§ 50. Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Minister of Labour in regard to industrial disputes involving stoppages of work during the 32 years from 1893 to 1924, and in which the annual loss of working time was equivalent to less than one day per head of the whole employed population, what proportion of the disputes was due to strikes and what proportion to lock-outs; and how many days lost were due, respectively, to demands for increases of wages and how many to resistance of reductions in wages?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe official statistics relating to industrial disputes do not differentiate between strikes and lock-outs, and I am, therefore, unable to give the proportion asked for. I propose, with the permission of the hon. Member to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the numbers of days lost owing to disputes arising on questions of wage increases and decreases, respectively.
§ Following is the statement:
§ Aggregate duration in working days of all industrial disputes involving a stoppage of work which were in progress in Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1896–1924 and which arose principally or solely (1) out of demands for increases in wages, and (2) out of proposed reductions in wages.
1367§ Note.—The figures for years prior to 1910 relate to the United Kingdom including the area of the Irish Free State, the separation of the figures for the latter area not having been carried back beyond 1910. Figures for 1893–95 are not available.
§ It should be observed that the figures relate to two classes of wage disputes only, and that other wage disputes, and disputes on questions other than those of wages (accounting, on the average for rather more than one-third of the total number of days lost) are not covered by the figures.
| Year. | For Increase in Wages. | Against proposed Reduction in Wages. | ||
| 1896 | … | … | 1,797,000 | 578,000 |
| 1897 | … | … | 1,913,000 | 517,000 |
| 1898 | … | … | 12,506,000 | 237,000 |
| 1899 | … | … | 1,261,000 | 139,000 |
| 1900 | … | … | 1,803,000 | 285,000 |
| 1901 | … | … | 1,099,000 | 618,000 |
| 1902 | … | … | 855,000 | 1,182,000 |
| 1903 | … | … | 566,000 | 418,000 |
| 1904 | … | … | 246,000 | 562,000 |
| 1905 | … | … | 505,000 | 671,000 |
| 1906 | … | … | 1,554,000 | 351,000 |
| 1907 | … | … | 835,000 | 109,000 |
| 1908 | … | … | 880,000 | 8,799,000 |
| 1909 | … | … | 628,000 | 283,000 |
| 1910 | … | … | 499,000 | 286,000 |
| 1911 | … | … | 3,954,000 | 287,000 |
| 1912 | … | … | 2,995,000 | 171,000 |
| 1913 | … | … | 5,720,000 | 789,000 |
| 1914 | … | … | 2,329,000 | 2,869,000 |
| 1915 | … | … | 2,318,000 | 22,000 |
| 1916 | … | … | 1,843,000 | 28,000 |
| 1917 | … | … | 2,061,000 | 233,000 |
| 1918 | … | … | 3,518,000 | 188,000 |
| 1919 | … | … | 22,073,000 | 5,558,000 |
| 1920 | … | … | 22,223,000 | 1,200,000 |
| 1921 | … | … | 255,000 | 84,936,000 |
| 1922 | … | … | 100,000 | 5,358,000 |
| 1923 | … | … | 108,000 | 2,253,000 |
| 1924 | … | … | 5,731,000 | 989,000 |