Retrospection

HC Deb 05 November 1973 vol 863 cc604-7

25. Mr. John Grant

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received from the National Whitley Council staff side concerning the issue of retrospection.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker)

The national staff side made representations on the issue of retrospection at its meetings with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 26th September and with my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 15th October.

Mr. Grant

Is the Minister aware that on the pay issue both he and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are now seen within the Civil Service as a couple of walking, talking anomalies? In view of the Pay Board's report, which found that the Civil Service pay situation was a gross anomaly, is it not time that the Government dropped their cussed attitude and redressed the grievance by agreeing to back-date the Civil Service increases to the beginning of phase 2?

Mr. Baker

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Pay Board's report considered retrospection—that is, the payment back to 1st April of this year—and specifically recommended against it. The board did not just dismiss it; it specifically recommended against it. It was asked to consider the question of anomalies comprehensively, and I think it only right to follow its recommendation.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg

Could my hon. Friend do anything about retrospection with regard to pensions? Is he aware that, as a result of the standstill and no retrospection, many people may suffer for 10, 15 or 20 years because their pensions will be reduced?

Mr. Baker

I take my hon. Friend's point, and I assure him that we intend to introduce legislation—regrettably, it will require legislation—to mitigate the effect on pensioners of stages 1 and 2 of the incomes policy. I am glad to be able to announce this because I accept my hon. Friend's point that those who became Civil Service pensioners since 1st January this year or are likely to become pensioners this year will in one way or another be affected. When staging or deferment has occurred in the past, as under the previous Government, they were not able to do this on pensions, and I am most glad that we can.

Mr. David Stoddart

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Civil Service has never been as angry as it is now, and it is angry because it is of the opinion that this Government have ratted on promises given to it that its wages and salaries would keep pace with industries outside? Will not the Minister take notice of his own employees, make sure that he keeps the agreement and ensure that Civil Service salaries are in keeping with others in outside industries?

Mr. Baker

I refute that. The Government made clear that pay research was subject to any overriding national policy, and I remind the House that on 1st April this year civil servants received awards within phase 2 limits—£1 plus 4 per cent. That meant that a female cleaner in the Civil Service received an increase of 13 per cent., a typist aged 21 received an increase of 14 per cent. and a messenger received 11½ per cent. What we are saying is that the balance due to those in the Civil Service will be made up as from Wednesday of this week. I remind the House also that all civil servants are due for an increase under phase 3 from 1st January 1974.

Mr. Tom King

Will my hon. Friend confirm that his proposals to preserve pensions against damage under phase 1 and phase 2 will apply to industry generally and not merely to the Civil Service?

Mr. Baker

I can only speak for those for whom I bear ministerial responsibility, namely, the civil servants. I reaffirm what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), that we shall introduce legislation to ensure that those civil servants who have suffered, or are likely to suffer, as pensioners from 1st January last year will be compensated.

Mr. Sheldon

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his announcement about pensions, a question that I put to him on a previous occasison and to which he said he would direct his mind. Is it not rather odd that legislation is now required to put right some of the non-senses of phases 1 and 2? Could this not have been done at that time? What is the position of Post Office employees as regards both pensions and their own anomalies?

Mr. Baker

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications dealt with the latter point earlier this afternoon. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) will know that it is not my ministerial responsibility.

I am glad to discharge the obligations that I have for civil servants, even if it means legislation. I remind the House that when the previous administration deferred and staged settlements for the Civil Service,. at no time did they make any compensation for pensioners who were affected by their actions.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

My hon. Friend mentioned the meeting with the Prime Minister about retrospection, but he did not say what happened. Does he wish to add anything to what he said?

Mr. Baker

Representations were made on retrospection by the Civil Service unions and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister drew the attention of the Civil Service unions to the report of the Pay Board, which said that the pay of the Civil Service counted as an anomaly, but the board specifically said that there should be no retrospective payment back to 1st April. Section 47 of the report of the Pay Board recommended against retrospection. The Pay Board implied that the catch-up would occur on 1st January next year, but we are saying that it will take place from Wednesday 7th November.

Mr. Loughlin

The hon. Gentleman may appear to think that the Civil Service is delighted with the Government, but will he tell us why the civil servants had a mass lobby here last week? Secondly, when he talks about 13 per cent. for the cleaners, can he tell us precisely what the wage would be with that 13 per cent.?

Mr. Baker

I am meeting a delegation of cleaners accompanied by certain hon. Members next week. We accept that certain members of the Civil Service are low paid. In phase 2 we tried to weight the settlement in favour of them. Senior civil servants took much less than 13 per cent. so that lower-paid members could receive more.

Mr. Loughlin

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister cannot answer the second part of the question, I will remind him of the first part. He conveyed the impression that the Civil Service was delighted with the Government. I asked him why the Civil Service had a mass lobby in the House last week.

Mr. Baker

The Civil Service unions had a lobby in the House for the simple reason that they believe that they should receive retrospection to 1st April this year. I was keen to point out to the House that when Civil Service pay was deferred or staged under the previous administration—it had been deferred four of five times in the years 1965–69—at no time was there retrospection and at no time was there any measure taken to improve the position of Civil Service pensioners. This we intend to do.