Skip to main content

Remploy Factory, Norwich (Discharges)

Volume 498: debated on Thursday 3 April 1952

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

70.

asked the Minister of Labour what recent changes in policy have been made by Remploy Limited in their Norwich factory with regard to the duration of sick leave and to the continued employment of seriously disabled men.

There is no question here of paid sick leave. It is simply a question of how long Remploy Limited will keep on their books, with a view to reengagement, a man who is unfit to work. That is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Company who, I have ascertained, have made no major changes in policy.

If, in fact, there have been no changes in policy, is it not curious that within a very short time four men, each of them with several years' engagement in this factory, should have been discharged on a plea of low efficiency—low efficiency being, of course, the very reason why Remploy exists?

Is it only a coincidence that at the same time a new rule about sick leave is imposed by which a constituent of mine is informed in the second month of his sickness—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—that because he has been away two months he is going to be struck off the register? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is conducive to the recovery of this sick, disabled man? Can I have an answer?

I am perfectly willing to answer the question about the four men who were discharged. I have inquired from Remploy Ltd. and I learn that four very seriously disabled workers from Norwich Remploy Factory were recently discharged. The factory medical officers advised the company that they were unfit for any work in the factory, but the discharge did not take place until the case of each man had been carefully reviewed by the principal medical officer and the executive director of the company. As to the question of leave, I believe there was at one time a reduction of the period during which people were kept on the books after they ceased to be employed from two months to one month, but the period has now been restored to two months.

Is it not a fact that Remploy exists to deal with seriously disabled men, and that these men have served the factory for several years in each instance? Why is it that only now all four of them are suddenly discovered to be less efficient than they have been formerly? Does that not mean a change in policy? May I have an answer?

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek the earliest opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment.