HC Deb 09 February 1967 vol 740 cc1809-10
7. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs why he has taken steps to prevent the payment to limb-fitters working at Roehampton Hospital of the wage increase agreed by their employers; and what, on an annual basis, is the sum involved.

Mr. M. Stewart

The agreement, which is for a pay increase of £100 a year for each limb-fitter from 2nd January, is not obviously reconcilable with the criteria for pay increases in the period of severe restraint and was therefore referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes for examination. In view of the refusal by the parties to defer payment of the increase pending the Board's report, the Government considered it necessary to make an Order prohibiting further payment of the increase.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Is not the total amount involved absolutely trivial in terms of the national economy or in relation to the amounts at stake in respect of electrical contractors and the agricultural workers? As these men are specially skilled men, limited in number, who do a vital job of work for disabled people is it not very petty to invoke this great instrument with criminal penalties to stop the increase which their employers want to give them?

Mr. Stewart

It is true that a very small number of men are involved. That really is the point, because the great majority of workers are accepting the general tenor of the policy at present. Therefore, it would not be right to let particular groups act in clear opposition to that policy.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there are special circumstances in this case which would have justified allowing this increase? Does he not agree, further, that by intervening at this stage and preventing the payment of the increase he has conditioned the situation and made it extraordinarily difficult for the National Board for Prices and Incomes to reach a fair and unbiassed conclusion in the matter?

Mr. Stewart

No, I do not think this is so. I would agree that there are special circumstances in this case, but there are many groups of workers who could have advanced that plea. It was because there were special circumstances that I thought it right to refer the case to the Board. I would have thought that it was reasonable for both parties to have refrained from making the increase until the Board had reported. To insist on making the increase before the report, was really an attempt to pre-judge the Board's decision. I did not think that could be accepted.