§ The Adjourned Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading was resumed.
§ MR. LEES KNOWLES (Salford, W.)
in reply to inquiries as to the object of the Bill, said that it parcelled out the country into districts for the education and examination of plumbers, who would be granted certificates if they could succeed in passing a theoretical and practical examination. When these certificates were granted, men would not say that they understood plumbing when they really did not.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)
said, the question of examining and giving certificates to plumbers was an extremely interesting one, particularly at that time, when so many householders were suffering from lack of water during frost, and subsequent flooding from burst pipes. 740 But there were some facts in connection with the Bill which he could explain, and which were absolutely unique. The Bill had been read a second time and sent to a Grand Committee, and lie had been expecting to hear some explanation of the course taken by that Committee.
§ MR. LEES KNOWLES
said, the Committee adjourned the consideration of the Bill for the attendance of a representative of a Government Department, but he did not attend; consequently, without advice and assistance, the Committee were unable to proceed with the Bill. The Bill was strongly supported by the Local Government Board.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY
said, if that were so, the House ought to hear it from a Minister. Why did not the Government endorse the statement that had been made?
§ MR. T. M. HEALY
said, it appeared the Bill had been referred by the Committee to the Local Government Board, and by the Local Government Board to the Committee. Could the hon. Member assure them that, if plumbers were registered, householders would be saved from recent and present experiences? If plumbers were to be registered, why not blacksmiths and farriers? Why not shoemakers, barristers, and attorneys? If they were, it had done them very little good. But why did no one explain all this to the Grand Committee?