HC Deb 11 March 1920 vol 126 cc1553-5W
Mr. MACQUISTEN

asked the Prime. Minister if he is aware that, notwithstanding the promises of preferential treatment to ex-service men of positions in the Ministry of Munitions, about 500 of these men are now up for dismissal, while so-called indispensable non-service men, of whom practically all were of military age, have received permanent appointments, having qualified for these positions during the War, while in the Air Ministry the above situation is accentuated; and whether he will appoint a Committee of Members of this House (ex-Service) to inquire into this treatment of ex-soldiers?

Mr. BALDWIN

Questions in regard to the employment of ex-service men in the various Departments should be addressed to the Ministers concerned. I understand, however, that the facts as regards the two Departments named are as follow:

Ministry of Munitions.

In the reduction of 4,000 of the temporary war staff, the work to which 500 ex-service men happened to be allocated has been brought to an end. This does not mean, however, that their services are being dispensed with; and in accordance with the approved policy of the Government, preference in retention is being given to them and inquiries are on foot to ascertain in what continuing posts efficient ex-service men can be substituted for non-service men or women.

In the meantime, no efficient ex-service men are being dismissed, but it cannot of course be guaranteed that in the course of still further reductions of staff it may not be necessary to dispense with the services even of men who have served in the late War.

The permanent appointments referred to by the hon. Member were of 32 qualified accountants. It was impossible to reserve these highly technical posts for ex-service men, but when the qualifications of the candidates were otherwise equal, preference was given to ex-service men. Ten of the latter were selected as suitably qualified, but five declined the appointment.

Air Ministry.

Of a temporary male staff of 1,337, 700 are ex-service men, and of these eight are due for discharge.

Exhaustive consideration was given in September last to the question of the employment of ex-service men in Government Departments, and an exhaustive substitution of ex-service men for non-service men and women was carried cut. From the return recently presented to the House (Cmd. 598) it will be seen that the Government is fully alive to its obligations in this matter. My right hon Friend therefore is not prepared to agree to the suggestion made in the last paragraph of the question, as is seems to him unnecessary.

Forward to