§ 11. Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to state the result of his investigation into the case of the 16 unemployed men who were recently offered work by the Wemyss Coal Company, Fifeshire, through the agency of the Leven Employment Exchange; if he has received confirmation of the report that the men in question were offered payment for loading small coal into wagons at rates varying from 3d. to 6d. per ton; that the men, having discontinued work when they found it impossible to earn a living wage at the rates offered, have been disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit and are now, with their dependants, in receipt of Poor Law relief; and what action is to be taken to restore the men's qualification for benefit?
§ Mr. BETTERTONThis case has been referred to the umpire. I will comunicate with the hon. Member when his decision has been received.
§ Mr. KENNEDYIs it the practice of the Ministry of Labour to inquire into the conditions of labour, wages, and so on that are to be offered to men who are supplied to employers through the Employment Exchanges?
§ Mr. BETTERTONI do not see how that arises out of the question, but the answer is that it is certainly not the practice of the Ministry of Labour to transfer men to other areas where the result would be that they would undercut the standard rate in the district.
§ Mr. KENNEDYThis is not a matter of transference. It is a matter of the supply of local labour for a local colliery, and I ask if it is the practice of the Employment Exchanges to inquire whether the wages to be offered to men so supplied 2175 are the standard wages, and whether, in the event of the wages offered being unsatisfactory, the men are to be qualified for the receipt of unemployment benefit if they do not accept the work?
§ Mr. BETTERTONThe last part of the question is, of course, not a matter for me at all, but is a matter for the statutory authority, the court of referees and the umpire. With regard to the general question which the hon. Member put first, it is not the policy of the Ministry of Labour to transfer men to other areas and ask them to undertake work at a rate less than the trade union rate.
§ Mr. KENNEDYDoes not the hon. Member realise that this disallowance of benefit means that the men were at least six weeks wholly without benefit and that they are now chargeable to the local parish council, involving a burden on the ratepayers of at least £25 a week? Is not that a matter of principle which should be subjected to examination?
§ Mr. BETTERTONThat is the question which the hon. Member put before, and it is a matter for the court of referees and the umpire in each case whether the men should or should not get benefit, in view of all the circumstances of the case.
§ 13. Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Charles Whitcombe, of Aberbargoed, a colliers' helper, who was recently offered employment with the Highley Mining Company, of Kidderminster, at a salary of 18s. 4d. per week from the colliery company, plus a grant of 6s. to 7s. a week from the Lord Mayor's miners' relief fund, and to the case of John Roberts, of Aberbargoed, who was offered employment with the Highley Mining Company, of Kidderminster, at terms of 19s. a week, plus a grant of 6s. to 7s. a week from the Lord Mayor's miners' relief fund, both these positions having been offered through the machinery of the Ministry of Labour; whether, as these men were required to travel over 150 miles from their home to secure work, any offer was made to pay their travelling expenses to the work and for their return to their homes when they had completed their engagement; can he say whether applications have been made by his Department to the committee of the 2176 Lord Mayor's relief fund for miners for the purpose of subsidising the wages of any colliery workers; and, if so, can he state the amount that has been allocated for this purpose and give full particulars?
§ Mr. BETTERTONA number of youths have been successfully transferred from the mining area in South Wales to employment with the Highley Mining Company, Kidderminster, and I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 25th March by the President of the Board of Education to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards). The wages offered are the standard rates for this occupation in Highley and, in addition, the mining company pay a further amount in respect of each youth to enable the vacancy to qualify for a grant in aid of maintenance from the Lord Mayor's Fund. A free travelling warrant to the place of employment is also given. In view of these general arrangements I have not thought it necessary to obtain a report with regard to the specific cases mentioned in the question, but I should point out that the rates of wages there quoted are those for boys of 16 or 17 years of age.
§ Mr. DAYCan the hon. Gentleman say whether a return warrant is given to these boys, and will he also answer that part of my question in which I have asked specifically whether his Department has at any time made any request to the Lord Mayor's Fund for these boys, so that their wages can be subsidised?
§ Mr. BETTERTONWith regard to the first part of the supplementary question, the answer is in the negative. With regard to the second part, an arrangement has been made by which, in order to enable these boys to live in the areas to which they are transferred, they are to receive a sum from the Lord Mayor's Fund, but it is provisional upon the employers also paying 25 per cent. of the difference between the rate of the district and the cost of maintenance.
§ Mr. DAYCan the hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that a sum of £45,000 has been asked for from the Lord Mayor's Fund, and that these boys are offered a wage of only 18s. 4d. and have to live away from home?
§ Mr. BETTERTONWith regard to the first part of that question, it has been agreed between the Trustees of the Lord Mayor's Fund and the Ministry of Labour that a sum of £45,350 shall be set apart for assisting the transfer of juveniles from the depressed areas in order to enable them to find employment elsewhere.
§ Mr. SHINWELLDoes this mean that the employers would be unable to get the necessary labour but for the fact that wages are subsidised from the Fund?
§ Mr. BETTERTONIt is not a subsidy of wages at all. There are two conditions, and one of them is that the employer shall contribute not less than 25 per cent. of the difference between the rate in the district and the cost of maintenance; and, of course, the boy, having to live away from home, is put to expenses to which he would not otherwise be put.