HC Deb 03 August 1939 vol 350 cc2586-8
5. Mr. Wedgwood Benn

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that 67 men will be required to leave the Dukinfield works for York on 14th August; and whether he has consulted with other Departments with a view to the provision of Government contract work to make it possible to retain men at these works?

Mr. E. Brown

I am informed that the railway company are offering employment to as many as possible of the workpeople employed at the Dukinfield Works. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to his Supplementary Question on 20th July. I am, however, in close touch with other Departments on the utilisation of the facilities available at Dukinfield.

Mr. Benn

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for having received a deputation, is he aware that these men are being brought in and that in many cases it is quite impossible for them to uproot their homes and move?

Mr. Brown

I am aware of that, and that is the reason why I received the deputation. We have been in contact with the Department concerned to see whether these facilities can be used.

Mr. Tinker

Do consultations take place between his Department and other interests when a change of works takes place?

Mr. Brown

I have no responsibility for that.

6. Mr. Creech Jones

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is taking any steps to operate the suggestion in the last report of the Unemployment Assistance Board that a Clause should be inserted in rearmament contracts to provide that the employment thereon should include a proportion of persons who have been for a considerable time out of work?

Mr. Brown

The suggestion tentatively made by the Unemployment Assistance Board was that a Clause might be inserted in certain contracts requiring the contractor to engage the greater part of his men through the Employment Exchange. As to this, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) on 15th June. I should add that in submitting applicants for vacancies the exchanges must necessarily endeavour to meet the requirements of the particular employer.

Mr. Ellis Smith

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of having a periodical analysis made of applicants for benefit in order that where practicable preference shall be given to those applicants who have been standing off for a long time?

Mr. Brown

There is no need for that; we do it regularly. It is simply a matter of public policy, as to whether or not we can arrange with the contractor concerned to get a certain proportion of this labour through the Employment Exchanges.

Mr. Rhys Davies

This is a very old question. Is it not possible for the Government, where they are handing a job to a contractor, to insert a clause in the contract that the contractor must employ people nearby and who are available for the job, and thereby prevent a contractor actually advertising in Ireland for Irish labourers?

Mr. Brown

That particular point is covered in the answer to which I have referred. We are having successful negotiations with the Building Joint Council, employers and employed, and we are now in the final stage of trying to fix up a definite arrangement. I can assure hon. Members that this is a matter about which I feel keenly.

Mr. Lawson

Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that under the Unemployment Grants Committee the proposal did work, and no grant was given unless the contractor accepted this kind of contract? As it has worked successfully for many years, why should not the right hon. Gentleman accept it now?

Mr. Brown

The hon. Member will understand that the issues are not quite the same and I do not accept the comparison. I want the House to understand that I myself am very keen about this matter.