§ Mr. SPEAKERI have received three Private Notice Questions from the hon. Members for Consett (Mr. Dunnico), Spennymoor (Mr. Batley) and Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley). It is rather unusual to have Private Notice Questions on a Friday. The matter raised seems to me to be relevant to the first part of the Amendment which we shall be discussing. I, therefore, propose to allow the hon. Members to put the questions, and if they wish to pursue the matter, I shall try to call at least one of them in the subsequent debate to-day.
§ Mr. DUNNICO(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the workmen at several collieries in the County of Durham, having been locked out by the colliery owners because of their refusal to accept lower wages and longer hours, have been denied unemployment, benefit; and whether he is prepared to take steps to enable unemployment benefit to be paid in such cases?
§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland)I have been informed that a number of collieries in the county of Durham have ceased work owing to trade disputes, and that claims have been made for benefit. An umpire gives his decision as to whether claims for benefit shall be allowed on the facts in each case. In certain cases, such as those of the St. Hilda and Boldon Collieries, which possibly are among the most important, the umpire has allowed benefit under the provisions of Section 4, 488 Sub-section (1), of the Act of 1924. In others he has not done so. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, I have no jurisdiction in that kind of case.
§ Mr. DUNNICOMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware, as stated, that thousands of colliers in various parts of Durham who have been locked out by the owners are in receipt of unemployment pay, whereas thousands of others, locked out under precisely the same conditions, are being denied unemployment benefit? Can the Minister explain why it is that the employés of the Consett Iron Company are victimised in this particular way?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe hon. Member makes a number of statements, among them that the conditions are precisely the same.
§ Mr. DUNNICOI can prove it.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe hon. Member thinks he can prove it. In a case like that he, or others, should make the proof to the umpire. As I have always said, in answer to questions and deputations, the umpire is an official who purposely and deliberately has been placed there to give a decision on the facts of a case as presented to him, and his decision cannot be upset or overridden by myself or anyone else. Therefore, if the umpire has given his decision, either in favour of claims or against them, I have never attempted to interfere with the decision, nor could I do so. On the other hand, I always say that if there are any new facts which any hon. Member can bring forward, his business is to present them to the umpire, so that if the umpire wishes he can re-consider the case in the light of those new facts.
§ Mr. BATEYThe first answer of the Minister was that there was a trade dispute. We do not agree with that statement. These miners have been locked out without a trade dispute, because they will not agree to reduced wages and longer hours. What we ask is, will not the Minister now take the necessary steps so that these men can have unemployment benefit? Will not the Minister, seeing that the umpire has given such stupid decisions, take some steps in order to make it possible for these men to have unemployment benefit?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI entirely demur from the kind of statement which the hon. Member has included in his question. I do not wish to be provocative, but to say that the umpire gives stupid decisions in cases in which the hon. Member does not agree with them, while he does not call it a stupid decision where he agrees with it, is to make a criticism which I cannot allow to pass without protest. I say quite distinctly, and from the point of view of the interests of men employed just as much as any other part of the community, that it is vital that the decision of the umpire should not be liable to be overridden administratively, and for that reason I have always consistently said that I will not try to interfere with the decisions of any umpire, whether it be a decision in favour of allowing a claim or against it.
§ Mr. WHITELEYMay I ask the Minister whether he is prepared to concentrate On that part over which he has control, and that is that in the initial stages the Minister of Labour should not declare a trade dispute. With out knowing the facts, but should bring into operation something whereby men will be paid unemployment benefit; until full inquiry has been made of people who know whether it is a trade dispute or not.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe hon. Member must give me notice of further questions of that kind. What I conceive to be my duty is what I have always done, which is, that I have to see that the law is obeyed, whichever way the law may be decided to lie. For that reason, in cases of doubt, just as in the case of a dispute in other questions going to the High Court of Justice for decision, I am bound, from the point of view of obeying the law, to get a case submitted to the umpire. That I do, and I abide by his decision. If the hon. Member wishes to put any further points to me I would gladly go into them, but on the broad principle I say that I can never interfere with the decision of an ampire.
§ Mr. DUNNICOAre we to assume from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that, no matter how harsh the conditions or how unfair they are, the men must accept them?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat seems to me to be argumentative, and I would suggest 490 that further points should be raised in the subsequent Debate.
§ Captain WEDGWOOD BENNMay I ask the Prime Minister a question in reference to this matter? When the subsidy was granted, did he not give the House to understand that it was for the purpose of stabilising wages; and did he not say that, if there was an attempt to reduce wages, a new situation would arise in reference to the subsidy?
§ Mr. R. RICHARDSONDid the Prime Minister not intend that the miners should go back under conditions which obtained prior to the subsidy being given?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is a question which can be better answered in the course of the Debate.
§ Mr. BATEYSeeing that we have obtained No satisfaction in this matter, and that it will be impossible in the Debate to deal with it, I beg to give notice that we shall seek to move the Adjournment of the House on Monday next, in order to draw attention to the matter.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe matter was raised last Wednesday by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico), and it could have been dealt with in the course of the Debate during the lost few days. I will find an opportunity for one of the hon. Members to speak to-day.
§ Mr. BATEYThe point raised last Wednesday was an altogether different point from that raised this morning.
§ Mr. SPEAKERWill the hon. Member now put his Private Notice Question?
§ Mr. BATEY(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that there are still several collieries idle in the county of Durham, owing to the workmen having been locked out, on account of their refusal to accept lower wages and longer hours; and whether he is prepared to send an official of his Department to hold an inquiry with a view to the recommencement of these collieries.
§ The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox)I received a deputation on this subject from the Durham Miners Association a few days ago. They in- 491 formed me that the conditions proposed had been accepted by the men at all the pits of this company, except two, where a stoppage still exists. I told them I should be glad to lend the good offices of an official of my Department towards a settlement of this dispute, if both sides desired. I have since communicated with the Mine Owners on the subject, but have not yet had time to receive a reply.
§ Mr. BATEYIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this dispute applies to more than two collieries and that there are some 10,000 miners idle to-day, who could be working within a fortnight if he would send down an official and try to get the two sides round a table and make inquiry into this question. Is it not worth making an effort for a solution; and will the right hon. Gentleman not agree to send down an official to bring the parties together and try to get this large number of men back to work?
§ Colonel LANE FOXThe Durham Miners' Association asked that we should try to secure a settlement in the case of these two collieries. I have told both sides that this shall be done if they agree to it, but obviously it would be a mistake to do it unless both sides agree.
§ Mr. BATEYIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is just a little hesitation in getting the two sides together, and, as one side is willing, will he not send an official there to make inquiry, and try to arrange a meeting?
§ Colonel LANE FOXYes, Sir; that is exactly what I have suggested to the two sides.
§ Mr. RICHARDSONIs the Secretary for Mines aware that these men are anxious to get back to work, and that it is the owners who are keeping them out? Will he not send a man from his Department there, and compel these people to come into conference?
Mr. THOMASAs it is not an exceptional difficulty in matters of this kind, to find one side or the other stubborn, would not a good purpose be served by 492 investigation on the spot? Why need the right hon. Gentleman wait before sending a man down to endeavour to bring about conciliation?
§ Colonel LANE FOXI can assure the right hon. Gentleman that from what I understand a settlement is very close, and that if this House will leave it alone it will be better. I understand that the parties are very near to settlement.
§ Mr. BATEYIf the Secretary for Mines will excuse me, I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister. He knows that when negotiations of this kind have broken down, the essential thing is to get them restarted, and it is possible to have them restarted in this case if an official will go down to the district, without waiting for both sides to agree to that course. Will the Prime Minister advise the Secretary for Mines to send an official, and see if something cannot be done?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think the hon. Member had better develop that point a little more fully when we get to the Debate, and should he wish to do so. I shall find a place for him.
§ Mr. SPEAKERNot without notice.
§ Mr. WHITELEY(by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the large amount of destitution among the mining community in the county of Durham in consequence of their not receiving unemployment benefit or outdoor relief from the guardians; and, if so, what does he propose to do to relieve such distress?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood)My right hon. Friend is aware that there has been a substantial increase in the number of persons relieved in this county and that there are cases in which applications for relief have been made by persons out of employment in consequence of an industrial dispute. In these cases relief cannot ordinarily lawfully be given to the men though it can be given to their dependents. My right hon. Friend is not aware of any failure on the part of the poor-law authorities to discharge their 493 legal duties and he has no authority to gibe them any instructions varying the scope of those duties.
§ Mr. WHITELEYIs the hon. Gentleman not aware that the guardians on applying for a loan in the ordinary way to meet their obligations were told distinctly that these people could not have outdoor relief, and that these people are being allowed to go destitute? Our point is that, no matter in what circumstances a man becomes destitute, the Ministry of Health has no right to put any obstacle in the way of the guardians giving him relief.
§ Sir K. WOODNo, Sir; the hon. Gentleman is not correct. This is not a question of whether the guardians may have a loan or not, but a question of whether the terms of the Merthyr Tydvil judgment should be obeyed or not. That judgment is applicable, whether the guardians are asking for loans or not, and my right hon. Friend cannot vary the terms of the judgment.
§ Mr. WHITELEYUnder the Merthyr Tydvil judgment, the guardians are entitled to provide outdoor relief in cases of destitution. The only thing that prevents the boards of guardians in Durham from doing so is the fact that the Ministry of Health is not prepared to allow them the necessary permision for loans under ordinary conditions, because they say the guardians are paying outdoor relief in cases in which they are not entitled to pay it. We say that, in cases of destitution, nothing should be put in the way of giving relief.
§ Mr. DUNNICOTs the hon. Gentleman aware that there are thousands of surface-men and day-wage men in Durham who stood neither to gain nor lose by the point in dispute; and that thousands of these men offered themselves for work and were declined the opportunity of working, and are now being penalised under the direction of the hon. Gentleman's own Department?
§ Colonel CLIFTON BROWNIs it not a fact that the Minister of Health refused a loan to these guardians because they were making relief up to something like 50s. to men already at work?
§ Sir K. WOODI do not want to deal with any matter except that of which 494 notice has been given. It is perfectly true that the guardians have made application for loans to the Ministry of Health. The Ministry have suggested to the guardians certain conditions under, which that loan can be given. That, however, is an entirely different matter from the matter raised in this question. All my right hon. Friend is doing is advising the boards of guardians to obey the law of the land as contained in the Merthyr Tydvil judgment and the guardians are at full liberty to carry out, within the terms of that judgment, any relief that may be properly given.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIs it not the case that in the Merthyr Tydvil judgment it was laid down, first, that the relief was illegal, and, secondly, that if workmen on strike became destitute, it was the duty of the guardians' to relieve them and, if they though desirable, prosecute these men afterwards for neglecting to maintain themselves. Therefore, if these men are destitute, it is the duty of the guardians to relieve them first, and if they think fit, prosecute them afterwards.
§ Sir K. WOODThe hon. Member raised that point on Wednesday, and I then explained that under the terms of the judgment, relief could not be given where there was work available for the men. If the hon. Member will allow me to say so, that is one of the main factors in the judgment, and in that respect the law has to be obeyed just as in respect of any other portion of it.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI have the judgment here, and I will hand it to the hon. Member, who ought to know the law.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf the law is not being followed, I imagine there is a remedy in the Courts against the guardians or anyone else.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThese people are pool.
§ Mr. WHITELEYOwing to the unsatisfactory nature of the replies which we have received, the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) and I desire to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, in order to deal with this question, as we believe it cannot be dealt with satisfactorily in the ordinary Debate.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 cannot be moved on a Friday. In any case this matter has now been the subject of a number of questions, and, as I have said, hon. Members will have an opportunity of raising it further when we resume the Debate on the Amendment to the Address.
§ Mr. WESTWOODHon. Members opposite laugh. They can chuckle while the kiddies starve.
§ Mr. BATEYOn a point of Order, Sir. Will you accept notice now that we intend to ask permission on Monday to move the Adjournment of the House? The general Debate to-day will not lead us anywhere, and we cannot get any satisfaction from it. Thousands of old men and wives and bairns are starving and their breadwinners can get neither unemployment pay nor outdoor relief. We are not going to allow the matter to stop there.
§ Mr. WESTWOODThey will apply the law to the miners but not to the ship owners.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI will deal with the matter according to the Rules of the House, and, as I said, should the hon. Member for Spennymoor desire it, I will find him an opportunity in the course of the Debate to-day.