§ 14. Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied that the vetting committee of the Trades Union Congress is sufficiently effective to control the movement of wages and salaries during the period of extreme moderation; and if he will make a Statement of Government policy in this respect.
§ Mr. HattersleyI would refer the hon. Member to the Written Reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs gave to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) on 5th December, 1967.—[Vol. 755, c. 289.]
§ Mr. BiffenThat is a pretty poor reply. Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that Article 12 of the Letter of Intent sent to Mr. Schweitzer said specifically that vetting arrangements would be strengthened? Now in what way have the T.U.C. vetting arrangements been strengthened since that letter was sent? Can the House be told that in explicit and forthright terms?
§ Mr. HattersleyI am afraid it cannot be told in explicit and forthright terms at this moment. The hon. Member will know that the T.U.C. is at this moment considering its incomes policy in this Situation. I am sure that when it is ready to make a Statement it will do so. Till that happens I believe it would be quite wrong for me to say what it may say or to comment on the probable outcome of its discussions.
§ 15. Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Labour what minimum level of earnings constitutes a lowest paid worker for the purposes of the Government's prices and incomes policy.
§ Mr. HattersleyI would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 4th April, 1967.—[Vol. 744, c. 30.]
§ Mr. BiffenYes, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that those replies are so unsatisfactory that one comes back constantly to this question? Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that this question is of such significance that it cannot be shuffled off on to the Aubrey Jones Board? In the Situation of post-devaluation, can the Government State quite clearly what, in their view, constitutes the earnings that qualify for the definition of the lowest paid worker?
§ Mr. HattersleyOur view is and always has been that there is no simple answer, certainly no simple figure, which can be given. The Government accept that their Obligation is to look at individual industries and individual decisions and consider whether they cover the lowest paid workers on the case presented to them.
§ Mr. LeadbitterIs my hon. Friend aware that in 1964 over 8 million people in this country were receiving National Assistance for payments at those levels or below? I would suggest that the Labour Government would not have thought those would be the only "lowest paid workers" since devaluation.