§ 3.19 p.m.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will extend conscientious objection within closed shops, now limited to religious grounds, to wider grounds as recognised in the Military Service Acts of the Second World War, provided that the objector contributes to a humanitarian cause the amount his fellow workers contribute to a trade union.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, is the Minister aware that I believe in the closed shop as the best means of industrial 1266 negotiations, but that I also believe in freedom of conscience? Is this not the first time that conscience has been limited to religious belief? I am a humanist, but I hope I have a conscience. Does not the requirement to pay a sum equivalent to a trade union subscription to a charity remove the danger of mere escapism?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANYMy Lords, I respect, as indeed does every Member of your Lordships' House, the views of my noble friend Lord Brockway. As the House will know, in the recent joint statement of the Government and the TUC unions are advised to bear firmly in mind that the closed shop need not be a rigid arrangement. Arrangements should provide for conscientious objectors and can provide for certain categories of workers to be excluded from closed shop provisions. Indeed, I should like to add that the question of paying a sum to charity could be within the terms of such an agreement.
§ Lord ROCHESTERMy Lords, will the noble Lord accept that many of us very much welcome the fact that, in the guidance given in the recent statement by the TUC and the Government, the reasons for the exclusion of conscientious objectors from the closed shop provisions are not confined to religious grounds, and their exclusion is not made conditional on contributions being made to charities? Is he further aware that we welcome, in particular, the prospect thus opened up of a measure of all-party agreement at last on this vexed question?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANYMy Lords, the question of conscientious objection is rather difficult to define but I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is quite easy to define religious views. The noble Lord is suggesting that there should be some sort of regulation or classification. That is not easy to define. But, under the agreement between the TUC and the Government, it is possible for cases to be dealt with during the negotiation of the agreement. The Government take the view that other grounds could be considered, but it is impossible to specify them.
§ Lord CARR of HADLEYMy Lords, while I admit that there are difficulties about defining conscientious belief, since 1267 it was possible to overcome those difficulties and to provide protection for all conscientious objectors from having to do National Service against their conscience in time of war, are the Government saying that it is both impossible and not right to do the same as regards a man's or woman's employment in time of peace?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANYMy Lords, with all due respect to the noble Lord, there is a big difference between war and peace.
§ Lord CARR of HADLEYMy Lords, there should be more freedom in time of peace.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANYMy Lords, there is a big difference between war and peace because it must be remembered that the decision to allow for conscientious objection to military service was made as part of the decision to make such service compulsory by law. Anyone who failed to convince the tribunals specially established for the purpose of determining the genuineness of the conscientious objector, was liable to a prison sentence. Therefore, the two situations are very different. I am sure that all noble Lords will recognise that all the moral, humanitarian and political considerations which may apply to refusing to fight in the war, are not appropriate for a decision on whether or not to join a union or, indeed, any particular firm.
§ Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORDMy Lords, is not the problem that there is a certain fall-out from the closed shop position whereby, if a union is not prepared to accept the advice of the TUC code, the individual member of the union who does not wish to accept the union line may be victimised by losing his union membership and thereby losing his job? Is not that the serious matter to which noble Lords opposite have not yet addressed their minds?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANYMy Lords, first, negotiations are not one-sided: they are between management and unions, and some managements would prefer to deal with a closed shop. As regards an individual faced with the situation of possibly losing his job or his 1268 union membership, there are avenues for him to appeal. He may do so via the TUC's Special Committee which has been set up, and also every individual has his legal rights of appeal.
§ Lord KINNAIRDMy Lords, will the noble Lord tell us why the Government are so frightened of dealing with this closed shop situation?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANYMy Lords, the Government are not frightened, but they are very conscious of the complexity and difficulty of such a situation. It is far better to deal with the matter with a proper negotiating attitude than to rush in like a lot of bald-headed bulls in a china shop.
§ Lord KINNAIRDMy Lords, is the noble Lord calling me a bald-headed bull?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANYMy Lords, on the contrary; I think I myself have less hair than the noble Lord.
§ Lord BLEASEMy Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that, in practice, there is a considerable amount of flexibility at negotiating level between management and trade unions in connection with this matter, and that all genuine cases are dealt with on a fair and equitable basis?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANYMy Lords, there are many cases of genuine agreements where flexibility is enjoyed. It is unfortunate that only as regards the rigid cases is there a great deal of publicity. The general feeling is that reason is prevailing and it is the Government's hope, and I trust the hope of all of us, that under the new arrangements there will be even greater consideration than in the past.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, while I accept the Minister's statement of difference between military service and the closed shop, does not the character of conscience remain the same in both cases? Is he aware that I defended many men as conscientious objectors and gained exemption for them on political grounds? Conscience can be a matter of politics just as much as it can be of religion.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANYMy Lords, I respect my noble friend's record in this matter, but I must once again say that it is a very difficult matter and we cannot draw a comparison between war situations and peaceful situations. They are not the same. There is a right of conscience. However, I would add that although we talk about conscientious objection to joining a union, there are many people who would willingly take an increase fought for by a union but who would not be prepared to face the responsibility of union membership.
§ Lord CARR of HADLEYMy Lords, I should like to press the noble Lord a little further. If he accepts his noble friend's point that political belief as well as religious belief can be a matter of conscience, is he not aware—I am sure that he must be—that some unions, although not all, have among their objectives open support for one political party? If one does not happen to believe in that political party it really is a matter of conscience not to be forced, in order to earn one's living, to join a union committed to the support of a party one is opposing.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANYMy Lords, the noble Lord has, of course, heard of contracting-out and he is also aware of the fact that another political party receives massive financial support from management.
§ Lord CARR of HADLEYThat, my Lords, is not the point.
§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart)My Lords, I have the feeling that noble Lords would like to progress because we have two Statements to deal with.