§ 2. Sir JOHN POWERasked the President of the Board of Trade how the production of British lace during 1928 compared with the production during the year prior to the introduction of the Safeguarding Duty?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI am not in possession of complete figures of production 686 covering all firms engaged in the lace industry; and I cannot, therefore, give absolute figures of comparison. But the figures of machine output and the returns of sales which the lace trade have furnished (and which cover a large part of the industry) both indicate a material improvement in activity in the industry since the imposition of the duty.
§ Mr. HANNONCan my right hon. Friend tell the House how many people would be displaced from employment if this duty were repealed?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI have no doubt it would be a very considerable number, not only those who have been added to the industry since the duty was imposed, but a number of others as well.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSHas the right hon. Gentleman any official figures, and, if so, will he give them, instead of assuming things?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI have not assumed things. What I said was that I had got figures which were given me by the lace trade, covering a very large proportion of it. These have already been published in the papers, and they certainly indicate, on both the production and sale sides, a remarkable advance.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSIs it not a fact that there are fewer lace workers in the industry to-day than there were when the duty was put on?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERNo, it is not in the least. There are some specious figures which I have seen advanced of numbers of people who figure on some list, but, when you come to the actual number of lace workers who are at work, there are very considerably more at work in the industry to-day, and there are very many more working whole-time who were only working part-time before.
§ Major MacANDREWIs there any case of which my right hon. Friend knows in which the price of lace has been raised since the imposition of the duty?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERNo, I know of no such case.
§ Mr. PALINGAre we to take it that all the figures that have any bearing 687 against the right hon. Gentleman's arguments are specious, and that all the others are to be depended on?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI have no reason to suppose at all that the figures I have cited are not entirely correct, and, if the hon. Gentleman would visit Nottingham and see what is happening there in the development of the lace trade, he would find what the facts are.