Major LOWTHERasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Mr. W. Williamson and Mr. J. Knapper, of the Royal Army Service Corps Record Office, both disabled, and many others, are under notice when men who were specially enlisted as clerks and have never moved from Woolwich are retained; that many married men with families to support, who served overseas, are under notice; and whether he will take steps to compel his subordinates to carry out the Army Command Instruction 233 and the Interim Lytton Report in letter and spirit?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on 1st instant to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham 1645W (Lieut.-Colonel Pownall) on the subject of discharges from the Mechanical Transport Depot of the Royal Army Service Corps at Deptford. That reply was as follows:—
The only eases in which disabled men have been discharged from this depot whilst homo service men were retained have been cases whole this course was necessary in order to secure the efficiency of the establishment. When barge reductions, in the interests of essential economy, are being necessarily made, this procedure is inevitable. Paragraph 17 of the Report of the Lytton Committee of 19th August, 1920, makes it clear that they regarded efficiency as an overriding consideration throughout.Precisely the same considerations apply in the case of the Royal Army Service Corps Record Office. The clerical staff of this office is in process of being reduced to one-sixth of its former strength, and this heavy reduction makes it essential to retain only the most efficient men. Every effort, consistent with economy and efficiency, is, however, being made to retain disabled men.