HC Deb 20 July 1933 vol 280 cc1974-6
54. Mr. BATEY

asked the Secretary for Mines the number of miners employed in Great Britain for the weeks ending 1st July, 1933, 3rd June, 1933, and 2nd July, 1932?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown)

The number of wage-earners employed at coal mines in Great Britain during the week ended 1st July, 1933, was 765,000 as compared with 768,100 during the week ended 3rd June, 1933, and 799,400 during the week ended 2nd July, 1932.

55. Mr. BATEY

asked the Secretary for Mines the number of miners employed in county Durham for the weeks ended 1st July, 1933, 3rd June, 1933, and 2nd July, 1932?

Mr. BROWN

The number of wage-earners employed at coal mines in the county of Durham during the week ended 1st July, 1933, was 98,600, as compared with 99,300 during the week ended 3rd June, 1933, and 100,300 during the week ended 2nd July, 1932.

Mr. BATEY

Is the Secretary for Mines aware that the Minister for Labour stated that there was a decrease in the number of miners unemployed. As that statement is now contradicted, will he send the figures to the Minister of Labour?

Mr. BROWN

The hon. Member is trying to compare two sets of figures which cannot be compared. The figures I have quoted refer to the number of workmen actually on the colliery books for the period mentioned. There can be no comparison with the unemployment figures given by the Minister of Labour; they are not on a comparable basis. It must also be remembered that wholly unemployed and temporarily stopped workers show different variations inside the same totals from day to day, and a number of those who work part of the week are in both sets of figures.

Mr. BATEY

How can there be fewer miners employed compared with a month or a year ago and yet be a decrease in the amount of unemployment

Mr. BROWN

I have explained the reason for these variations.

Mr. LAWSON

Are not the figures given by the hon. Member the real figures

Mr. BROWN

Both figures are real.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON

May I ask if these figures cover 100 per cent. of the numbers employed?