CO129-599-1 Salaries Commission 8-12-1947 - 22-12-1947 — Page 28

#

256.

28

following the minutes.

Mr. King has seen this draft and agreed with it generally, but has not yet passed it in detail.

I do not think this draft need be referred to the Treasury, though we should send them a copy of the savingram after issue. (156) was agreed with the Treasury before issue (see my minute of 20/12). We are still taking the line there taken, but offer

to abandon it if the Governor is satisfied on certain points - para. 7 of our present draft. The line the Governor wishes to follow would on the whole be less expensive than the line we have taken.

3. Mr. Radford and I have discussed (b) and (c) above with Mr. King and they were also discussed again at the meeting with Mr. Sloss referred to in my minute of 8/5.

With one or two minor exceptions the basic salaries recommended by the Salaries Commission have all been accepted, but not yet the administrative time-scale. See paragraph5 of (212) and the statement behind (212) for a comparison of the Salaries Commission proposed scale and the modification proposed from here. This was put to the Governor in (220). (244) is his reply.

I invite reference to the comparative statement filed. at (256) which illustrates the various proposals. The argument regarding reduction in pensionable emoluments used in (244) is for the following reasons not particularly strongas support for the proposal in (244). Officers on the "pre-African" scales are allowed a pensionable credit (this is a paper credit, not drawn as salary). Even though basic salary plus pensionable expatriation pay (all drawn) were to be less than old basic salary plus pensionable credit, officers would still actually draw higher emoluments during service. Officers affected are in any case only those appointed before the 1st April 1937. A reduction in pensionable emoluments is only of

importance from the point of view of pension at the time of an officer's retirement or, if he has been promoted during the preceding 3 years, during that period. And finally, the reduction in pensionable emoluments which would accur if our proposed scale in (220) were accepted would not be very considerable. The statement at (256) shows that it would occur during the 6th to the 17th years, rather than during the 12th to the 18th years, as stated by the Governor in (244)).

It will be seen from the statement at (256) that this objection regarding reduction of pensionable emoluments was valid against the Commission's proposed scale from the 6th to the 15th years, not in its top four years (which is of course the crucial area).

but

The scale now proposed by the Governor does in fact offer gene rally higher emoluments than the scale the Commission propose. It proposes a salary the same as the Commission's in the first two years,

higher