§ 6. Mr. Tinkerasked the Minister of Labour if he will consider having forms made out under the Essential Work Order that will give the workmen the opportunity of entering statements on them where they consider the employer has impeded production so that both workmen and employer will be on equal footing in making statements to his Department.
§ Mr. BevinIt is not within the scope of the Essential Work Orders to deal with action on the part of employers who are alleged to have impeded production; that is a matter which would have to be dealt with in a different way by the Ministers responsible for production. It is, therefore, not practicable to provide forms or procedure under these Orders of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. TinkerIs the Minister aware that the workmen feel aggrieved that anything they have been called upon to do, which turns out to be wrong is at once reported to his Department and there is no redress against the employer? Is it not desirable that the same treatment should be meted out to both sides?
§ Mr. BevinI am afraid the hon. Member is not aware of the facts. If he takes the mining industry as an example, Production Committees—or even one side of a Production Committee—can now report directly to the Ministry's representatives and Regional Controller. They have the means of reporting wrong conduct directly to the Minister responsible for production.
§ Mr. GallacherWill the right hon. Gentleman agree that he is in the happy position of being able to say that none of the mineowners are in gaol?
§ Mr. N. MacleanCan the Minister say whether that method, already described as being applied to the mining industry, can be extended to all other industries in similar cases?
§ Mr. BevinThey can report to the Controllers of the Production Department where they find production is being impeded.
§ 8. Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Labour whether he has any further statement to make relative to the withdrawal of the Essential Work Order from Messrs. Desoutters and the present position of Mr. V. G. Jackson, an employee of the firm.
§ Mr. BevinThe firm's certificate of scheduling under the Essential Work Order was cancelled as from 15th December, 1943. Mr. Jackson has been placed by the employment exchange in a suitable job in a local undertaking scheduled under the Essential Work Order.
§ Mr. DaviesIn view of the fact that the employer in this case has defied all his regulations, how comes it that the Minister does not prosecute these people as he has prosecuted workpeople?