HC Deb 10 December 1888 vol 331 cc1575-6
MR. HANBURY (Preston)

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether new Regulations have recently been introduced at the Admiralty with reference to the punctual attendance of its officials; whether such Regulations apply only to the Lower Division; and, whether, in consequence, it is the fact that Lower Division clerks have to sign their names and time of arrival and departure in an attendance book, which is removed soon after 10 o'clock, the Upper Division sign their names without stating the time either of arrival or of departure, such book not being removed, and the Upper Division clerks of the Secretary's Office sign no book whatever?

THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON) (Middlesex, Ealing)

, in reply, said, no new Regulations had been introduced. Those at present in force were established in the year 1887–8, and they were very much as stated in the Question, though they varied in different Departments. As these Rules had been found to work extremely well, he did not think it necessary to make any alteration.

MR. HANBURY

Does the noble Lord still intend to keep up the distinction between the Lower and Higher Division clerks?

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, he objected altogether to make such a Rule as the hon. Member wanted in the case of the Higher Division clerks. Some of these clerks had had to work 200 hours this year in excess of their ordinary time without pay; while the Lower Division clerks received remuneration for the extra work done by them. Although the Higher Division clerks were not so paid, when an exceptional demand was made on their time they gave it ungrudgingly.

MR. HANBURY

asked, what check there was on the attendance of the Higher Division clerks at all?

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, the Head of every Department was responsible for seeing that those under him attended properly to their duties. There were in certain branches of the Admiralty at present certain redundant Higher Division clerks—that could not be helped; but he considered any alteration in the Rules, as proposed by his hon. Friend, would be detrimental to the transaction of Public Business.