INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (Hansard, 19 June 1969)

§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)
With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. Q1, 05, Q8 and Q10 together.
Further to my interim report to the House in answer to Questions on Tuesday, together with my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State I again met the General Council of the T.U.C. yesterday.
The House will recall that in the previous discussions the First Secretary and I made clear that the Government would not proceed with their proposals for legislation on industrial relations in this Session of Parliament if the T.U.C. took steps which the Government regarded as equally effective—[Laughter.] This is what I said on Tuesday; I did not hear a snigger then—and that while the Government accepted the proposals adopted by the T.U.C. Special Congress on 5th June as satisfactory in relation to inter-union disputes, they had doubts about certain aspects of the proposals for dealing with unconstitutional strikes.
In the course of yesterday's discussions the General Council unanimously agreed to a solemn and binding undertaking which set out the lines on which the General Council will intervene in serious unconstitutional stoppages. In the light of this undertaking, the Government now regard the T.U.C.'s proposals as satisfactory. A copy of the undertaking has been placed in the Library, and will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
701 In these circumstances, the Government have decided not to proceed with proposals for legislation involving financial penalties for those involved in inter-union and unconstitutional disputes. An interim Industrial Relations Bill will not, therefore, be introduced this Session. Consultations about the legislation to be introduced in the next Session of Parliament will continue with the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and the other organisations concerned.
In answer to Questions Nos. Q1 and Q5, I shall be making a Ministerial television broadcast on these matters tonight.
In answer to Question No. Q8, I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) that between us my right hon. Friend and I have attended several trade union conferences in recent months, and have been in close touch with trade union opinion.
In answer to Question No. Q10, I am not aware of any evidence of unauthorised disclosure of official information.

§ Mr. Heath
What will happen should unofficial strikers ignore the trade union leaders, and go on striking?

§ The Prime Minister
I am surprised that that is all the right hon. Gentleman could manage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If that is the sum total of 13 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Perhaps I can enlighten him.
The T.U.C. has given us this binding declaration. On Tuesday, the right hon. Gentleman said that the reason his Government did not even introduce a Royal Commission was that they were negotiating with the T.U.C. They negotiated with the T.U.C. for 13 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Indeed, I will. We have negotiated with the T.U.C. for two months.
In the declaration, which I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have read, he will see that in cases where the T.U.C. believes that strikers are unconstitutional and wrong in remaining on strike, it will place an obligation on the union or unions concerned to get them back to work—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am trying to answer the question—[Interruption.] In cases where the unions flout the instruction of the T.U.C., action will be taken under Rule 13. This is what has come out of two 702 months' negotiations—[Laughter.] I am surprised that right hon. Gentlemen, who secured nothing out of their negotiations—[Interruption.]—who refused to take action because they said—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman must be heard reasonably.

§ The Prime Minister
I am quoting their words. They refused to take action because they said that it was a matter for the T.U.C. We have now got the. T.U.C. to act while they did not.

§ Mr. Heath
Will the Prime Minister now answer my specific question: what will happen when unofficial strikers ignore the advice of their union leaders, and go on striking? This was the crux of the matter, and the reason for the right hon. Lady the First Secretary of State putting forward proposals for imposing a conciliation pause, with sanctions to enforce it against unofficial strikers.
The Prime Minister says that he must have something effective in its place. What will happen when unofficial strikers ignore the union leaders, and go on striking?

§ Mr. James Johnson
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When will the hon. Gentlemen be called who put down the Questions on the Order Paper?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman must be patient.

§ The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has the answer I have given. In the cases I have mentioned, the T.U C. will place an obligation on the unions concerned to get their members back to work. It will then be the duty of the unions concerned to do this, including, where appropriate, the use of their rule books—[Laughter.] I have heard enough—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We must have reasonable order.

§ The Prime Minister
I have heard enough from hon. Gentlemen opposite about the power of union rule books—they have complained only too often about them in the past.
In this case there is an obligation, where it is needed, to use the rule book, 703 including fines, suspensions and expulsion—which is a very serious punishment in a closed shop industry—where this is not carried out and the unions are not taking effective action. I have told the House what the T.U.C. powers are in respect of individual unions. This is in marked contrast to the literally nothing the party opposite did during 13 years of power.

§ Mr. Marten
rose—

§ Mr. C. Pannell
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. These answers are in reply to questions put on the Order Paper. While I recognise that the Leader of the Opposition has a unique position in the House, to which I bow, in the matter of Questions, it is a fact that Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown even ruled against Sir Winston Churchill and said that he must not muscle in to exclude the original questioner. Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown then called the original questioner. I should be glad, with all due deference to the undoubted rights of the Leader of the Opposition, to know whether that is still the position of back benchers.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. There is some substance in the historical recollection of the right hon. Gentleman, who is an expert in the history of Parliament. If he reads the incident very carefully, he will, however, find that the circumstances were altogether different. Mr. Marten.

§ Mr. Marten
If the T.U.C. fails to discipline unconstitutional strikes in the months ahead, will the right hon. Gentleman then introduce a Bill with penal sanctions? Does this agreement need to be ratified by the Trades Union Congress in the autumn? If so, will it not be operative until then?

§ The Prime Minister
The first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is hypothetical. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not aware of that. It was a fair question, but the mirth that greeted it makes me wonder whether hon. Gentlemen opposite really are refusing to take on trust a solemn obligation made by men with whom they dealt when they were in office, whom they trusted and who, after 12 years, they told should be handling this question of unofficial 704 strikes. It is, therefore, a hypothetical question. I accept not only the sincerity but the determination of the General Council of the T.U.C. when it makes a declaration of this kind, which is unanimous.
The hon. Gentleman is right in suggesting, in the second part of his supplementary question—this is a binding declaration; it is as binding as the Bridlington declaration which played such an important part in trade union history—that it requires to be approved by the Trades Union Congress. However, the General Council said yesterday, in relation to this and to the rule changes that it proposed at Croydon, that it will proceed to act within the spirit of them, even without waiting for Congress to pass the necessary legislation.

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
Since Mr. Victor Feather and not the Prime Minister now seems to be in charge of issuing dog licences, would it not be better for the Prime Minister to make his broadcast not from No. 10 Downing Street but from T.U.C. headquarters?

§ The Prime Minister
I am sorry to see that the hon. Gentleman is now having to get even his jokes as well as his opinions from the Tory Press this morning. To answer what he no doubt thought was the serious part of his supplementary question, I have said today and yesterday and we said it two months ago, both in this House and elsewhere—

§ Sir Knox Cunningham
What about last week?

§ The Prime Minister
—and last week as well, that if the T.U.C. was able to produce something effective and was determined about its use, not only in relation to unofficial strikes but in inter-union disputes, we would accept it as a substitute for ours.
That is what we have done and the hon. Gentleman, who used to write his own Prime Minister's speeches for him, should remember that at the time when he was writing them it was official Conservative policy to leave unofficial strikes to the T.U.C.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
On a point of order. What the Prime Minister has just said and what he has frequently said is a lie and he should retract it.

Hon. Members
Withdraw.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not need help. The hon. Gentleman will withdraw the word "lie".

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but you have placed me in a difficulty.

Hon. Members
Name him.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The Chair is equally sorry, but the Chair must protect the rules of the House and the conduct in it. It is not in order for one hon. Member to accuse another hon. Member of uttering a lie. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw the word "lie".

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—I quite deliberately used the word—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—which I knew to be outside the normal rules of the House. I did so because I felt it right to draw attention—

Hon. Members
Withdraw.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. For the last time, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the word "lie".

Hon. Members
Name him.

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
In response to your request, and yours alone, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word "lie"—and replace it with the phrase a terminological inexactitude in respect of something which the Prime Minister knew to be untrue.

Hon. Members
Oh.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has withdrawn the word.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
Is the Prime Minister aware that, unfoundedly, some hon. Gentlemen opposite are casting doubt on the ability and veracity of the T.U.C.? Would my right hon. Friend agree that we should pay tribute to Victor Feather who, during these discussions, has proved the ability of the T.U.C.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—in that within a few hours of being asked by the Prime Minister so to do, the T.U.C. resolved the unofficial strike at the Pressed Steel factory?
Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite will now cheer that, as they cheered my 706 earlier remark, and perhaps my right hon. Friend will pay tribute to the T.U.C. for the excellent work that it did in connection with that strike.

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir, and I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I certainly did what he asks on that occasion. A matter which has not received much attention is the valuable demarcation agreement which has been concluded in the shipyards and which should make possible the end of the large number of strikes that have bedevilled that industry in the past generation.
As for hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am sure that when they have got over their little fit of instant opposition, to which we have become so used, they, too, will wish to pay tribute to the fact that the T.U.C. has really moved further forward in all these matters in the past two or three months than in the past 40 years. I do not think that even hon. Gentlemen opposite will grudge that tribute to the T.U.C. and that they will also recognise that this would not have happened but for our White Paper and the negotiations. I believe that they may one day pay tribute to that, too.
And considering their 13 years of negotiations with the T.U.C., I would now like one of them, perhaps one of their ex-Ministers of Labour, to tell us what was achieved during those 13 years of negotiation, apart from a lot of No. 10 talks about sherry and unemployment at Stockton-on-Tees.

§ Mr. Ashley
Is my right hon. Friend aware that in view of the Government's achievements in persuading the T.U.C. to act, the Opposition's hostility is predictable and understandable? Is he further aware that many of us would like to see the Government exercising similar persuasion on the employers to induce them to co-operate in the fundamental task of improving the collective bargaining machinery and changing industrial attitudes, a matter which is vital to the future of Britain?

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about the predictability of the Opposition in this matter. I could understand their attitude if they had supported the White Paper, but they did not. They abstained in the White Paper debate. In 707 connection with the Bill which we said would follow the White Paper, they made it very clear that they would do everything possible to hold up debate on it.

§ Mr. Mawby
Is the Prime Minister aware that congratulations are due to him for the greatest confidence trick of the century? [Interruption.] Is he also aware that this probably explains the attitude of the Opposition to his White Paper? As he explained to the Parliamentary Labour Party that the Bill to which he referred was essential for the Government to remain in office, will he now do what he should have done months ago—go to the country?

§ The Prime Minister
The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), who, I think, claims to be one of that extraordinary group known as Tory trade unionists, has enough experience of industry and of his own union as well as of the T.U.C. to know how inaccurate is his judgment of this matter. As a loyal trade unionist, for such I understand him to be, he will, I am sure, understand what it has meant that the T.U.C. has been able to make this declaration.
As for the quotation he made from a speech which I made in a Committee Room upstairs on, I think, 17th April, I noticed that he did not quote the other relevant part of that speech.

§ Mr. Atkinson
During the last two months the idea that workers could be exposed to prosecution by their employers in the event of a dispute was thoroughly rejected by the Government's advisers, by the D.E.P. and by the T.U.C. Would my right hon. Friend therefore agree that the proposals contained in the document "Fair Deal at Work" are now thoroughly rejected by every authority in Britain, and that the whole of the advice tendered to the Government means that those proposals made by the party opposite are now a non-starter?

§ The Prime Minister
They certainly always were a non-starter. However, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me, by way of question and answer, to attempt to comment adequately on the total irrelevance of the Opposition's proposals. I would prefer to invite the Leader of the Opposition to use his next Supply day to let us have a debate on 708 these matters, when we can exchange our courtesies across the Floor of the House.
After all, last November the right hon. Gentleman called for an urgent Bill before Christmas. I am sure, therefore, that he would not grudge us one of his Supply days to debate this subject. We can then compare his record at the Ministry of Labour and the Tory record generally with what we have achieved in these past few months.

§ Dr. Winstanley
May I welcome the fact that even if the Prime Minister has not diagnosed the complaint, he has at least stopped prescribing the wrong medicine? Are we not misleading ourselves in describing the T.U.C. undertaking as binding and in assuming that the trade unions, as at present constituted and without reform, will be able to accomplish this task? Do not we now need positive legislation to attack the causes of industrial unrest and implement the more constructive parts of the White Paper?

§ The Prime Minister
I would not attempt to compete with the hon. Gentleman about medicine and prescribing. What we put forward in our White Paper was, in our view, the only means of dealing with this matter by Government action in a situation where industry was not prepared to make the necessary changes for us to be able to entrust it with, at any rate, part of the task.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman—and this is a central theme of the White Paper—that in addition to action to deal with unconstitutional strikers we must get at the basic causes of strikes, grievances, negotiating procedures, agreements, and so on. That is why we have set up the C.I.R.; and that inspired a large section of "Programme for Action". He is right to draw attention to that, but this alone will not deal with the urgent problem we face.

§ Mr. James Griffiths
Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that many hon. Members with experience of these matters are glad that the Government have abandoned the penal clauses, for our experience shows that they do not promote industrial harmony but industrial strife? Is he further aware that many of us with years of experience in the trade unions wholeheartedly welcome the steps which have been taken by the 709 T.U.C., in agreement with the Government, remembering that industrial peace is not possible against hostility from the T.U.C.?
May I, therefore, tell my right hon. Friend that it is now our duty to give every possible help to the T.U.C. in this matter; and, on a personal note, may I express my appreciation, as one who has known him for many years, for the efforts that my right hon. Friend has made and that have been made, also, by Mr. Victor Feather?

§ The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend. His long experience in industry on the trade union side as a national leader in this matter will, I hope, put to shame some of the sniggers and giggles from hon. Members opposite who are not capable of appreciating the importance of this step forward by the T.U.C. even though when they were in office they said that the T.U.C. must do the job themselves. That I find difficult to understand.
No one wanted to propose penal clauses. On the other hand, I do not think that anyone underrated the importance of the problem we had to deal with. That is why the Government were not, and would not have been, afraid to carry legislation on this despite the fact that hon. Members opposite would not have had the guts to support us. We were prepared to do that, but always we said that if the T.U.C. would propose an effective solution we would adopt it, and we have done so.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
Reverting to my right hon. Friend's two unanswered questions about the handling of unofficial strikes, which up to yesterday right hon. Gentlemen opposite were taking with desperate seriousness, may we have an assurance from the Prime Minister that as a result of this transaction beneficial results will appear in weeks rather than months?

§ The Prime Minister
I should have thought that even for the right hon. Gentleman these matters are too important in industrial relations for remarks of that kind, particularly since he seems entirely to have failed to see that already we have had some substantial results, as pointed out by my hon. Friends, in ending one or two serious strikes as a result 710 of the powers given by the Croydon conference to the T.U.C. The right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with my answer, but, of course, he is a lawyer—

§ Sir Harmar Nicholls
Withdraw.

§ The Prime Minister
I do not think that that is a word one has to withdraw.
The right hon. Gentleman will be able to understand how totally irrelevant to the problems are the solutions which leave the whole matter in the arid atmosphere of a court decision when dealing with the basic problems of strikes, which is, of course, what we set out to do in our White Paper. That is why, when he asks, "What will you do with unions who do not ensure that strikers go back to work?", this is the question which we have to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Do I understand from my right hon. Friend that, despite the profound disappointment of the Opposition at the outcome of the Government's discussions with the trade unions, they have not yet requested a debate on this important and fundamental topic? Would it not be desirable that there should be an early debate to enable the Opposition to express in rational terms their opinion of the trade union movement, particularly the T.U.C., and also to indicate to the House and the country what would happen to the trade union movement and the workers if, by any mischance, members of the Opposition ever became the Government?

§ The Prime Minister
No, Sir. My right hon. Friend did not quite get the point I made about a debate. It is not a question of the Opposition having to request it, for they have a Supply day open to them next week and they can take it.

§ Mr. Heath
Is the Prime Minister aware that the Opposition have no Supply day next week? [Interruption.] Is the Prime Minister aware that in any case the House will have ample opportunity to debate the Government's conduct in this matter on Wednesday, when there is to be a debate on the Letter of Intent, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a solemn undertaking that we would have industrial legislation of this kind as a result of abandoning 711 the compulsory prices and incomes policy?

§ The Prime Minister
I accept, of course, what the Chief Whip said and I have confirmed that there is no Supply day next week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I have done so; I have accepted that, but I still believe that after last November, when the Opposition demanded an immediate Bill, they might have taken one Supply day. We shall be glad to give them a day at the earliest opportunity if they will take it. I do not know whether this is what the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting, but he was quite wrong to say that in the Letter of Intent there was a pledge that we would introduce legislation.

§ Mr. Heath
I said nothing of the sort. I said that it was in the Chancellor's Budget speech.

§ Mr. Dunn
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Did I hear the Leader of the Opposition state the business for next week, for Wednesday, although the House is not yet in possession of that information?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have no control over leaks, even inside the House.

§ Mr. Heath
May I again correct the Prime Minister? He was quite wrong in what he said about my remarks. I did not say that it was in the Letter of Intent. I have no knowledge of that, but I said that it was in the Budget speech in reference to the Letter of Intent.

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir, and it was said by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that if we had an adequate alternative from the T.U.C. we would accept that. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We ought to hear both sides equally fairly.

§ The Prime Minister
I have the text of it. I myself said on 17th April during the debate—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman can sit back now. The right hon. Gentleman got out of the question of a debate on industrial relations by referring to the Letter of Intent which has nothing to do with the case and now he drags in the Budget debate. If the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Hon. Members must be willing to hear what they do not agree with. [Interruption.] Order. The Prime Minister.

§ The Prime Minister
It is necessary to follow a rather difficult path to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's wriggles on what he said—on his refusal to deal with the question of a debate which led him by a corkscrew path, via the Letter of Intent, to my right hon. Friend's Budget speech. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I must insist that the Prime Minister be heard. [Interruption.]

§ The Prime Minister
I therefore return to the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman should use a Supply day to debate industrial relations, the first Supply day he gets. Then he can make a short speech, telling us what hon. Members opposite did during 13 years.

§ Sir T. Brinton
Mr. Speaker, could we get back to facts? The Prime Minister made it perfectly clear that the powers granted to the T.U.C. on 5th June were, in his opinion, insufficient for it to carry out the job he asked it to do as an alternative to legislation. What powers has the T.U.C. since been granted which makes the Prime Minister believe that it can now do something which he himself said it could not do on 5th June?

§ The Prime Minister
The answer to that is in the annexe to the statement issued yesterday, namely, the power to place an obligation on individual unions to get unofficial strikers back to work in the cases described in the document. There was no such power whatever in the statement from Croydon.

§ Mr. Houghton
In view of the display of political bias and ignorance that we have had from the benches opposite this afternoon, will my right hon. Friend now cease to treat the Opposition seriously in this matter? Has he not noticed that hon. Members opposite can scarcely conceal their fury because the Parliamentary Labour Party is not going to tear itself apart to provide a Roman holiday for the enemies of the Government?

§ The Prime Minister
No, Sir. I would not go so far as that. I acquit them, of course, of bias. I do not acquit them of ignorance. I think that their attitude 713 arises from a sense of shame at their total inability to do anything themselves.

§ Mr. Hastings
On a point of order. Is there any point in the Prime Minister being heard further? [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Dame Irene Ward.

§ Dame Irene Ward
Will the Prime Minister inform the House how he enjoys being the Grand Old Duke of York?

§ The Prime Minister
I am genuinely flattered by the hon. Lady by her use of an old crack that I once made about her own Front Bench. I take it in the same spirit as it was then offered, but in our case we said that we would not introduce legislation if we had an effective alternative, and we have, but their attitude was different.

§ Mr. Ogden
Will my right hon. Friend agree that if the attitude of the Opposition this afternoon really were to represent the attitude of employers it would be amazing that there are not more unofficial strikes than fewer? Will my right hon. Friend now confirm that in his broadcast tonight he will put equal pressure on the C.B.I. to improve its procedures in industrial relations as he puts on the T.U.C.?

§ The Prime Minister
I have no reason at all to think that anything we have heard from the benches opposite this afternoon represents the view of at any rate progressive employers. My right hon. Friend and I hope to meet the C.B.I. later this afternoon to discuss these serious problems. Whatever differences there are between the C.B.I. and the Government about prescriptions for dealing with them, the C.B.I. and the Government take these problems very seriously indeed.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I must protect the business of the House.