§ 72. Mr. SULLIVAN (for Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM)
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that at Falkirk Sheriff Court, on Friday, 30th May, eviction orders were granted at the instance of James Nimmo and Company, Coalmasters, Redding Colliery, Stirlingshire, against four families on the ground that the houses occupied by them were service tenancies, and that these families had been transferred from Lanarkshire to the above colliery on a promise that had not been kept; and whether, in order to prevent employers in the mining industry in Scotland abusing the privilege they now enjoy over other owners of houses, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to enable the Courts to exercise a discretion in the granting of eviction orders in what is known as service tenancies?
The SECPETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson)
The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am informed that the let in each case was for the period of a week and contingent on the tenant remaining in the employment of the colliery company. Decrees were granted of consent for removal not sooner than four weeks from date of decree. I have no information as to the matter referred to in the second part of the question, but I understand that the hon. Member is addressing a question to the Minister of Labour on the subject. As regards the concluding part mineowners are legally in the same position as regards service lets as other owners of houses, and I am not now in a position to give any undertaking as to legislation on the subject.
§ 77. Mr. SULLIVAN (for Mr. D. GRAHAM)
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that four families named Collins, Lambie, Lepinski and McDonald were sent from the Employment Exchange area in which Hamilton Palace colliery is situated to work at Redding colliery, Stirlingshire, owned by James Nimmo and Company, on the promise that their wages would not be less than the recognised standard rate; that they removed their families to houses owned by the above-named company on that understanding; that they worked in that colliery for several months 2154 and never were paid the wages they were induced to believe by Employment Exchange officials they would be paid; that, having left the colliery, they are now to be evicted from the houses they occupy; and whether she will arrange that the officials of her Department shall be advised to discontinue the practice of transferring workmen from one part of the country to another unless after consultation with the organisation to which the transferred persons belong or a written guarantee being received from the employer to whom they are being transferred that the wages promised will be paid?