body has a paternalistic attitude which we in the Labour Party should not accept? Does he agree that the sooner we have effective trade union organisation and effective collective bargaining machinery to deal with wages and conditions of members of the Armed Forces, the better?

Mr. Mulley

I do not accept that the Review Body is a paternalistic institution. It has very clear terms of reference. Its job is to compare Armed Forces pay with that in comparable civilian occupations, plus the X factor. It does this with great competence. We are indebted to the distinguished body of people who serve the Armed Forces and the nation in this way.

The problem of Armed Forces pay, like that of many other pay sectors, has not been caused by any lack of representations on behalf of the forces by myself or the chiefs. They have been caused entirely, and, in my view, rightly, by the operations of the pay policy.

Mr. David Walder

Is the Secretary of State aware that in the Services the view is not, as it is among trade unionists in the House, that a trade union is the solution to all man's ills, from dandruff to sleeping sickness?

Mr. Mulley

In the representations that I have received I have heard nothing about dandruff or sleeping sickness.

Mr. Litterick

Does my right hon. Friend agree that at least in principle the denial of the rights of trade union organisation to members of the Armed Forces is a denial of their maturity, sophistication and responsibility as citizens? Does he agree that to place them at a disadvantage with, for instance, those unfortunate people who work for the Grunwicks of this world is a gratuitous insult?

Mr. Mulley

I do not accept that view. I endorse the view expressed by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder). From my experience and inquiries I find that the great majority of members of the Armed Forces do not believe that their position would be improved if they belonged to trade unions. Some of my hon. Friends might think that that view is misguided.

Mr. Goodhew

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Armed Forces certainly do not want trade unions? What they want is Ministers who will support them and who are effective in so doing. Is he further aware that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends will be judged on their effectiveness by the statement to be made this afternoon?

Mr. Mulley

I am too modest to comment on the latter part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. I accept his general view. In my view, most members of the Armed Forces do not feel that their position would be enhanced if they belonged to trade unions.