§ 56. Mr. William Teelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why disabled ex-Servicemen from this war, employed as civil servants, have to take their chance with other able-bodied civil servants for dismissal due to redundancy, when those from the 1914–18 war are the last to be dismissed; and why the agreement made in 1946 to employ only 3 per cent. Service disabled men in Government Departments was not brought before Parliament.
§ Mr. DaltonThe order of discharge of redundant temporary civil servants is governed by a National Whitley Council 978 Agreement. This embodies the pledge in favour of the ex-Servicemen of the 1914–18 war, but disabled ex-Servicemen from the recent war are not discharged if this would bring the percentage of registered disabled persons in any Department below the figure of 3 per cent. laid down under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944. 4.9 per cent. of Government staffs are registered disabled persons.
§ Mr. TeelingCan the right hon. Gentleman explain why, if the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, definitely says that ex-Servicemen are to be given priority in employment, they should not be given priority to keep employment if there is any necessity for dismissals?
§ Mr. DaltonI think that that would be rather straining the word "priority" We are all very anxious that there should be a sufficient proportion of disabled men in Government employment, and, as I have indicated to the hon. Member, we arc at present, I am glad to say, well above the maximum.
§ Mr. Manningham-BullerDoes the right hon. Gentleman apply the same principle as that applied by the Minister of Supply in the case of ex-Servicemen, that is to say, last in first out?
§ Mr. TeelingIn View of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply to my Question, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.