§ MR. HAZELL (Leicester)I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the proposed enforced retirement before the age of 65 of about 20 inspectors and surveyors of taxes and other officers of the Inland Revenue; whether he is aware that many of these gentlemen are perfectly fit to perform their duties, and desire to continue to do so until they reach the age of 65; whether this enforced retirement is intended to facilitate the promotion of younger men; and whether, as this arrangement will increase the cost by £12,000 during the current year, and ultimately and permanently by £36,000 a year, he could state the advantage to the public anticipated from this procedure?
§ MR. HANBURYI understand that the Hoard of Inland Revenue have fixed the age for retirement for all officers of their Department at 63 during the current year, and in subsequent years at 62. They are aware that some of their officers are still fit to perform their duties at 62, or even at 65, but they must be guided in this matter by a general rule, and looking to the Department as a whole, they consider that the new rule will have the effect of materially increasing the general efficiency of the Service. I do not understand how the honourable Member's estimate of the cost of this arrangement is arrived at. The result will no doubt be to increase the charge for superannuation, but this will be largely counterbalanced during the current year by a saving on the charge for salaries. The net increase will not exceed £2,000 in the current year; and this increase in connection with a salary list amounting to more than a million a year does not seem an excessive price to pay for the increased efficiency of the Service.