HC Deb 17 June 1969 vol 785 cc248-55
Q1. Mr. Marten

asked the Prime Minister if he will convene another meeting with representatives of the Trades Union Congress under his chairmanship.

Q2. Mr. Winnick

asked the Prime Minister if he will convene a further meeting with the Trades Union Congress General Council.

Q7. Mr. Cordle

asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for holding further meetings with representatives of the Trades Union Congress.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)

I am having another meeting with representatives of the Trades Union Congress tomorrow.

Mr. Marten

Does the Prime Minister realise that Parliament, as opposed to the Press, has been told very little in the last few weeks about his negotiations with the T.U.C.? Could he, before this meeting tomorrow, perhaps bring Parliament up to dale, particularly on two matters? First, could he confirm his belief in the need for penal sanctions, and, second, could he confirm that it is still essential to get the legislation by the recess?

The Prime Minister

The negotiations are going on, and no one in the House will under-rate the importance of them. I would not want to say anything at this stage that will make them more difficult than they are. With regard to those Clauses referred to in the White Paper, dealing with fines against men on strike unconstitutionally, I have made clear throughout, and repeated it to the T.U.C., that the Government will be prepared to consider dropping them if there is something equally effective in the T.U.C. proposals. If the Government were to decide that, having regard to the immense advance the T.U.C. has made—and it has made a very big advance in these matters—we could drop the idea of legislation in that area, it would, in our view, be necessary for the T.U.C. to legislate in its rules.

Mr. Winnick

Is the Prime Minister aware that virtually every enemy of the trade unions and the Labour Party is hoping that no agreement will be reached tomorrow between the Government and the T.U.C.? Is he also aware that fines or court action of any kind cannot improve industrial relations, and are quite unacceptable to the Movement?

The Prime Minister

I am not interested in what our enemies may think in this matter. What I am concerned with is getting a satisfactory agreement that can be justified to this House and to the country. Such an agreement will need to build very substantially on what the T.U.C. has done in "Programme for Action". Certainly we cannot solve these problems by any kind of rule alone or legislation. Big changes in attitude are needed, and that is the basis of the White Paper and the T.U.C.'s "Programme for Action". We cannot do it by legislation alone; we cannot do it by long-range changes in attitude alone. Therefore, it is necessary that we have means of ensuring that when men are on strike in defiance of agreed procedure and machinery they should go back to work so that negotiations can continue. That is really what the argument is about.

Mr. Cordle

Do the Government intend introducing further White Papers on their amended plans for trade union reform, or can we take it that the main proposals in "In Place of Strife", including penal sanctions, still stand?

The Prime Minister

The hon. Gentleman perhaps did not hear the answer I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). As soon as we are in a position to make statements to the House, we shall do so. The White Paper was put forward, and approved by the House. We have stated what are the conditions under which we are prepared to drop fines on individual strikers. We should not do so unless there was something at least equally effective in their place.

Mr. Ashley

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us who support the White Paper on industrial relations now believe that a new situation exists, and that the Government have persuaded the T.U.C. to take action on unofficial strikes, and that a satisfactory settlement can be achieved, provided that the General Council will not only circularise member unions with new proposals on Rule 11 but agree to recommend those proposals to the full Congress in September?

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

The Prime Minister

I know that my hon. Friend has always supported the White Paper. I am not quite sure that everyone who said "Hear, hear" has fully supported the White Paper in the past. As to progress made by the T.U.C., it is my view that what it has done with respect to inter-union disputes is an historic step forward. What it has proposed there goes much further forward than ever before, and it is enshrined in the Amendment to Rule 12, which makes a T.U.C. General Council decision on inter-union disputes totally binding on all affiliated organisations. Where I believe it cannot be said that it has gone far enough is in relation to unconstitutional disputes which do not arise from inter-union issues. That is the issue on which we are negotiating.

Mr. Heath

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has yet decided on a final date by which he will make the Government's conclusions known to the House, and when the Bill will be published? Could he also say whether it is still the intention to carry this legislation through in this Session?

The Prime Minister

I cannot say what the final date is. The right hon. Gentleman will know that when there is a question of negotiations, it is sometimes necessary to spend longer in the negotiations. This we are prepared to do as long as we are moving forward. For that reason also I cannot give any clear statement today about the timing of legislation. I will give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that we will not drag it out for 13 years and then do nothing, as he did.

Mr. James Hamilton

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a recognition, at least on this side of the House, that he and his right hon. Friend have performed a very good job in getting the T.U.C. for the very first time to accept responsibility at central level? Is he also aware that all Governments worthy of the name should at all times accept the advice of the T.U.C.? Bearing that in mind, surely he will continue to have discussions with it in the interests of the community and of solving industrial disputes?

The Prime Minister

I thank my hon. Friend for what he said and the spirit in which he said it. I think he will be the first to agree that if we had not tabled the White Paper we should not have made this progress, which I believe, and have said so publicly, is so important. The T.U.C. has gone further in the matter of the transfer of sovereignty and power to make decisions in a month than in the last 40 years. I would certainly agree with my hon. Friend as to the progress made. I must again say to the House that, while the progress it has made in inter-union disputes would meet the requirements of practically all of us in the House in terms of the binding decisions that it is now in a position to make, I cannot say the same to the House in respect of unofficial disputes, of which there are new ones almost one every day, arising from issues other than inter-union difficulties.

Dr. Winstanley

May we take it that this announcement of a further meeting with the trade union leaders indicates that the Government are at last considering heeding the advice given regarding the dangers of penal sanctions in the Donovan Report, which they have hitherto ignored?

The Prime Minister

Naturally, the Donovan Report has been taken into full account in all these discussions. We have gone back many times to it and sought fresh ideas that can be used here. It is one thing to say that we all want to avoid penal sanctions. I want to do so, and so do most hon. Members. It is quite another thing to say that if we cannot provide a satisfactory alternative we should do nothing.

Mr. Howie

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very wide range of opinion on this matter on all sides, and does he agree that in the middle of the negotiations now going on it is perhaps time for a moratorium on detailed questions which might lead him to take up a position in reply of too much rigidity?

The Prime Minister

I am not sure that it is correct to say that we are in the middle of negotiations. We have had a very large number of meetings, and I am prepared to continue them as long as they are making progress, as they certainly were in the earlier meetings. At present, the position is as I have described it. If we can make further progress, I shall be glad to do so.

I do not think my right hon. Friend and I can be accused of rigidity, in that last Thursday we made it clear that we were prepared to recommend the dropping of—indeed, to drop in their entirety—these proposed Clauses dealing with fines, the attachment of wages and the rest, if the T.U.C. would take full responsibility itself for dealing with them, rather than certain generalisations which we welcome but which do not go far enough.

Sir D. Renton

Is the Prime Minister aware that during those 13 years of Conservative government to which he referred, in spite of strikes, the economy grew from strength to strength and the standard of living of the people rose each year, and that it is the Government's mishandling of the economy in recent years which makes trades disputes legislation more necessary and urgent?

The Prime Minister

Obviously, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not read the statements of his own leader, who called for an urgent Bill on this before last Christmas, despite himself having turned down a Royal Commission on the question in 1960 when he was Minister of Labour. [Interruption.] We set up a Commission very soon after we came to office. If it had been set up in 1960, we should have had its report when we came to office. That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who was a member of the Government from time to time during that period, really ought to understand.

Mr. Horner

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members on this side of the House were pleased to hear him say today that what is important is not a change of rule but a change of attitude? That being so, will he also accept that the Government's insistence upon writing the rules of the T.U.C. for it and their refusal to accept a directive couched in almost identical terms is regarded by many hon. Members on this side as obstinacy which is likely to lead to a breakdown in the negotiations? We hope that the Government will think again.

The Prime Minister

I have heard no suggestion of the directive mentioned by my hon. Friend in the terms of these negotiations. What I say in reply to my hon. Friend's welcome to what he thought I said is that rules alone, whether they be legislative rules of this House or of Congress in terms of Rules 11, 12 and 13, will not solve the problem. What is needed is all the changes in attitude, improvements in procedure, in agreements, and so on, which inspired a large part of the White Paper "In Place of Strife", which inspired the establishment of the C.I.R. and which inspired a large and forward-looking part of "Programme for Action". We need all that. We also need rules, be they Government legislation or T.U.C. rules, in the short term that men unconstitutionally on strike go back to work so that unions and management can negotiate, whatever the grievance may be about.

Mr. Heath

Is the Prime Minister aware that the so-called turning down of the Royal Commission was in answer to a Motion on the Order Paper signed by only two hon. Members, and that it was turned down because at that time we were discussing with the trade union movement and its responsible leaders putting their own house in order, which at that time was a sound policy? Is he also aware that we shall really believe that the Government are in earnest when we see a Bill produced before this House which is an effective measure for the reform of industrial relations?

The Prime Minister

What the right hon. Gentleman regards as a test of earnestness is not relevant after his record in this matter. The date to which he refers was after about 8½ years in office, and nothing had been done. After the date to which he refers, which I believe was early in 1960, if we can believe the report in The Times on this occasion—[Interruption.] If that report of what he then said is correct, the Conservatives went for another 4½ years after that and did precisely nothing.

Mr. Heath

Is the Prime Minister aware that when the proposal was put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) as Minister of Labour, the most fervent opponent was the Prime Minister himself, leading hon. Members on the benches opposite? In the interests of industrial relations, would it not be better for him to agree that the whole House over the last 15 years has learned the need for a fundamental review of industrial relations legislation?

The Prime Minister

If the right hon. Gentleman is telling me that the then Government proposed a Royal Commission and we opposed it, I should like him to produce evidence of that. We said that we would introduce legislation on one outstanding case, Rookes v. Barnard, and we did so. We were right to do so. Had we not done so, the atmosphere in industry would have been a great deal worse. We also said that we would set up an inquiry, and we set up a Royal Commission in 1965. If he says that he has now learned after 15 years and everybody else has learned, I do not know why he did not learn anything—[Interruption.] It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman only learned when he no longer had the responsibility of office.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are past half-past three. Mr. Peart. Business Statement.