§ 5. Mr. PIKEasked the Minister of Labour the recent additions to the total numbers of unemployed in the iron and steel trades; if he has any information to show what proportion of the increase is due to the application of the advice tendered to the trades by the Tariff Advisory Committee; and whether such figures include all persons previously holding non-insurable occupations?
§ Sir H. BETTERTONThe number of insured persons in the iron and steel industry classification (excluding pig iron manufacture) recorded as unemployed in 592 Ashfield and Mansfield, respectively, on 31st October, 1931, and 31st May, 1932;
(2) the number of hosiery workers, both men and women, totally unemployed or temporarily stopped on the register of the Employment Exchanges at Sutton-in-Ashfield and Mansfield, respectively, on 31st October, 1931, and 31st May, 1932?
§ Sir H. BETTERTONAs the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Following is the statement:
§ Great Britain at 23rd May, 1932, the latest date for which figures are available, was 86,366. This was 5,825 more than at 25th April. The figures relate only to persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer to the reply given yesterday to my hon. Friend by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade.
§ Mr. PIKEDoes not the right hon. Gentleman consider it rather significant that there is this large increase of unemployment in the iron and steel trade, especially in the uninsurable class, since 593 the advice tendered to the trade by the Advisory Committee, and does he not think that some steps are necessary, in view of the possibility of a further increase, to deal with this new mass of unemployed workers?
§ Sir H. BETTERTONIn regard to the second part of the supplementary question, that was, of course, the question put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. With regard to the first part, as this advice was only tendered quite recently, it can scarcely have had the effect which the hon. Member suggests.
§ Sir PERCY HARRISIs it not possible that this is due to the new tariff policy of the Government?