I rise to oppose this Bill, which I think is practically a wage-cutting device. There is no great sum of money involved and certain classes seem to be picked out for a reduction of wages. We know that the record of the previous Government was a very bad one in regard to wage-cutting. There was a series of cuts made in wages which was responsible for creating much discontent with the previous Government and putting them out of power. I do not think that this Government want to follow the same road. Wage-earners will react in the end to these cuts in wages. Pin pricks inflicted on various classes of people are inclined to become poisonous to the body politic and result in serious opposition to Government work. Instead of giving a good example to private employers, the Government are giving a very bad example. The cost of living has soared up in the last 20 years by nearly 100 per cent., and the Government's way of dealing with that situation is to cut down wages. In the other House, the Bill was rushed through all its stages and scarcely any time for criticism was given. Surely it would be simple justice for employers to have had consultation with the representatives of their employees before this Draconian method of inflicting a cut in wages by Act of Parliament was adopted?
There is the further point that this is a direct violation of a statutory guarantee given in the Act of 1930. A statutory guarantee was given to certain classes of employees, including some of the employees affected by this Bill. Under Section 99 of the Act, employees transferred from the old technical committees to the new vocational committees were given a guarantee that their conditions would not be worsened. Their basic salary was fixed at a low figure, on the understanding that the cost-of-living bonus would increase or decrease according as the figure increased or decreased. That was a fairly just arrangement, but the Government now stabilises the figure at 85, which is much below the present cost-of-living figure. It is a serious thing, I suggest, to break statutory guarantees. It destroys people's faith in Government. You pass an Act to-day giving a statutory guarantee, which gives a certain feeling of settlement and ease to those affected, but they find next day that the statutory guarantee is not worth the paper it is written on.
The Government, of course, will plead the exigencies of the case, but pleading the exigencies of the case in a matter like this is not, I think, sufficient reason. The Government are bound in honour by an Act of their predecessors and to violate that Act is a very bad procedure. It destroys the confidence of the people and creates a good deal of uneasiness amongst a very important class of public servants who are doing work of a very specialised nature. To have such people distressed by the perpetual fear of having their rights—because rights they undoubtedly are—filched from them is very bad for administration as it prevents these people from giving the best possible in them. There was no consultation with the representatives of these people who have organisations and officers to represent them, and the Government, so far as I know, had no contact with them before inflicting this cut. I happened to be connected for a number of years with vocational employees and I know the work which they are doing, and I know the perpetual dread which has haunted them for some time past that their conditions would be gradually worsened. As an example, the salary of an officer of the highest grade 20 years ago was £430. At present, it is £300 odd, the difference being £113 per annum. That is an extraordinary reduction in salary, considering that the cost-of-living index figure, when the higher salary was paid, was much lower than it is at present.
The Bill also affects the pensions of officers and that is a very important point. Their pension is a basic figure and the cost of living is added to it. If men have served 40 years in a particular job and then find that their pension is being filched from them, it is pension-cutting on a large scale. It was bad enough to take 1/- a week off old age pensions, but this is a much heavier cut, and very old people who had undertaken certain commitments in life will now find that they cannot carry on on their attenuated pensions. I suggest that the Bill should not apply to officers who were given a statutory guarantee by the Act of 1930, that that guarantee should not be violated. I also suggest that the cost-of-living figure on the date on which the Bill comes into operation should be adopted. If any figure is to be maintained, it should be that figure and not the figure of 85, which is much lower than the present figure. It would prevent the bonus from rising in future and give some measure of stability and satisfaction to those affected. I think the Bill, which will not enrich the Central Fund by any considerable amount, is an unfortunate Bill.