HC Deb 01 August 1972 vol 842 cc345-7
Q5. Mr. Ashley

asked the Prime Minister if he will define the appropriate period after which he will discuss with the Trades Union Congress how it believes the Industrial Relations Act is damaging its interests.

The Prime Minister

I have already had a number of discussions with TUC representatives on the operation of the Act. I indicated that the Government would be prepared to review and consider amendments to it after it had been given a fair trial.

Mr. Ashley

Is the Prime Minister aware that the decision to give the Industrial Relations Act a fair trial before amending it is basically a face-saving formula since the Act has been tried and has failed? Does he agree that while the nation is poised on a delicate industrial tightrope, this is not the time for saving anybody's face, including the Government's, and that if he were to amend the Act now he would help both the nation and himself?

The Prime Minister

I cannot accept that. I have already said that if there are specific points on which people consider the Act should be amended, they should put them forward and let those matters be discussed. That is a perfectly reasonable offer. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the large amount of support for the Act in the country.

Mr. Rost

Will my right hon. Friend explain how the Act can be amended if it has not been allowed to be given a fair chance to prove itself because of the provocative opposition of Labour hon. Members?

The Prime Minister

I think that in general public opinion believes that a reasonable time should be given to see the operation of the Act and is prepared to consider ways in which it could be amended. Those who criticise should also take the responsibility for putting forward alternative proposals.

Mr. Harold Wilson

When the Prime Minister meets the TUC this afternoon and discusses these matters, will he take the opportunity to clear up a little of the confusion about his broadcast in "News at Ten" last week? Does he recall all the sob stuff—he did it in the House as well—about that pathetic little firm being driven into bankruptcy? Did he then know that it was a subsidiary of the multi-million Vestey Corporation? Did he know that the Vestey Corporation had made large capital gains by closing down some of its dock areas and developing them for property? Did he know that it had caused the loss of some dockers' jobs? When the Prime Minister made that statement, did he know the facts and conceal them or did he not even know?

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that despite his own screaming and shouting I was quoting—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will never shout me down—I was quoting the words of the judge in the Court that the firm was being pushed into bankruptcy with losses of £2,000 a week. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to know that one of the points which the TUC has made to me is that it objects to small firms in this position bringing actions.

Mr. Wilson

We all object. We asked the right hon. Gentleman last week to suggest amendments which would prevent wildcat employers bringing actions of this kind. But will the right hon. Gentleman, who in the House, if not in his broadcast, stood on his own two feet by making a statement about the firm and did not place it in the lips of a learned judge, who seems to have been wrong. recall that he said that? Will he now answer the question? When he said this in a broadcast and in the House did he know that this little pathetic firm was a member of the Vestey Corporation, or did he not?

The Prime Minister

I was not aware that it was a Vestey subsidiary at two removes through a holding company. But the right hon. Gentleman must accept that this makes no difference to the principle, that it was an attempt by members of one union to put 57 workers belonging to USDAW out of work, or to push the firm out of business. Let him answer for that, too.

Mr. Wilson

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how much that firm made by the closure of docks and how many dockers were thrown out of employment by its actions?

The Prime Minister

Let the right hon. Gentleman ask the firm. Let him answer the question of principle: does he believe it right that men who are defying their union, defying their negotiating procedure and defying the law should be allowed to put other trade unionists out of their job and a firm out of business?

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are to have a debate on the industrial situation later today.