Skip to main content

West Cumberland

Volume 496: debated on Thursday 28 February 1952

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.


asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed at the latest available date, compared with the corresponding period last year, for Whitehaven, Cleator Moor and Millom Employment Exchanges, respectively.

As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Could the Minister say if it is true that the figures have increased during the last two or three months? If so, what has been the cause of the big increase?

I think it is true to say that there has been an increase during the last two or three months, and I will see if there is anything I can do to help in this connection.

In view of the fact that the three towns in question are in the West Cumberland Development Area, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confer with the President of the Board of Trade to ensure that the priorities laid down by a Labour Government will not be reversed?

Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider reviving the pre-war practice of sending these figures monthly to the local newspapers?

The table below gives the information desired:

Numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of the Whitehaven, Cleator Moor and Millom Employment Exchanges at 10th February, 1952, and 12th February, 1951.
Employment Exchange10th February, 195212th February, 1951
Cleator Moor394196


asked the Minister of Labour when a start is to be made on the building of the disabled persons factory at Cleator Moor, Cumberland.

I am informed by Remploy Limited that the building of the new Cleator Moor factory has been temporarily deferred, but that Remploy will reconsider the position later in the year.

Is the Minister aware of the rather disgraceful conditions in which severely disabled men are working and have been working in this factory during the last three years? Why is it that this has happened when we were told in July, 1951, that everything was ready for beginning the job? Why has it been stopped?

I am aware that the factory is not in that condition which one would like it to be, but Remploy, Ltd., assure me that they are in difficulty in undertaking this drastic development within the means available to them.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.