The Minister made no attempt to justify to the House his reason for introducing this Bill at this stage. It is described as the Local Authorities (Cost of Living) Bill. Local authorities have agreements with their various employees under which wages and salaries are regulated in accordance with the cost-of-living sliding scale. Under the operation of that sliding scale, the wages and salaries of the officers increases as the cost-of-living index figure rises, and they are reduced if the cost-of-living index figure falls. The local authorities have not made any representations to the Government that they want to dishonour the agreements into which they freely entered with their employees, and, although the local authorities are willing to honour and respect the agreements to which they set their signatures, the Minister now refuses to allow those agreements to operate, and, instead, he compels the local authorities to enforce what, in fact, will be cuts in wages and salaries. I am particularly concerned with regard to the effect of this on the wages and salaries of the lower-paid people, especially as there is no request for any such action from the local authorities. I wonder can the Minister justify to the House, or even to his own conscience, why he should force a local authority to abrogate an agreement which that local authority desires to preserve? On what ground can he justify his insistence on local authorities breaking their agreements when, in fact, they desire to preserve them?
The agreement under which the wages and the salaries of the local officers are calculated has not been an unmixed blessing to them. When the cost-of-living sliding scale arrangement was applied to their pre-war basic scales, it provided that there should be revision upwards or downwards according to the movement of the cost-of-living index figure. While the employees of local authorities got certain increases when the cost of living was rising, the fact is that the tendency has been constantly downwards for many years past, and these employees have suffered a very substantial reduction in wages and salaries, a reduction that went hand in hand with the fall in the cost-of-living index figure. Now, because of an emergency situation, and the inability of the Government to control prices, the local authorities find the cost-of-living index figure moving skywards, and, after bearing all the hardships inseparable from a constantly declining index figure, the employees of local authorities find themselves in a position definitely worse than anything they expected. The Minister, without any request from the employers, wants to force through a Bill denying the officers concerned any compensation for the substantial increase in prices which has taken place since last September.
One would imagine that if there was any serious national problem to be dealt with or any inequalities to be ironed out, the Government would concentrate on the millers and the bacon curers in this country, but instead, the Minister and the Government select for attack the employees of local authorities and they endeavour to compel them to carry on at a fixed rate of pay at a time when wages and salaries are buying less than they formerly bought. On what ground can the Minister pretend that the agreement which has been in operation for the last 20 years, and which has been honoured loyally by the employers and the employees, should now be abrogated without any request from the people affected? It seems to me to be manifestly unfair that, having borne all the hardships associated with the sliding scale arrangement, these officers should now be prevented from getting any compensation for the rapid increase in prices.
It seems to me, further, that by taking this action the Government are taking a line which is calculated to set a very bad example to private employers. Happily, these private employers have shown a much better appreciation of the economic position than the Government. The Government seem to be determined to set the pace in keeping the wages and salaries of its own servants down. The members of the Government do not keep their own allowances down, or the allowances to members of this House down, but they seem determined to keep the salaries and wages of their employees down. Private employers in industries outside have recognised that the increase in prices has been so rapid that, of their own accord, and as a result of the representations of organisations representing the workers, they have voluntarily agreed to an adjustment of the sliding scale, a thing that the Government seem determined to abolish.
If the Government want to stabilise the cost-of-living bonus, there is a very simple way of bringing it about. The proper way to do it is to stabilise prices. The Government are apparently incapable of stabilising prices. Apparently they intend to permit prices to rise, on the one hand, and the only stabilisation they contemplate is in regard to the cost-of-living index figure in its application to basic wages and salaries. If the Government have to admit that they cannot or will not control prices, and are satisfied to allow prices to rise, then there is no answer to a demand by the workers that, in respect to those who have agreements under which wages are adjusted in accordance with the sliding scale arrangement, those agreements should be allowed to operate. Neither is there an answer to the demand by workers that, in this situation, the purchasing power of their wages should not be attacked by attempting to prevent them from securing increases.
I think this is a most unfair Bill. It is picking out those particular employees for attack, and is doing that at a time when there is no request from their actual employers that there should be any abrogation of their agreements. The Government is setting a very bad headline in keeping wages down while prices are rising. Other employers have shown a much greater appreciation of the situation than the Government appears to be capable of doing. I do not know how much the Central Funds hope to be able to save under this Bill. I do not imagine they can save anything under it except a very tiny sum, and that only in so far as they are responsible for recoupment of portion of the salaries of officers of local authorities, while the latter are willing to have their agreements with their staffs continued. I cannot see why the Minister should intervene in such an unfair way. The viciousness behind the whole thing is manifest in the title which is "to restrict the upward variation of remuneration and superannuation allowances payable by local authorities". Presumably, if the index cost-of-living figure falls the Government will come back to look for their pound of flesh. Their idea appears to be to prevent any increase in salaries when there is an upward tendency in the cost-of-living figure, but should it fall they will come back and say that they are entitled to get a reduction in wages. I think the Minister should withdraw the Bill. It is hardly calculated to beget efficiency amongst the employees of local authorities. It is a disgrace that the Bill should be introduced at a time like this. It is a particularly unfair Bill for a Government to introduce. If the Government want to set an example and a headline in the matter of sacrifices, they can find examples nearer home. The examples ought to be set nearer home rather than by picking out those people for sacrifices of the kind indicated in the Bill.
