§ Q4. Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at Prescot on 14th March regarding industrial relations.
§ The Prime MinisterAs the hon. Gentleman will be aware from my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) on 24th March, I have already done so. Sir.—[Vol. 780. c. 223.]
§ Mr. Bruce-GardyneI am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. In a characteristic phrase the Prime Minister said that the Government meant business with their White Paper, "In Place of Strife". Can the right hon. Gentleman now say when they mean business, and whether the White Paper is still regarded as a basis for discussion, or should that question be addressed to the Home Secretary?
§ The Prime MinisterThe White Paper is a statement of policy. The Government's decision on this matter, which has been taken, will be announced to the House in the appropriate way and at the appropriate time.
§ The Prime MinisterHon. Gentlemen opposite will not have too long to wait.
§ Mr. Ashleyis my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Gentlemen opposite are less concerned with reforming the trade unions than with crippling them, and that their hostility has seriously damaged the prospects of improving industrial relations? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that despite the difficulties created by hon. Gentlemen opposite and by some of my sincere but misguided hon. Friends, the Government will as soon as possible implement the proposals in the White Paper?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that unwittingly my hon. Friend was a little unfair to Her Majesty's Opposition in this matter. I do not think that they are really as vicious as all that. I think that perhaps what they are responsible for is the fact that they did nothing to deal with the problem of strikes, and the then Minister of Labour, now the Leader of the Opposition, by refusing to set up a Royal Commission when pressed by his back benchers to do so, has held up the matter for several years.
§ Mr. ThorpeWould the Prime Minister be surprised to know that, although the House is grateful to him for placing a copy of his speech in the Library, the courtesy of Transport House is such that copies of his speech are readily available to those who, like myself, have asked for copies for the sake of greater accuracy?
In view of the fact that the opposition to the contents of that speech has forced the Prime Minister, very rightly, to give a lecture to his colleagues on the doctrine of collective responsibility, may I ask whether he is satisfied that another important doctrine, namely, that of Cabinet secrecy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long.")—which is equally important, has been maintained in this case?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that it would not be inappropriate to respond to the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman—and it would not be too far out of order—by expressing the congratulations of the House to the right hon. Gentleman on another event which is not covered in the White Paper, but which might be covered in this supplementary.
With regard to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, if the Cabinet in any situation decides that 987 there shall be publicity for any matter which has heretofore been secret, there is no breach of the principle of secrecy.
§ Mr. DickensWill my right hon. Friend make it plain whether the Government have taken a decision to introduce in the present Session of Parliament a Bill giving us the so-called penal clauses outlined in the White Paper "In Place of Strife"? If they have, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that he will meet the most widespread opposition on this side of the House and in the country?
§ The Prime MinisterI applaud my hon. Friend's patience in these matters, but I ask him to show a little more patience for a little longer, and then he will have his answer.
§ Sir Knox CunninghamWhen?
§ The Prime MinisterIn due course. My hon. Friend, in perhaps rather crystallising his views in that question, will not be unaware of the serious effect of unofficial strikes in this country. He will be aware that in the four and a half years since October, 1964 15 million working days have been lost through strikes.
§ Mr. DickensThis is not the way to deal with them.
§ The Prime MinisterThat is far too many, even though it compares favourably with the figure for the four and a half years from 1956 to July, 1960, when the right hon. Members for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) and Bexley (Mr. Heath) were Ministers of Labour, when not 15 million but 21 million working days were lost.
§ Mr. DoughtyIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the lady Members sitting with him, including the right hon. Lady next to him, are dressed in blue, a colour well chosen by them?
§ The Prime MinisterI am glad that my right hon. and hon. Friends' sartorial tastes impress and please the hon. and learned Gentleman. But this has no more political significance than the colours next to the hon. and learned Gentleman, nor the bright red of the Scottish Nationalist Party.
§ Mr. HefferWould not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a gross exaggeration to talk of industrial anarchy in this country? Is it not clear that the answer to our industrial problems in relation to unofficial strikes is to have greater emphasis on the question of conciliation rather than legislation which is going to antagonise the trade unions and not solve the problem at all?
§ The Prime MinisterWe need both. We need the positive parts of the White Paper so warmly welcomed by my hon. Friend. We need legislation as well. We also need what I am convinced we shall get, the full co-operation of the Trades Union Congress and of the C.B.I. in doing all they can to improve industrial negotiating procedures.
We are proud of the system of industrial relations in this country. Nevertheless, it still leaves a lot to be improved, and when one considers not only Girlings and Vauxhalls but the fact that even this week in South Wales 400 unofficial strikers have put out of work 8,000 people who are not parties to the dispute and threatened the employment of up to another 20,000 people, I do not think that that is a reason for complacency or for any lack of urgency.
§ Mr. RoebuckIs my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a great deal of misrepresentation in the country about the White Paper, not least in the Tribune's stable companion, the Daily Express, this morning, which published a long and wearying letter? Will my right hon. Friend consider producing for publication a short pamphlet explaining what the Government are trying to do?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is certainly the case that many of the commentators on the White Paper are either misrepresenting it or, more charitably, have not even taken the trouble to read it.
The suggestion of producing a short paper explaining the Government's proposals in a more popular form is being considered. Indeed, it is being worked on today. As I have already made clear, a short paper explaining what the Opposition did in 13 years in this matter of industrial relations could be written in one word, "Nothing"—although I could find a non-Parliamentary expression which would extend to three words.
§ Sir Harmar NichollsIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a misnomer to talk in terms of producing a popular explanation of this legislation? In view of the great difference of view that exists among hon. Gentlemen opposite on this question, is there any significance in the fact that the Minister of Public Building and Works could not be sitting further away from the Government Front Bench?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is obviously finding it difficult to make points. Of course there are differences of view among my hon. Friends on the subject of industrial relations. This is inevitable when a Government decide, and show the necessary courage, to tackle what is a difficult problem. If there were no differences of view among hon. Gentlemen opposite it was because the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible at the time would not even set up a Royal Commission.
§ Mr. ShinwellI understand that at a recent meeting with the T.U.C. Council my right hon. Friend made the suggestion that the T.U.C. might, if it objected to legislation on this subject, present alternative proposals. Has there been any response from the T.U.C.? Is there any indication that it will be able to submit alternative proposals within a reasonable time?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend is quite right. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary and I said to the T.U.C. representatives last Friday that if they were able to produce a scheme for dealing particularly with the problem of unofficial strikes and their effect on the employment of other workers who were not directly involved we would be prepared to consider it if it appeared likely to be as effective—I did not say 100 per cent. effective; none of these things can be—as the Government's legislative proposals.
The T.U.C. did not, in reply, indicate that it had anything in prospect or could get the necessary degree of control over the individual unions and over unofficial strikers to produce such a scheme. However, the T.U.C. is certainly considering the matter. We shall welcome any proposals, and I hope to have a further meeting with the T.U.C. later this week.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder We must get on.
§ Mr. Bruce-GardyneOn a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the ambiguous nature of the Prime Minister's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at an early opportunity.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Notice must be given in the conventional form.