§ Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Postmaster-General whether, in December, 1921, he justified the promotion of No, 39 on the seniority list at Brighton by a statement that a number of the senior sorting clerks and telegraphists were unfitted for higher duties or were distinctly inferior in supervising ability to their junior colleagues; whether he has now authorised the promotion of Mr. Rowe, who was senior to No. 39, and who was neither unfitted for higher duties nor inferior to his junior in supervising ability; and whether, seeing; that the Postmaster of Brighton has for many years persistently reported that no members of his staff were fit for promotion, and on the occasion of each vacancy his reports have been falsified, he will subject the methods of selection at that office to a rigorous examination?
§ Mr. KELLAWAYThe sorting clerk and telegraphist who stood No. 39 on the seniority list was promoted in May last. I am satisfied that he was better qualified for promotion than any other officer of his rank. When the next vacancy occurred, Mr. Rowe, who had manifested marked improvement in the interval, was considered the best qualified of the remaining candidates, and was properly promoted. There is no foundation for the statement that the Postmaster of Brighton has persistently reported that no members of his staff were fit for promotion. All recommendations for promotion are subject to a rigorous scrutiny before they are approved, and I do not consider that anything further is necessary.