§ 33. Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists amongst officers of Customs and Excise, formerly Customs port clerks, as a result of the recent changes in their hours and conditions of overtime pay, as is shown by the official statement that over 93 per cent. of them have refused to accept the allowance of 5s. per month offered them since 1st December last as compensation for the increase of liability of attendance from a seven-hour day to a forty-eight-hour week; if that extra attendance habitually preponderates at certain ports, so that during the three months the new system has been in operation some clerks have been required to give attendance which would, under the old conditions, have earned them much more than 5s. per month, whereas others in the same period have given no extra attendance at all; whether any saving of expenditure is anticipated from the new system of attendance; and, if not, what is the Departmental objection to the restoration of the conditions of attendance formerly enjoyed by Customs port clerks?
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)I am informed that the statement in the first part of the question is substantially correct. With regard to the remainder of the question, particular individuals have no doubt received for the short period referred to under the new system less than they would have received under the old; other individuals have doubtless received more. This is bound to happen where an average annual allowance is substituted for actual payment on a daily basis. The change was made not in the interests of economy—the amount involved is quite trifling—but in the interests of uniformity throughout the service. I may add that I myself gave attentive hearing to representatives of the clerks who spoke on this very subject, and my conclusion was that there was no reasonable ground for complaint.