Workers' Representation (Hansard, 7 February 1995)

§ 6. Mr. Miller
To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next expects to meet representatives of the Trades Union Congress to discuss representation of workers.

§ Mr. Oppenheim
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular contact with the TUC to discuss a range of issues.

§ Mr. Miller
When the Minister met representatives of my union—Manufacturing Science Finance, or MSF—just before Christmas, he gave no comfort to the workers at G.S. Scott who were dismissed following attempts to gain union recognition when the vast majority of workers in that small company wanted that recognition. Is that not yet another example of the Government attempting to protect the interests of the privileged? Does the Minister accept that in this day and age if the majority of workers want union recognition it should be given by the employer?

§ Mr. Oppenheim
There is a fundamental difference between the right to belong to a trade union and the right not to be discriminated against for belonging to a trade union. There is redress—[Interruption.] The union should have advised its members to go to an industrial tribunal, where they would gained some redress legally. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should address his question to the union leader who failed to give that advice, because redress is available.
There is a difference between the right to belong to a trade union and politicians telling employers that they should deal with unions rather than dealing directly with employees, which they prefer to do. That voluntarist approach of allowing employers to make the choice does not seem to be causing any problems with the Opposition spokeswoman, as she has just sent her child to a school which has refused to recognise a trade union.

§ Madam Speaker
Order. Sit down. That is a total abuse of Question Time. I have asked not only for questions and answers to be brief, but that they should be to the point and deal with the substantive question on the Order Paper.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
On a point of order, Madam Speaker—

§ Madam Speaker
There is no point of order.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
The record should be corrected. What the Minister said is not true.

§ Madam Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I have dealt with the matter and reprimanded the Minister, as well as Back Benchers who take a long time to ask their questions. It is absolutely essential that Ministers should answer the questions that are on the Order Paper or are asked as supplementaries and not to try to sidestep those questions by introducing irrelevant material.

§ Mr. Knapman
When my hon. Friend meets the TUC, will he mention the subject of Mercedes-Benz, which may well wish to move its manufacturing plants to this country 131 because of the high cost of the social chapter? Given that the TUC seems to believe in the social chapter, is it perhaps left in something of a dilemma?

§ Mr. Oppenheim
rose—

Hon. Members
Resign.

§ Madam Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Oppenheim
It is not only Mercedes; Sabena also wants to move workers out of Belgium because of the high levels of labour regulation. The sooner that our partners in the European Union realise that the more one adds to employers' costs, the more one will cost employees their jobs, the better the job prospects of people in Europe will be.