§ 67. Mr. Kellyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with further reference to the pay of new entrants to the Inland Revenue Department, he can now give an undertaking that new entrant tax officers in the Inland Revenue Department will be conditioned to the scale of pay agreed between the Board of Inland Revenue and the Association of Officers of Taxes in 1934 until such time as a new scale is either agreed between the parties or awarded by the arbitration tribunal?
§ 66. Major Procterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Board of Inland Revenue will not stay their hands in regard to imposing reduced scales of pay upon new entrant tax officers pending the decision of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal on the matter?
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon)I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given on 7th June to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith). The whole question is going before the Arbitration Tribunal, and in the circumstances I see no reason to intervene.
§ Mr. KellyWhy has there been some alteration made while this matter is under the consideration of the Arbitration Tribunal?
§ Sir J. SimonI think the material thing to remember is that if, as the result of 1936 negotiation or arbitration, scales of pay more favourable in the early years than those of the general clerical class are awarded, new entrants will get the benefit of any improvement as from the date of their entry into the Civil Service The adjustment will be made.
§ 68. Mr. Kellyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, now that the dispute on the pay of new entrant tax officers is to be referred to the Arbitration Tribunal, he will have regard to the view of the court in a previous comparable case (Industrial Court Award No. 1,211) and bring new entrants into the Department on the salary scales previously agreed between the Board of Inland Revenue and the association in 1934, until such time as the tribunal has adjudicated on the dispute?
§ Sir J. SimonI would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 8th June to the hon. Member for the Farnworth Division of Lancaster (Mr. Rowson), to which I do not think I can usefully add anything.