Top Salaries Award (Hansard, 22 July 1985)

§ Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration—it is a matter of urgent public interest—namely, the implementation without the approval of the House of Commons of Report No. 22 of the Review of Top Salaries", the implementation of which is of obvious and continuing detriment to good industrial relations in the public sector.
It is clear that the desire to debate the matter is not confined to one side of the House. On Friday, six Government supporters expressed their deep concern at the Government's decision and, since then, other Conservative Members have added their voices to the chorus of apprehension and disapproval. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker. that were you to grant this application, it would be welcomed on both sides of the House.
Despite the position made very clear on Friday and repeated in quotations in newspapers over the weekend, it is obvious that the Government still do not realise the depth of feeling which has been engendered by last week's decisions—the decision on one day to scrap wages council protection for young workers and, on the next, for example, to increase the salary of the Secretary to the Cabinet by £23,750 a year.
To debate the Government's attitude on these matters would allow the House of Commons to reflect the outrage which is undoubtedly felt in the country and perhaps enable right hon. and hon. Members to fulfil their traditional function of changing the Government's mind on behalf of public opinion. Were we able to do that, it would be possible to remedy some of the damage which is already being done among workers in the public sector.
I give one example to justify the argument that House of Commons intervention is important now. As matters stand, the decision on the top salaries award will have a direct and detrimental effect on the prospects of further disruption in our schools next autumn. There is no doubt from the published statements that the teachers' unions. contemplating a settlement, have been moved away from conciliation and compromise by what was decided last Wednesday and Thursday.
Were we able to change the Government's mind by debate, we would have a chance to save the country from the Government's folly, to attempt to change the Prime 734 Minister's mind and, and as a result, to avoid the disruption which is bound to follow if the Government continue this confrontational policy.
One other factor makes last Thursday's announcement unique. Other large pay awards have been made to top civil servants and the like, but on previous occasions those awards have been phased over two years or more. This year, the whole amount—46 per cent. or 35 per cent.—-is to be paid within a period of nine months. That compression of the payment—the virtual instant: payment of the whole award—has added enormously to the offence felt by lower paid workers, especially those in the public sector, some of whom earn only a fraction of the salary increases which the Government accepted last week for judges, senior civil servants and senior officers in the armed forces.
If we do not debate the whole subject—not the decision to increase the salary of one member of the Government, which we shall be able to debate tomorrow—the House will rise on Friday, the increases will be paid, and the bitterness will remain in the public service for years to come. Today, I ask for the opportunity for the House to change the Government's mind and avoid that bitterness. It is in that spirit that I beg to ask leave to move my motion.

§ Mr. Speaker
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the implementation without the approval of the House of Commons of Report No. 22 of the Review of Top Salaries. I have listened with the greatest care to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 10 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business already set down for this evening or tomorrow.
I regret that I cannot find the matter that the right hon Gentleman has raised meets the criteria laid down in the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

§ Mr. Hattersley
I am very grateful, Mr. Speaker, for the careful consideration that I know that you have given to this matter during the day.
I understand fully the constraints under which you operate. Therefore, it is the duty of the Opposition to find other ways in which it can be raised. Thank you very much.