§ 11. Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will refer to the National Incomes Commission the question of the recent pay award to doctors.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterNo, Sir.
§ Mr. HamiltonWhy not?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterFor the reasons already very clearly explained in the White Paper laid last November.
§ Mr. HamiltonIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that these doctors got a very much greater increase than that for which the Scottish plumbers were asking, and yet the claim of the Scottish plumbers was referred to the National Incomes Commission? Is he aware that the 16 per cent. given to the doctors over three years represents more than 7 per cent. per annum, which is more than twice what the Chancellor of the Exchequer regards as in the national interest? Is this the way the right hon. Gentleman and the Government hope to get general acceptance of a national incomes policy, when there is such a great difference between the treatment of doctors and Scottish plumbers?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterIf the hon. Gentleman studies the Report of the Review Body on the remuneration of doctors, he 618 will see, first, that it recommended that these proposals should run for at least three years. Secondly, it explicitly took account of changes taking place before the beginning of that period; and therefore the figure recommended—which is actually 14 per cent.—is spread over a number of years.