HC Deb 26 May 1937 vol 324 cc259-61
13. Mr. Gallacher

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that 200 tunnel-workers employed at Crombie munitions depot were allowed only four hours' pay, equal to half a shift, for Coronation day, and that this is an Admiralty contract; and, in view of the fact that all Government employés were paid a full day's wage, will be take steps to see that these men engaged on Admiralty work are treated in a similar manner.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay)

Payment of full wages for Coronation day was conceded to all direct employés of the Admiralty; but the Admiralty have no power to extend this concession to men employed by contractors. I would also like to point out that Coronation day was declared a Bank Holiday, and the working rule agreement for the civil engineering contracting industry does not provide for payment to men on Bank Holidays when not working. I understand, however, that at Crombie an ex gratia payment equal to not less than half a shift's wages was made by the contractors to every man on day and night shifts covered by the holiday.

Mr. Gallacher

Is the Minister aware that round about this dock Admiralty workers were getting a full day's wage, while these men, working in association with them, got only half a day? Could not the Admiralty recommend to the contractors who are carrying out Admiralty work that they should give these men the same conditions as those enjoyed by the men round them?

Mr. Lindsay

I am aware of the facts, but we have no power over the contractors.

Mr. Gallacher

Could not the Admiralty recommend it to the contractors?

Mr. George Griffiths

Is it not a fact that these 200 men now think that this is all Epping Forest bunkum?

14. Mr. Banfield

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many firms in Walsall who hold contracts with the Admiralty are employing the full quota of war-disabled men as stipulated in the King's Roll regulations; how many are employing below the quota; and to what extent below the quota and upon what grounds?

Lord Stanley

The Admiralty have no contracts with firms in Walsall which are not on the King's Roll with the exception of one firm, which is too small to come within the scope of the scheme. The Admiralty are not, as a rule, aware of the exact quota of disabled ex-service men employed by their contractors on the King's Roll, which is administered not by the Admiralty but by the Ministry of Labour in conjunction with the local King's Roll committees.

Mr. Banfield

Is the Minister aware that there are 100 ex-service disabled men out of employment in Walsall, and could not he do something for them?

Lord Stanley

All the firms with whom we have contracts are on the King's Roll if they are sufficiently large.

15. Mr. Banfield

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, before placing any further contracts with the Admiralty, he will inform such firms as do not employ the full quota of war-disabled men of the necessity of fully, complying with the King's Roll regulations?

Lord Stanley

In placing contracts the Admiralty adhere strictly to the policy, which was embodied in a Resolution of this House on 16th February, 1926, of confining contracts, save in exceptional circumstances, to employers on the King's Roll. As I explained in the answer to the previous question, the terms of admission of firms to the King's Roll are not a matter for the Admiralty.