Oral Answers to Questions — Employment – in the House of Commons am 12:00 am ar 4 Rhagfyr 1947.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the ex-Service men threatened with eviction from the hostel near Cowdenbeath, Fife, have not been found suitable alternative accommodation; that a decision has now been taken to cut off their food supplies while they remain in the hostel; and who was responsible for this decision.
This is a case of industrial workers occupying rooms at a miners' hostel, which is run by the National Hostels Corporation on behalf of the National Coal Board. The industrial workers were admitted on the clear understanding that they would have to leave when their places were required for miners. The rooms are now required for miners. The men were so informed on 19th November, and formal notices to quit expiring on 29th November were issued. Our welfare officers have given the men a list of 90 lodgings available in the neighbourhood. As the men now have possession of their ration books and a list of alternative lodgings, there is nothing to stop them from being housed and fed. Their reluctance to leave is certainly depriving miners of accommodation designed for miners.
Apart from the question of alternative accommodation—on which the men have very strong views, and regard it as unsuitable—is the Minister supporting the cowardly, mean and despicable decision to refuse to supply these men with food, and to leave them to go out in the morning without any food to do a hard day's work in Rosyth; or will he use his powers of direction to direct the hostel manager to supply food in the ordinary way while the men are there?
It is a little unfair to charge these hostel managers with being cowardly, mean and so on. It is cowardly and mean to incite people to take certain steps, and then to dodge away and not to back them up sufficiently. It is clear that when these men went into the hostel they were told individually, and in writing, that their places would have to be vacated at seven days' notice, and they accepted those conditions.
But it is understood that the men have not found suitable accommodation. They decided to remain in the hostel. Why does the Minister take such action as to try to starve them out? Is that a policy to pursue towards any worker?
That again is an unfair distortion of the facts. There is no attempt to starve these men out. They have got their ration books; they have no right to be in the hostel; they decided to stay in the hostel and not to take the alternative accommodation offered to them. They have their rations books, and they can go and get their food wherever they want to.
But they cannot prepare the food.