Skip to main content

Tuc

Volume 928: debated on Tuesday 22 March 1977

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Q3.

asked the Prime Minister what subjects he proposes to discuss at his next meeting with the TUC.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on 25th January.

Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the TUC the need for a united campaign against the kind of racialism that is being stirred up by the dirty Fascist tactics being used in the Stechford by-election by the Tories, who are using anti-immigrant posters similar to those being used by the National Front with the apparent approval of the deputy Leader of the Opposition?

I read the account in The Guardian of the leaflet, or a facsimile of the leaflet, used by the Conservative candidate. It certainly is at variance with the views that have been expressed in this House on this matter.

Yes, because the Opposition have not said that they would stop all immigration. They have said that they would place limitations on it, as we have, and that they would need to examine carefully the question of a register, as we have done. I do not understand why the Conservative candidate is going so far beyond official Conservative Party policy. But if there is any doubt, perhaps the right hon. Lady would care to take advantage of this opportunity to make the position clear.

Will the Prime Minister remind trade union leaders that it is the British people and not the TUC who will decide which Government they will deal with after next month's election? In particular, will he remind the general secretaries of the National Union of Mineworkers and of the Union of Post Office Workers that, provided that they and their colleagues act in the best interests of the British people, they have nothing to fear from a Conservative Government?

The trade unions, like other bodies, have long memories. The hon. Gentleman said that they have nothing to fear from a Conservative Government. That may be true. But, as Aneurin Bevan once said, "Why peer into the crystal ball when you can read the book?" They remember the Industrial Relations Act.

On a more harmonious note, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, when next he meets the TUC. he will convey the sincere thanks of a large number of Labour Members for the way in which, in addition to its usual duties, it has pursued the cause of old-age pensioners and acted as the voice of the people who pay it their dues?

Yes, Sir. There is no doubt that the TUC has felt very strongly, deeply and sincerely about the position of those on social security, including old-age pensioners. There is no need to remind the TUC or anyone else of their responsibility as citizens. It was because of that that three years ago it entered into the social contract, which dealt with matters on a much wider basis than money wages alone.

When the right hon. Gentleman is discussing matters with the TUC, will he pay attention to the views of Mr. Roy Fraser and those who feel themselves totally underpaid for skilled jobs as they are much more important than men like Jack Jones today?

The Government's position throughout the whole of phase 2 of the incomes policy has been that the next phase must take into account the great pressures that have been placed upon skill and differentials as a result of the flat rate and small percentage increases. That is the Government's policy. That matter is now being discussed with the TUC to get an agreement for another phase. What I, the House in certain circumstances, and the country in even more difficult circumstances would be interested to know is whether the Opposition would seek such an agreement.

Later

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will no doubt remember the dialogue that took place across the House during Question 3 to the Prime Minister, and that the honour and integrity of the deputy Leader of the Opposition was questioned. Is it not normal custom in this House that when such a statement is made about a right hon. or hon. Member, that Member then rises? Does it not—

Order. It is quite wrong to pursue an argument through what is clearly not a point of order. Right hon. and hon. Members are free to seek to catch my eye.