§ Mr. Arbuthnotasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Advisory Committee on the Pay of the Higher Civil Service has yet completed its general review; and, if so, what recommendations it has made.
§ Mr. SimonLord Coleraine, the Chairman of the Advisory Committee, has written to the Prime Minister giving the results of his Committee's review of the pay of the Higher Civil Service. I am circulating below the full text of Lord Coleraine's letter. His Committee's recommendations will be considered by the Government.
30th January, 1959.Dear Prime Minister,1. In my letter of 29th May, 1958, I informed you that after careful consideration the Standing Advisory Committee on the Pay of the Higher Civil Service had concluded that they should set about the collection of information with the object of beginning in the autumn a general review of higher Civil Service pay.2. We received full co-operation from those whom we approached, who provided us, on a confidential basis, with much valuable information.3. In reaching our conclusions we have taken into account a number of factors. Our consideration began with the broad comparabilities established by the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service between the pay of the higher Civil Service 243W and the levels of remuneration in the relevant outside sectors—in industry (both private and nationalised), in commerce, finance, and other public service (e.g., senior posts in the Local Authorities) and in the Universities. We also considered, inter alia, the movements in pay at comparable levels outside the Service since 1st July, 1955, the date to which the Royal Commission's proposals were related; and we took account of the three central pay settlements reached in relation to Civil Service grades within the arbitrable limit, as well as the relatively minor adjustments which we ourselves recommended as a consequence of the first and second of these settlements.4. Throughout our consideration of these matters we have had regard to the view—which we share—that adjustments in the pay of the higher Civil Service should, so far as possible, be made at relatively infrequent intervals and should not be interpreted as setting the pace for salary increases elsewhere. Had it not been for this, we might well have embarked on a general review at an earlier stage, in the light of movements in pay levels which were taking place outside the Civil Service. For the same reason, it is our hope that our recommendations will make a further general review of higher Civil Service pay unnecessary for some time to come. We shall, however, continue to watch the position.5. As regards the scope of our review, we have adhered to the position which we adopted at the start of our work, namely that, while our field of reference may be taken to cover all grades regarded as above the arbitrable limit, our direct concern should be with the Assistant Secretary and comparable grades, and with those above. We have limited our recommendations accordingly, in the belief that appropriate adjustments in the salaries of the remaining grades above the arbitrable limit, consequential upon our recommendations, should without serious difficulty be capable of being made through the normal process of negotiation between the Official and Staff Sides. If, however, any major question of principle should arise in relation to these grades as a result of our recommendations, we should not wish to exclude its reference to us.6. Our recommendations do not disturb the existing horizontal relativities between the various classes in the higher Civil Service. They do, however, have the effect of increasing the gap between the minima of the scales at the lowest level of those with which we are concerned and the maxima of the scales immediately below. We do not consider that this gap should necessarily be maintained intact for all time—a point which will weigh with us in the event of our being asked to examine proposals for adjustments in the minima of the scales with which we are concerned if and when the maxima of those below are raised for any reason.7. We have related our recommendation for the salary of the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury to the Royal Commission's view that the pay of this post should be £1,000 greater than that of other Permanent Secretaries. This differential is at present shared between two Joint Permanent Secretaries.244W8. Our recommendations, which are expressed in London terms, are:
Administrative £ £ Permanent Secretary to the Treasury 8,000 Permanent Secretary 7,000 Deputy Secretary 5,000 Under-Secretary 3,800 Assistant Secretary 2,400–3,000 Executive Heads of Major Establishments—broadbanded on the span 3,000–3,800 Principal Executive Officer 2,700 Scientific Scientific Adviser to the Minister of Defence and Secretary to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research 7,000 Chief Scientific Officer grade and other posts above—broadbanded on the span 3,500–5,800 Deputy Chief Scientific Officer 2,800–3,100 Senior Principal Scientific Officer 2,400–2,700 Works Group Directing posts—broadbanded on the span 3,000–5,800 Superintending grade 2,400–2,700 Legal Treasury Solicitor, First Parliamentary Counsel and Permanent Secretary to the Lord Chancellor 7,000 Heads and Deputy Heads of Legal Departments—broadbanded on the span 3,300–5,800 Principal Assistant Solicitor 3,800 Assistant Solicitor 2,500–3,000 Medical Chief Medical Officer, Ministry of Health 5,800 Other posts above Principal Medical Officer — broadbanded on the span 3,800–4,400 Principal Medical Officer 3,300 Senior Medical Officer 3,000 9. Finally, we recommend that these proposals should take effect from 1st February, 1959.10. We assume that the National Staff Side will be informed of the terms of our recommendations.Yours sincerely,(Sgd.) COLERAINE.