Job Losses

HC Deb 15 December 1981 vol 15 cc143-4

10. Mr. Leighton

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate how many jobs have been lost since May 1979 by (a) the operation of the closed shop, (b) victimisation for trade union activity and (c) the rise in unemployment due to the recession.

Mr. Waddington

It is not possible to quantify or distinguish the effects of the various factors cited in terms of their contribution to the current level of unemployment. Quite apart from those who have been directly driven out of their jobs because of the closed shop, I have little doubt that the closed shop has had an adverse effect on employment, being one of the weapons used to maintain restrictive practices and to force strike action on a reluctant work force.

Mr. Leighton

Does the Under-Secretary accept that that is one of the weakest replies that we have heard in the House for many a long day? Will he confirm that under the 1980 Act there has been only one case of a worker appealing to a tribunal against unfair dismissal due to the closed shop—I refer to Mr. Lowrey, who lost his case—whereas there have been many cases of selective redundancies of active trade unionists? Does he further accept that it does not lie in the mouth of the Government to accuse the closed shop of jeopardising the right to work when they, through their policies, have denied the right to work to millions of people?

Mr. Waddington

Many people feel that there is not much point in appealing to a tribunal for a remedy that is not available. Until the 1980 Act, because of the grossly anti-libertarian Act of Parliament passed by the Labour Government, there was no point in appealing to an industrial tribunal for a remedy. In view of the decision of the European Court, are Opposition Members now prepared to come to the House in sackcloth and ashes to apologise for that disgraceful piece of legislation?

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that many more jobs will be lost if trade unions, supported by Opposition Members, continue to press for higher and higher wages?

Mr. Waddington

My hon. Friend is right. That is one reason for unemployment. Another reason is the restrictive practices, which are one result of the closed shop.

Mr. Harold Walker

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the Solicitor-General argued powerfully before the European Court that the law relating to the closed shop was adequate and that no changes were necessary?

Mr. Waddington

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Solicitor-General argued that the 1976 law did not contravene the European Convention of Human Rights, but that it was the view of the Government and all right-thinking people that it was a disgraceful measure, and that was why the Government repealed it.

Mr. Ioan Evans

Will the Under-Secretary of State take this opportunity to condemn employers who sack employees because of their trade union activities?

Mr. Waddington

I thought that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had already made it plain that the Government are determined to be even-handed. That is why the enhanced compensation that we intend to make available to the victims of the closed shop will be made available to those dismissed for trade union activities.