§ Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the House any information as to the cause of the trouble between police and unemployed miners at Nine Mile Point Colliery yesterday; whether any arrests were made; how many persons were injured; whether in any cases the injuries are serious, and whether full inquiry is to be made into the matter?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI have made inquiry and find that the trouble yesterday started with a determined attack by a large crowd on four miners who had been working at the colliery. There had been demonstrations on the previous days, and on Tuesday the miners who had been working and their police escorts were stoned. Yesterday no arrests were made: 11 persons, including two constables, received injuries requiring medical attention, but they are not, I am glad to say, serious.
§ Mr. EDWARDSWill the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI have made inquiries and I propose to make further inquiry if necessary.
§ Mr. EDWARDSDoes the Home Secretary think it is good business financially, or even common sense, to keep 50 policemen hanging about looking for trouble?
§ Mr. WALLHEADIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is alleged that among the injured were a crippled boy and a little girl who was doing some domestic work in a front garden, and what explanation can he give that these things should have happened, provided they are true?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI have given the information in my possession. The hon. Member had better be a little more careful before making suggestions of that kind.
§ Mr. W. THORNEDoes not the right hon. Gentleman think the cause of all the trouble is the charges made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) the other day?
§ Mr. EDWARDS(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether, in spite of the circumstances connected with the offer of employment on unknown terms to the men formerly employed at the Nine Mile Point Colliery, the Employment Exchanges are being used to induce the men to accept this employment or lose their unemployment benefit?
§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland)The terms which I quoted in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford yesterday were, as I understand, in the words in which they were offered to the men. I am not aware that any of the men suggested that these terms were not sufficiently specific. If this is the contention, it can be made before the Court of Referees, which will no doubt take it into careful consideration. The action of the Exchange in the matter was entirely impartial and was limited to submitting to the men the terms offered by the employer and reporting to the insurance officer the cases in which these terms were refused.
§ Mr. EDWARDSIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the men sent over from the Rhymney Valley were secured by the Employment Exchanges, although they knew that there was a dispute at that colliery, and how can this Action be reconciled—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member knows quite well that I cut out that part of his question, and he should not ask it as a supplementary.
§ Mr. EDWARDSI was perfectly aware that you cut out that part, but I understood that often a supplementary question is put which has not been allowed in the original question.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI am sorry to say that that is done sometimes., but it certainly ought never to be done.
§ Mr. HAYDAYSeeing that the insurance officer has disqualified these men from unemployment benefit on the ground that there is a dispute. does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Employ- 1950 ment Exchange should be used for supplying men to take the places of others in dispute? Further, is there any truth in the statement made in the question, that the men were told that they would be disqualified from benefit if they refused the positions offered in the circumstances?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDNo. I have no reason to suppose that that was said to the men when they were offered the work that was put before them, because it does not lie with the Exchange officials to decide whether they would be disqualified or not for a statutory cause. The Exchange is bound to place offers of employment before the men, and it informs the men if there is a dispute in the locality, so that they may know it. It is performing its necessary duty in submitting the terms to the men for their acceptance or not.
§ Mr. T. SHAWIn view of that answer, may I ask, seeing that the insurance officer, who is an officer of the Department, acted as if this were a dispute, whether the men who were sent to this place were told of the action of the insurance officer in ruling, as far as he was concerned, that there was a dispute?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI am not sure. I hesitate to speak from memory on a point about which I am not quite certain, and I should like to look up the circumstances. As far as I know, the men were told by the Exchange officials that there was a dispute on at the place. So far as this insurance officer disqualifies a person, he does so as: a court of first instance, and, if appeal is taken, as in the six test cases, it will be brought before the Court of Referees.
§ Mr. HAYDAYDoes not the Act place responsibility upon the Exchange officials to warn person:; that if they refuse to accept a position where there is a dispute it will not interfere with their right to unemployment benefit?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThat is a point which does not arise immediately out of the question. I should like to refresh my memory about it, and then I will tell the hon. Member, or the House, if he will put down a question, precisely how the matter stands.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIs not the cause of all this trouble, violence 1951 and even bloodshed the fact that an attempt has been made to break up the men's union?