§ 13. Mr. JanmanTo ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to alter the power of the courts to sequestrate the assets of trade unions.
§ Mr. ForthNone. Sequestration is a penalty which courts may impose where an organisation or individual commits contempt of court. It is an essential ingredient in the range of measures which may be needed to discourage such contempt.
§ Mr. JanmanDoes my hon. Friend agree that the ability of employers to take out injunctions to prevent unofficial strike action and the ability of the courts to sequester the funds of unions that ignore such injunctions can act as a very firm and much-needed last line of defence against industrial anarchy? Does he agree that it would be an act of the most amazing folly to tamper with the provisions that currently apply, and yet that is exactly what the Opposition are committed to doing if they win the general election?
§ Mr. ForthMy hon. Friend has made a very important point, which I suspect will become more important as we approach the coming election. It is quite clear that this power available to the courts is essential to deal with contempt of court when it emerges as a result of abuse of trade union power or trade union positions. For any political party that makes any pretence of seeking the government of this country to want to remove from the courts the sanction that my hon. Friend has described as so essential is utterly irresponsible. It gives the lie to the real relationship that exists between the Labour party and the trade unions, and that will not go unnoticed. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I ask hon. Members to give a fair hearing to the last few questions.