HC Deb 06 June 1921 vol 142 c1498
62. Captain TERRELL

asked the Minister of Health whether there are in the employ of his Department office boys of 15 years of age in receipt of a weekly wage of 33s. 2d. and others with rising wages up to 51s. 9d. at 17 years of age; and on what ground such remuneration can be justified in view of the amounts paid to adult workers outside, including miners?

Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury, for Sir Alfred Mond)

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on the 1st instant to the hon. Member for Islington East.

Captain TERRELL

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington East did not reply to the last part of my question? May I press for an answer to that?

Mr. PARKER

I am sorry. I have the answer here.

Captain TERRELL

Will the hon. Gentleman read it, please?

Mr. PARKER

Yes. It was as follows: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As stated in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Harborough (Sir K. Fraser) on the 11th instant, these weekly wages are in most cases general service rates, which are fixed for me by the Treasury. I do not accept the statement in the last part of the question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1920; col. 1064, Vol. 142.]

Captain TERRELL

If the reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, why is it necessary to pay office boys a wage of 33s. 2d. per week?

Mr. SPEAKER

It would be wiser, I think, if the hon. and gallant Member would put that question when we have the Minister (Sir A. Mond) here.

Captain TERRELL

When may we have the Minister here?

Mr. SPEAKER

He is here on most occasions to answer questions. Let it be put down for Wednesday.