asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why Mr. Sam Healam, a disabled 53 years old ex-Serviceman of the 1914–18 war, who has been full-time postman at Drighlington, near Bradford, for the last 10 years, is now no longer considered suitable for such an appointment; whether there have been any complaints as to the way he has carried out his duties; and, if not, whether he will reconsider the decision to replace Mr. Healam by a younger man.

Mr. Healam has been employed continuously as a temporary postman since March, 1940, and his services have been entirely satisfactory. He is, unfortunately, ineligible by age for a permanent appointment under the postwar recruitment scheme agreed generally with the Service Departments, and I am sorry that, in fairness to other ex-Service applicants, I cannot make an exception in his favour.

In view of the fact that Mr. Healam has been employed by the Post Office since 1937, and of the fact that he has worked satisfactorily, and in view of the shortage of manpower, is there any justification for training another man to do his work and putting Mr. Healam, who is a disabled man from the last war, on part-time employment?

We have a scheme which fixes a certain age limit beyond which a person cannot be offered a permanent appointment. Another ex-Serviceman, who has had nine years' service with the Forces, has taken Mr. Healam's place.

May I ask the Minister whether he has taken into account that this man has been in public employment since 1937?

It has been continuous employment only since 1940.