HC Deb 15 March 1927 vol 203 cc1856-7
79. Mr. CLOWES

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of pottery firms which use leadless or low solubility glaze: what was the result of the 83 samples taken under the Regulation in 1924, the 97 taken in 1925, and the 84 taken in 1926; and what percentage of lead did the above samples contain?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

As the information asked for cannot be conveniently given except in tabular form, I propose to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Samples showing Excess on Prescribed Percentage of Lead.
Year. No. Leadless or Low Solubility. Result of Analysis. Remarks. Explanation of Excess.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Per cent.
1924 1 Low Solubility. 8.1 See 2 Change in mixing caused change in reactions in frittkiln and soluble lead salt was produced.
2 Low Solubility. 5.06 Check sample in respect of 1. Further check sample taken. Result 0.7 per cent.
3 Leadless 3.52 Check sample taken. Result 0.6 percent. Possibly due to leadless charge being fritted after a lead charge without relining bottom of kiln.
4 Leadless 1.2 Check sample taken. Result 0.7 per cent. Probably due to insufficiently washed tubs.
1925 5 Leadless 1.48 Check sample taken. Result 0.7 per cent. Cause not ascertained but Inspector thought it possible worker at firm supplying glaze had turned on wrong tap.
6 Leadless 3.75 Check sample taken. Result 0.5 per cent. Resampled and glaze then found to be well within prescribed limit.
7 Leadless 2.2 Check sample taken. Result 0.2 per cent. Leadless pad had broken down and charge had to be ground on a low solubility pan, which perhaps had not been sufficiently cleaned.
8 Leadless 1.2 See 9 Do. do.
9 Leadless 1.1 Check sample in respect of 8. Further check sample taken. Result 0.3 per cent.
10 Leadless 2.2 — Want of care in cleaning out grinding pans, etc.
11 Leadless 14.9 — No explanation could be obtained and firm did not use any more of the glaze which showed excess.
12 Leadless 2.4 See 16 Could only have happened by an accident to an odd tub.
13 Leadless 7.3 — No explanation could be obtained of how or where contamination arose. Firm ceased to use leadless glaze and their certificate was cancelled.
14 Leadless 1.5 Check sample taken. No lead detected. Owing to pressure of work and slackness of foreman, machinery and appliances used for both low solubility and leadless had not been properly cleaned on the change over.
15 Low Solubility. 5.3 — No explanation could be discovered as to cause of irregularity. All previous samples had been well within limit and no change of formula had been made.
1926 16 Leadless 1.1 Check sample in respect of 12.