I am well qualified, coming from Nottingham, to speak on a socialist
incomss policy. It was a Nottingham man who started the idea. His
name was Robin Hood. His policy, which still fevers our imagination,
was to rob the rich to pay the poor, It is time that this covernnment
of ours followed that inspired example as contained in Clause Four.
We are not suggesting that we can reach Utopia in the first year of
al.abow Government. We are well aware of what state the country was
in when the Tories were thrown out. Yet we are certain that put to
them properly, the working people of this country will make sacrifices
if it is necessary. But to ask them to make these sacrifices it must
be shown that basic changes in the structure and control of the
economy are taking place. There must be a growth in their power and
a reduction in the arbitrary powers of the employers. The working
people have not been attracted towards any incomes policy whilst they
see this Labour Government dragging its feet on steel and land
nationalisation. If as much zeal had been devoted to controlling the
bankers as to criticising trade unionists this party would have a far
greater show of unity in conference today.
Whet are the preconditions of a socialist incomes policy ? I would say that our resolution lays them down quite clearly. It certainly cannot begin with a situation where many workers in this country are receiving less then £10 per week. If Mr. Brown really thinks that this is a living wage, then I would suggest that he attempts what Ernest Bevin did when he was making his case for the dockers: try to live on it. It is a scandal that an incomes policy should be under discussion without the firm expression for and action by the government on the question of equal pay for women. Above all it should never be enter= tained before a guaranteed ninimupm wage is actually esteblished - ony when one talks of a minimum wage that also means a living wage. However serious is the state of the economy, there is one reform that costs nothing. The trades unions must have the right to judge from , the findings of opening the employers' books what sort of sn incones policy they should have. At the moment they are unaware of the facts as to how much they are being exploited, Mr.Brown recently pointed out that wage increases are out in the open and can be seen by all. Mr.Woodccck told the Institute of Directors last year that they were too scared to disclose their profits. Of course they want to conecal them. We can guess at sone of them, but generally we know far too little, The vital secrets are being kept hidden. What we say is: "Open the books¢" Let us have : everything out in the open. Let us know whether these people are cheating the incomes and prices policy or not. The boss and tax office sec through Pay As You Earm that they have the last ounce out of the employee. Why, therefore, shouldn't the unions be allowed to assist the Inland Revenue to stop the employer's tex fiddles and expense account reckets 7? Until the unions have this sort of information their members are bound to suffer. Why shouldn't we ‘ scan the books ? We can study the accounts of local councils down to ‘ the last penny. What is so sacred abour profit ? The present inconcs« policy keeps us in the dark and th. employers can see we are blind= : folded. Mr.Brown has done nothing whatsoever to take any power away ,' from the employcrs but we are constantly hearing threats against fundanental trade union rights. Trade unionists throughout this land have built this novement in hard won battles and.they will not succurb to threats or intinidation wherever it comes from. I will say finclly that the first blow against these threats will be at this confcrence ——— vote for this resolution, ;