HC Deb 09 April 1968 vol 762 cc1070-3
Q2. Mr. Ridley

asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister of State at the Ministry of Labour to help deal with the legislation arising out of the Royal Commission on Trades Unions and Employers' Associations.

The Prime Minister

I have no such appointment in mind, Sir.

Mr. Ridley

Does not that Answer confirm what the Prime Minister has always thought—that a Royal Commission takes minutes to appoint and years to report? Will he do anything about the Report when he gets it?

The Prime Minister

The hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall the words of the Gracious Speech on this question. Of course we are anxiously awaiting the Report of the Royal Commission, which, I hope, should be ready fairly soon, and we shall then announce our conclusions to the House.

Mr. Raphael Tuck

Can my right hon. Friend advance any reason why the Opposition have put forward their own proposals for trade unions before they have even had an opportunity to read the Report?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir—but I thought I saw the Leader of the Opposition trying to get up. Perhaps he will tell us.

Mr. Heath

I speedily make it clear that I am asking the Prime Minister about the new arrangements concerning the Ministry of Labour. I understand from the Press that it is to be streamlined. In which respects are the functions of the Ministry to be changed and how will this be done? In particular, is the new Secretary of State to retain the statutory duties of conciliation which the Minister of Labour has at present? How is this to work when responsibility for prices and incomes policy is also to be placed upon her? Surely it is this which will cause conflict?

The Prime Minister

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity will continue to have all the existing duties, statutory and otherwise, exercised by the Minister of Labour. So far as the changes at the Ministry are concerned, she will now have overall responsibility for the prices and incomes policy, which was previously, of course, in the Department of Economic Affairs. The right hon. Gentleman fears a conflict of duties. This is not involved in the new arrangements because, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, when he was at the Ministry of Labour, dealt on an individual basis with the principal wage claims. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will continue to do that but will also have general co-odinating resonsibility for the policy as set out in the White Paper.

Mr. Heffer

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his right hon. Friend may well be in a position of having to conciliate in disputes that have come about as a result of the prices and incomes policy?

The Prime Minister

That is a problem that we have had over many years—[Interruption.]—and only those who do not take seriously economic problems and getting a satisfactory prices and incomes policy laugh at that particular remark. I do not think that any hon. Gentleman opposite would have wished us to have yielded to excessive demands in the case of the seamen's strike. We had a very difficult choice. Had we done so it would have cast great doubts on our resolve in the matter of prices and incomes. We had a very costly strike. This is a continuing dilemma for any Government that believes in a prices and incomes policy.

Mr. Heath

The Prime Minister has not answered the question. In the past there have been many cases where Ministers responsible for nationalised industries have been following an incomes policy which has caused conflict, and the Minister of Labour has then been brought in in order to resolve this. This will no longer, be possible, because the same Minister is the cause of the conflict and also has a statutory duty to conciliate. Can the Prime Minister also say in which respects the Ministry of Labour is to be streamlined?

The Prime Minister

The question of conflict has always been the same. I remember the former Government's prices and incomes policy collapsing because of an extraordinary award in the electricity industry. That was given as a result of conciliation. One remembers also the dilemma they had in 1964 on the Post Office. As to the streamlining, by linking together the responsibility for the, general policy and prices and incomes and its implementation, this will cut out a considerable degree of duplication.