HC Deb 19 November 1974 vol 881 cc1100-3
Q4. Mr. Adley

asked the Prime Minister which of his Ministers is primarily responsible for administration of the social contract.

The Prime Minister

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 14th November to the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit).—[Vol. 881, c. 582.]

Mr. Adley

While assuring the Prime Minister that I will attempt to meet the high standard that he sets at Question Time, may I ask whether he would not agree that the social contract is beginning to look a bit like the Maginot Line? Does he not recognise that phases 1, 2 and 3 of the previous Conservative Government's incomes policy, which were destroyed by the miners, begin to look as though they were a great deal more effective than the social contract will be?

The Prime Minister

That supplementary question was very much up to the hon. Gentleman's always high standard. As to what he had in mind, I do not think it was the general view of the country, however nostalgic he may feel, that there was any measure of success, or any possibility of lasting success, in the policy of stages 1, 2 and 3 which broke down completely and for which we are still paying a heavy price today.

Mr. Ashley

Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is inevitable that the social contract should be attacked by two groups of extremists—the Marxists of the Communist Party and the "Groucho Marxists" of the Conservative Party? Would he not agree that both have a vested interest in the failure of the social contract? Does he further agree that there is real danger to the social contract arising from the failure of a small minority of trade unionists to observe—[HON. MEMBERS: "Small?"]—the social contract and also from a large majority of employers who think it applies to everyone except them?

The Prime Minister

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The kind of unholy alliance to which he has referred is not new in this country or in other democratic countries. It is a quite usual combination which has sometimes produced very serious results. I only wish that those on the benches opposite to whom he referred would not show such obvious exultation every time they think there is a breach, minor or otherwise, in the social contract.

Mr. Thorpe

Is the Prime Minister aware that his statement on 14th November that all Ministers are responsible for the implementation of the social contract will be widely welcomed? Which Minister in particular will be working out the appropriate penalties to be inflicted on employers in order to keep down, on their part, wage settlements now that it has become clear that some statutory powers will be needed to supplement the social contract and that it cannot exist on a purely voluntary basis?

The Prime Minister

There was no reference to statutory powers. If the right hon. Gentleman is, as I think he is, picking up something which was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, as I said in answer to a question last week she was elaborating something which I said in Cardiff during the General Election. No question of statutory controls arises in what she said or in what I said.

Mr. Peyton

Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that there is no exultation on this side of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—none whatever—when this country's interests are challenged, as they are at the moment, and that there is great regret that the social contract apparently lacks the validity to sustain this country's safety?

The Prime Minister

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said and I hope that the very courageous line which he has just taken will be widely followed. He will recognise, however, that no one on this side of the House or in the country will regard even him, and certainly not his colleagues, as being best possessed of qualifications for dealing with these matters in view of the situation in which they left the country last February.

Mr. Skinner

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whatever happens to the social contract, the question which has just been decided in the mining industry had little or nothing to do with it? The reason why most miners decided to vote against the deal was that they did not want to return to the jungle of piecework which existed prior to 1966. Will he bear these factors in mind when the next series of negotiations between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers takes place?

The Prime Minister

I regret, and many of us regret, that it has not been possible to find an acceptable agreement, but the whole concept of a productivity bonus in mining has always defeated successive Governments and others who have tried to deal on this basis. Sir Winston Churchill's war-time Government rejected the incorporation of a pit productivity bonus into miners' pay when it had been recommended by the highest-powered inquiry into this subject in the history of this country. That Government introduced the district bonus scheme to allow for such problems as geological differences from pit to pit, local flooding and other problems, but even that scheme proved very divisive and broke down very quickly because only a few districts, almost exclusively in the East Midlands, qualified for the bonus.

I reject some of the explanations of the vote this week because, making every allowance for militancy in particular coalfields and other matters raised yesterday and in comment, hon. Members studying the voting will see that the areas voting for the scheme were entirely confined to a small area of the highly productive East Midlands coalfields. Those were the only ones which received or earned the wartime bonus. Areas famous for their moderation such as Durham, Northumberland, North Wales and Cumberland voted against the scheme, not because of militancy or anything of that kind but, confirming the view I have expressed, because they were reflecting, as happened in war-time, regional and district anxieties. It was not a turning away from their moderate attitudes.

This is a very difficult problem. I hope that a solution can be worked out which will be acceptable and workable. But if it is not acceptable and workable wartime experience shows that it can be highly divisive.

Sir David Renton

Is there not a complete absence of specific power given to any Minister to deal with breaches of the social contract, however damaging to the national interest any breach may be? What will the right hon. Gentleman do about that situation?

The Prime Minister

Our experience is that when there was an attempt at the most rigid and bureaucratic application of the law the damage to the country was even greater than that to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred.