HC Deb 10 November 1926 vol 199 cc1092-3W

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that two officers, second and seventh on an acting list of eight, have been promoted overseers at Brighton; that in accordance with established procedure the staff side of the local Whitley Committee nominated two officers, first and third on the acting list, for the vacancies, being of the opinion that the officer second on the acting list was tactless, eccentric in manner, and devoid of qualities essential to smooth working; that the staff side agreed to the officer second on the acting list being given a month's trial, but were unable to modify their views as a result of the trial; and that the promoted officer seventh on the acting list had in June, 1924, been passed over for Grade A writing duties and the acting list, had never worked a clear fortnight on a writing duty, was not even recognised as a Grade A writing-duty reserve, and had done very little counter work; in what respect the qualifications of the promoted officers are superior to those of the other officers, and particularly of the two nominated by the staff side; and if he will take steps to secure that the invited views of the staff side will be given serious consideration, and that the whole matter will be re-examined in order that no officers may be unfairly penalised?

Viscount WOLMER

I am aware of the circumstances. The Promotion Board considered very carefully the representations made by the Staff Side and interviewed each of the officers on the Acting List. The members of the Board were unanimously of the opinion that the two officers selected were the best-fitted for performance of the duties of overseer. I can find no reason for dissenting from the Board's view; and I do not understand on what ground it is suggested that there has been any penalisation.