§ 54. Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Mr. H. B. Kirstein was offered employment in the Stationery Office Press, Harrow, as a compositor, but was subsequently refused permission to take up this appointment 273 on the ground that he was not a member of the London Society of Compositors; that this society has refused to admit Mr. Kirstein to membership; and whether, seeing that Mr. Kirstein is a member of a trade union, an ex-service man, and a fully qualified compositor, he will now be permitted to take up his employment with the Stationery Office Press?
§ Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCEMr. H. B. Kirstein applied recently for employment at the Stationery Office Press, Harrow, as a compositor, and was informed that he could not be engaged unless he held a card of membership from the London Society of Compositors. I would refer the right hon. Member, in this connection, to the reply which I gave him on the 23rd July last.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERWhy, when the hon. Gentleman is employing skilled compositors, does he discriminate in favour of one particular union and against other unions, even when they include ex-service men?
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEIn the first place, we have reverted in this matter to the practice which prevailed at the Stationery Office before the stoppage of 1926—
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE—and which was the practice adopted in those days by the late Government. With regard to the particular question on the Paper, I understand that this man is not a member of a recognised trade union.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERWould the hon. Gentleman say what he means by a recognised trade union?
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEI understand that he is not a member of any union at all.
Sir F. HALLAre we to understand that this man, who was good enough to serve in the War, who took his part in the War, is not to be allowed to earn his living? [Interruption.]
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEIt is not a question of whether he is an ex-service man or not; it is a question of the practice which prevailed at the Stationery Office before 1926, and the Government have gone back to that practice.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERAn important question of principle is involved here. When the hon. Gentleman says that the Printers' Provident Association, of which this ex-service man is a member, is not a recognised trade union, is he aware that the Stationery Office offered this man employment, saying, "We assume that you are a member of the union"—that is to say, the particular union to which he has referred—but that that union refused to admit him to membership? Why, then, does the hon. Gentleman, after what happened at the time of the General Strike, discriminate against this man?
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEThe practice in this matter is one which existed before 1926—[Interruption.] I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in professions like those of barristers and doctors—[Interruption]—the professional bodies make regulations for the carrying on of their professions, and it is customary, in employing compositors in the London district, to employ men who are members of the London Society of Compositors. That was a practice to which the late Government took no exception, and which they carried on up to the time of the stoppage.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERDid the hon. Gentleman revert to that practice—[Interruption]—on the instructions of this particular trade union, or why did he do so?
§ Mr. NAYLORArising out of the answer given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, may I ask if he is aware that the organisation referred to is not recognised by the Printing Trades Joint Industrial Council?