§ 5. Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many pay settlements of less than £6 per week have been notified to his Department; and what proportion of pay settlements made since 1st August this represents.
§ The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth)On the basis of information available to my Department about major settlements made since 1st August, I estimate that about 5 per cent. of the employees covered have received increases significantly less than £6. I regret that this cannot be meaningfully expressed in terms of numbers of settlements, of which there are very large numbers, mostly covering small groups.
§ Mr. MadelIn view of the precarious situation in which many firms find themselves, and the increase in unemployment, does the hon. Gentleman feel that the next phase of the incomes policy will 1277 have to include pay settlements for less than £6 a week if we are to preserve existing jobs?
§ Mr. BoothNo, Sir. I do not think that it is appropriate at this juncture to make forecasts about the next stage of the incomes policy. What we are principally concerned about is that the initial success of the policy and its general observance by negotiators and all involved in it should be maintained. We should use the time that is purchased for us to consider what form of development the policy should take beyond this stage, but it would militate against any such proper consideration if a Minister were to suggest that the increase under some future policy would have to be more or less than £6.
§ Mr. HefferWill my hon. Friend give an interpretation of the way in which the £6 increase operates in cases where, for example, there is a trainee who, from the age of, say, 18 or 19, would normally get a £10 increase—a concrete example of this is in Dunlop's—but is now getting only £6? The firm says that this is because of Government policy, and it means that the individual is having to work for £4 less than is received by other workers who are doing the same job. This is an absurdity, and a ludicrous situation. Will my hon. Friend interpret the Government's view on this?
§ Mr. BoothI cannot comment on that specific case, but the view taken by those who originally framed this policy was that incremental scales should be regarded as the rate for the job and that where such scales applied they should continue to operate, subject to their not producing, together with the annual pay increase, an average increase of more than £6. Where they did that it would count against any future increases during the period of the policy. In all cases, incremental scales are subject to an upper limit of £8,500.