HC Deb 03 May 1944 vol 399 cc1438-46

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Drewe.]

Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Mahon)

On 28th March I asked the Minister of Labour whether he had consulted the Central Pharmaceutical War Committee before he came to his recent decision to withdraw women born in 1923, employed as drug women in pharmacies. The reply I received was: No, Sir. To meet the urgent demands for young women for vital services and industries, it was recently decided by the Government that all women born in 1923 should be withdrawn from their present employment, with certain specified exceptions which did not include drug women. I then asked the Parliamentary Secretary, who is now in America, if he was aware that the withdrawal of these women would paralyse the health services in certain parts of the country, and he replied: No, Sir, I am not aware of that."—-[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1944; col. 1240, Vol. 398.] The first thing about which lion. Members may be a little uncertain in, What is a drug woman? The women that I am talk about are the women who are helping in the distribution of drugs and surgical appliances in the chemists' shops of the country. Since the war began a very great number of dispensers have been called up and are now fighting on different fronts throughout the world, and these chemists' shops have been carried on by these girls, who have come forward and assisted in this task of maintaining the health services of the country. To meet this provision, in 1942 the Central Pharmaceutical War Committee came to an agreement with the Minister of Labour, and it was this—that none of these drug women should be withdrawn, except after consultation with the appropriate District Pharmaceutical War Committee, and it was this Committee that was to certify a woman concerned as being essential to the employer's drug business and the employer's drug business as essential to the war. If there was a dispute between the District Man Power Board and the District Pharmaceutical War Committee, then the matter was to be referred to the Central Pharmaceutical War Committee. From 1942 until the beginning of this year, this agreement worked well, and there were never any doubts or difficulties in its administration.

Suddenly, at the beginning of the year, the Minister of Labour and National Service sent notices round saying that all these women who were born in 1923 should be called up, that no deferment could be considered and that no representations could be made. The number of women involved is small; it is 478 throughout the country, of which 85 are sole assistants. The first point I want to make is that here the Government Department had made an agreement with a responsible body, who are carrying out important duties in this country, and that agreement has been broken without any reason, or any adequate reason, being given. There are 10,000 chemists shops in the country. Out of them, 5,000 pharmacists and 5,000 dispensers are serving in the Forces or in munition factories and without the help of these women the shops cannot be carried on. I hope the House will bear in mind that, since the war, National Health Insurance has increased tremendously, and that the number of prescriptions being made up shows an increase of 40 per cent. on the pre-war scale.

May I give the House two examples to show how it works? I will quote one from one of the principal towns in my own constituency—from the leading pharmacist's shop there. This man used to work with two assistants, one of whom is with the Eighth Army and the other now in munition employment. Now, he has to carry on that important work with one of these 1923 women, and two small girls of 15. He is the only qualified optician in the whole rural area, and, as such, he operates the eye clinic for the county education committee. He supplies all the drugs required by the medical officer and by two doctors in the area and, at the same time he has a large number of private customers. In this case, if the Minister of Labour adheres to his decision, it must mean that that pharmacist will have to curtail the services he is rendering to the community. That man is, at the present time, working an average of 12 hours a day at his work and he cannot put more of his time into it. Either the eye clinic of the education committee or some of the drugs needed by the medical officer for the local area will have to go, unless a different decision is made.

Let me give one other illustration, not from my own constituency. I have had numerous letters from all over England and Wales from these men affected by this decision of the Ministry of Labour. There is only one chemist's shop in a rural area with 6,000 inhabitants, and the man has 3,500 National Health Insurance prescriptions and 2,000 private practice prescriptions a year. He carries on with the help of one assistant, a 1923 drug-woman. If she goes, how is that business to be carried on? He is not allowed to ask for deferment or to make any official representation to the Ministry of Labour. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, to deal with the problem of these cases where there is a sole assistant and where the man is already overworked because those whom he used to employ have joined the Forces.

We have a great need for the economic use of man-power in the country to-day and I would not do anything to stop any man or woman from being drawn into the Forces or serving their country, if they can do it, to greater advantage in another branch of service or in munitions. But at the present time we must not forget the health of the community. Are we to save man-hours in industry by taking away those who are looking after National Health prescriptions? If they are taken away and there should be an epidemic the wastage of man-hours would be greater. Last year, when the influenza epidemic broke out, chemists all over the country were overworked, and many found it very hard to carry on. There was no question of meal-times and most of them had to work until late at night. I suggest that the Ministry of Labour is endangering the health of the country in certain specified areas by allowing these drug-women of the 1923 class to be withdrawn.

Can these chemists get any assistance in their place? They assure me that that is not possible and that all they can do at the present time, with great difficulty, is to get girls aged 15 into the druggists' shops. Some hon. Members will remember the well known case of Bardell against Pickwick and the plea of the chemist to be excused jury service. That is so to-day. You cannot leave the administration of the pharmacy in a rural area in the hands of a young girl of 15. These 1923 women have, throughout the war, learned the business of dispensing and dealing with supplies in pharmacy. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the matter and to say that these women are performing most valuable service to the community and should be retained in their posts.

Mr. Linstead (Putney)

I should like to thank my hon. Friend for having introduced this subject to the House and to add a few words to what he has said, speaking as Secretary to the Central Pharmaceutical War Committee, which is the committee appointed on the recommendation of the Committee of Imperial Defence, to advise the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour about the call-up of pharmacists and of dispensers. It has a very responsible task. On the one side it has to maintain an adequate civilian pharmaceutical service and, on the other, it has to ensure that pharmacists and dispensers of military age make their fair contribution to the Fighting Services. After working for four and a half years with that Committee I can assure the House that it has one of the most difficult, responsible and heavy tasks that could fall to any committee. Its recommendations involve taking men out of their businesses, deciding which of two or three men in a town can stay and which can go, and very often involve a decision meaning the closing of a business. Now that is a very heavy and a very distasteful duty, and it has meant an intolerable interference with the private lives and with the business lives of many chemists which would not be tolerated for a moment in normal times.

It is essential for a committee such as that to feel that it has the support of the Government Departments to whom it has to give advice. It must have the confidence of the people who are the subject of its recommendations, but, equally, it must feel that the Departments with whom it deals are prepared to support it. Now what happened on this particular occasion, as my hon. Friend has said, is that, without previous consultation and overlooking, an agreement that had been in operation for two years, 478 people were threatened with removal from the chemists' shops of the country. My committee had warned the then Minister of Health in 1942 of the increasingly serious man-power situation in retail pharmacy, and we had with some doubts taken on ourselves the responsibility, even after that warning, of still recommending some men for recruitment. Nevertheless, we suddenly find the careful plans that we have made unbalanced by the withdrawal of 478 people. Further, and what might be very much more important, we appeared to be threatened with the possibility of other classes being taken, contrary to an agreement and without warning.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reassure my Committee to-day, faced as it is with this very heavy task, that it can rely upon the support of his Ministry in the future, and that there will not be the call-up of these other classes of women drug hands without previous consultation with us. We have practically reached the stage, as my hon. Friend said, where any further calling up of people from chemists' shops will threaten this country, particularly if we get another epidemic, with a breakdown in the pharmaceutical service. That is a very heavy responsibility on my Committee but, if we are to be faced with this sort of action in the future, the responsibility for a breakdown will then rest very largely on the shoulders of the Minister of Labour and National Service. I hope therefore that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reassure us on those two points to which I have drawn attention.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. McCorquodale)

I make no complaint whatever that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has raised this subject, and I have no complaint to make either with the matter which he has laid before the House. I think he is accurate in what he has said, and, indeed, the position is one of a certain amount of difficulty. I would remind the House that the labour situation to-day is by no means easier, but rather more stringent than it has ever been before. It is quite impossible to think of any let-up in the rigour of our demands for war purposes. I do not think there is any necessity for me to labour that point in the House of Commons now. The need for young mobile women is especially acute for work of the highest national importance. It was in these circumstances that the Government, at the very highest levels, took the decision, in view of the shortage of these young women, to take an arbitrary cut, as it were, of the 1923 class from industry as a whole, with a few special exceptions which were laid down at the time, so that they could be transferred where possible to this urgent work. The women styled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton as "drug-women" came under that provision. This decision having been taken, it was not possible to consult, in the full meaning of the term, the Central Pharmaceutical Society. But I do admit that possibly we might have informed them a little earlier of the decision, so that they could have prepared their members. For that we apologise. However, we cannot go back on that decision.

There is one other important element to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton did, not refer, and that is the possibility of postponement of their call-up to more urgent work on the grounds of hardship. These rights of postponement on hardship grounds are not affected by the decision in regard to the 1923 age class. These young women have two grounds under which they can, if they wish, establish hardship claims. It is open to them, if they are being withdrawn under this scheme, to represent that their withdrawal will mean exceptional business hardship to their employer. I should have thought that the two cases to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton referred would certainly come under that head; they would certainly be well advised, at any rate, to represent that their withdrawal will cause exceptional business hardship. These cases will then be considered on that ground by the National Service Officer and there is an appeal from his decision, if unfavourable, to the local appeal board.

The second ground on which these women can ask for postponement is on grounds of personal hardship, domestic or health grounds, their position in their homes and the like. Such cases are first of all considered by an independent women's panel and if the decision goes against the young woman she can then ask for a direction to be issued so that she can appeal to the local appeal board. Therefore, I would say that in these cases, especially in the 85 cases of an only employee, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton referred, they certainly should make use of this machinery that we have set up for consideration on hardship grounds. I believe that provision will mitigate, to a large extent the difficult situation which this admittedly arbitrary withdrawal creates.

My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) has been the Secretary of the Pharmaceutical War Committee and I should like to pay my tribute and the tribute of the Department I represent to the admirable and helful work done by that Committee in the war effort. They have contributed enormously both to the efficiency under war-time conditions of their own profession and to the supply of labour for general war purposes. We are very grateful to them and we will continue to give his Committee every possible assistance and backing and, as he knows, they have cur good will. He suggested that it was possible that other age classes might be considered for arbitrary withdrawal in the same way as the 1923 class but at the moment, at any rate, no such action as that is contemplated. No change is being made in the existing arrangements for dealing with these drug women in the other age classes, including those born in 1924 and 1925 and the younger ones growing up Under present arrangements there is consultation with the district pharmaceutical committee before withdrawals are made and those arrangements and consultations will continue, indeed, it may mean that more of these will remain and so in some way make good some of the loss incurred by the withdrawal of the 1923 class. If in the future it is necessary, because of the difficult labour situation generally in which we may find ourselves, to alter these arrangements, we will make every endeavour both to inform the Pharmaceutical Society War Committee and consult them, but I very much hope it will not be necessary to take any such drastic step. I am sorry. therefore, that I cannot agree that we should alter our arrangements with regard to the 1923 class but I assure my hon. Friends that we will watch the situation very closely. It is obvious that we should be much to blame if in any part of the country the supply and distribution of drugs and medicines broke down because of our action.

Mr. McLean Watson (Dunfermline)

Why should the obligation be on the young woman to apply on the ground of hardship to the employer? How many young women are permitted to know the business of their employers to such an extent as to justify them in making an appeal on hardship grounds? I have never understood why the obligation should be on the young woman to apply on the ground of hardship to the employer. Why should not the employer himself be permitted to state his case to the hardship committee?

Mr. MeCorquodale

That is the general hardship provision. The hardship appeal must be made in the first place by the employee, but the young woman in this case has the right to take her employer with her to state the case if she wishes, and normally that is the case. We have found no difficulty in the working of the provision in this way. We could, I agree, make an alteration and allow the employer to appeal, but that would mean bringing in new Regulations and, seeing that the system is working with considerable smoothness at present and that we have never had any serious objection to it, I would rather consider the matter further before suggesting that we should bring in completely new hardship Regulations.

Mr. MeKinlay (Dumbartonshire)

On a point of Order. May I ask whether the clocks can be adjusted to-morrow so that confusion can be avoided?

The Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams)

That is hardly a point of Order. No doubt the adjustment will be made.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.