HC Deb 25 May 1927 vol 206 cc1983-4
14. Sir JOHN POWER

asked the Minister of Labour how unemployment now in the lace trade compares with the unemployment in that industry in June, 1925?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

At 25th April, 1927, the number of insured persons classified as belonging to the lace industry in Great Britain recorded as unemployed was 1,839, or 9.7 per cent., compared with 3,377, or 17.3 per cent., at 22nd June, 1925.

Mr. HANNON

Is not this happy result entirely due to the application of the Safeguarding procedure to the lace industry?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

Is it not a fact that there are fewer people engaged on full time producing lace in this country now than there were on the same date in 1925?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

If the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper, I will try to give him the figures. As regards the question of my hon. Friend the Member for the Moseley Division (Mr. Hannon), it is a very natural and legitimate inference.

Mr. WILLIAMS

How does the right hon. Gentleman arrive at that conclusion unless he has figures at his disposal to show that there is a result which is advantageous to employment?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

It is quite clear that, whatever the alteration in the total number of people engaged, it is not the difference in proportion between 9.7 per cent. and 17.3 per cent.

Mr. WILLIAMS

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are fewer people producing lace in Nottingham to-day than there were on the same date in 1925, that the depression in the lace industry is worse to-day than it was in 1925, and that Safeguarding has been disadvantageous rather than advantageous?

Mr. SPEAKER

We cannot have a Debate on Safeguarding now. Any further questions must be put down.