§ 36. Sir VICTOR WARRENDERasked the Minister of Labour the number of working days lost through industrial disputes during the present year, and in 1924, 1925, and 1926, respectively?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe number of working days lost through industrial disputes was nearly 8£ million in 1924, nearly 8 million in 1925, about 162 million in 1926, and rather more than 1 million during January to October, 1927.
§ Mr. CLYNESCan the Department take some steps more accurately to describe the cause of these stoppages, by classifying strikes as "strikes" and lockouts as "lock-outs"?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI cannot undertake to do anything of the kind, because, as the right hon. Gentleman himself knows, accurate classification is almost impossible in a case of this kind; it very largely depends on the point of view. There are cases as to which there is a difference of opinion, and which it would be very difficult indeed to put into the one category or the other.
§ Mr. W. THORNEIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the major portion of the days lost in 1926 was due to the coalminers' lock-out?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI am advised that, in the opinion of others, including, apparently, some on that side, it was due to the miners' strike.
§ Mr. CLYNESAre we to take the right hon. Gentleman's answer as meaning that in the Labour Ministry there is no definition of a strike and no definition of a lock-out?
§ Mr. MACKINDEROn a point of Order. On the assumption that this is an inspired question, is it not fair that we should have the contrary point of view?
§ Mr. CLYNESMay I submit to you, Sir, that the implication in the right hon. Gentleman's first answer is to the effect that working men by their action are the cause of these prolonged stop pages, and that, therefore, we are entitled to classification in order to show whether the greater part of the blame for the stoppages should rest with the employers who took the initiative in seeking—
Mr. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to argue the matter. I called him twice for Supplementaries, seeing that there was a fair point to raise in the answer, and he asked two supplementaries on the question. Perhaps he will ask his question, but it must be a question.
§ Mr. DIXEYOn a point of Order. The hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Radford) has risen three times.
§ Mr. CLYNESMy question to the right hon. Gentleman is whether in his Department there is any recognised definition of a strike and any recognised definition of a lock-out?
§ Mr. RADFORDBefore the right hon. Gentleman replies on this question whether the coal dispute was a lock-out 1376 or a strike, may I ask him if it is not a fact that in Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Warwickshire, Derbyshire, and Cannock Chase, the owners posted no notices whatever?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI will make inquiries as the right hon. Gentleman asks. I would only add that I carefully used an answer which did not prejudice or bias the result either way, and I think it is unfortunate to try to raise the issue between them.
§ Mr. THORNEIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the general secretary of every trade union, when he makes the annual return which he has to send to the Registrar prior to May, has to insert the number of people locked out and the number of people on strike?