36. Mr. J. JONESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that recently a temporary labourer employed at Kew Gardens was promoted to the position of constable and that a number of regular employés who have been serving in the forces and are now demobilised have been passed over in making this appointment; whether the claims of these men were considered before the appointment was made; and whether he will have this matter reconsidered?
Sir A. BOSCAWENThe answer to the first part of tie question is in the affirmative. The man referred to has already served as a constable at Kew to the entire satisfaction of the Board for four years. The claims of regular employés who have been serving in the forces, and have now reverted to their civil duties, were duly considered before the appointment was made. The Board do not propose to reconsider the appointment.
§ Mr. HOGGECan the hon. Gentleman tell us why the claims of men who have served in Government Departments are not to be considered before those of the temporary employé?
Sir A. BOSCAWENI have said in the answer that they were considered. As a matter of fact this man was specially suitable, having served as a constable for four years. Although he did not actually serve he volunteered in 1914.
§ Mr. HOGGEWhy, in view of all the Government has said about giving the first opportunity to old employés who have served, that now a post is vacant it is given to a man who has not served?
Sir A. BOSCAWENI quite agree with my hon. Friend, that other things being equal, preference should always be given to the man who has served. In this case it was understood that this was by far the best man.
Mr. JONESDoes the hon. Gentleman say that a physically fit man who has been demobilised is not better than an unfit man who has never served?