49. Sir F. HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the cost-of-living bonus com- 1951 pensation awarded to civil servants under the Civil Service Whitley Council cost-of-living agreement of 1920 was not extended to the same extent to ex-service men who joined His Majesty's Civil Service in a temporary capacity after the War and who are serving to-day as established, unestablished, or temporary officers, and of the dissatisfaction among these ex-service men concerning their existing remuneration, he will agree to suspend any further deduction in their existing salaries and wages on a cost-of-living basis until their existing remuneration has been placed upon a more satisfactory basis?
§ Mr. P. SNOWDENNo, Sir. I should not feel justified in exempting these clerks from the decision that the remuneration of civil servants must be revised, as from 1st March next, in accordance with the principle prescribed by the cost-of-living agreement. The principle then laid down is applicable to the unestablished clerks referred to in the hon. and gallant Member's question under the terms of agreed settlements dated 22nd May, 1924, and 7th May, 1929.
Sir F. HALLMay I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he does not think that the pay and emoluments of competent ex-service men should be as high as those of the non-service men?
§ Mr. SNOWDENThe hon. and gallant Member is raising a very important question. He refers to competent ex-service men. I have gone very carefully into this matter, and I am sure that the pay and emoluments for the kind of work they do compare very favourably with the pay in similar outside employment.
Sir F. HALLIs it not the case that these men have been working side by side with those who are in receipt of higher rates of pay and that they have been carrying out their duties perfectly satisfactorily?
§ Mr. SNOWDENI appeal to the hon. and gallant Member not to raise that point.