asked the Minister of Labour what is the percentage rise in wage rates, taking into account reduced hours of working, for the period since October 1963.

It is estimated that the index of hourly wage rates has increased by about 2¾ per cent. between the end of October, 1963, and the middle of February, 1964.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a very satisfactory figure when related to the "guiding light", and since the cost of living in the same period has gone up by about 1 per cent., the figure is even more satisfactory when one realises that wage rates are ahead of the cost of living?

I would agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's question in that it is satisfactory that wage rates should keep ahead of the cost of living. I am not quite so sure that I am as happy about the first part because of the short period over which it has taken place. However, if one equates it with the period January, 1963, to January, 1964, the annual rise is about 4½ per cent., which is within the rate of increase in productivity during that period.

Is it not significant that these wage increases have taken place in the pre-election period, when employers and the Government want to keep the workers sweet? If this is not the case, why did the Government reject the 3 per cent. wage claim of the nurses and others two years ago?

The hon. Member will be aware that there are other reasons relating to the economy and that the position is very different now from what it was then. But, if the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Government are seeking to keep the workers sweet, he should occupy my job for a little while and then he will realise that the workers do not always say that.

If the Minister finds satisfaction in wage rates having taken this trend since January, 1963, what is all the row with the postmen for; why not give them what they want?

The subject of postmen does not arise on this Question.

How do the figures compare with the period a year ago and with 1951, when the party opposite were in power?

I have given the comparison for the period a year ago. I am afraid that I do not have the other figures available. However, I think that they are generally quite well known.