§ 16. Mr. BARKERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that William Hazelby, of 36, Chapel Road, Nantyglo, Monmouthshire, an unemployed miner, was sent by the local Employment Exchange to Brixton on the 2nd of July and told there was employment for him; that when Hazelby got to Brixton he was offered casual labour as a sandwich-board man, which, as an able-bodied miner, he refused; that Hazelby was left stranded 150 miles from his home; has he authorised such action on the part of officials of Employment Exchanges; and will he have this case investigated, with a view to paying this man any unemployment benefit that may be due to him?
§ 28. Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Labour whether Mr. W. Hazelby, who was brought from Nantyglo to London for the work of carrying sandwich boards, became chargeable to the Lambeth Board of Guardians for any period; will he state what experience, if any, Mr. Hazelby possessed in respect of the work of a painter's labourer; and was the work as a painter's labourer found for him by the Employment Exchange authorities or the local board of guardians?
§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland)The circumstances in which Mr. Hazelby was brought to London were fully explained in the reply given on Monday last to the question by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. E. Young). The suggestion that he became chargeable to the guardians is entirely without foundation. Work was found for him by the Exchange as a painter's labourer, and I understand he has had previous experience in the building trade as well as in the mining industry.
§ Mr. BARKERIs the Minister aware that he has not answered the question? I want to know if he or his Department authorised bringing a man from a long distance to carry sandwich boards, and if he is prepared to indemnify this man for any loss he has sustained through carrying out the instructions of the Employment Exchange?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI am not aware that he suffered any loss. As regards the rest of the hon. Member's question, it was, as I have said, dealt with in the previous reply.
§ Mr. BARKEROn a point of Order. You prevented me from putting this question on Monday, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister says he answered it on Monday.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI may not have permitted the hon. Member to put a supplementary question, but I did not stop any relevant question. The hon. Member cannot expect always to receive an answer which entirely satisfies him.
§ Mr. BARKERMy point of Order is this: The Minister says that he answered on Monday a question that was never put. It was not allowed to be put, and I say that he has not answered the question.
§ Mr. MONTAGUEDoes the Minister know what has happened to the painter's labourer who did the work which this man is doing now?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI think the hon. Member ought to give me notice of that question. He is assuming that there was a painter's labourer who was doing the work, an assumption which I do not admit.
§ Mr. THURTLEWill the Minister be good enough to reply to the last part of 2218 my question, and say whether this work was found for Mr. Hazelby by the Employment Exchange or the board of guardians?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe hon. Member cannot have listened to my reply, which stated that the suggestion that the man became chargeable to the guardians is entirely without foundation. Consequently, the job could not have been found for him by the guardians, nor was it.
§ Mr. LANSBURYCan the Minister say by whom and under what circumstances it was found for him? Who made the application?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDIf the hon. Member will give me any further points upon which he wishes information, I will have them inquired into.
§ Mr. C. EDWARDSMay I ask whether the Minister and his Department deliberately set themselves out to insult these young men?
§ Captain GARRO-JONESMay I ask, as the representative of a London constituency, whether there is not already much unemployment in London?
§ 21. Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the case of two young men who were sent from the County of Durham by the Employment Exchange to Fort William, in Scotland, only to find there were too many applicants for the work; is he aware that these young men had to walk back from Edinburgh to Durham; and will he inquire into this case?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDNo, Sir. I am not aware of any such case.
§ Mr. BATEYWill the Ministry of Labour inquire as to why these men were sent from Durham to Fort William, and will he say whether they will be paid their expenses, seeing that they had to find money in order to get back to Durham?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDPerhaps I might explain that I have already inquired into this matter. The hon. Member appears to have taken what was stated in a newspaper paragraph for gospel. I have already inquired from the men themselves, and they were not sent.
§ 22. Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour if he has made inquiries into the case of a young man named Milburn, who was sent from Bishop Auckland Employment Exchange to Wakefield, only to find when he got there that there was no work for him; and can he say when this young man's benefit will be resumed?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDMr. Milburn was sent to Keighley, not Wake-field, and arrived at the Exchange in the afternoon. The manager was then in process of completing arrangements for his engagement, to commence next day, but before these arrangements were completed Mr. Milburn left the Exchange, about 4.30 p.m. to return home. He would have been able to start work next morning had he waited a few minutes longer. His claim to benefit is under consideration by the insurance officer.
§ Mr. J. H. THOMASHow long was this man kept waiting at the Employment Exchange? The answer seems to imply that he merely went there and went away again.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI do not know how long it was, but I shall be glad to make inquiries. Certainly the opportunity which gave him his job came within an hour.
§ Mr. T. SHAWAre we to take it that men are sent long distances without any knowledge whether there is a job or not?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDIt is quite clear from my answer that there was a job.
§ Mr. T. KENNEDYIs not the right hon. Gentleman's last answer in contradiction of definite instructions issued by the Minister of Labour to managers of Employment Exchanges relating to the transference of workers such as these?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThat does not arise out of this question. This is a matter of general policy, and I am perfectly prepared to state that general policy and to justify it at any time when there is an opportunity for debate.
§ Mr. THOMASWill the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries from his officials on this point? It is known that there are thousands of miners in Yorkshire out of work, and surely there 2220 can be no justification for any officer sending miners from one district to get work in another district where there are thousands out of work.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThis is a particular case which has been given. If hon. Members wish to raise the general question, which has nothing to do with the individual case, perhaps they will put down a general question, and, if there is a possibility of dealing with the question within the compass of an answer, I shall be glad to deal with it. If it is reserved for a Debate, I shall be glad to deal with it then.
§ Mr. THOMASThere is no need to have a Debate. Surely, the Minister can sympathise with anyone in any part of the House [Interruption.] May I ask whether the Minister would not sympathise with a point of view that his officers should not give instructions to send men into districts where there are already a large number of unemployed?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI will say at once that to send men to a district where there is the same degree of unemployment—[Interruption.] I am now being asked not to debate this question and therefore, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will leave it until there is an opportunity for debate. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. GRIFFITHSWill the right hon. Gentleman give a straight answer and not try to evade it? I did not ask him to debate the question.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is quite obvious that we cannot have a Debate on one question——
§ Mr. MACKINDEROn a point of Order——
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member will please allow me to complete my sentence. These questions are put on specific cases, and on each one of them we cannot have a general Debate on the policy of the Ministry. Really, we must get on with the questions on the Paper.
§ Mr. THOMASOn that point of Order. That is exactly the difficulty that we raise on this question—it shows that this is a general policy all over the country. My object in putting my ques- 2221 tion to the Minister was to ask him whether, if that were the policy, he would stop it, or, if it were not, whether he would inquire why it was happening.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat should be put down as a specific question.
§ 23. Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a young man, 19 years of age, was sent by the Employment Exchange from Bishop Auckland to Shoreditch; reporting there he was sent to a hostel in Grays Inn Road, there he was not allowed to write a letter unless it was censored, then he was given a job of delivering powder samples for a chemist at a wage of 2s. per day, and eventually he had to walk back home from London to Bishop Auckland; and can he say if his benefit has been resumed?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe wages in this case were 1s. 3d. an hour for six hours a day, and not 2s. a day, as stated in the question. The man concerned was advised to consult the exchange in case of any difficulty, but left his job and returned home without informing the exchange. I have no information with regard to the alleged censorship of letters at the hostel, and I find it difficult to credit it. His claim to benefit is under consideration.
§ Mr. THURTLECan the Minister say what Shoreditch has done that it should have unemployed men from Durham sent to it, in view of the fact that there are thousands unemployed in Shoreditch at the present time?
§ Mr. SPEAKERMr. Stephen.
§ Mr. SPEAKERAs I have said before, we must get on with the questions on the Paper.
§ Mr. BATEYMy point of Order is this: On a former question I was not allowed to put a supplementary question which would have contradicted the answer of the Minister. [Interruption.] On this question, I want to put another supplementary question——
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere must be some limit to supplementary questions.
§ 29. Mr. BARKERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Edward Whittington, 53, Havodarthen Road, Llanilleth, and David MacDonald, Brynithel Terrace, Aberbeeg, Monmouthshire, were sent to Birmingham to work for the Birmingham Corporation, and that when they arrived there they were told there was no work for them and they were left stranded with only four days' unemployment pay; will he take measures to stop sending men long distances to places where there is no work for them; and will he see that these men are paid for any expenses they have incurred through carrying out the instructions of the Employment Exchange?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe two men travelled from Wales to Birmingham on the 2nd July, and were paid accrued benefit on arrival at Birmingham. They were placed in employment three days afterwards, and, I understand, have expressed themselves satisfied with the jobs.