§ Q3. Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Lord President of the Council at Seven-oaks on 28th April concerning trade unions represents Government policy.
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir.
§ Mr. SkinnerIs the Prime Minister aware that when the Leader of the House was speaking in suburban Sevenoaks he engaged in the latest Tory blood sport 236 of hurling abuse at £15-a-week railway men by accusing them of bashing the public? Does he not realise that if his Ministers continue to stoke up these fires they will get their fingers burned? Is he aware that we believe that all this talk about conciliation is pure camouflage which we shall treat with the contempt it deserves unless the Industrial Relations Act is withdrawn?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend the Leader of the House did exactly the reverse; he repudiated the charge of union-bashing. What is more, he said that the Government wished to work with the unions. But at the same time he said that it was the Government's duty to represent and protect the interests of the public as a whole.
§ Mr. AtkinsonLike the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House also referred to the possibility of establishing a conciliation service. Would he not accept that such services are somewhat contradictory in the context of the Industrial Relations Act? Would he also acknowledge that Mr. Feather, who has been talking about conciliation, and Mr. Jones and Mr. Scanlon, have put these ideas forward as an alternative to the Industrial Relations Act? Will the Prime Minister confirm that in his Perth speech he was also advocating conciliation services as an alternative to the existing Industrial Relations Act?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir, not in the least, because there is no incompatibility between the framework of law which is in the Industrial Relations Act and conciliation. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite acknowledge this in urging conciliation upon the Government when the Act is on the Statute Book. When we discussed this with the TUC at No. 10 I made this perfectly clear. I wanted no misunderstanding. I said that the Act would remain on the Statute Book and that we would jointly move on to examine this machinery. This position was respected by the TUC.