THE GUARDIAN

LEADER

This week the minimum wage goes up from £4.50 to £4.85 an hour. That is not much money, especially considering the excessive wages that top managers scoop for themselves - while simultaneously try to keep a lid on wage increases at the bottom. But it is a lot more than it would have been if the Conservatives had been in power, and the establishment of a minimum wage remains one of Labour's lasting achievements. For the each of the past two years the minimum wage has risen by around 7.5%, twice the rate of average earnings, without the adverse consequences - igniting inflation or aggravating unemployment - that its critics, especially employers, predicted.

The next few years will be more difficult. The government is not committed to maintaining growth at twice average earnings and there are signs of more employer - and maybe prime ministerial - resistance on the grounds that the big increases of the past were only one-off "catch-ups" to remedy past injustices. It would do Tony Blair's credibility no harm if he pledged the government to continue sharp rises in the minimum wage.

There are several good reasons. The first is moral: labourers are worthy of their hire. A decent minimum wage is the hallmark of a civilised country. Second, high percentage increases for those on low wages are not as dramatic they look because the cash element is so low. There is scant evidence that a higher minimum wage has caused wage inflation or unemployment. Coming when the economy is said to be approaching its productive potential, a robust hike in the minimum wage would be easily absorbed. Indeed, there are indirect signs that it might be attracting people back into the labour force from the millions of "economically inactive" who are without work but who do not appear on either the "claimant" count of the unemployed or the International Labour Organisation measure.

In these circumstances the government should give an unequivocal pledge that the minimum wage will continue to rise at least at the pace of recent years until there is evidence that the adverse consequences outweigh the benefits. That time is not yet in sight and while it would be admirable to keep the tripartite consensus (government, unions and employers) that has characterised the setting of the minimum benchmark so far, this issue is too important to give the employers a veto. If they showed any signs of being able to control pay increases at the highest level in their own organisations, then they might have more credibility in dealing with the bottom end. But they haven't, so they shouldn't.