§ 11. Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give a progress report on the cases of the three ex-British Railways employees currently before the European Commission of Human Rights.
§ Mr. MayhewThese unfortunate men claim that as a result of the Labour Government's trade union legislation and their consequent dismissal by British Rail the United Kingdom has failed to secure them the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. We vigorously opposed that legislation, and propose to correct it. The new Government on 9 July, by the Solicitor-General, made submissions on their legal responsibility for British Rail, and on the legal interpretation of the convention. They expressly abandoned one of the submissions of their predecessors, that the legislation was necessary, and stated that their own policy towards the closed shop would ensure that the circumstances of the claimants would not arise in future. The commission's pro- 220 cedure is now to seek in confidence a friendly settlement.
§ Mr. ChapmanI am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply, but does he agree, notwithstanding a decision by the European Commission of Human Rights, that this case and others underline the need as a matter of urgency to amend the law relating to the closed shop, and that to do so is merely to restore the basic right of individuals? Does he agree that there is no way in which that can be taken by any fair-minded person as an attack on the unions?
§ Mr. MayhewI agree with my hon. Friend. These cases reveal the great injustice that results when people can be sacked without compensation solely because they have declined to join a union after the introduction of a new closed shop agreement. We shall put that right.
§ Mr. FlanneryWhy do the Conservative Government always attack the trade unions in legislation when they come to power and defend those who are unwilling to pay for being in a union but want a free ride and accept the wages that a union negotiates for them? The Government want to give freedom to people who are not in unions while denying it to those who are.
§ Mr. MayhewMany millions of trade union members voted for the proposals which the Government publicised in their working paper. They recognise that it is far better that members of trade unions should be voluntarily recruited and that there should be proper safeguards for the rights of those who do not want to join a closed shop.
§ Mr. Harold WalkerIs the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the law as it stands is, as it has been for many years, neutral on the question of the closed shop? Is he further aware that, when this case was referred to Strasbourg, Ministers in the previous Government gave no advice or direction, and did not seek to influence those who would be dealing with the Government's case at Strasbourg? Those people were left to deal with the matter on strictly legal and judicial principles. Does the Minister realise that his departure from that, in that Ministers are now giving guidance and seeking to influence those engaged in the judicial process, is a 221 gross departure from the precedents in this matter?
§ Mr. MayhewI entirely reject that argument. The advice that the right hon. Gentleman's Government did or did not give is a matter for him and is no part of our responsibility. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General attended at Strasbourg on 9 July in his capacity as a law officer to make representations, among other things, as to the legal interpretation of article 11 of the convention on behalf of the United Kingdom, and to indicate that the attitude of the new Government towards the closed shop was markedly different from that of their predecessors.