asked the Minister of Labour whether the negotiations with the building trades unions which have been in progress for the past 16 months to allow dilution so that at least 50,000 unemployéd ex-service men may be employéd in the building of urgently needed houses for the working classes have now been completed; and whether he will assure the House that, in the event of an agreement not being arrived at before the House rises, the Government will themselves take such steps as may be necessary to secure the employment of these men in the building of houses, especially having regard to the prevailing distress which is being occasioned by their prolonged unemployment by reason of trade union regulations which they have been unable to comply with owing to the fact that they were fighting for their country?

The Government hope to meet the representatives of the building craft unions next week, and if my hon. Friend will put down a question this day week, I hope to be able to answer it. In any event I can give rny hon. Friend the assurance that I will do my best to be in a position before the House rises to say definitely what action the Government intend to take.

This is the reply which I have had for very many months and surely the right hon. Gentleman can say on behalf of the Government, that in the event of these negotiations not coming to a satisfactory issue the Government which is the Government responsible for the Government of the country will take steps to secure the employment of these 50,000 odd men who are sick at heart from not getting employment?

As I have just told my hon. Friend, I will do my best to give the House a definite assurance before it rises. Then when my hon. Friend says, in the event of the failure of these negotiations, will we then employ the 50,000 men, for the moment I am negotiating, and if he will put a question down for this day week, I will report progress.

Mr. THOMAS:

As this question implies blame to one side only, is it correct to say that the Cabinet only yesterday had this matter before them, and that the delay is as much due to the Government as to the men's side?

Have not these negotiations been going on for nearly 16 months, and, although the ball may now be in the hands of the Cabinet, it has been frequently in the hands of the unions, and they are mainly responsible for the delay?

It is the fact that we have had discussions going on intermittently for some time. I am not prepared to attribute blame. I want to get something done, and I will do my best.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unions involved put suggestions on 3rd November, and were promised a reply on 8th, and that on 29th November no reply had been received by the unions?

I cannot tax my memory to say that that is accurate.

If I put a question down for this day week, can the right hon Gentleman answer the House that he will give a definite reply?

No. I will state where we then stand. I have given an undertaking before the House rises to do my best to have a definite answer one way or the other.

Can the right hon Gentleman tell the House briefly and broadly what are the proposals he is going to put to the trade unions?

No, I do not think so.

Is this not more a dispute as to demarcation between trade unions as to the particular work on which men are engaged?

I do not think I can answer that question.