Orders of the Day — Food Offices (Ex-Service Personnel)

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 19 March 1947.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Henry Raikes Mr Henry Raikes , Liverpool Wavertree 12:00, 19 March 1947

I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite) for having raised, at this late hour of the night, a matter of considerable public importance, and one which deserves an answer from the Ministry. One of the tragedies at the end of a great war is to find so many ex-Servicemen walking the streets—as they were even before the crisis—totally unable to get employment, particularly men with small disability pensions. A short time ago I asked the hon. Lady what was the percentage of married women employed in the Food Office in the city of Liverpool, and what was the percentage of ex-Servicemen. The hon. Lady, with her usual charm, gave a perfectly frank answer, the figures being 40 per cent. married women and about 14 per cent. ex-Servicemen. I asked the hon. Lady as a supplementary question would it not be better, in view of the need of ex-Servicemen for employment if the percentages were reversed. She gave a twofold answer. She said, first, that we were dealing with a food office where there were permanent and non-permanent staff, and it would be quite improper that permanent workers, who had been there for years and had pension rights and so on, should be displaced simply because there were ex-Servicemen needing jobs. That was a perfectly reasonable part of her answer, but the second half was that married women were now being encouraged to go into industry. That, in regard to this particular case, was bunkum, because, whatever a food office is, it is certainly not a productive industry—far from it.

Of course, permanent employees with pension rights and everything else cannot be displaced by persons from outside. On the other hand, there is a considerable number of temporary jobs where a far greater preference should be given to ex-Servicemen than is given at the present time. We have on one side married women, whose husbands are in reasonable jobs, engaged in some Ministry or other, though, of course, we are only dealing with one particular Ministry tonight. On the other hand there are these married men who have fought either in this war or the last, some of whom have got a slight disability pension but who are suited to take small clerical jobs, who are debarred from these jobs which will give them money. They are cut out, in some instances, by women whose husbands already have substantial jobs. It seems to me that that really is a tragedy. The Ministry ought to be made to give a greater preference to ex-Servicemen and particularly the ex-Serviceman with a small disability pension.

The House no doubt remembers the old story of prewar days—I am afraid that it could not happen today—of the man who went into the butcher's shop and asked for some mutton. The butcher replied, "Oh, yes, here is a beautiful leg of mutton, as tender as a woman's heart." To which the man answered, "Oh, good heavens, take it away then, and give me a pound of sausages." I hope that the hon. Lady will remember that, and will indicate in her reply that there is no set war as between married women and ex-Service men; that she and her Ministry are anxious to give a real opportunity to the men who have suffered and struggled, either in this war or the last, and to remember that all women who are married—or most of them—are lucky in that they have husbands earning good money.