§ 1. Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Labour why he prosecuted the employer of Sarah Alterkovsky at Nottingham on 22nd October for engaging her without his consent, having regard to the fact that neither then nor since has his Department been able to offer her alternative employment.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards)The defendants were prosecuted for engaging a worker otherwise than through the exchange or an approved employment agency.
§ Sir J. MellorWhat was the point in undertaking this senseless and vindictive prosecution when the Ministry were unable to offer this lady any employment and subsequently allowed her to remain in her present employment?
§ Mr. Ness EdwardsThe facts are not as suggested by the hon. Baronet. The employer was definitely informed that there was alternative employment, or employments, to offer to this young lady. He actually defied the Ministry by retaining this girl in his employment. He knew that it was contrary to the law. I am surprised that the hon. Baronet should encourage other people's constituents in this way.
§ Sir J. MellorWhy did the Ministry permit this lady to remain in this employment?
§ Mr. Ness EdwardsWe did not want to make the lady herself the victim of her employer's action. She had been in this employment for some time during 240 the prosecution. It was felt that, the employer having been punished, that was adequate and we ought not to impose any penalty upon the employee.