HC Deb 18 February 1947 vol 433 cc977-8
56. Mr. William Teeling

asked 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. Dalton

The order of discharge of redundant temporary civil servants is governed by a National Whitley Council 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. Teeling

Can 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. Dalton

I 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-Buller

Does 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. Teeling

In 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.

Back to