§ 38. Mrs. Castleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recommendations have been received from the Standing Advisory Committee on the Pay of the Higher Civil Service about increases in the salaries of the Higher Civil Service; and what action he has taken on those recommendations.
§ Mr. MaudlingThe Committee recommended that in order to remove anomalies resulting from increases confined to the pay of the middle and lower grades of the Civil Service, increases of up to £150 a year should be made in the salaries of those grades whose pay falls between the minimum of the Assistant Secretary grade and the rate of salary of the Under-Secretary.
The Government have accepted these recommendations, which have now been implemented.
§ Mrs. CastleIs it not a fact that civil servants earning between £2,500 and £3,500 a year are to receive an increase of £150 a year? Is it not also a fact 1116 that this agreement was concluded on 1st March and made retrospective to 1st January of this year? In view of this fact, why have the Government refused to make retrospective the increases given to old-age pensioners, when the pensioners are clearly in so much greater need of an increase?
§ Mr. MaudlingThe fact is that in the maximum case this increase will be 5½per cent., and it is the first increase for these people for four years.
§ Mrs. CastleThe Chancellor has not answered my question. Why is it possible to make these payments retrospective when it was found impossible to make the increases in old-age pensions retrospective to the date of the announcement?
§ Mr. MaudlingThat is more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, but I can assure the hon. Lady that the date of the payment of increased social benefits was a matter that we studied very closely. The increases were made at the first possible date.
§ Mr. TileyWill my right hon. Friend bear in mind that when the Opposition were in charge of pensions they could not provide increases for the future, never mind about back-dating them?