I understand from the chairman of the Committee that their examination of this difficult question is now far advanced, but he cannot yet say when the report will be completed. I think I must await the report before deciding whether to publish it.
As my right hon. Friend was obviously misinformed when she gave that answer—because both the A.E.U. and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions have made representations on this—may I ask whether she will receive a deputation so that we may enlighten her on the matter, particularly as last month at Brighton—I quote her words—she said, "Legislation, however good, can always be improved"?
I think my hon. Friend underestimates the efficiency of my staff. I am never misinformed, at least by my staff. But I suggest that if my hon. Friend examines the figures more carefully she will find she has not been given the latest information. The number of claimants for benefits in this case which were initially disallowed were 393; the number since allowed is 351 and the number now under consideration is 35, which, I think, alters the position altogether. The terms of this Section are exactly the same today as they were in 1924, and although I accept the fact that she is vigilant on behalf of these men she must realise that the T.U.C. have also been vigilant since 1924 on their behalf.
Will my right hon. Friend reconsider her reply as the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions and the A.E.U. in Coventry have made representations to the T.U.C.? They are not misinformed and I am not discussing one particular case. Will my right hon. Friend therefore receive a deputation, so that we can discuss it?