HC Deb 14 June 1915 vol 72 cc478-9
2. Mr. GEORGE TERRELL

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any and what instructions have been given to the newspapers restrictive of advertisements by manufacturers and employers seeking skilled labour; whether any instructions have been given that such advertisements are not to state that the labour is required for Government or War Office work; and, if so, what is the reason for such instructions?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman)

No instructions have been given to the newspapers on this subject, but the attention of certain associations of newspaper proprietors has been called to the restrictions on advertisements contained in the Order in Council of 29th April, and notice was also given of the arrangements for enabling advertisements to be submitted for the approval of the Board of Trade. There is no objection to statements that the labour is required for Government or War Office work; on the contrary, the specimen advertisement issued by the Board contains the words "Wanted for Government work." The detailed procedure in this connection is under discussion between the Board of Trade and the Associations of Newspaper Proprietors.

Mr. TERRELL

. Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the leave of the Board of Trade or the Labour Exchanges has to be obtained before any advertisements can be inserted for labour?

Mr. RUNCIMAN

I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the Order in Council of 29th April, which gives a full account of the obligations under which the newspapers are placed. We are hoping, by an arrangement with the Newspaper Proprietors' Association to arrange whatever is necessary for the convenience both of newspapers and ourselves.

Mr. TERRELL

Are the employers being considered in the matter, and is not the tendency of these Orders in Council to throw the whole business into the hands of the Labour Exchanges?

Mr. RUNCIMAN

No, Sir, in a matter of this kind, in employment on munition work, the first consideration is the State and not the employers, but in this case we must consider the supply of labour for the best production of munitions.

Mr. TERRELL

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman understands me. I am dealing with the case of employers who are engaged on work for the State.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands my reply: The reply which I have given to this and other questions was perfectly clear, that the Order in Council was framed, and the Regulations under the Order in Council have been worked, with the object of preventing employers who are working for the State from losing the labour which they now have.

Mr. TERRELL

If the Labour Exchanges fail to get the additional labour, what is the employer to do?

Mr. NIELD

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the immediate vicinity of London important firms engaged on Government work, such as electrical engineers, and others with a large plant, are hopelessly unable to get the skilled labour which they require, and whether or not they are still to be prohibited from asking for that labour from a distance where it is not engaged on Government work?

Mr. RUNCIMAN

No, Sir, the employers are not prohibited from applying for labour from a distance. If they will put their applications through the ordinary channels no doubt help will be given, but the affairs of any particular company cannot be dealt with in answer to questions without notice.

Back to
Forward to