§ 29. Mr. MAXTONasked the Minister of Labour the total number of insured workers engaged in those industries to which the Safeguarding of Industries Act is now applied in the years 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1927, respectively?
§ Mr. BETTERTONI regret that separate figures are not available in respect of the specific industries to which the Safeguarding of Industries Act applies, with the exception of those relating to lace, which are as follow:—
§ Estimated number of insured workpeople.
| At July: | |
| 1923 | 21,220 |
| 1924 | 20,350 |
| 1925 | 19,500 |
| 1926 | 18,880 |
| 1927 | 13,170 |
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIs it a fact that these figures have shown a steady reduction since these industries were safeguarded?
§ Mr. BETTERTONThere is a slight reduction from 1926 to 1927, but I think that the answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is that had it not been for the duties the reduction would have been infinitely greater.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYWhat does the hon. Gentleman mean by a slight reduction in the figures from 21,000 in 1923 to the figure for 1927 of 18,000?
§ Mr. BETTERTONI gave the figures for 1926 to 1927. From 1923 there is a reduction, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, of the figure, which was 18,170 in 1927, and in 1923, it was 21,220.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYDoes not this show that the whole policy has failed?
§ Mr. BETTERTONNot at all, exactly the reverse.
§ Mr. MAXTONAm I right in understanding from the answer to the question that only 23,000 workers at the most are in the industries which are affected by the policy of safeguarding?
§ Mr. BETTERTONOh no, not at all. I gave the figures which relate only to the safeguarding of the lace industry. The reason I cannot give the figures with regard to other industries which are safeguarded is that for statistical purposes they are merged with other industries and therefore I cannot pick out the figures relating to each trade.
§ Mr. MAXTONIs the hon. Gentleman aware that on the 29th February his right hon. Friend gave an answer which gave hundreds of thousands of persons, and what are the circumstances which have intervened which compel him to give this more emaciated list?
§ Mr. BETTERTONI recollect the answer that my right hon. Friend gave, and I think that if the hon. Gentleman looks at it again he will see that it is clear from that answer that the figures related to various industries in respect of which there is an import duty, and it is not limited to those affected by the Safeguarding Act.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEIs it not a fact that a considerable number of lace undertakings were considering closing down if it had not been for the imposition of these Duties?
§ Mr. BETTERTONYes, that is so.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENIs my hon. Friend aware that a considerable amount of the difficulty in this matter is due to the change in female fashions and also in their habits?
§ Mr. E. BROWNSeeing that such varying deductions are being drawn from the figures, will the hon. Gentleman not consider making a table differentiating between the industries in the official returns so that Members may obtain the actual facts?
§ Mr. BETTERTONI will consider that, but it is a matter, I am told, of very great difficulty to extend the list of industrial groups so as to classify separately the particular part which is affected by safeguarding.
§ Mr. MAXTONWill the hon. Gentleman tell the House what are the reasons which have led him to give a different answer to-day than was given by his right hon. Friend to exactly the same question on the 29th February?
§ Mr. BETTERTONIt was assumed, I think, on the. 29th February that what the hon. and gallant Gentleman who asked the question wanted to know was the general effect of import duties whether under the Safeguarding Acts or under the Finance Acts.
§ Mr. MAXTONThis question is an exact copy of the one that was put by the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet).