HC Deb 10 January 1978 vol 941 cc1438-40
Q3. Mr. Wrigglesworth

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.

Mr. Foot

I have been asked to reply.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) on 8th November.

Mr. Wrigglesworth

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the conflicting and confusing statements that have been made recently by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) from the Opposition Front Bench on pay policy and industrial relations show how much they are out of touch with trade union thinking? Will he give us an assurance that discussions with the TUC on the next round of pay policy will begin very soon, so that an agreement can be reached by the Government with the TUC in due course?

Mr. Foot

We should be fair to the Leader of the Opposition. She did not take the Shadow Chancellor to Scotland, which seems to be a sign that he is to be let off the leash only in the Home Counties. I think that the right hon. Lady is very wise.

There is plenty of time for the Government to have discussions with the TUC, as I am sure we should, in order to try to produce a common approach to the problems of the future on pay policy.

Mr. Tebbit

Would not the TUC have expected the Lord President to have given his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) a more frank and honest reply to his question? Is the Lord President finally free of his former hang-up about supporting free collective bargaining? Are the Government now going to adopt a totally Tory policy which is the policy of the hon. Member for Bolsover, too?

Mr. Foot

I still hold the views that I have held about this matter all along. The same cannot be said of the Leader of the Opposition or of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who at one stage was a supporter of a statutory incomes policy. That accusation can never be made about me.

Mr. McNamara

Did my right hon. Friend read today's report in The Guardian of the interview with the General Secretary-elect of the Transport and General Workers' Union? Will he draw the report to the close attention of his Cabinet colleagues in considering the whole future of collective bargaining and the need to get back to it properly?

Mr. Foot

I fully accept the importance of the article to which my hon. Friend refers. We have always said that there should be an orderly return to free collective bargaining, and we believe that the agreements that we have made during the past six months can assist that purpose. Certainly, in designing a future policy that article and the views expressed by Mr. Moss Evans and others will be taken into account.

Sir K. Joseph

Do not the Government think it both right and necessary to enable skilled people to earn pay commensurate with their skill?

Mr. Foot

I certainly do, but I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman does. I think he is one of the converts on these matters. He was taken to Scotland, even though he was not allowed to open his mouth there.

Sir K. Joseph

I did speak there.

Mr. Foot

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did, but he did not put his foot in it this time, and so nobody noticed. But I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I myself still hold to the view that there should be no statutory policy, and that is the policy of the Government. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman, who has wavered this way and that on this subject, should not seek to be so severe in his criticisms of those who have been as consistent as myself.

Mr. Heffer

In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, could he explain to me and to others like me—we are just simple souls—what the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant when he spoke of stage 4 and the possibility of some statutory incomes policy in the future? For whom was he speaking? Was he speaking for himself or for the Government? He certainly was not speaking for the Labour Party.

Mr. Foot

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others have spoken of the discussions which we believe should take place in preparation for the policies of the future. That does not mean that the Government are in any sense whatever seeking to commit themselves at any future date to any form of statutory incomes policy. We are opposed to a statutory incomes policy and will remain so.