Skip to main content

Civil Service

Volume 65: debated on Thursday 30 July 1914

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

asked the Home Secretary, in view of the fact that the Royal Commission on the Civil Service recommended that the salary of each officer now serving be increased immediately by one annual increment on his existing scale (Cd. 7338, page 34, paragraph 24), whether he proposes to give effect to this recommendation?

The recommendation in question was one of several which had reference to the class of assistant clerks. These recommendations, as a whole, are receiving the close attention of the Government, and I am afraid that it is not possible to make any announcement as to individual recommendations in advance of the general decision.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury in what Department assistant clerks (new class) have forfeited allowances, in accordance with the rule universally applied in all Departments, through accepting promotion to the second division, and the special circumstances which led the Treasury to make an exception to the Customs and Excise Departments; whether he is aware that all abstractors (old class) in the General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen retained their allowances of £20 when promoted to the second division, whilst all assistant clerks (new class) have forfeited theirs when similarly promoted; and whether, in view of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service that promotion from less to more responsible duties should never be accompanied by a loss of emolument, and that any rule which is in real conflict with this prinicple should certainly be reconsidered, he will consider the cases of the clerks who have been promoted and have suffered financially thereby and readjust their salaries accordingly?

The rule has been applied in all Departments in which such promotions have taken place, with the exceptions referred to by the hon. Member. On the second point I am unable to add to what I stated in reply to a former question on the 8th instant. The answer to the third question is in the affirmative. Whatever action is taken on the recommendation of the Royal Commission referred to in the fourth question, I cannot hold out any hope of retrospective effect being given to it in this or in other cases.