§ MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the 1232 Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the continued and increasing discrepancy between the total number of addresses of out-workers reported by medical officers of health as forwarded to other councils, and that returned having been received by other councils; whether, according to the Home Office Return [Cd. 3986], those reported as received were only 34,377, whilst 50,579 had been forwarded; and, if so, whether he will confer with the Postmaster General as to where the 16,202 missing lists have gone.
§ MR. GLADSTONEI am aware that the discrepancy between the number of addresses respectively forwarded and received by local authorities rose from 7,350 in 1904, and 5,300 in 1905 to over 16,000 in 1906. It will be seen on examination of the Return that the increase is chiefly a London increase, and probably the key to the problem lies here. I am not prepared to say positively what is the reason for it, but the increase, which cannot, I think, be accounted for as merely an increase in the fringe of out-workers outside London working for London employers, probably indicates an increasing thoroughness on the part of London authorities in enforcing the Act, both in forwarding lists themselves and in searching the lists sent to them for duplicates of names already on their lists. It may be noticed especially that the City of London forwarded 14,376 addresses in 1906, as against only 3,334 in 1904. I will consider the point further when the figures for 1907 are available.
§ MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to Table 6 in Part 2, in the Summary of Reports of Medical Officers of Health for 1906, to the Home Office, wherein it is shown that the number of names of out-workers received are greatly in excess of the number of inspections made in Stepney, Worcester, West Ham, Gloucestershire, and other places; whether representations were made last year about the places named; what steps he proposes to take in the case of these and others, such as Leeds, to bring the local inspection up to an efficient standard; and whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Ipswich, about which similar representations were 1233 made regarding its neglect in 1905, has made no Return at all for 1906; and what steps he proposes to take with that town.
§ MR. GLADSTONEI am aware of the figures in the Return which has been issued by my directions. I would remind the hon. Member that in October of 190G the Home Office issued a circular to local authorities (printed in the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for that year) urging a more thorough enforcement of the Home Work provisions of the Factory Act, and the figures in the Return in question relate to a period before the issue of that Circular. The above question will come up for consideration in connection with the Report of the Homo Work Committee just issued.
§ MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDCan nothing be done in cases like that of Ipswich, which seems to be particularly bad?
§ MR. GLADSTONEThere is much that may be done, and I will see what I can do.