§ 25. Sir BASIL PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the number of employs in the fabric glove industry on the 31st October was only 1,100 as compared with 2,020 on the same date the year before, and the average hours worked per week were 28 as against 98 in 1929; and that on that date manufacturers had orders for only 13,037 dozen pairs as against 64,537 on the corresponding date in 1929; and whether, in view of this and the probability of the practically complete destruction of file fabric glove industry, he will reconsider his decision to allow the duty to lapse?
§ 15. Captain AUSTIN HUDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if 1074 he can state the number of dozens of fabric gloves on order for forward delivery on 31st October, 1929, and 31st October, 1930, respectively?
Mr. W. GRPHAMI will answer these questions together. According to returns furnished to the Board of Trade by the joint industrial council for the glove making industry firms which in 1924 employed about 82 percent. of the cutters in the fabric glove making industry, employed in October, 1930, 881 workers, including 469 outworkers, as compared with 1,233 workers, including 644 outworkers, in October, 1929. During October of this year the average number of hours worked by factory workers was 40¼ per week, compared with 36½ hours per week in October of last year. I have no information regarding the volume of orders held by the manufacturers. As regards the decision of the Government to allow the duty on these gloves to lapse, I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 20th November.
§ Sir B. PETOIn view of the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility to the House and to the country for finding employment for the people of this country, will he use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to prevent this gratuitous interference with employment being provided here?
Mr. GRAHAMI can only say that this matter, with other matters under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, has been very carefully considered. The policy of the Government has been announced; and i must add that in one industry in which the duty has been removed things have not worked out in anything like the way in which hon. Members opposite expected.
§ Mr. BENSONCan the right hon. Gentleman explain why Safeguarding has not worked, in this industry?
§ 54. Sir B. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that importers of foreign gloves on which duty has been paid are already making arrangements to re-export them, so as to obtain the drawback and re-export them after the 22nd December when the duty on foreign gloves has lapsed; and 1075 what steps he proposes to take to prevent the loss of revenue which has already been paid?
§ Mr. P. SNOWDENDrawback is legally payable on gloves exported as merchandise in the circumstances mentioned, and the title to drawback will not be affected by the lapse of duty on the 22nd December, but there will be no legal authority for continuing the duty charge upon gloves imported after that. date, whether or not they have been previously exported from this country. It is not proposed to take any steps to alter the legal position, which is in accordance with the ordinary practice with regard to expiring duties.