Skip to main content

Salaries

Volume 728: debated on Monday 16 May 1966

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

24.

asked the Minister of Labour how many claims for increased salaries are outstanding; how many of these fall within the income norm of 3–3½ per cent.; and what is the total number of employees involved.

I know of 23 current claims for increased pay covering a little over 420,000 salaried workers. For most of these workers the claims are not in specific terms and cannot be related to the norm.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he thinks that it is possible to have these claims related in specific terms, and whether his Ministry will improve its statistical service so that I may have this information?

It is not a question of improving the statistical service. The hon. Member will know that claims are put in in many and varied forms. Many are specified only after negotiations have started, and the submission of a claim for what in many cases is a substantial amount which is not specified, is not a basis for providing statistical information.

Will not this make the proposed early warning legislation rather difficult for the Government?

25.

asked the Minister of Labour how many salary claims were settled in 1965; how many were within or below the norm of 3–3½ per cent.; how many were in excess of that norm; and what was the total number of employees involved, respectively.

Sixty-four claims for pay increases or hours reductions covering just under 1½ million salaried workers are known to have been settled in 1965. Because of the complexity of salary scales and structures and the variations within and between scales changes cannot be expressed satisfactorily in terms of a simple percentage.

Since salaries account for no less than one-third of the wages and salaries figures, does not the Minister think that it is desirable that the Ministry of Labour should publish salaries statistics in no less detail than wage statistics?

It would be desirable. The difficulty lies in obtaining the information, because—especially in respect of salaries—there are thousands of agreements on an individual basis. It is not like a wage structure.

33.

asked the Minister of Labour by what absolute and percentage amounts United Kingdom salaries rose in 1965 compared with 1964.

Between October, 1963 and October, 1964 average salaries of administrative, technical and clerical employees taken together rose by £1 0s. 1d. a week, or 5·6 per cent. Between October, 1964 and October, 1965 the corresponding figures were £1 12s. 6d., or 8·5 per cent.

Does not this mean that the norm has been exceeded by almost double, or rather more than double?

I do not think one can draw many deductions from those figures, because they run from October, 1964, to October, 1965, and the Prices and Incomes Board had then been in operation for only six months or so. I am not suggesting that there is not still a great deal to be done in this respect. I hope that 1966 will be a much better year.

34.

asked the Minister of Labour how much in absolute and percentage terms United Kingdom salaries are expected to increase in 1966 compared with 1965, on the basis of outstanding claims.

Outstanding claims, many of them expressed in general terms, do not provide a suitable basis for such calculations.

Would the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for the public sector, which presumably are available?

If these claims exist only in such generalised forms, how can the Minister have very much idea whether or not the incomes policy has the remotest chance of succeeding, in view of the fact that salaries account for no less than one-third of the total wages and salaries bill?

I agree, but I can only give the figures as we have them. I said in answer to the previous Question that statistics on salary movements are not good.