§ 30. Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Postmaster-General whether service in the obsolete grade of boy sorter is by a recent regulation to be counted for pension in the case of postal servants retiring after February, 1914, but not in the case of ex-boy sorters who retired before that date; if so, what is the reason for this discrimination; how many ex-boy sorters are thereby excluded from the benefit of the regulation, and what would be the cost of including them; and whether he will place all ex-boy sorters on an equal footing in regard to counting their service in that grade for pension?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe Select Committee on Post Office Servants recommended the inclusion of boy sorter service for pension purposes in the case of all officers retiring from the service after the date on which the Committee's recommendations came into effect. The Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, with whom the administration of the Superannuation Acts rests, were not prepared to go beyond the recommendation of the Committee by extending this concession to persons already out of the service. There are no statistics available to show the number of ex-boy sorters who retired before the concession came into force.
§ Mr. RONALD M'NEILLDoes not the right hon. Gentleman consider it unfair, when an obsolete grade like this is abolished, that those who were in it earlier and retired, not knowing all the advantages in store for those who followed them, should be debarred from participation?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, who administer the Superannuation Acts, were not prepared to go beyond the recommendation of the Committee, and, as the service has pension rights, I follow the recommendations of the Committee.
§ Mr. RONALD M'NEILLCan the right hon. Gentleman state how many would be affected by it, and what the cost would be, and, if the cost be trifling, will he make an effort to include those to whom I refer?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI said there are no statistics available to enable me to get the numbers.