§ 72. Mr. R. J. Taylorasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the rural district council of Bellingham, Northumberland, in September last appointed a sanitary inspector at a salary of £200 per annum in accordance with the terms of the council's advertisement and subsequently, at the request of the Minister, required the person appointed to enter into a new agreement for service under which the officer's salary was apportioned as follows, that is to say: £170 as sanitary inspector and meat inspector and £30 as sanitary and building surveyor; and on what grounds he considers that the amount of salary allocated in respect of the duties of sanitary inspector, including those of meat inspection, is adequate remuneration for the services of a properly qualified officer and is conducive to efficient administration in an area comprising 246,645 acres?
§ Mr. ElliotI am aware of the appointment to which the hon. Member refers. For the purpose of distinguishing the part of the salary which would rank for grant from the county council, it was necessary for me to ask the district council to allocate the total salary as between the two functions assigned to the officer. Having regard to the character of this district and the total amount of the salary, I did not consider that I should be justified in refusing to approve the salary and proportions as proposed by the council.
§ Mr. TaylorIs not this like the action of a bad employer in breaking the term of a contract after the man has been appointed, and in view of the wide area of administration, does not the Minister consider that the amount specified under the new contract is not likely to lead to the best services for the amount paid?
§ Mr. ElliotI do not think the contract was varied after the appointment of the person in question.
§ Mr. TaylorIs it not a fact that the man was appointed at a salary as sanitary inspector of £200 a year and that these changes were made after he was appointed?
§ Mr. ElliotHis duties were known before he was appointed.