CLAUSE 8.—(Abolition of Investigations of Accidents by Certifying Surgeons.) (Hansard, 6 July 1916)

HC Deb 06 July 1916 vol 83 cc1752-93 1752

§ (1) After the expiration of one month from the passing of this Act it shall cease to be the duty of certifying surgeons to investigate the nature and cause of death or injury caused by accidents in factories and workshops or in premises to which the provisions of the Factory and Workshop Acts, 1901 to 1911, relating to accidents, are applied, or to send to the inspector of the district reports thereof:

§ Provided that nothing in this Section shall affect Sub-section (3) of Section; seventy-three of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, relating to the investigation by certifying surgeons of diseases occurring in factories and workshops.

1753

§ (2) As from the same date the enactments mentioned in the Schedule to this Act shall be repealed to the extent mentioned in the Schedule to this Act.

Mr. SAMUEL
I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "Provided also that it shall continue to be the duty of the certifying surgeon to investigate and report upon cases of injury caused by exposure to gas, fumes, or other noxious substances or due to any other special cause specified in instructions of the Secretary of State as requiring medical investigation, and the Secretary of State shall issue instructions defining the causes of injury to which this provision is to apply and requiring the inspector of the district to refer to the certifying surgeon all such cases reported to him. The certifying surgeon shall have, for the purpose of the investigation in any such case, the same powers, and shall be entitled to receive the same fee as he would if the case had been a ease to which Section seventy-three applies."
As a matter of fact, it might be, perhaps, more, convenient for the whole Clause to be moved out first. I think perhaps, though, that the best course would be for me merely to move this Amendment formally, because it follows upon the promise I gave on the Second Reading.

§ Sir P. MAGNUS
I beg to move to leave out the words "specified in instructions of the Secretary of State as requiring medical investigation, and the Secretary of State shall issue instructions defining the causes of the injury to which this provision is to apply, and requiring the inspector of the district to refer to the certifying surgeon all such cases reported to him," in order to insert instead thereof the words "on which he may consider it necessary to report in discharge of his duties."
I agree with the Home Secretary that it might have been more advisable to deal at once with the omission of the Clause. I think we should thank the Home Secretary for having considered the strong objection made to this Clause on the Second Reading of the Bill, and for having endeavoured, as far as he thought he could, to meet the objections which we then raised. It is not often, I take it, that a Minister meets with such objections to a particular Clause as those that were raised on the Second Reading of this Bill. It was therefore, of course, the more incumbent 1754 upon him in bowing to the views of the House, as he expressed himself willing to do, to introduce some sort of Amendment, but I think that everyone who is interested in this matter will agree that the Amendment proposed by the Home Secretary is not generous enough, and does not meet the objections fully of those opposed to the original Clause. Whereas I am, of course, willing to accept such concessions as he makes in the Amendment that is put upon the Paper, I can only do so provided that the Amendment is so widened as to meet the views of my hon. Friends who think that this Clause ought to be entirely rejected. I might say that I thought the arguments used by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) on Tuesday last were so strong that it was unnecessary to add much to what he had said, and since I have been sitting here he has placed in my hand a telegram which he has received from Leeds in the last few hours, and which, if I may be allowed, I will read: Card and Blowing Room Society representing 60,000 member?. We strongly protest against abolition, of certifying surgeons in cotton mills. Their services to our members ate invaluable.—Signed, President and Secretary. That is a very strong opinion, coming from those who have had the benefit of the services of these certifying surgeons, and I want the Home Secretary to realise that, unless the duties of the certifying surgeons are considerably extended beyond what is proposed in his Amendment, it will be necessary, I am afraid, to vote against the Clause when we come to consider it. I cannot help thinking—I may be wrong— that this Clause 8 was inserted in this Bill under a distinct misapprehension. That was pointed out by the hon. Member for Lanark, and I do not wish to repeat the arguments he used, but I must be allowed' to point to the words of the Memorandum to this Bill:
"This Clause carries into effect a recommendation contained in paragraph 27 of the Report of the Committee on Retrenchment in Public Expenditure. The Committee on Accidents in Factories had previously in 1911 made a similar recommendation."
I looked into the Report of the Committee on Accidents, but I could not find that they made any such recommendation as is there stated. The Retrenchment Committee certainly made a recommendation to these effect: The Committee on Accidents in Factories recommended that legislation should be obtained to enable them (certifying surgeons) to be dispensed with, and Weconcur in this proposal. 1755 But the Committee of Accidents never recommended anything of the kind, and, therefore, as I have said, the whole of this Clause rests upon a series of misapprehensions. It is pointed out, first in the Memorandum, and secondly in the Retrenchment Committee's Report, that the proposal was contained in the Report of the Accidents Committee, whereas they never really recommended anything of the kind. They were very strongly in favour of certifying surgeons continuing to be employed in certain cases, not only as regards the certifying of children, but also in the case of accidents. I have looked most carefully through the Report of the Committee, and they say: In scattered districts, however, and perhaps as regards some small factories in the larger centres, the surgeon's report is still useful. And, the Report states, it may be useful in other cases. There are two ways in which the Committee suggests the present system might be amended, and they prefer the second proposal, which would continue to enable certifying surgeons to investigate in particular cases in which their investigation would still be desirable. There are many other references in this Report to the value of the reports which are presented by certifying surgeons. It is quite true they point out that in some cases the reports duplicate those of the inspectors, but, at the same time, they indicate that in many cases the reports are useful and desirable.
I want to make a point which I do not think has been made previously. This Report on accidents contains at least two sets of recommendations. One of them refers to the position and duties of inspectors, and the other refers to certain changes that might be made in the duties of certifying surgeons. But it is important to remember that the recommendations on these two heads ought to be taken together The one depends upon the other, and it is strongly recommended in this Report that the qualifications of the inspectors ought to be very much better than they are, or were at that time; and if you are to lighten the duties of the certifying surgeon it follows that you should improve the qualifications of the inspector. But what does this Bill do? It refers entirely to the duties of the certifying surgeons, but makes no reference whatever to the qualifications of inspectors. It was only 1756 yesterday that I put a question to the Home Secretary on this very point. I asked whether any steps were being taken to carry out the recommendations in this Report as to the examination to be passed by applicants for inspectorships, and the Under-Secretary stated: The revision of the scheme of examination and conditions of nomination were being considered, in consultation with the Civil Service Commissioners, at the outbreak of war, and has had to be suspended for the time being. If the recommendations in this Report with reference to the qualifications of inspectors, on whom are to be thrown some of the duties previously carried out by the certifying surgeons, are to be suspended until the end of the War, why is it that the recommendations with regard to the certifying surgeons have not also been suspended? I do not know that any reason has been advanced why the consideration of the whole of this question should not be postponed until after the War. Anyone who reads this Report of the Accidents Committee will see how interdependent are these recommendations with regard to certifying surgeons and the recommendations with regard to inspectors. Let me quote one or two instances: In order to facilitate and improve the work of certifying surgeons, steps might be taken to bring the certifying surgeons into closer touch with the inspectors. And they suggested that conferences should take place at certain times. What do they say about inspectors? They propose, first of all, that the conditions of nomination of inspectors should be altered, and state: We attach the highest importance to practical knowledge and experience of factory and workshop, and therefore desire to see nomination limited to the following classes. Those Clauses include those whose records in scientific work fit them for the duties. They go on to say: We think it important that no one should be nominated who has not been personally interviewed by the Secretary of State, or by some one specially selected for that purpose. I would like to ask the Home Secretary whether he has considered it his duty personally to interview all candidates for nomination before they are allowed to pass their examination. Then the Committee propose considerable alterations in the examination for inspectors, which will give to the inspectors some amount of that scientific knowledge which at the present moment is only possessed by the certifying surgeons. It is the certifying surgeons alone who possess the scientific 1757 knowledge necessary to enable them to judge questions relating to mechanical, physical, or chemical processes. It is quite true that if you have a class of inspectors who are required to show they possess also some scientific knowledge, it might then be possible to alter, to some extent, the duties of the certifying surgeons; but, at the present moment, would it be believed that the examination which the inspectors are required to pass is an examination in history, geography, and a variety of other literary subjects, but that they are not required to pass any examination in any one single branch of science? In these circumstances I think it would be disastrous in the interests of the workpeople engaged in those factories that the report should depend on the report of the inspector alone, without having been considered by the certifying surgeon at the same time.
May I just deal with the Amendment, as proposed by the Home Secretary? The right hon. Gentleman leaves the first Subsection of the Clause as it is, and proposes to add a new proviso. The Amendment indicates that it is to be left to the Secretary of State to specify by particular instructions the conditions under which the certifying surgeon may at any time interfere or make a report on a case. Surely it would be most unwise to leave that power in the hands of the Home Secretary by means of instructions. It would take away all the initiative of the certifying surgeon, and all the advantage of any experience which as a scientific man going into a factory he would be able to exercise. It would destroy all the advantages which his scientific education gave him. What I want to do is to remove from the Secretary of State these duties which he proposes to undertake, and to throw them upon the certifying surgeons. It is for that reason that I move this Amendment. I propose to enlarge the functions to be discharged by the certifying surgeon so as to enable him to make to the inspector any report which he considers necessary in the discharge of his ordinary duties. If these words are inserted I believe that all we have been contending for will be granted, but unless these words or words similar are inserted the Amendment as it stands limits and defines precisely the particular cases in which the certifying surgeon may make any report at all. It destroys the surgeon's interest in his work, and prevents him, as a profes- 1758 sional man, from making any such report as he thinks necessary. The Home Secretary says that it is desirable to make this change with a view to the saving of a certain amount of money. Let me point out that in answer to an interruption of mine he distinctly said that this is not an emergency Bill, and if passed it will be a permanent law. Therefore it is not merely intended to effect economy during the time of war.
What is the economy to be effected? I have always noticed that when any small Amendment of this kind is to be effected the first victims singled out are always surgeons or medical men. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Anyone would think that they are the last persons in the world who have rendered any service to the country in this War, whereas, as a matter of fact, no class of His Majesty's subjects has been more self-sacrificing than the doctors. I have always found that Ministers show most enthusiasm for economy when they are dealing with the small fees which surgeons and physicians receive. A few days ago the fee for certifying infectious diseases was reduced from 2s. 6d. to 1s., the meanest proposal ever introduced into this House. There is a slight discrepancy between the statement made in the Retrenchment Committee's Report and in the Report of the Accidents Committee. The Retrenchment Committee say that this proposal will effect a saving of £12,500, but the Accidents Committee say that the sum total of all these fees amounts to something between £9,000 and £10,000. Perhaps the Home Secretary will be able to explain this discrepancy.

Mr. SAMUEL
That is five years ago.

§ Sir P. MAGNUS
The Home Secretary has not told us by how much this £10,000 will be reduced by the increased duties we are now going to throw upon the certifying surgeons. Let us suppose that the amount under this Amendment is £5,000. It means that you are going to deprive the working people in the factories all over the country of the services of these surgeons for the paltry sum of £5,000 or £6,000 a year. I ask is it really worth while to carry out an Amendment of that kind when there is the possibility of sacrificing the lives and limbs of a large number of persons? Even if it were only a matter of insurance it would be worth while to continue this expenditure. If you were spending this £5,000 for a few cases in which the reports 1759 differ from the reports of the employers, surely it would be worth while. You cannot say how serious those accidents may be, although it is true that the reports of the certifying surgeons do not materially differ from the reports of the employers in many cases, and the fact that the employer knows these surgeons will issue reports is one of the principal reasons why these reports coincide. Here you are going to remove all that advantage and check upon the statements of employers and render it more possible that accidents may occur for the mere saving of £5,000 or £6,000 a year. I believe there are 2,000 certifying surgeons and £6,000 or £5,000 a year to be saved by this proposal, but I ask whether it is really worth while to' insert this particular Clause in the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman knows how it is opposed by the workmen, and also by medical men, not on account of the very small fees which they may receive, but because in so many cases they know the vast amount of good they are doing. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman either to insert the words I have proposed in the Amendment or to consent to omit altogether this Clause from the Bill.

Mr. T. WILSON
I hope the Home Secretary will shorten the discussion on the Committee stage by withdrawing his Amendment and afterwards withdrawing the Clause. Personally, I am quite open-minded on the question of certifying surgeons, but there are a considerable number of people in my Constituency who are affected by the proposed amendment of the law. I was not aware until the last two or three weeks that there was such a strong feeling in favour of retaining the services of the certifying surgeon. It may be a sentimental feeling, but these people do think that their interests are safeguarded by the fact that we have certifying surgeons appointed under an Act of Parliament. The fact that we have 2,000 of these men in the United Kingdom whose services we may call upon, and who can be called upon to investigate and report upon cases of accidents, inspires confidence in the minds of the working people. I do not wish to say a single word with reference to the composition of the Ketrenchment Committee, but as far as this Committee is concerned they never took the question of organised labour into consideration in regard to these surgeons. The people most directly affected by the abolition of the certifying surgeons have not had an 1760 opportunity of considering how this proposal will affect them. They believe it is going to affect them adversely. In view of the fact that in two months' time the Labour parliament will meet, and this question will come up, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Clause for the present. There is also a feeling that the Government is endeavouring to slip through legislation in TS war-time which is not altogether in the interests of the working classes. In the interests of Parliament itself we say that legislation of this kind should not be pushed forward now, and I suggest that the economy which it is alleged will be effected by the Retrenchment Committee if their proposal is carried is simply "bosh." I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, and also reject the Clause later on.

§ Sir ROBERT FINLAY
I would suggest that the wording of the Amendment might be slightly altered. I understand the Amendment is that:
"It shall continue to be the duty of the certifying surgeon to investigate and report upon cases of injury specified in the instructions of the Secretary of State, or due to any other special cause which in the discharge of his duties he considers necessary."
I submit that it would be better if instead of the last sentence the Clause read—
"or due to any other special cause which in his judgment requires such a report."
That is a mere matter of wording. I desire to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend behind me. I should very much prefer omitting the Clause altogether, but the Amendment to the Amendment is certainly an improvement, because, as it stands, you must have an accident due to one of the specified classes in the Amendment, or the specified instructions to be issued by the Home Office as requiring medical investigation. Surely it is very much better to leave it to the discretion of the certifying surgeon as to what cases require a medical report. I was very much struck by the observation which fell from my hon. Friend in regard to the provisions made for qualifying the inspectors to deal with duties which previously have fallen upon the certifying surgeons. You cannot deal with one by itself without doing harm to the workers, and preventing a report which would call 1761 attention to features in the working of the factory which might be an advantage to the workers. Why should that safeguard be abolished? The saving is not a very large one which it is proposed to effect, and it surely is a desirable thing that you should have a report from the medical point of view as well as from the point of view of the inspectors. Of course, if you have inspectors qualified by scientific knowledge to discharge those duties which are now discharged by the inspectors jointly with the certifying surgeons, the evil may be mitigated, but it is very undesirable to abolish the reports of the certifying surgeons.

Mr. SAMUEL
The Debate has covered generally the question of certifying surgeons' reports, and, if I may say so, quite properly, because the hon. Member's Amendment is, in effect, one for the omission of the Clause. Obviously, if you insert an Amendment to say that certifying surgeons shall report whenever they think it desirable to report and the surgeon gets a fee for every report that he makes, it is equivalent to saying that the reporting shall be continued as now. It is, perhaps, somewhat remarkable that the Amendment to this Clause which is supposed to be injurious to the working classes should have been moved the other evening by the representative of one university, who, no doubt, has a number of doctors among his constituents, and that the Amendment to-day should have been moved by a Member of another university and should just have been supported in a speech by the Member for a third university. It does lead me a little bit to suspect that behind the scenes there must have been acting the very powerful organisation of the doctors which we know is always ready to take active steps whenever their interests are in any way affected. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment, the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir P. Magnus), quoted various portions of the Report of the Committee to show that the Memorandum on the face of the Bill, which states that Committees have made certain recommendations, was quite inaccurate. I read the other night an extract from the Report of the Committee which sat for two years and examined this matter most thoroughly. They point out that this portion of the work which it is now proposed to abolish is superfluous and that the reports, in effect, are duplicates. They ended by making two alternative recom- 1762 mendations. One recommendation was that the work of the certifying surgeons as to accidents might be wholly dispensed with. That does not show very warm approval of the work, or that they held the view that a continuance of the reports was necessary. That was the proposal which we put into the Bill. The alternative which they suggested was that the occupier might report to the inspector only, and the inspector might have power to forward the report to the certifying surgeon for investigation in any case in which he thought investigation desirable. They then point out, with regard to certain classes of cases, that it may be desirable still to have reports from certifying surgeons. In consequence of what was said in the House the other evening, I have put down an Amendment which proceeds on the lines of the second alternative, but the Committee undoubtedly were of opinion that the work of the certifying surgeons, in the main, was superfluous, and might be dispensed with without disadvantage.

§ Sir P. MAGNUS
made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

Mr. SAMUEL
No; that was quite a separate recommendation.

§ Sir P. MAGNUS
It is in the same Report.

Mr. SAMUEL
No doubt certain minor alterations may have to be made in the qualifications of future inspectors when normal conditions return, but the hon. Member is merely drawing a red herring across the track when he tries to suggest—the Committee do not say so—that their recommendations were conditional on the adoption of other recommendations, which in any case would not take effect until the next generation of factory inspectors came to be appointed. It was said the other night that the Committee did not hear the certifying surgeons themselves. That was inaccurate. The Report, which I have now examined, says that they did hear the certifying surgeons. The hon. Member for the University of London (Sir P. Magnus) also suggested that the Amendment I have put down has cut down the economy which was in prospect so much that it is really not worth while proceeding. He said that, after all, there would only be some £6,000 or £7,000 economy left. Why he should assume that the reports, which it is still proposed should 1763 be made under the Amendment I have put down, will involve the payment of £5,000 fees I cannot imagine. He has not the smallest basis for any such estimate. It is the merest surmise. The amount is just as likely to be £500, and, since it is only a limited class of accidents to which it will apply it is not likely to approach anything like the large sum that the hon. Member has suggested. The most remarkable statement in his speech was that the doctor alone had the scientific knowledge necessary to deal with questions of machinery, and so forth. The factory inspectors have spent all their lives in inspecting machinery, and have the most detailed and expert knowledge of the best means of safeguarding the lives and limbs of the workers. To suggest that the man who has had the training of a surgeon is the only one who can go into the workshops and say what kinds of safeguards are necessary is really—well, I will not complete my sentence, because it might not be as respectful to the hon. Member as I should desire—is really an argument which cannot commend itself to the Committee.

§ Sir P. MAGNUS
At a meeting held in this House not long ago we were told that accidents are mechanical, electrical, or chemical. A medical man has a knowledge of each. Very few others have. The majority of the inspectors have not.

Mr. SAMUEL
I do not know who told the hon. Member that, but it is certainly not so. All the factory inspectors, as every Labour Member in this House is aware, are experts in mechanical safety appliances, and the suggestion that the certifying surgeon is a greater expert will not, I am sure, command the assent of any of the practical men I see on my right. I have in my hand some factory certifying surgeons' reports. Here and there you may find one of some little value, but this is the kind of report which we receive. I take any one in the bunch. Here is a man whose usual employment was that of a machine hand: 'Precise occupation at the time of accident, turning a billet. Injuries—fatal, severe or slight—slight. Nature and extent, foreign body, left conjunction. I do not know what that means. How caused, lathe in motion by electric power. A dip of steel flew from the tool. Further observations, none. I have another one here: Usual employment, labourer. Precise occupation at the time of the accident, removing cloth from side of connecting rod. Injuries—fatal, severe or slight—slight 1764 How caused, hydraulic press engine in motion. His hand was caught between moving connecting rod and base of engine. Nature and extent of injuries, contused wound, first, second and third fingers of right hand. Other observations, none. Usual employment, machine hand. Precise occupation at the time of the accident, grinding a tool. Injuries—fatal, severe or slight—slight. Nature and extent, foreign body, right conjunction. How caused, emery wheel in motion by electric power. Some grit flew from revolving wheel. Other observations, none. I will not weary the Committee by reading any more of these reports, but there are 50,000 of them, which the House pays for every year out of public money. [An HON. MEMBER: "How much!"] £ 1,500. In the opinion of the experts of the Department the vast majority of the reports are absolutely useless; they are a mere repetition verbatim of the report which the factory inspector already receives from the employer, and cannot justify Parliament incurring the expenditure of this money. In the Debate, the other day, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. Tootill), who is not here to-day, possibly because he has been converted on the subject—I do not know—instanced the value of these reports to himself. He had an accident in his youth when he was at work. He fell from a ladder and got a splinter in his arm. As a matter of fact, that comes in a class of accidents not reported upon by the certifying surgeons. Already two-thirds of the accidents are not reported upon by the certifying surgeons, and in all recent legislation extended the scope of the Acts Parliament has deliberately excluded these reports, because it knows how useless they are. Two-thirds of the accidents are at present excluded, and the accident which the hon. Member suffered in his early days does not support his case because it was not one which would be reportable. The hon. Member for the Ince Division (Mr. S. Walsh) gave one or two instances. He said that the workers attached importance to these reports because they might be of use in Workmen's Compensation cases. These reports are confidential.

§ Mr. S. WALSH
I did not say that at all; I never mentioned the Workmen's Compensation Act in connection with the matter. I said that the reports made by the surgeons at the collieries in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act set up a very similar system of certification.

Mr. SAMUEL
The hon. Member was instancing the colliery surgeon as a very valuable official, with whose work he was acquainted, and he said this was a similar 1765 matter, arguing that because the colliery surgeon was so valuable the work of the certifying surgeons of the factories ought to be continued. If he did not mean that, I do not know why he brought in the colliery doctor at all. Some other Member specifically said that these reports might be of use to workmen in connection with compensation cases. The reports are confidential, and so far as we know the workman, in workmen's compensation cases, always relies on the evidence, not of the certifying surgeon, but of his own doctor who treats him. The certifying surgeon does not treat the workman at all, and that is why his case is entirely different from that of the colliery doctor. The colliery doctor does treat the workman, and he therefore is of use. The certifying surgeon does not treat the workman. He is not the man who examines him and diagnoses his case. His work is to see the workman and to send him one of these reports, which as a rule is entirely useless. The certifying doctor has no power to take any action. He cannot say that a guard is needed here and require the employer to provide it.

§ Mr. J. PARKER
He does it regularly.

Mr. SAMUEL
He almost invariably reports to the factory inspector, and it is the duty of the factory inspector to attend to these matters. The hon. Member for the University of London quoted a telegram just received from an organisation—I think the Oldham Card and Blowing Rooms Association—which was sent, I imagine, in answer to a communication possibly from the hon. Member for the Ince Division. I do not know what the hon. Member put into his telegram to which this was the reply, but evidently the official of the union who sent the reply entirely misunderstood the proposal in the Bill, for the reply said: We strongly protest against the abolition of certifying surgeons in cetton mills. And it pointed out the immense value of certifying surgeons to them. We do not propose the abolition of the certifying surgeon. The certifying surgeon will still continue to perform his most useful function of examining all young persons and children who are to enter the mill.

§ Mr. WALSH
In order to put the right hon. Gentleman quite right, and to show that no telegram at all has been sent, I will hand him, if he will accept it, exactly what has been sent to the gentleman who 1766 has sent me the telegram, and the right hon. Gentleman can see for himself whether the statement is correct.

Mr. SAMUEL
This (exhibiting document) is the letter which has elicited the telegram. I am afraid I have not got time to read it through in the course of my speech to the House, and I will not make the hon. Member's speech for him by reading his letter. The fact remains that it is obvious from the reply which was sent. That trade union thought that the certifying surgeons were being abolished, and it was naturally alarmed at that prospect, knowing how useful they are, especially in cotton mills.

§ Sir P. MAGNUS
It distinctly said, "So far as the report on accidents is concerned."

§ 8.0 P.M.

Mr. SAMUEL
Another fact of importance is that the late Member for Oldham (Mr. Gill), for whom when he was alive and a Member of this House we all of us had such very high regard, was a member of this very Committee and signed the Report which recommended the abolition of certifying surgeons' reports with respect to accidents in general. Let me say that my attention has been drawn to the fact by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) that the Amendment as we have put it down on the Paper does not quite cover the whole of the ground suggested by the Committee as ground which might still be left to the certifying surgeons. They recommended that in certain cases of outlying factories the certifying surgeons should still be left to inspect. You cannot state in an Act of Parliament all the cases in which it might be necessary to use this power of inspection. But I shall propose, with the assent of the Committee, if they agree to my Amendment in general, to add at the end of the first sentence these words—
"It shall also be the duty of the certifying surgeon to investigate and report upon any case of injury which the district inspector of factories, in pursuance of any general or special instructions from the Secretary of State, may refer to him for that purpose."
And then, acting on the spirit of the recommendation of the Committee, we shall issue general or special instructions in order to carry out the object which they have in view.

1767

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to keep an open mind on this point, because his words do not carry out the whole recommendation of the Committee. I have ventured to hand in a manuscript Amendment which I think he will agree more adequately covers their recommendation.

Mr. SAMUEL
We will not enter into that now; we can deal with it when we come to discuss my hon. Friend's Amendment. But I am willing to extend the scope of the Amendment on the Paper in order to cover the cases of outlying factories to which the Committee referred. Let me say finally this seems to me to be the right moment to carry out this change, if ever it is to be carried out, because there is a great demand for doctors throughout the country, and I cannot understand why the Committee should insist on doctors who are urgently needed for other purposes continuing the spend their time in making duplicate reports. If the doctors do suffer a certain loss of fees it will be easy for them, in existing circumstances, to increase their other practice.

§ Sir P. MAGNUS
It is not a question of fees at all.

Mr. SAMUEL
Let me appeal to the House of Commons again as I did the other night. When you have a case in which the Factory Department declares the expenditure on the great body of these reports is a waste of money, and when you have that view endorsed by an expert Committee appointed to consider the whole question, a Committee on which there are three Labour Members—a Committee which unanimously reports to the same effect, and when you have an urgent desire expressed that the Government should, in every possible direction, economise on expenditure which is not really necessary, I fail to understand how this Committee can insist on the Government continuing to spend this money.

Mr. DENNISS
I am not satisfied with the Amendment proposed by the Home Secretary. I want nothing less than the rejection of the whole Clause. I do not stand here as the representative of any vested interest. I have not been urged to speak on this matter by the certifying surgeons. I stand here representing a very great industrial Constituency, ready to speak on behalf of the operatives as well as on behalf of the employers, and that is 1768 a fact which I think the Home Secretary himself should take very seriously into his consideration. If it were a question of the vested interests of the certifying surgeons only, after what the Home Secretary has said, I should not have spoken at all. I think it was a mistake for him, and I think he will regret having made the reflection that these certifying surgeons report because they get fees. He little knows what the certifying surgeons do, in Oldham, at any rate, to my knowledge. These operatives are their patients, and they do these things not for the fee, because it only amounts to a few pounds a year, but because of the great interest they have in the men by whose fees they are supported. These operatives are their patients in the ordinary way, and as it is to their interest—they are very anxious, that these reports should be continued. It is a slur on them—it is a slur on the whole medical profession for the right hon. Gentleman to have suggested that it is a professional organisation which is at the root of the opposition to this proposal. They have taken up the cudgels because they have greater ability for doing so than the Operatives' Associations.
I would ask the Home Secretary whether he has received and read a joint memorial, dated the 25th May this year, from the Oldham Master Cotton Spinners' Associations, from the whole of the operatives of Oldham in the cotton trade, the Oldham Co-operative Cotton Spinners' Association, the Oldham Card and Blowing Room Association, the Oldham District Reelers' and Winders' Association — in fact, the representatives of the whole cotton, spinning, and manufacturing industry in the Parliamentary Borough of Oldham, and the surrounding districts including Failsworth,. Middleton, Middleton Junction, and Lees. It embraces 20,000,000 spindles, 17,000 looms, and approximately 60,000 cotton workers. That petition has been utterly disregarded by the right hon. Gentleman. We have never had a word from him about it. I suppose he has not read it. It is signed on behalf of the Oldham Master Cotton Spinners Association, by the secretary, Mr. Cliff. It is also signed by the secretaries of the other associations. It represents the views of 60,000 operatives and of all the employers. It is for them I am now urging the Home Secretary to drop this Clause. May I just read two paragraphs from this memorial signed by persons who are the persons affected which 1769 absolutely contradict the arguments the right hon. Gentleman has so ably laid before the Committee? They read: We are strongly of opinion— This is, of course, the master and the men— that the discontinuance of these investigations and reports will be prejudicial to the public interest, a retrograde step detrimental to the interests of the workers, And, from a financial standpoint, false economy. In the Oldham district during the year 1914, 2,528 accidents were reported to the inspectors and certifying surgeons combined, of which number 1,598 were reportable to the certifying surgeons, 17 of which were fatal accidents. The certifying surgeon in his investigations is in a much better position as a medical practitioner for obtaining a more complete, confidential and altogether more accurate report of the conditions and circumstances surrounding an accident and how it really happened than is a factory inspector, more particularly in regard to accidents to females. He has also more influence with employers in securing the adoption by them of suggestions and devices for the prevention of accidents, Therefore, in our opinion, it is highly essential that the reports should not be dispensed with. The factory inspectors do not investigate all cases of accident, and the certifying surgeons' reports in a large measure guide the inspector as to whether a visit to the mill where the accident occurred is necessary. It sometimes happens that serious accidents are reported as slight, £>roof of which can be produced from cases recently reported in this area if such proof is necessary, and in all probability were it not for the investigation of the certifying surgeons, these accidents would not be reported and would be passed over without further inquiry. That petition went to the Home Secretary on the 25th May. From the whole of his speech one would have thought that this was purely a matter in which the certifying surgeons only were interested, and that the operatives and masters cared nothing about it. I hope to lift the Debate to another plane, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will, in the national interests, and in the interests of industry in this country, see that it is necessary that this Clause should be struck out. Take the Oldham district alone. It has an area of eighty-one square miles. There are 2,343 factories and workshops in it. I have given the Committee the particulars about the cotton industry, but in the same district there are the biggest machine works in the world, and there are other large machine works. The place, in fact, is full of machine works. One thousand five hundred and ninety-eight accidents were reported by the certifying surgeons in 1914. I have not the figures for 1915. There were seventeen fatal accidents. There is only one local factory inspector for the whole of this huge district! What number of inspectors will the right hon. Gentleman require for this district if the certifying surgeons are to be abolished? Where would the economy come in if he had to pay the salaries of these additional 1770 inspectors? Taking Oldham as an instance, I say the salaries of the inspectors necessary for that district would far exceed the total amount of fees that the certifying surgeons have ever got or are ever likely to get.
It would have been thought when the Home Secretary proposed to abolish the certifying surgeon he was going to increase the number of inspectors to take the place of the certifying surgeons. But last night, on the Second Beading of this Bill, we heard that nothing of the kind is going to take place. What the right hon. Gentleman is going to do is to leave the operatives at the mercy entirely of the employers during the War. He will leave Oldham, which has a very large number of certifying surgeons—so large a number that the amount of fees received by them is very small—he will leave Oldham, in which 1,598 accidents occurred during the last year for which we have the figures, with but one local inspector! I need scarcely point out to the right hon. Gentleman that is a most grave industrial danger, and I would earnestly appeal to the Under-Secretary (Mr. Brace) not to leave Oldham in that state. I have taken Oldham as a typical instance, but the same arguments apply to the rest of the country. This is one of the most controversial questions it is possible to introduce in time of war, and it ought never to be introduced as an emergency measure. It is to the detriment of industry. I have proved it. The recommendation of the Committee on Retrenchment was limited to matters which were not detrimental to industry, and, therefore, this recommendation of the Retrenchment Committee to do away with the services of the certifying surgeons would not come within the scope of the authority of that Committee. It was beyond their scope altogether. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman sees that if it is a detriment to industry, it ought not to have been reported upon by the Retrenchment Committee. The Home Secretary relies upon that Report for his plea of economy, but that which he relies upon turns out to be a broken reed, and the sub-stratum of the Clause in the Bill is entirely swept away. This is a time when we require additional rather than fewer safeguards.
It is a perfect scandal that, at a time like this, the number of certifying surgeons should be reduced, that the inspectors who were too few before the War, who have been reduced by one-third by 1771 their going to the front or into munition works, should not have their places filled up, and that those who work in the industries of the country should be left to the mercy of these few straggling inspectors. Remember that in 1911 there were only 200 inspectors in the whole of the country. Sixty-five went to the War in 1915, and more have gone since. Can the whole of the industries of this country be looked after by this handful of inspectors when the certifying surgeons are abolished? The tight hon. Gentleman knows what are known as occupational conditions, such as long hours, overtime, night work inducing fatigue, which is one of the most frequent causes of accidents, the newly-devised machinery all over the country owing to the War, the lower age of workers, and the lower standard of skill. All these will lead to conditions that will cause more accidents than ever. Accidents have increased since the War begun. At this time it is more necessary than ever to have additional safeguards, yet the principal safeguard, the certifying surgeon, is to be swept away, while inspectors who have been depleted in numbers from 200 to 100, are to be left solely in charge of the lives and limbs of all the workers of the country. I understand that the reasons given for not replacing them are these: First, that the inspectors who have gone to the front ought not to have their places filled. I daresay that is a very-good reason, and that it would not be fair to fill their places in their absence. That is no reason whatever for abolishing certifying surgeons. Secondly, I understand that the Civil Service Commissioners have not made up their minds as to the nature of the examination for future factory inspectors. That may be a very good reason for not appointing more, but it is not a good reason for abolishing these certifying surgeons. The factory inspector has been greatly praised by the right hon. Gentleman. I daresay he deserves it, but he is not a skilled man, and merely passes a literary examination. He is an ordinary Civil servant, and gets his experience only by years of work. Many of the original factory inspectors before they came into the Civil Service had no mechanical knowledge whatever. They passed nothing but a literary examination, and many of them were put in by interest only in the first instance. The Labour Members will agree with me that that is so.
1772 What will be the result of this state of things? Thousands of cases will arise which cannot and will never be investigated. The employers' notices, which the right hon. Gentleman says are now so accurate because they correspond with the certifying surgeons' reports, will not be so accurate in the future. The reason why the employers' reports correspond to the certifying seurgeons' reports is that they know the certifying surgeon is going to report, and it is no good not being honest. You will remove that safeguard, which is the greatest safeguard of all, if you abolish the certifying surgeons. You will not longer be able to rely upon the employers' reports, and you will not have sufficient inspectors to make visits to the nearly 200,000 accident cases which occur during the year, of which 52,000 are dealt with by the certifying surgeons. The Home Secretary knows that the injured person himself makes no report, so that the only report we shall get will be the one-sided report of the employer, which will be unchecked. It will be impossible to check it in the circumstances which this Bill will produce. These exceptional circumstances of stress, strain, and inexperience of the workers will give rise to a great deal of injury and suffering to the working classes of the country. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what we want. We want a report on every accident as reports are being made now. We shall not have that under the Bill. We want reports based upon personal, impartial investigation, which we shall not have under the Bill. For all practical purposes there will be no personal investigation, and there will be no impartial investigation at all. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it is absolutely wrong to rely upon the employer's report alone when you have taken away the only safeguard that existed before, namely, the check of the certifying surgeon, who knows the employer, who meets him every day, who knows the operatives, who is in the mill every week and sometimes everyday of the week, and who, so far as the cotton trade is concerned, knows the machinery just as well as the factory inspector. He can tell the cause of the accident by the position of the injury upon the operative. Most of these accidents happen to the hands and the fingers. The certifying surgeon guesses by looking at the finger or the hand which part of the machinery in the cotton mill has, caused the accident.
1773 The right hon. Gentleman is not acquainted with the cotton trade. Those who are know the different processes in a cotton mill and which fingers are used for them. The Labour Members will bear me out that that is so. The certifying surgeon sees the finger and knows that the accident is due to a particular part of the machinery. He goes to the mill, straight to that particular piece of machinery, and investigates it. The right hon. Gentleman says that we shall save money because these reports are merely duplicates of the employers' reports. I have proved that is not so. There is another way in which these certifying surgeons are useful. They protect the workers in a way which no factory inspector can do. Serious accidents are not reported even now, with the fear of the certifying surgeon before their eyes. It is not until the certifying surgeon goes in that new light is thrown upon them. Sometimes an employer keeps the workman in his mill in order that nothing may be said about the accident at all Again, imperfectly fenced machinery, or machinery not fenced at all, is known by the certifying surgeon to be there, and when he sees the injury to the hand or arm of the operative he is able to go to the machinery at once— not weeks afterwards—to see what the state of the machinery is at the time. He makes up his mind if the accident is due to unfenced or imperfectly fenced machinery, and he is able to see whether it is unfenced or imperfectly fenced. If he delays going for a few days, perhaps the employer puts it right. I know a case in which an employer was taxed by the certifying surgeon, who said," This injury must have been caused by that machinery not being fenced." "Go and see, doctor," said the employer, "It has been fenced. There it is." "But it was not fenced the last time I was in the mill," said the certifying surgeon. That is the use of the certifying surgeon. It is perfectly true, as is stated in the petition, that the certifying surgeons cause the employers to carry out their duties as employers by improving the safeguards of their machinery and the working conditions of the place.
One word in conclusion as to what I consider is the origin of this Clause. I never like to say anything against Departmental officials, but the history of this Clause is so striking that I very regretfully say I think it is a purely Depart- 1774 mental move. The certifying surgeon is a stumbling block in the way of a large increase of factory inspectors in the Home Office. They have wanted a large increase in factory inspectors for very many years, and have been trying to get them. They have been to Parliament twice and their Bills have been thrown out. Let me tell the Committee how the matter stands. Clause 35 of the Factory and Workshops (Amendment) Act, 1901, which would have given them these powers, was withdrawn in Committee owing to opposition from all sides of the House. The opposition was very strong indeed. The Accidents in Mines and Factories Bill, 1905, which would have carried this out, was withdrawn owing to its being regarded as a contentious measure. No new arguments have been brought forward since those two Bills have been thrown out, and there is no new argument to-day except economy, and there is no economy in this. The operatives of Oldham say it is a false economy, and my hon. Friend (Sir P. Magnus) has pretty well shown that the amount of money to be saved is very small indeed. Again, the Notification of Accidents Act, 1906, was an actual confirmation of the policy that certifying surgeons were necessary and ought to be retained. That is the latest enactment of Parliament. As late as 1906 they were to be retained, and in those two years I have mentioned attempts to displace them were thrown out. Now they make an excuse of this Report of the Committee on Retrenchment. They smuggle it into a Police Bill, which is a Bill for spending money and not for saving it. That Committee went beyond the scope of its inquiry when it made that recommendation. They make the excuse that it is economy, and only economy. If it is economy, it is a false economy, and an economy against which the whole of Lancashire and most of the country will be up in arms when they get to know the real facts of the case. I wonder how the Committee got hold of this particular recommendation. What did they know about them? Who brought it before them? It looks very much, when one reads the Resolution, as if it came from a Home Office Department, or was engineered so> that they got it under their eyes. Listen for a moment— We understand that the reports of certifying surgeons of accidents, which cost £12,500 per annum, are now of little value. 1775 Why "now"? Who gave them to understand? They had not investigated it themselves. Someone told them so. The Home Secretary says they are of little value. They say "now" of little value. That shows they do not understand the question. They have always been of the same value. The Home Office was anxious to get rid of certifying surgeons in order to appoint a large staff of factory inspectors, and they tell them it is because the reports of the certifying surgeons are now of little value and they entail in all serious cases duplication of the reports made by the inspectors. They do not. They are the original reports which go to the inspectors, and the inspectors' reports are a duplication. The Retrenchment Committee did not know what they were writing about when they made this recommendation. They are a duplication of the reports made by the employers, because the employer has to be honest, and because he knows that if he does not report honestly the certifying surgeons will report him, and he may as well tell the truth at once. They are a duplication of the employers' reports, but they are never a duplication of the reports of the inspectors. These good people really did not know the foundation of what they were talking about, yet it is on that report that the Home Office brings this in now and asks the House to do away with these men, the doing away of whom will be a serious and grave danger to industry. I protest in the strongest terms against this Clause remaining in the Bill, and I appeal to the Home Secretary to drop it out of the Bill and thereby do a great service to all the people employed in the industries of this country, and I speak on behalf of the masters as well as the men.

§ Mr. BOWERMAN
Until I read this Clause in the Bill and listened to the statements from the Front Bench, I had always been under the impression that the operatives looked upon the certifying surgeons as an essential and a necessary protection. I am equally sure that the Home Secretary, in bringing this forward, has no desire to weaken the protection that has been afforded to them. My object in rising is to support the appeal that has been made to the Home Secretary by my hon. Friend (Mr. T. Wilson). He asked the Home Secretary to be good enough to consider the desirability of withdrawing it during the War. A telegram has been read 1776 from two of the principal officials of the Card Room and Blowing Room Operatives. I think the Home Secretary is satisfied that that was not an inspired telegram. I want to express my regret from this point of view. One of the two gentlemen who sent that telegram is a member of a committee of which I am the secretary, and I regret very much that that committee has not been given the opportunity of considering a drastic proposal of this kind. Had they had that opportunity, I am sure they would have approached the subject in quite an impartial spirit, but with a desire, of course, to preserve what they consider to be the best interests of the operatives. Further than that there is a Labour Parliament meeting in the first week in September, and if this Clause happens to be carried—as I hope it will not—I am sure there will be a very strong discussion upon that point when that congress takes place. I do not know if any words of mine will appeal to the Home Secretary, but I would join with my hon. Friend in appealing to him to withdraw this Clause for the present. Surely there will be other opportunities when, if he so desires, the matter can be brought forward again. Then let it be brought forward in the light of full and free discussion rather than as it has been in a somewhat hurried manner. I strongly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision and see if he cannot withdraw this new Clause.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland)
I hope hon. Members will allow me to say a few words on this subject. I do not think it would be quite courteous for me to be in the House, seeing that I was chairman of this Committee on Accidents in Factories, and not to say something on this question. I was not asked to come here. I looked in to see if it was necessary to remain, and found this discussion going on. I should like to make two or three points which have occurred to me. First of all, the Committee may remember that this was a Committee which, in the opinion of all people interested in the subject of accidents in factories, made a very large number of useful recommendations in regard to promoting greater safety and diminishing the risk from accidents. I was extremely interested in the two years' work while it was going on. It was a great pleasure to be working intimately with Members like the late Mr. Gill, and others who happily are still with us, and I have been rather 1777 gratified when I come across the subsequent history of this Report to hear it referred to in very high terms, such as the Factory Reformers' Bible, and that sort of thing. Therefore, I think it is rather hard on those who have been keen on getting the recommendations of this Report carried out that when one of them is brought before Parliament it is opposed as this recommendation is opposed this evening. It is not very encouraging to the Department, when it is trying to carry out, to the extent to which it does carry out, the other recommendations which we made.
I think there was no part of our Report on which we were so entirely convinced and unanimous as on the fact that the money spent on certifying surgeons is really a waste of money, and that really it would improve the administration of the Factory Acts if the recommendations we made were carried out. We were not appointed as a Committee to work out economies in the administration of the Home Office or in the administration of the Factory Acts. We were appointed to recommend improvements in the Factory Acts, and we were unanimous in recommending this as being an improvement in the Factory Acts, just as much as any of the other things that we recommended. The Committee, no doubt, have our Report before them, and they will notice that there are several Minority Reports—no less than four—relating to other parts of our recommendations, but this recommendation about certifying surgeons was absolutely unanimous. The representatives of the employers agreed with it, and they were experts, and the representatives of the workers agreed with it, and they were experts. I was the only man on the Committee who was not a real expert, and who had not real expert knowledge and experience of the questions involved. It was not my fault that I was not an expert.

An HON. MEMBER
Perhaps it was a good thing.

§ Mr. ACLAND
It is a good thing to put an outsider on a Committee who is not an interested party, neither an employer nor a person employed, especially if he happens to be capable. At any rate, I have no cause to do anything but congratulate myself on the outcome of the work I was engaged in on that Committee. The important fact is that we were unanimous in our recommendation about certifying surgeons. We went into the question very 1778 carefully, and when men like the late Member for Bolton (Mr. Gill), who was extraordinarily conscientious and careful in going into all these matters, was just as keen as any member of the Committee in support of this unanimous recommendation, I think it ought to weigh for something at the present time. I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss), describing the conditions of Oldham. He says there is only one factory inspector, and in listening to him one would think that the whole work of seeing that the accidents were properly reported upon and the Factory Acts in regard to accidents properly administered rested with the certifying surgeons of Oldham. Therefore, I am bound to say it is rather astonishing to be told that there is only one certifying surgeon in Oldham.

Mr. DENNISS
made a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

§ Mr. ACLAND
It rather sounded to me from the hon. Member's description as if, owing to the very small number of factory inspectors, it was the certifying surgeons who did all the work in Oldham, and yet there is only one of them who is responsible for the whole town.

Mr. T. WILSON
One inspector for Oldham?

§ Mr. ACLAND
That is true. I make no secret of the fact. There is one inspector and one certifying surgeon, but one would rather gather, in listening to the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Denniss) that there were several certifying surgeons there employed in making reports.

Mr. DENNISS
There are many certifying surgeons—any number of them.

§ Mr. ACLAND
There is only one certifying surgeon for Oldham. That is the point I am making.

Mr. DENNISS
There are many, so far as I know.

§ Mr. ACLAND
I am sorry the hon. Member does not know the facts. The fact is that there is only one certifying surgeon for that district.

§ Sir P. MAGNUS
Is he a whole-time surgeon or a part-time surgeon?

Mr. DENNISS
There are several certifying surgeons for Oldham.

§ Mr. ACLAND
I have given the facts as they are given to me. If that is so, the 1779 work that is done by the certifying surgeon, cannot be so extraordinarily important for the maintenance of the Factory Acts as the hon. Member made out. My point is that this Committee, containing as it did these expert members, went into this matter with extraordinary conscientiousness and with expert knowledge, and it is rather hard when the House appealed, and I think quite rightly appealed, for the carrying out of the other recommendations involving considerable expense, that when there is a recommendation which does not involve expenditure hon. Members should at once be up on their legs to prevent, in every way they possibly can, that particular recommendation being carried out. It is the way of human nature that the moment anyone recommends anything to this House which involves economy there are dozens of people always up against it, and not one solitary person for the economy. Having still tremendously at heart the unanimous recommendations of this Committee, I am sorry that when a particular one is brought forward hon. Members should be against it in this way. It is not a very encouraging thing for the administrators of the Home Office, who, I hope, when the time comes, when it is rather easier to get money than it is in war-time, will do their level best to carry-out the whole of the recommendations of the Committee which involve expenditure, as well as this recommendation, which happens to involve a saving. No case has ever been more carefully considered, and I hope the Committee will give that fact some consideration.

§ Mr. WALSH
In the position that we are taking up on this Clause there is not one tinge of a desire to do anything at all to dispirit the Government in any sense whatever. I may have been a Little combatative the other evening, but it was because I felt that it was doubtful, at least, whether the safety of the operatives was not in question by this Clause. If there is any reasonable doubt upon that point at all—and that even the right hon. Gentleman himself has never questioned —that this may possibly result in harm being occasioned to the operatives in the mills and workshops—the poor boy or girl who are the most helpless; if there is doubt at all that one single life or one singe limb may be jeopardised by this Clause, then I submit that it ought to be withdrawn for the time being. The trade unionists had a right to have an 1780 opportunity of knowing what was going on. The right hon. Gentleman has been very honourably associated, and in collaboration with many of the leading trade unionists of the country, in legislation during the lest ten or eleven years. Why could there not be the same decent publicity given on this occasion? The Clause is brought in on a Bill entitled "Police, etc., Miscellaneous Provisions Bill." The most astute trade unionists in the world would never conceive that such a Bill as that had any reference to the abolition of the certifying surgeon's duty in reporting accidents in factories. I am the last in the world to charge the right hon. Gentleman with a policy of concealment, but the effect of concealment can be equally disastrous, even if the policy is not intended, and I am as certain as I am of my own existence that the operatives in the mills and workshops of the country have a right to be consulted in a matter of this kind, that there devolves on the Government the obligation to consult them, and that this consultation not having taken place, the moral authority of the Government to proceed with this Clause has disappeared altogether.

Mr. SAMUEL
They were consulted before this report was issued.

§ Mr. WALSH
I am afraid that that is not correct, and I say so with every desire to be fair. The report never even came before the Labour party itself, and when he said that there were three Labour Members on the Committee I suppose that the hon. Member who spoke last did not know that he was making a wrong statement. Mr. Henry Vivian was never a Labour Member. He was and is a very capable man. You put an onus on us when you say there were three Labour Members who agreed to this, and that surely what they agreed to must be right. I am entitled to point out that one man was not and never was a Labour Member. He always received the Liberal Whip. He is a perfectly honourable man, and a most capable man, against whom I have not a word to say. But there were two-Labour Members. One man, a close personal friend of my own, is dead. We cannot cross-examine him. The other, the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) has about as much experience of the inside of a mill as I have of the inside of Lambeth Palace, which is nought, and when you talk about expert opinion in such conditions you are really pressing the argument quite unfairly. The hon. 1781 Member for Leicester was not and is not an expert upon such points. The other Labour Member, unfortunately, is dead, and the other man was not a Labour Member at all.
One of the most respected members of the trade union movement, and a man of the highest responsibility, is my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman). If there is a man to whose opinion respect should be paid, it is my right hon. Friend whose appeal we have just heard. He says that his Parliamentary committee, the standing committee and council of the trade union world, of which he is secretary, has never had an opportunity of considering this thing at all. Surely if the folks have any right to be consulted, is it not fair to give an authority such as that a chance of consultation? There are two men's names attached to that telegram, and I say with the greatest possible respect that there are no two men in the whole labour movement more solid and responsible, and no two men whose opinion on trade union matters in textiles carries more respect. One was not long ago the president of the Trade Union Congress, a personal friend of my own, a man of clear vision and careful deliberation. The other I do not know quite so well, though I know him personally. But those two men would not sign their names to that telegram if they did not feel every word of that telegram to be correct. It was not in answer to a telegram. It was a carefully prepared statement, a statement containing no error of fact, in which the first statement is that the proposal of the Home Office is to do away with the certifying surgeon in so far as the reporting of accidents is concerned.
That is the first paragraph, and they cannot get away from that. Day by day boys and girls are going into dangerous employments, not having been acquainted with such employments before. Day by day dangerous employments are being introduced. Day by day there is a growing and urgent necessity for more careful provision, and it is now, when one-third of the factory inspectors have gone, and when dangerous employments are increasing in a degree never known before, when the sacrifice of life and limb, great and horrible as it is already, ought to be prevented by every means in our power, that this particular subject is brought forward. I cannot 1782 understand why the Government should persist. The right hon. Gentleman has no more sincere admirer of his brilliance and talent, and his devoted energy to> the public service than myself. Therefore, when I say that against stupidity even the gods contend in vain, the remark does not apply to him. But Governments collectively can be very stupid, and they are being so on this occasion. Economy!' Well, really, if we do economise, in Heaven's name let us economise on something decent. One of the first stories I remember hearing at a political meeting was that of a coachman who had lost control of the horse, and in his terror he told his master what was happening, and that there was bound to be a smash. "Then, in Heaven's name," said the master, "smash into something cheap." Here we are going to smash into something cheap.
On the certifying surgeon's report you1 have a minimum fee of 3s., and a maximum fee of 10s., and the 10s. includes the travelling expenses of the man, and he is a man who stands almost always very high in his profession, who must have given long years to study, and a man who-day by day has acquired knowledge of infinite value to the working people; and we are to smash into this poor fellow with his minimum of 3s. and his maximum of 10s., including travelling expenses. If there is a genuine desire to economise, let us, as a whole House, co-operate in this very desirable work of true economy, but do not economise upon this kind of person. He is performing services which undoubtedly are of value, and which, therefore, at least during the period of the War, ought not to be made the subject of contention between us. It is complained that the reports are, in thousands of cases, mere duplications. Really, it ought not to surprise the Home Office if employers and certifying surgeons are indifferently honest. After all, I suppose there is a low working level of common honesty, and if these two people agree, why be so surprised? I would ask the Under-Secretary to the Home Office whether he would do away with all foremen's reports in the mines because in tens of thousands of instances those reports accord with the reports made by workmen-inspectors? Of course they must. There is a low working level of common honesty, and in the vast number of cases the two persons, however nefarious they might be in other regards, agree. 1783 The reports are checked, and they are found to agree, but the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill should really have taken into his mind the value of the cases where they disagree, where the employer had told only a portion of the truth, and the full truth was concealed, and the full truth was brought out by the certifying surgeon's report. That is the kind of thing which, after all, renders these certificates of value, and it is not the case that they are simply limited to a completely technical and rigid line.
Those reports are presented upon forms provided for them, as the hon. Member for North-West Durham well brought out the night before last. There is a margin left for observation and comment upon the form supplied, and the certifying surgeons gradually increase their experience and information about the children from the very first day they enter the factory. From observation day by day they know the life-history of the workers from childhood, whether boy or girl, and, from the very moment they enter the factory, a poor little half-timer it may be, or a boy or girl a little more advanced in years, they are day by day under the observation of the certifying surgeons, -who know their history, know the pathology of their case, and gradually obtain an intimate knowledge of those with whom they have to deal, a knowledge which is of inestimable value in the conduct of the work done in our mills and workshops. I really would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to press the Clause for the time being. We all know the great work which the right hon. Gentleman has done for our children. For them he has provided the greatest charter ever known; nobody can deny his bond fides; nobody can contest his overpowering claim to be looked upon as the benefactor of children. Then, in this case, if there be any doubt in regard to it, let us resolve that doubt. Let us have full information for the trade unions and the workers, who, after all, do their best to act on a fair and genuine line, and I am sure that no harm would be done by such a suggestion being adopted. Do not let this apple of discord be thrown amongst us, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to withdrawing this Clause altogether.

§ 9.0 P.M.

§ Mr. A. WILLIAMS
I desire to join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw this Clause, if only for the 1784 period of the War. I think that the speeches which we have heard from the Labour Benches to-night, and the speech made by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss), must have convinced the right hon. Gentleman that it is not a case of merely trying to save fees, and I do not think that that contention can be possibly maintained any longer. It has been suggested to-night by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, as by the Home Secretary, that every economy proposed when it comes here is opposed, although economy in general is approved. I submit the right hon. Gentleman has hardly considered what has really happened since this War began. Economies have been recommended to this House up to millions of pounds, and have been adopted up to millions of pounds, with hardly any objection whatever. Very serious things have been given up in order that we might effect economies. This is a small item, and almost the only one that has been seriously fought in this House—certainly the only one fought at anything like such length as this is being fought. It is not a case of £12,500 being fought for, and I think the Home Office would not have brought it up if that were the only object; it is because there is a desire to sweep away the present institution of factory certifying surgeons and to substitute for it, at a future date, an entirely different system. I do not for one minute admit the contention that this proposal is brought forward really as a matter of economy; it is much more a matter to be considered from the point of view I have suggested.
The contention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture was not consistent with what the Home Secretary said in regard to the usefulness or otherwise of the reports. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture spoke of the money as being wasted money; he said that with absolutely no qualification. The Home Secretary, on the other hand, admitted that in a certain proportion of cases those reports were useful, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ince has shown that you cannot expect them to be useful in every case—in more than a certain proportion of cases. The whole object is obtained if the factory surgeons act as a sieve to sift out those cases which are of 1785 such importance as to require the attention of the inspector. To use the argument of the Home Secretary, one might say that in the vast majority of cases the inspector is a purely useless expense; the report goes to the inspector, and the inspector does practically nothing with it because nothing is required to be done, it being purely a bonâ-fide small accident. Are we to say that the money spent on the inspectors is to be saved because, in the vast majority of cases, the reports which they give are of no use? And the same observation applies to the certifying surgeons.
We are told that it is war time, that doctors are so scarce that we should save their time, and they would be able to get plenty of other work to do. No doubt they would get plenty of other work, but I submit that it would not save a great deal of their time, because a large part of this work of examining into accidents is done at the time when they are visiting the works for other purposes, such as examining children and examinations as to dangerous trades. It would, therefore, be misleading to suppose that it would save a very large amount of time for the ordinary medical work of the country. I am perfectly certain if this abolition is forced through at the present time it will create among a certain class a very undesirable amount of suspicion and will do a vast deal of harm in this time of war. Therefore I do suggest that the matter should be withdrawn now and that an inquiry should be held at the end of the War as to whether the present system is useful or if it could be improved upon by any better system. I do not for a moment suggest that it could be cheaper or nearly as cheap, but it might be better. I am quite prepared to support the abolition of certifying surgeons when you are ready to put something better in their place. Before that takes place there ought to be a very complete inquiry. The certifying surgeons ought not only to be brought there, but to be distinctly told that it is proposed to abolish their certificates and to ask them for their views with regard to the matter. The trade unionists of the country ought to be distinctly told that it is proposed to abolish the certifying surgeons and to be asked their views on the subject. Then I think we should be able to arrive at a conclusion which would be accepted by all classes. If this is forced through now it 1786 will, I think, create a great deal of suspicion and bad feeling which will wholly outweigh any saving in money.

§ Mr. WARDLE
I would appeal to the Home Secretary, in view of the opposition to-night and to the fact that this Bill was only brought in the other day, and as there has been no real opportunity for the trade unionists and districts concerned to consider the matter, and especially since the title of the Bill did not lead anybody to suppose that it contained a Clause of this character, to reconsider the position, and under those circumstances I think ho will not lose anything by the delay. I am sorry to take that view. I do not want to throw any doubt upon the Report, and the probabilities are that if the whole of the facts were considered by the tribunals concerned and the districts concerned they might well agree that this was a desirable reform which ought to be carried out. It is clear now from this discussion that having a Clause of this character in this Bill will lend itself to suggestion, false suggestion it may be, and suspicion, and there is no more corroding influence in our social life than the breeding of suspicion in a matter of this kind. For these reasons I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Clause.

Mr. SAMUEL
I wish I could respond to the appeal of my hon. Friends, especially coming from those benches. I have listened with great attention to all that they have said. This matter has been most thoroughly inquired into. The suggested inquiry was held—it covered a period of two years—into all these matters. The Committee which held the inquiry was a most representative and authoritative one. In addition to the Labour Members mentioned, there was Miss Mona Wilson, Deputy-Chief Inspector of Factories. The whole matter was discussed minutely. I have consulted others since, and they are all unanimous that when they examined this matter there was no question at all that the case was perfectly clear these reports are useless and a sheer waste of money. I cannot conscientiously and consistently with my duties to the House of Commons and the country, although the saving is a small one, recede from the position which I have taken up. It would be easier, infinitely easier for me, either not to have put this Clause in the Bill or when I found it was opposed to withdraw it on the ground of that opposition. By doing so I should have saved many hours' 1787 debate and a great deal of trouble in every direction, but, as I said before, I think a Minister's duty, when he recommends Estimates to the House, is to satisfy himself that the thing is really required, especally at this time. I have satisfied myself, after most careful inquiry, that this matter is not required, and that it is sheer waste of expenditure, and I cannot come down to the House of Commns and ask the House to continue that expenditure. Therefore, the matter now having been debated for several hours, I trust that the Committee will be ready to arrive at a decision.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
The intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture was an intervention in defence of the Committee of which he was chairman. I cannot help saying that be has either not read the Bill or else has forgotten the Report of that Committee, because this Clause does not carry out the recommendations of that Committee to which he referred. The Home Secretary, I know, realises that the opposition to this Clause is not based on any opposition to him, to the Government, or to the Home Office, but is solely on the merits of the case. I submit to both right hon. Gentleman that to-day again we have not had a correct description of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee of 1911. That Committee sat as judges between the Home Office and the interests of the general public. If, therefore, we are going now to abolish the work of the certifying surgeons as regards reporting upon accidents, and if the right hon. Gentleman is going to carry this Clause by the machinery of the Government, it becomes very necessary that we should adopt all the qualifications and safeguards which were suggested in the Report of that Committee. No member of the Government who has spoken has called attention to the fact that the Committee, so far from giving an unqualified opinion as to the uselessness of the whole of these Reports, said: It is clear that many of them (certifying surgeons) bring to this work much interest and enthusiasm. That statement does not quite harmonise with the production of half a dozen reports out of 50,000, and the reading of extracts from them. The extracts that were read seemed to be useful and scientific, and all that could be desired, having regard to the nature of the accidents with which those particular reports dealt. The point 1788 I want to ask the Home Secretary to give us an assurance about is this: The Commitee contemplated the continuance of the work of the certifying surgeons in certain respects. They made the proposal in the Bill, but they made another proposal as well, to which they gave greater emphasis, and that was that the occupier may report to the inspector and that the inspector was to have the power to specially report to the certifying surgeon for investigation in any case in which he thought such investigation desirable. They went further than that, and this is a point in which I want his assurance. They said: In scattered district, and perhaps as regards some small factories in the larger centres, the surgeon's report is still useful, and it may he useful in those cases of poisoning which come within the definition of accidents where medical opinion on the subject of the accident is needed, such, for example, as cases of gassing by carbon monoxide. The right hon. Gentleman has put on the Paper an Amendment which partially carries out that suggestion of the Committee.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
In order to be fair to hon. Members I should warn them that, the discussion having been so general, when we come to the Amendments the Debate will have to be confined within very strict limits.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
In his speech the Home Secretary read a further Amendment which he proposed to move. If the Division to-night is in favour of the Government and the right hon. Gentleman's Amendments are adopted, will those Amendments give him power as Secretary of State to see that the factories in these scattered districts and the small factories in populous districts, to which the Committee's Report referred, are still subject to reports by the certifying surgeons?

Mr. SAMUEL
They will give that power.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
It is some satisfaction to me at least to feel that if this Clause is not to be struck out we shall have, as far as possible, the modification suggested by the Committee introduced by means of these Amendments. But I still feel that a better plan would be to provide that the Secretary of State may, by special Order, direct that the Factories and Workshops Acts shall continue to apply to any factory or workshop as though this Clause had not been enacted. That appears to me to give power to the Secretary of State to carry out yet more 1789 fully the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. That is why, at a later stage, I shall move such an Amendment.

§ Mr. D. MASON
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture told us that he had just looked in, wondering whether there was anything important on. He then gave us a very illuminating speech in which, as far as I could gather, he summed up the controversy between the hon. Member opposite {Mr. Denniss) and himself as to the number of certifying surgeons in Oldham.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
As we have had a very long Debate, I must ask hon. Members to confine themselves to the Amendment, and not deal with matters which are really irrelevant.

§ Mr. MASON
I agree. It appeared to me to be very irrelevant, and I wanted to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact. The Home Secretary stated that the certifying surgeons' reports which came to him were absolutely useless. He then went on to show by his own Amendments that he was convinced, by the Debates which have taken place, that those reports are not quite useless. If those reports are of no use whatever, it is illogical and inconsistent to try to meet the speeches which have been made by putting in these Amendments. The temperate and moderate appeal made by the hon. Member for the Ince Division (Mr. Walsh) surely ought to have some weight with the right hon. Gentleman. That appeal was ably backed up by the Leader of the Labour party.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I must remind the hon. Member that he is now doing nothing but recapitulating in a more or less brief form speeches which have already been made to the Committee.

§ Mr. MASON
Really, with all respect, I think I am quite in order in referring to them.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is not in order in merely recapitulating speeches which have already been made, and I must remind him of that fact.

§ Mr. MASON
The hon. Member for the Ince Division pointed out very pertinently the undesirability of removing the certifying surgeons in the middle of a great war. In my own Constituency, for example, since the War began, the number of people 1790 employed in dangerous occupations has largely increased. I am bound to confirm that argument, and I hope to endorse it. I think I am in order in endorsing it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
If I have to call the hon. Member's attention to the matter any more, I shall ask him to resume his seat.

§ Mr. MASON
Speaking for my Constituents, I think that the point which the hon. Member made is a very valuable one, and I wish, with all respect to you, Sir, to give it some support. I suggest that the Home Secretary should have regard to that argument and give it some consideration. We do not suggest that he should not have some reform, perhaps after the War, but at the present stage it seems to us that he might certainly delay action because of the reasons given by my hon. Friend.

§ Sir S. COLLINS
May I make a reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for the Ince Division, whom we are always very delighted to hear, because his arguments are invariably so forcible and telling. I was sorry, when he referred to the Report of the Departmental Committee, to hear him try to draw distinctions as to who were real Labour representatives and who were not. The late Member for Birkenhead, although he was not technically a Labour man, represented a real Labour constituency, and I think he knew what Labour wanted as well as any qualified Labour member belonging to the Labour party. The hon. Member then threw over the late chairman. I was rather surprised to hear him do that. The gentleman referred to may not be a Labour man in the strictest sense of the word, but he has been trusted by his party all through and made their chairman. Therefore I was rather sorry to hear him "let down" so.

§ Mr. WALSH
I certainly did not in any sense deny the ability and great capacity of the hon. Member for Birkenhead. I gave him, I thought, as great a tribute as I possibly could.

§ Sir S. COLLINS
My objection is as to their inability to be judges in these matters.

§ Mr. WALSH
I did not say anything of the kind.

§ Sir S. COLLINS
Then I do not see where the difference is. We are all agreed. 1791 They were representative men, who were able to argue these matters and to look at them from a broad point of view. I ask the Committee to remember the remarks of the Chairman of the Labour party. The hon. Member said that possibly it might be only suspicion. Let us trust the Home Secretary. The hon. Member for the Ince Division gave him a splendid testimonial in regard to his work in the past for the children and the people. I believe that, as the right hon. Gentleman said just now, we have given this a thorough investigation from every point of view. If we support the Committee in this respect I do not think that even Members of the Labour party in the long run will regret it, and they will be able to show their men that they did not do wrong to support the Committee.

§ Amendment negatived.

§ Mr. A. WILLIAMS
I beg to move, to leave out the word "medical" ["as requiring medical investigation"]. This point, compared with what we have been discussing, is a small one.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I would like to suggest to the hon. Member that the Debate has lasted hours, and would remind him of what I said some time ago about remarks being strictly limited to the particular Amendment which is moved.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I was going to be very careful on that point, Mr. Maclean. The word "medical" ties the hands of the Secretary of State. He asks us to give powers of that in case of exposure to gas, and in other special cases under specified instructions the Secretary of State may require medical investigation. Under the Clause as proposed the right hon. Gentleman would have power to issue instructions which would enable the surgeon to go and investigate the condition of the man who is ill, but he could not investigate anything in regard to the machinery or apparatus that caused the accident. It is well known that at the present time certifying surgeons' reports are by no means confined to medical matters. By the instructions which I read out two or three nights ago, when "we were discussing this matter, he is especially required to report as to the guarding of machinery. Although it is true, as said to-night, that he has no power to order machinery to be guarded, he has the power and the absolute duty to 1792 inquire whether it was granted, and whether the person who was working it was negligent, and various things of that sort. I think, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman needs the wider power which would be given to him if this word "medical" were not in.

Mr. SAMUEL
The Amendment as it stands in really very wide, especially with the additional words which I propose to move. I do not think there can be any great advantage in leaving out the word "medical" unless the hon. Member attaches importance to his Amendment, in which case I accept it.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Further Amendment made: After the word "investigation" ["as requiring investigation"] add the words, "It shall also be the duty of the certifying surgeon to investigate and report upon any case of injury which the district inspector of a factory in pursuance of any general or special instructions from the Secretary of State may refer to him for that purpose."— [Mr. Samuel.]

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
I beg to move, at the end of the proposed Amendment, to add the words, "Provided also that the Secretary of State may by special Order direct that the Factory and Workshop Acts, 1901 to 1911, shall continue to apply to any factory or workshop as though this Section had not been enacted."
This Amendment would, I think, adequately carry out one of the suggestions of the Departmental Committee, and enable certain classes of factories in populous districts and certain factories in scattered districts to forward their reports in the ordinary course to the certifying surgeon for the certifying surgeon's report thereupon.

Mr. SAMUEL
The addition of these words means saying the same thing twice over. We have just put in an Amendment; that the Secretary of Stats may issue instructions to enable the inspection to continue as before. The drafting Amendment already inserted is really preferable to that of the hon. Member.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
If the Home Secretary thinks the point is already covered by his own Amendment, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Words proposed there inserted.

1793

§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

§ CLAUSES 9 (Construction of Part II.), 10 (Power to Relax Qualifications as to Practical Experience in Mining where Candidates for Certificates have served in the Navy or Army), and 11 (Transfer to Board of Control of Certain Powers of Lunacy Commissioners) ordered to stand part of the Bill.