asked the Chancellor of the exchequer whether he will ask the National Incomes Commission to review the incomes of those groups, such as civil servants, falling within their terms of reference, whose incomes, after tax, are on average lower, in real terms, than in 1938, and to make recommendations.

No, Sir.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that to have some policy on incomes in the public sector is now a matter of pressing urgency? They are being continually left behind. Some of them have a lower income in real terms than before the war. We are failing to get recruits for the public service, and this really is a pressing matter. Why will the right hon. Gentleman not refer this to the National Incomes Commission?

It would not be proper for a general reference of this kind to be made to the National Incomes Commission. I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman said. The principle of fair comparison, to which I attach the highest importance, as I think the House is aware, guarantees to the public service that their pay moves and advances with comparable jobs in outside industry.

Surely that is not so. It has lagged behind. Although this may be an admirable principle, it does not answer the purpose. It is true that they have not kept up and they are well aware of the fact.

I also read the articles in the Economist, but they referred to the years before Priestley and pay research. We are now working on a system of fair comparisons; and if we are to compare the present system with that which operated before the war we must take into account the great advantages derived by people from the social services, for which they pay in taxation.