HC Deb 12 April 1920 vol 127 cc1374-5
17. Mr. MYERS

asked the Pensions Minister concerning the case of Mr. G. H. Pickles, of 85, Osborne Street, Bradford, who joined the Army in July 1917, after he had served 15 months of his apprenticeship as a pharmaceutical chemist and was demobilised in November 1919, and who still requires nine months' working experience, after taking into consideration an allowance of 12 months' deduction of his apprenticeship period for his Army service, before he is entitled to take advantage of the award of the grants Committee of the Ministry of Labour appoinment department in respect to training at a college, if he is aware that the only offer Mr. Pickles can get to allow him to gain the required working experience for nine months is that of a local chemist and the wage offered to him is only 10s. per week, on which he cannot exist; that the Ministry of Labour appointments department has refused to make a training grant to supplement this small wage; that Mr. Pickles is consequently confronted with the alternative of abandoning the profession for which he had made expensive preparation prior to joining the Army and beginning life afresh in some unskilled occupation; and whether, in these circumstances, he will take action in the matter with the object of assisting Mr. Pickles.


I am aware that the grant awarded to Mr. G. H. Pickles covers only the period of his college training. The award conformed exactly with the recommendation of an Interviewing Board, consisting of business men serving in a voluntary capacity, and presided over by a member of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. I am not aware that the wage offered to Mr. Pickles during the completion of his apprenticeship is only 10s. per week, but I am issuing instructions that he should be invited to appear again before the Interviewing Board to state the circumstances of his case.

18. Mr. MYERS

asked the Pensions Minister respecting Mr. W. A. Wardle, of 22, Horton Lane, Bradford, who recently applied for a grant from the Civil Liabilities Committee and was refused, if he is aware that Mr. Wardle purchased machinery and tools for boot repairing after he had been exempted from service on account of medical unfitness in July, 1916, was called up later, and that on his demobilisation in November, 1919, his machinery and tools had suffered dilapidation by rust owing to lack of use and attention in the locked-up shop, which caused him a loss of £11 that he has now to make good himself, notwithstanding the fact that his connection with customers has been broken by his absence on military service and cannot be got together again except gradually over an extended period of time; and whether, in the circumstances, he will have further inquiries made into this case with a view to making a grant sufficient at least to cover the loss due to deterioration of machinery and tools during Mr. Wardle's absence on military service?


Mr. Wardle received, while on Service a grant to enable him to retain his business premises with the necessary machinery and tools. Having regard to the gratuity payable to Mr. Wardle on discharge there are, on the facts as disclosed to the Department, no grounds for giving further assistance.