§ 16. Mr. G. W. H. JONESasked the Minister of Labour whether, according to the Regulations of the Local Technical Advisory Committee for the London area of the printing and allied trades, only 50 disabled sailors and soldiers can be absorbed per annum; whether such Regulations only allow disabled men with previous knowledge of the trade to be put into training; and whether this last restriction is in direct contradiction to Regulation L.A.C. 92–2?
§ Sir R. SANDERSIt is correct that only about 50 ex-Service men per annum are being accepted for training in the London area for the printing and allied trades, but the present facilities for training in these trades would not admit of a much larger influx. Until recently, the Local Technical Advisory Committee in question required candidates to have had some previous connection, although perhaps only of a remote character, with the trade. This requirement has, however, now been waived, and the last part of the hon. Member's question does not therefore arise.
§ Mr. JONESMay I ask if it is a fact that 40,000 men were employed in these 1229 trades in pre-war days, and whether he thinks it satisfactory that only 50 disabled soldiers and sailors can be absorbed per annum?
§ Sir R. SANDERSI cannot give an opinion on that point.
§ 17. Mr. JONESfurther asked the Minister of Labour whether, according to the regulations of the Local Technical Advisory Committee of the London area for the brush-making trade, no disabled sailor or soldier can be trained for such trade by any firm unless all present employees of the firm are working full time; that the trainee is to take the place of an employee lost by the firm through the War owing to death or disablement; and that such firm is to guarantee the trainee employment on the completion of his training?
§ Sir R. SANDERSThe Local Technical Advisory Committee in the brush-making trade for the London area have not laid down any general regulations to the effect that no ex-Service men can be trained for the trade by any firm where full time is not being worked. The special report governing training in this trade lays down that, as a general rule, men should not be sent for training to firms who have not lost men by death or disablement during the War, but allows for this rule being relaxed. So far as the London area is concerned, the question of restriction on this ground has only arisen as regards one particular branch of the industry when the restrictive clause was waived by the Committee and 24 men sent for training to the firm concerned. I am not aware that the Committee require a guarantee from the firm giving the training that they will employ the man at the end of his training, but the hon. Member will appreciate that the question of the after-employment of the men trained should rightly be borne in mind by the Committee.
§ 18. Sir CYRIL COBBasked the Minister of Labour whether the Local Technical Advisory Committee of the electric light and power industry has limited the number of disabled sailors and soldiers allowed to be trained per annum for that industry to 113 in the London area; whether the existing training facilities in the London polytechnics 1230 have been declared insufficient for 73 men who have been in training for nearly a year; whether it has been laid down that under no conditions may men be trained by a private firm and that no man over 27 years of age is eligible; whether 17,000 men were employed in this industry before the War in London alone; and whether there is any justification for the restrictions imposed, in view of the great demand for skilled labour in electrical industries?
§ Sir R. SANDERSThe facts are substantially as stated by the hon. Member. I do not consider the restrictions imposed are justifiable and consequent upon the amalgamation of the National Committees in Engineering and Electricity respectively. I propose to ask the new Joint Local Committee for London to enquire into the whole matter with a view to the removal of unreasonable restrictions.
§ Commander BELLAIRSWill my hon. and gallant Friend draw the attention of the Minister of Labour to the fact that naval electricians are being prevented from joining the trade unions, although they are better qualified in every way than many of the trade unionists?
§ Sir R. SANDERSI will see that that is brought to my right hon. Friend's notice.
§ 19. Sir C. COBBasked the Minister of Labour whether the Local Technical Advisory Committee of the boot and shoe industry has limited the number of disabled sailors and soldiers allowed to be trained for that industry to 100 per annum in the London area; whether only men with one leg amputated are eligible; whether such men may only be trained in the highest class of West End boot-making; whether the age limit has been fixed at 35; and whether, in view of the fact that 20,000 men were employed in this industry before the war in London alone, these restrictions can be removed or at least modified?
§ Sir R. SANDERSNo hard and fast limit to the number of ex-service men to be trained in the boot and shoe industry in the London Area has been fixed by the Local Technical Advisory Committee concerned. In order to avoid overcrowding the trade and in view of its particular suitability for men only capable of sedentary work, the Committee have, 1231 however, thought it advisable to restrict acceptance to men with severer disabilities, generally reserving vacancies for men with leg amputations, but considering other serious disabilities on their merits. The training given is designed to fit the men to earn the highest wages current in the trade, but the employment is not restricted to the West End. While the Committee are generally reluctant to accept men over the age of 35, since they consider that men over this age are not usually likely to become efficient at the work, exceptions are made in suitable cases.
According to the 1911 census, some 19,000 men were employed in London in the whole of the boot, shoe, slipper, patten and clog making trades, but the Local Technical Advisory Committee in question are concerned only with hand-sewn work, which is, comparatively speaking, a small proportion of the total. In view of the large number of disabled men which has already been trained for the boot and shoe trade, I do not regard the attitude of the Committee as unreasonably restrictive. Indeed, the Committee, like most other similar Committees in London, have worked in a most helpful spirit with my Department.
§ Mr. JONESCan the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me how many disabled men have been trained for these trades?
§ Sir R. SANDERSNo, I cannot.
§ Mr. J. DAVISONCan he say why the Government do not employ these men direct in the manufacture of boots and shoes for the Army and Navy?
§ Sir R. SANDERSNo, I cannot.