§ 3. Mr. Stanleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now revise the terms of the social contract.
§ 15. Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for amending the social contract.
§ The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot)The social contract concerns the whole range of common objectives which the Government seek to pursue in concert with the TUC, but perhaps hon. Members in their Questions are more specifically concerned with the guidelines on wage settlements. Since these are the TUC's guidelines, any amendment of them would clearly be a matter for the TUC. What the Government wish to see is not changes in the guidelines but the maximum possible compliance with them.
§ Mr. StanleyIs it not clear that the ever-elastic social contract is producing a rate of wage inflation way beyond what the economy or public or private industry can afford? As the social contract is now actively stoking up unemployment, will the right hon. Gentleman measure up to his national responsibilities and reduce the rate of wage inflation? If he is unwilling to do that, will he, in the national interest, resign?
§ Mr. FootThe hon. Gentleman is wrong on every count and especially, if I may say so, on the last. It is not the case that compliance with the social contract is causing the difficulties that he describes. It is our desire, as I said in my orginal answer, to secure the maximum possible compliance. The increases that have taken place and the inflation that has taken place have been due not to the social contract but to other factors altogether.
§ Mr. NobleWill my right hon. Friend accept that his comments on the social contract should take account of the fact that there have been Government measures to remove anomalies, particularly in regard to the teachers? Will he note that there still remains a grave anomaly, as set out in Early-Day Motion 1087 No. 254, signed by over 50 Members? Will he draw that motion to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science with a view to the removal of that anomaly?
§ Mr. FootI have had Early-Day Motion No. 254 drawn to my attention, notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), who never ceases to put these matters to me with his customary force and skill. I assure my hon. Friend that we are fully aware of that motion and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will take proper note of it.
§ Mr. LawsonIs it not sheer humbug to pretend that the miners' settlement is within the social contract? If the Secretary of State is genuinely concerned to secure greater compliance with the terms of that contract, would it not help if he were to echo the warning of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that non-adherence by the unions to the social contract will inevitably lead to mass unemployment?
§ Mr. FootPerhaps I could recommend the hon. Gentleman, before making these judgments, to read the speech which I made at the weekend.
§ Mr. LawsonI have.
§ Mr. FootPerhaps the hon. Gentleman read it in the newspapers. The speech was reported and even more widely misreported, in the newspapers. I hope he will read the whole speech, which sets the miners' settlement in proper perspective. I said in that speech that it was undeniable that the settlement went beyond the guidelines in keeping up with the cost-of-living figures. That is true, but there are many other factors to be taken into consideration. All in all, I believe that the miners' settlement was a good one for the miners, the industry and, above all, for the country.
§ Mr. Arthur LewisIf and when my hon. Friend announces a revised social contract, will he think up a scheme within the contract to provide that on occasions when Conservative Members and Press and television reporters criticise poorer paid people on receiving wage increases, those criticis should declare 1088 how much they receive for their articles, which is sometimes as much as £200 or £300, or for a few minutes' contribution on radio or television, namely, a fee of £40 or £50? Will they not remember those large fees when they are condemning the miners for trying to achieve £30 or £40 a week?
§ Mr. TugendhatWill the right hon. Gentleman give the House the benefit of his view on the remarks by Mr. Scargill last night that it is not a social contract but a social "con" trick and that the miners were right to act in defiance of it?
§ Mr. FootI disagree with what Arthur Scargill said on the subject of the social contract. I happen to agree with the policy of the NUM on the matter—namely, with what the NUM said at its conference and at the Trades Union Congress.