HL Deb 08 February 1977 vol 379 cc1029-31

2.40 p.m.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, as the terms of the Social Contract were agreed between the Government and the TUC, they have been made aware of any likely amendment arising from the recent meeting between the Leader of the Opposition and some of her colleagues with trade union leaders.

Lord ORAM

My Lords, meetings between TUC leaders and members of the Opposition are a matter for the parties concerned, which I would not have thought had any implications for the Social Contract.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that Answer falls far short of his usual intelligent replies? Is he aware that this was a gathering of supreme importance, of remarkable significance? When there is so much talk of and demands for open government, is it not about time that we were informed by the Opposition about the secrets which are in their possession? What took place at this gathering? Were the Government never informed? Have they never inquired? Did my noble friend's right honourable friend the Prime Minister not seek to meet the Leader of the Opposition to find out what happened?

Lord ORAM

No, my Lords; so far as I understand it, this is, as I have said, a matter for the parties concerned, upon which the Government would not need or would not wish to comment. Mr. Len Murray has indicated to some extent what took place. So far as I know, Her Majesty's Opposition have kept a stony silence. Mr. Len Murray indicated that the trade union side said that they saw no need for an early Election and that they would not vote for Mrs. Thatcher if one took place. If it was that kind of meeting, then I think that it was possibly a useful one.

Lord THORNEYCROFT

My Lords, will the noble Lord place a copy of the Social Contract in the Library for the convenience of noble Lords?

Lord ORAM

My Lords, I have a copy here. It is a published document, and I am sure that there is a copy in the Library. I refer to the publication The Next Three Years and the Problem of Priorities, which was issued last year.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, does not my noble friend's reference to "stony silence" denote something in the nature of a conspiracy between Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Jack Jones and company, and ought we not to be fully informed about these matters? How can my noble friend indulge in complacency about a conspiracy against my noble friend's Government?

Lord ORAM

My Lords, by "stony silence" I did not mean that there was anything in the way of a conspiracy. Mr. Len Murray, whom I have already quoted, indicated that there had been no weakening of the Social Contract as a result of those talks; and, though I am not privy to these consultations, I have seen no signs at all of anything approaching a conspiracy between the TUC leaders and Her Majesty's Opposition.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, in the interests of accumulating greater knowledge about the original negotiations leading to that Social Contract, would it not be advisable, before passing any final judgment upon it, to await the publication of an authoritative account of those events by Mr. Joe Haines, since this might also help to increase the historical accuracy of those events?

Lord ORAM

My Lords, more important than the historical origins of this is the way in which the Social Contract has been working. Despite the economic difficulties that this country is in, they would have been far worse if there had not been this agreement called the Social Contract.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, is the Minister aware that there has been a copy of the Social Contract in the Library ever since it was agreed upon, and is it not quite astonishing that a leading member of the Opposition Front Bench should be ignorant of that fact?