§ Q2. Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Prime Minister whether he will request the Boyle Committee to re-investigate the salaries of the chairmen of the nationalised boards and the higher paid civil servants; and whether he will propose to this committee an increase in the salaries of these public servants, due to the expected rise in the cost of living resulting from the floating of the £ sterling.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir.
§ Mr. LewisI thank the Prime Minister for that expected reply. The next time that he appeals to trade unionists for wage restraint will he point out to them that as the average worker is receiving £31 a week, it is a little immoral for anyone, be they Members of Parliament, company directors or even Ministers of the Crown with thousands of acres and hundreds of thousands of pounds, to say that the worker is greedy to ask for a decent wage increase?
§ The Prime MinisterThe supplementary question is not related to the Question on the Order Paper, which concerns the review boards for civil servants, chairmen and boards of the nationalised industries, the armed services and certain of the judiciary.
The hon. Member has been very free in the figures he has thrown about. First he told the Press that there were increases of £4,000, which was quite untrue. Second, he has constantly referred to an 18 per cent. increase. That figure could 1401 be used only with the intention of being misleading, because the average of these increases over the three years they cover was 6.8 per cent. Perhaps the hon. Member would talk about that to his trade union friends.
§ Mr. HuntIs my right hon. Friend aware that concern on this matter is not confined to one side of the House, that many of use feel that the timing of the award was particularly unfortunate, and that a post-dating to say, 1st January, 1973 would have done much to provide a positive contribution to wage and salary restraint, and might have avoided a great deal of the resentment and misunderstanding?
§ The Prime MinisterI am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend, but I do not believe that to be the case, and I must honestly say so. The timing of the review boards' awards is a matter for the boards themselves. They were set up by the Government, and existed under previous Administrations, in an endeavour to find an independent way to deal with this very difficult problem. All previous Administrations have accepted that, unless there were exceptional circumstances, the findings of a board would be accepted as a whole. The Government did that in the case of Members of Parliament, Ministers, and those associated with the House, and it was accepted by Parliament as the right thing to do. I therefore think that it was the right thing to do in the case of the group referred to in the Question and of the doctors. I do not believe that postponing the award for six months, after there had been an earlier staging over three years, would have made that much difference.
§ Mr. Harold WilsonHaving regard to the concluding words and tone of the Prime Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr.Arthur Lewis), would the right hon. Gentleman consider in future replying to questions by hon. Members without these petulant outbursts? In view of the importance of the meeting which he is to hold tomorrow, will he reconsider those last few words which he threw at my hon. Friend?
§ The Prime MinisterI was pointing out to the hon. Gentleman his constant misleading of the public outside and those 1402 in trade unions by giving false figures. Talk of a £4,000 increase, which was not the review board's award, and of an 18 per cent. increase, as if it were an award for one year like most trade union awards, is completely untrue. The General Council of the TUC, which had discussions with me a week ago, has not raised the question at all, because I believe that the trade union leaders fully understand the position.