HC Deb 05 November 1919 vol 120 cc1484-5
33. Mr. SPOOR

asked the Minister for Labour if he is aware that B. A. Hargreaves, a conscientious objector released from work of national importance, applied for unemployment benefit on 7th June, and that up to the present he has not received the same; and what is the reason for such delay?

Sir R. HORNE

I am making inquiry into this case, and will let the hon. Member know the result in a few days' time.

Lieut.-Colonel LOWTHER

Is priority to be given to men who fought for their country over conscientious objectors who were engaged on work of national importance?

Sir R. HORNE

I do not think that my answer suggests anything as against what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said.

Lieut.-Colonel LOWTHER

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that they continue to get it?

Sir R. HORNE

I will do my very utmost.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE

Do these conscientious objectors receive unemployment benefit?

Sir R. HORNE

That hardly arises out of the question that is asked here. There are rules in regard to conscientious objectors which would take some time to detail. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a full explanation I shall be very glad to give it privately.

Mr. LUNN

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many employers dealing with the question of demobilisation and finding work have shown regard to the men who did work of national importance equally with other men, as, for instance, the Yorkshire mine-owners as a whole?

Sir R. HORNE

I do not know about particular instances, but what we are endeavouring to do at the Ministry of Labour is to give the advantage in every case where we can—and we ask others to do the same—to those who have served their country.

37. Mr. R. YOUNG

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the position of labourers in moulding shops who are thrown out of work through the iron-founders' dispute with their employers; if he is aware that the men referred to are not members of the Iron founders' Society, and are therefore not parties to, and in no way responsible for, the dispute, yet they are refused their State unemployment benefit, while other labourers in the same establishments who are unemployed through the same cause are being paid; and if he will explain the reason why engineer labourers are paid and moulders' labourers are not?

Sir R. HORNE

The rule applicable in this connection is that laid down by Parliament in the Unemployment Insurance Acts. The effect of this rule, combined with a decision of the Umpire, is that all the workpeople employed in a foundry in which the moulders are on strike are disqualified for donation, while generally speaking the workpeople employed in the other departments of the engineering establishment concerned are not disqualified on account of the moulders' strike. If, however, the hon. Member will give me particulars of any case where this arrangement is apparently not being observed, I shall be glad to make inquiries.