HC Deb 12 March 1924 vol 170 cc2313-4
31. Mr. SHORT

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now received a Report from the Trade Disputes Disqualification Committee; if so, what is its nature; and will he publish a full and complete Report of the proceedings of the Committee?


I have received the Report of this Committee, and, as it is quite short, I am circulating a copy in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It would not, I think, be in accordance with precedent, nor would it be desirable, to publish an account of the proceedings of the Committee other than the Report. No evidence was taken.


Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the employers, after a delay of some two to three years, have specifically stated that they are not prepared to agree to any conditions upon this matter?


I can only say that I am circulating the Report, and that it is the only Report that has been made to me from the Committee.


Can the right hon. Gentleman say that the only people who disagree are the employers, and not the workpeople's representatives? May I have an answer?


The hon. Member will see the Report.


This matter has been going on for two or three years, and the Committee was appointed in accordance with the will of this House, but we are now told by the right hon. Gentleman that we are not to receive any information at all beyond the Report.

Following is the Report referred to:

Trade Dispute Disqualification Committee.

4th March, 1924.


I have the honour to submit the following Report:

The above Committee was appointed 'to examine the working of the Trade Dispute Disqualification for Unemployment Benefit as contained in Section 87 (1) of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and Section 8 (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, and to consider whether any, and, if so, what modification should be made therein.'

The Committee have held many meetings and have given earnest and careful consideration to the matters referred to them. They regret, however, that they are unable to reach agreement as to whether any, and, if so, what modification should be made in the existing law. They have requested me, therefore, on their behalf, to report to you to that effect.

I have the honour to be,


Your obedient Servant,

(Sgd.) W. B. YATES (Chairman):"


asked the Minister of Labour if the dock workers in the Merseyside area who were employed for one or more days during the month prior to 16th February last have been disqualified for receipt of unemployment benefit under Section 8 (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923, in connection with the recent dockers' dispute, while similar workers who were totally unemployed in the same period have not been so disqualified; and, if so, will he state why this distinction is made?


I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) on 4th March, of which I am sending him a copy. The decision on points of this kind rests with the Umpire, and in accordance with the terms of the Act is final and conclusive.