§ Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Postmaster-General whether the application of the recommendation of the Hobhouse Committee with regard to the pay of third-class clerks, Superintending Engineers' Office, London, at a scale of £65 per annum, rising by annual increments of £7 10s. to £185, with an allowance of £15, has been complied with; and, if not, will he indicate the reason for this delay of over two years in the enforcement of the recommendation?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe recommendation referred to by the hon. Member has been carried out as far as possible, but certain officers have not yet decided whether to keep to the old scale of pay or to adopt the scale recommended by the Select Committee. The representations that have been made by these officers are now under consideration.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDasked what are the circumstances under which it has been decided that the report of a superintending engineer as to fitness for promotion of a third-class clerk under his control to the next higher clerical grade should no longer be regarded as a reliable basis upon which to make such promotions; and whether the same principle will be applied to the clerical establishment of the Engineer-in-Chief's Office and the other departments of the Post Office?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe circumstances are that the clerks in question are now on one list for promotion purposes and that promotions must therefore be settled by a central authority. Similar circumstances do not obtain with regard to the clerical establishment in the Engineer-in-Chief's Office and in other departments of the Post Office.