by Jo James, chief executive of Kent Invicta Chamber of Commerce

There has been a lot of coverage surrounding the living wage versus minimum wage debate.

This has particularly come from the public sector, with Medway Council recently voting against introducing the living wage. I have to admit I was alarmed when I heard about it because of fears about the effect of introducing the living wage and whether doing so would give weight in their procurement processes to those contractors who pay the living wage.

Like all businesses the public sector has had to make quite severe cuts to their budgets for the past few years and will continue to have to do so for some time.

I think it is quite prudent that they voted against introducing the living wage at this point, particularly as it was not included in their budget. What we wouldn’t want to see it introduced, only to be funded by redundancies further down the line. If councils have budgeted and can afford to increase to the living wage, then that’s good for their lower paid workers and puts more money into the local economy. I am fully supportive of those who can afford to pay the living wage but I do think it would be wrong for any council to add weight in their procurement processes to businesses who pay it.

Medway Council recently voted against introducing the living wage

The living wage does not differ its rate for younger workers as is the case with the minimum wage. The last thing we need to be doing is putting barriers in the way for employers to take on young people. This should be avoided at all cost.

From a private sector point of view, if contractors are paying the minimum wage, then to increase to the living wage would be a 17% increase in salary costs. It would have to be found from somewhere and would likely result in less staff or the firm becoming uncompetitive.

Really it should come down to us all, whether public or private sector, to be paying a rate which is fit for the function being carried out.