HC Deb 17 July 1905 vol 149 cc859-61
MR. NANNETTI

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of his statement that assistant clerks of six years service receive an increased rate of overtime, and of the Treasury regulations providing that only such clerks as are in receipt of £85 or over receive this increased rate, it is understood that all assistant clerks are entitled to a salary of £85 after six years of approved service; and, if so, will the regulations be amended to include this provision.

(Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I fear that the statement, to which the hon. Member refers, may have been misleading. The assistant clerks I had in mind were new entrants on the scale lately introduced. The reply to the two points now raised is in the negative.

MR. NANNETTI

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what advantage assistant clerks of over six and less than nine years service derive from the new scheme in offices where overtime is not required.

(Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The terms of the Treasury circular are quite clear, and I cannot undertake to explain how particular sections of the assistant clerks are affected by its provisions.

MR. NANNETTI

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that there are at present assistant clerks (new class) of nine years permanent service on salaries of £85 a year and under who are married; and whether, in view of the fact that a number of these officers obtained no benefit whatever from the new regulations, he will, following the precedent of the special age pay granted to postal officials, consider the question of granting similar advantages to assistant clerks who are married, or have reached a marriageable age.

(Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Newington on the 13th instant†.

MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will take steps to remove the disadvantage placed upon certain assistant clerks who, in consequence of the adjustment of incremental dates entailed by the Treasury reply to their petition, will be in receipt of a lower rate of pay for overtime than they would have been in receipt of had their incremental date remained unaltered, the proportionate † See page 555. increment of salary received under that reply leaving their salaries for part o a year slightly less than the amount (£85 or £100, as the case may be) to be reached before the higher rate of overtime become payable.

(Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The Treasury circular benefited the class of assistant clerks as a whole; and if any disadvantage such as that mentioned accrues to a few, it must b infinitesimal, and I am not prepared to reopen the question.