HC Deb 13 March 1973 vol 852 cc1108-12
Q4. Mr. Adley

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at Penrith on Sunday 25th February on militancy represents Government policy.

Q6. Mr. Peter Archer

asked the Prime Minister, if the public speech of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at Penrith on trade unions on 25th February 1973 represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Q8. Mr. Carter

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on Sunday 25th February in Penrith on prices and incomes policy represents Government policy.

Q9. Mr. Clinton Davis

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made to Conservative Party workers at Cumberland on 25th February 1973 on the question of prices and incomes represented the policy of the Government.

Q12. Mr. Skinner

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at Penrith on 25th February on trade unions and terrorists represents Government policy.

Q13. Mr. Duffy

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech on the Government's pay policy by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at Cumberland on 25th February represents Government policy.

Q15. Mr. William Hamilton

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at Penrith on 25th February on the activities of trade unions represented the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Q16. Mr. Atkinson

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on Sunday 25th February 1973 on industrial relations represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Q21. Mr. Eadie

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on industrial relations at Penrith on Sunday 25th February represents the policy of the Government.

Q22. Mr. Dalyell

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at Penrith on 25th February on industrial relations represents the policy of the Government.

The Prime Minister

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must tell the House that I propose to act upon the advice given me in paragraph 25 of the Report of the Select Committee on Questions, with regard to this kind of situation. Mr. Adley.

Mr. Adley

In his speech my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the actions of militant minorities. Is it not clear that on the railways, taking all the trade unions into account—the NUR and the TSSA and not just ASLEF—there is a clear majority in favour of staying at work and that the guerrilla warfare presently being perpetrated on people in and around the London area by ASLEF does more damage to the relationship between the railways and their customers than anything that has occurred in the past 50 years?

The Prime Minister

Industrial action everywhere does damage to the relationship between an industry and its customers. This is one of the deplorable aspects of it. I hope that the railway unions will be able to sort out their differences.

Mr. Archer

Is the Prime Minister aware that there can be a solution to our industrial problems only when the unions are assured that restraint on their part will not be reflected in equivalent benefits to management and shareholders? Is he aware, further, that speeches of this kind by Ministers whose chief responsibilities lie elsewhere will result in their being taken less seriously in other contexts?

The Prime Minister

Anyone who has studied the code on prices will be aware of the limitations laid on industry by the present policy. What industry has said most loudly is that it must have greater facilities for increased profitability in order to allow for investment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the duty of the Government was to protect those in society who were not equipped to protect themselves, whether it be from intimidation in Northern Ireland or from inflation in the United Kingdom. The Government must endeavour to protect all against the dangers facing society.

Mr. Carter

Does the Prime Minister agree that, whatever the context those remarks were placed in, they nevertheless had the effect of inflaming opinion in the country? Will the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministers now go about their job, instead of bashing people on their heads and inflaming people, of creating, a climate in which both sides of industry can resolve their disputes? Does the Prime Minister agree that the remarks of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland were in any way connected with his view that we should in the lifetime of this Parliament build one nation?

The Prime Minister

I see no evidence that my right hon. Friend's speech has inflamed opinion in this country. The House knows my right hon. Friend well enough to recognise that he has spent a very dangerous year of his life doing quite the reverse in Northern Ireland. It is only those who have misread the speech who are trying to make political capital out of it.

Mr. Stratton Mills

Has not there been an unduly narrow interpretation of the speech? Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware of the very close relationship between the Secretary of State and the trade union movement in Northern Ireland? Far from bashing trade unionism, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has readily paid tribute to the high sense of responsibility of trade unionists.

The Prime Minister

My hon. Friend is quite right. I have already, in this House and in Belfast, expressed my own appreciation of the wise support which the trade union movement there has given my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Davis

Whatever gloss the Prime Minister seeks to put on that speech, does he not know that wide sections of the British Press, including Tory newspapers, consider those remarks to be grossly provocative and irresponsible? Does he not realise that if that interpretation was put on that speech by his own supporting newspapers, the trade unions have also formed the view that it was a grossly provocative attack on trade unionists to equate them with murderous lawbreakers in Ulster? Will he give a direction to his Ministers that this sort of speech will not be repeated?

The Prime Minister

My right hon. Friend did no such thing, and if the hon. Gentleman looks at the speech he will see that the part which I quoted emphasises the duty of Government to protect those in society who are not equipped to protect themselves. That was the theme of my right hon. Friend's speech and I am glad that much of the Press supported it.

Mr. Harold Wilson

In view of the Prime Minister's fair tribute to the trade unionists in Northern Ireland, is it not regrettable that the Secretary of State—no doubt he regrets it now—should have drawn an analogy between murderers in Northern Ireland and trade unionists generally? Is there any group in Northern Ireland which has done more than trade unionists to bring about a solution by reconciliation, and is it right that that speech could be read as an attempt to kick them in the teeth as well as trade unionists on this side of the Irish Channel?

The Prime Minister

I do not believe that my right hon. Friend's speech could be read in that way. He was not comparing trade unionists to terrorists. My right hon. Friend was comparing the responsibility of Government in both instances, first to protect people throughout the United Kingdom from inflation and to do what is necessary, and secondly his particular responsibilities in protecting people as far as he possibly could from terrorism in Northern Ireland.