HC Deb 14 July 1927 vol 208 cc2309-10
57. Mr. BATEY

asked the Minister of Labour the number of miners unemployed in each district for the last week of June, 1924, 1925, and 1927

Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLAND

As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate

NUMBER OF INSURED WORKERS in the Coal Mining Industry recorded as Unemployed in June, 1924, 1925 and 1927, respectively.
Area. 23rd June, 1924. 22nd June, 1925. 20th June, 1927.
England and Wales—
Northumberland … 3,744 21,572 12,125
Durham … 5,884 60,397 38,809
Cumberland and Westmorland … 941 1,959 3,519
Yorkshire … 3,268 26,415 17,258
Lanes, and Cheshire … 5,280 30,968 25,263
Derbyshire … 5,257 20,723 14,544
Notts. and Leicester … 5,240 18,021 9,975
Warwick … 158 576 648
Staffs., Worcester and Salop … 3,417 22,841 13,749
Glos. and Somerset … 2,715 4,591 3,508
Kent … 97 291 74
Wales and Monmouth … 12,813 61,756 68,284
England and Wales … 49,023 271,389 208,062
Scotland … 10,705 43,250 25,229
Great Britain … 59,728 314,639 233,291

a statement in the OFFICIALREPORT.

Mr. BATEY

Can the Minister tell us the totals for June, 1924, and June, 1927?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

The totals for all districts in Great Britain are 59,728 in June, 1924; 314,639 in June, 1925, and 233,000 in June, 1927.

Mr. BATEY

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the mining Debate on Tuesday the Secretary for Mines and the President of the Board of Trade gave figures supplied by his Department showing only the numbers employed in 1925 and 1927. Why did the Department not supply the figures for 1924, which showed that only 59,000 were unemployed as against over 200,000?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend can supply reasons for any statement he made.

Mr. BATEY

Was it not rather misleading the House to give those figures without the figures for 1924?

Major COLFOX

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for 1927

Following is the statement: