Equal Pay (Hansard, 27 November 1952)

§ 10. Mr. Lewis
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards the implementation of his declared policy of the partial introduction of equal pay in the Civil Service; and whether he will make a statement.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) on 14th October, he had been asked by the T.U.C. and by the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council to authorise the Whitley Council to begin discussions on the various possible schemes for the gradual introduction of equal pay. My right hon. Friend made it clear to the Staff Side that, while he would consider this proposition, he would not wish to raise false hopes that it would be likely that a start could be made on equal pay in the near future. Any discussions would, therefore, have to be non-committal.
The Staff Side have now said that they do not wish to enter into joint discussions the outcome of which the Government might not be able to accept.

§ Mr. Lewis
Surely the hon. Gentleman remembers that he himself said that the Government would implement equal pay on a partial basis. Are we now to take it that the Government are backing out from the statement that was made in debate?

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
The matter remains, as has been clearly stated from this Box on a number of occasions, that we hope to make progress with this matter just as soon as the national economic and financial position permits.

§ 12. Mr. Houghton
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far the dispute between the staff side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council and the Treasury on the application of the principle of equal pay is within the scope of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
I endorse the ruling of successive Governments that questions of major policy, including that of equal pay, should not be submitted to arbitration.

§ Mr. Houghton
How can the hon. Gentleman defend excluding a matter of pay from the scope of an arbitration tribunal, even though it is a matter of pay affecting women only? Will he explain the circumstances in which the scope of this Tribunal excludes this important matter?

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
For the reasons which have been expressly stated by successive Governments since at least 1918; that is to say, that on matters of major policy the Government must retain its unfettered responsibility to Parliament.

Miss Ward
If that argument is to prevail, does it not mean that we are tied by every stupid action that the last Socialist Government took; and is it right that, because successive Governments have adopted what appears to be a most unfair principle, this beneficent Government should go on carrying out that stupidity?

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is, "No, Sir." The second part, therefore, does not arise.

§ Mr. Callaghan
Does the hon. Gentleman's first answer mean that if the staff side draft terms of reference to the Arbitration Tribunal and send them 609 forward the Government will advise the Tribunal not to hear the case, or that the Government will not turn up when the case is heard?

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
It means that the practice preserved by a number of Governments since 1918 will continue.

§ Mr. Callaghan
Will the hon. Gentleman give me an answer to what is a perfectly proper question? Would the Government not put in an appearance at the Arbitration Tribunal if the staff side exercised their undoubted right to send terms of reference forward to it?

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
In the first place, that is a hypothetical question. In the second place, though no doubt important, it is not this Question.