Oral Answers to Questions — Ministry of Labour – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 12 April 1965.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the practice of making trade union membership a condition of entry into unskilled or semi-skilled employment.
The position is that this is a matter for decision by the employer concerned.
Would not the right hon. Gentleman go further, and say that he regards it as undesirable that a closed shop should be operated in any undertaking? Will he be a little forthcoming—and not rest behind any alleged, and non-existent, restrictive practices in the law—and say that he regards it as highly regrettable that the Co-operative movement should operate a closed shop in many of its aspects?
The hon. Gentleman and I seem to have been discussing this subject for the last 12 years, but it has been for only three weeks. Nevertheless, we have had all this before. It is a great pity that when the hon. Gentleman reflects on industrial matters he does not read the documents produced by his own Central Office. I read with great interest last night—I wish that I had discovered it a fortnight ago—a document issued by the Conservative Central Office, which said:
In these matters of industrial relations their review of unofficial strikes serves to emphasise that the problem of industrial relations is not one which can be settled by Acts of Parliament or dictatorial intervention by Ministers but is essentially a human problem.
That is what the Conservative Central Office said.
Will the Minister bear in mind that I was not inviting him to make any dictatorial intervention? We do not seek to encourage the Front Bench opposite to do that, but to stop it. I was asking him to make a persuasive intervention, in the interests of personal freedom, with his hon. Friends who represent the Co-operative movement in this House.
Whatever persuasive efforts I might make or have made are always blurred by what the hon. Member has to say about them.
Is my right hon. Friend aware, that, although these practices may take place in connection with entry into skilled and semi-skilled employment, for hon. and right hon. Members opposite to talk about conditions of entry when their benches represent professions which allow no one else to practise in any circumstance at all, anywhere, is an impertinence?