§ 4. Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Home Secretary the number of interviews given by the Sheffield district inspector of factories at his office in 1927; how many of these were granted to employés: whether, in the case of all such interviews, they took place in private, or whether an inspector of another district was present at some of them because the district inspector for Sheffield has no private office of his own; when the present district inspector retires; and what steps are being taken to prepare his successor to take up his duties in a district where the places under special inspection as to regulations are so large as in this case?
§ Sir W. J0YNSON-HICKSThe number of interviews was 596, of which 420 were interviews with employés. The district inspectors for Sheffield and Rotherham share the same room and the latter inspector was frequently present when these interviews took place. The presence of another Government inspector does not make the interview less private. The matters referred to in the last part of the question are under consideration. I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as a decision is reached.
§ Mr. WILSONIf an employé desires to get certain information, surely there is someone else to whom he may apply?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThey have only one other Government inspector, but, if the hon. Member thinks there is any difficulty in this matter—I do not think there is, seeing that 420 employés came forward—I will gladly make other arrangements.
§ 5. Mr. WILSONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that out of a total of 1,729 dangerous occurrences, quoted in the Factory Report for 1927, 900 were reported in the Sheffield district; whether there is any reason for this large proportion; whether he is aware that the number of works or departments in Sheffield under special inspection as to regulations is larger than in any other district in England and Scotland; and whether the staff of inspectors is proportionately larger?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSYes, I am aware of this fact and I believe the reason to be that Sheffield employers have been more meticulous in reporting breakages of chains and ropes which constitute the great majority of the occurrences reported. The figure for works or departments under regulation is higher for Sheffield than for other districts, but this is due to the fact that the tenement system of working still prevails to a large extent in Sheffield. I am advised that, taking all relevant factors into consideration, Sheffield has a fair share of the existing staff.
§ Mr. SHINWELLDoes not the answer indicate that in other districts accidents have not been reported regularly, and does not that call for additional inspectors?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThat is quite a different question to the one on the paper, and I must ask for notice of any particular case so that it may be investigated.
§ Mr. WILSONWhile these accidents may be reported, does it follow that the number of inspectors is adequate considering the number of tenements to be inspected?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI admit that we are somewhat short of inspectors, but Sheffield is getting its fair share, and they are doing their work extraordinarily well.
§ 14. Mr. BUCHANANasked the Home Secretary the number of factories employing women in the city of Glasgow last year which were inspected by factory inspectors; the number not so inspected; and how many prosecutions took place as the result of visits paid?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI am informed that the figures are 1,259 factories inspected during 1927, 191 not inspected, and 13 prosecutions resulting from the inspections.