§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether his attention has been called to Mr. Masterman's statement in Bethnal Green on Friday last to the effect that he was going to launch a scheme under the Insurance (Amendment) Act dealing with casual labour at the docks? Whether such a scheme was prepared during the last autumn; and why it has been kept over until the middle of Mr. Masterman's by-election?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI only got notice of this question as I entered the House. I know nothing about it. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will answer the question.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)My attention has not been previously called to the statement referred to. By Section 19 of the National Insurance Act, 1913, it is contemplated that there should be an issue of special orders dealing with casual labour, and the case of dock labour in the Port of London was then fully discussed, and it was contemplated, as every one knows, who took part in the Debate, that an order should be issued dealing with the Port of London. The Port of Liverpool has been largely dealt with, the Port of London has not, and therefore it was thoroughly understood that an order should be issued dealing with casual labour in the Port of London. Since the Act came into operation, steps have been taken to obtain the views of both employers and employed before issuing an order. A good many diverse interests have been consulted, and there have been negotiations and conversations with various interests in the Port. The order is in course of preparation and must be launched in a very short time.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWWill the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the question my hon. Friend really put, and that is, what is the explanation of the strange coincidence that this event is announced in the middle of a by-election?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEAs a matter of fact it has been announced repeatedly before this election. [HON. Members: "When?"] It was announced in this House. I am not at all sure it was not announced once by my right hon. Friend, 587 but it was repeatedly announced in this House; it has been referred to repeatedly by my right hon. Friend Mr. Masterman in the course of speeches in the last two or three months. The only difference is, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite knows it perfectly well, that once a statement is made in the course of a by-election special prominence is given to it, and I have no doubt we owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) for still further calling attention to it.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware he has still left the question unanswered. We all know that vague statements were made. Why was a definite statement left over until the middle of a by-election?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. So far from the statement being vague, nothing could be more specific. If he really will take the trouble to look at the Act which was carried last year, he will find it states almost in these very words that special orders may be made. [HON. MEMBERS: "May be made."] It was stated beyond that, that these orders would be made specifically in reference to the Port of London; in fact, the whole Debate turned upon the conditions of casual labour in the Port of London. Anyone who is acquainted with the subject knows it was the result of a great discussion, in which hon. Members on both sides of the House took part, and which had reference almost exclusively to the Port of London. I received deputations myself last year before that, and this Section was put in as a consequence of the pressure being brought to bear upon us, and therefore there is nothing new, except that the hon. Gentleman has so kindly called attention to it.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSMay I ask whether it is not a fact that Mr. Masterman himself said the scheme is still under consideration, and has not been agreed to either by masters or men, and if so why is it now sprung upon the public?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat is exactly what I have said. The hon. Member seems to have forgotten, so I will read what I said again. I said that steps have been taken to obtain the views both of employers and employed before the issue of an order, and the hon. Gentleman takes as new something I told five minutes ago.
§ Dr. ADDISONIs it not true that Mr. Masterman was replying to a question put to him at a meeting in which he was asked what could be done for dock labour, and Mr. Masterman explained in accordance with the provisions of the Act of last year a scheme was being prepared?
§ Lord ROBERT CECILCan the right hon. Gentleman point to a single case of a statement made by any Minister in public until Mr. Masterman's statement the other day putting forward specific details of this scheme for dealing with casual labour?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe Noble Lord does not seem to have acquainted himself with the facts. He talks of a scheme with specific details.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILYes, certainly.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEEven the hon. Gentleman who asked the question does not submit any question of specific detail. Mr. Masterman himself repeatedly, at Bethnal Green, in the course of the last three or four months made statements of that kind.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILThe right hon. Gentleman impugnes my accuracy: his accuracy does not satisfy me.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere seems to be a good deal of contention in this matter. It had better be raised in the course of debate.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg to give notice that I shall, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, raise the question of the Bethnal Green by-election.