§ LORD ARNOLD had given Notice to call attention to the resignation of Sir Thomas Legge from the position of Senior Medical Inspector of Factories and to the Draft Regulations made under the Lead Paint (Protection against Poisoning) Act; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the matters that I desire to bring before your Lordships to-day raise questions of high public importance, and I cannot but think that it will be agreed that the state of things that I have to present to the House is remarkable and very regrettable. The debates that took place on the Lead Paint (Protection against Poisoning) Bill last November will be fresh in the minds of your Lordships, and it will be remembered that the point at issue was whether the use of lead paint for work in the interior of buildings should in future be prohibited altogether or should be subject to Regulations. There is unfortunately no doubt that the use of lead paint has been the cause of serious injury to the health of many workers. The disease which is induced by lead paint is called plumbism, and without going into statistics in detail, I would point out that there have been for some years, speaking broadly, several hundreds of cases of plumbism annually, and probably about forty deaths per annum occur owing to lead poisoning. The consequences of the disease, which are always bad, are in some instances extremely grave, because, even when not fatal, some of the cases lead to paralysis and some to blindness.
§ It was with a view to stopping the suffering caused by this terrible disease that, under the auspices of the International Labour Office of the League of Nations, a Draft Convention was agreed 180 to at Geneva in 1921 by the representatives of thirty countries, including Great Britain, and under this Draft Convention the use of lead paint for interior work was to be prohibited after 1927. Your Lordships will mark that an interval of six years was given. Such being the case, it was, to use no stronger language, extremely regrettable that the Conservative Party, in the Lead Paint (Protection against Poisoning) Act passed last year, went back upon this Draft Convention, went back upon that which had been agreed to at Geneva and, instead of prohibiting the use of lead paint for interior work, merely enacted in this Bill that its use should be regulated. It will be remembered that the measure was strongly opposed from this side of the House. I repeatedly stated that in the view of myself and my colleagues on this Bench the Bill was a breach of what was agreed to by this country at Geneva, in 1921. The Government endeavoured in the debates last year, though quite unsuccessfully, to controvert this charge, but since the Bill was passed the accusation has been enormously strengthened, owing to the resignation of Sir Thomas Legge, the Senior Medical Inspector of Factories at the Home Office.
§ Sir Thomas Legge has resigned solely on account of the action of His Majesty's Government in this matter of the Lead Paint Act, which he quite rightly regards as a breach of the Draft Convention at Geneva in 1921. I would explain that Sir Thomas Legge, as representing one of the Delegates of the British Government, voted for the Draft Convention in 1921, and he is not willing to be a party to going back upon what he then did. He looks upon what has been done by the Government as a breach of honour. As a man of honour he will have no lot or part in an act of dishonour, and therefore, in spite of the financial sacrifice involved, he has resigned his position as Senior Medical Inspector of Factories.
§ Your Lordships will be aware that it is a very unusual circumstance for a civil servant to resign on a point of disagreement with the Government, and the fact that Sir Thomas Legge has felt it his duty to do so emphasises clearly, in the strongest possible way, the Government's 181 breach of honour in this matter. Sir Thomas, as a civil servant, could, of course, have claimed that the responsibility was that of the Government, but so keenly does he feel that what has been done is wrong, and that it will mean suffering and death which would otherwise be avoided, to many men, that he is not willing any longer to remain in the service of the Home Office. This, as I need scarcely say, is a serious state of things, and in the circumstances I need make no apology for bringing the matter up for further discussion. In fact, it is a public duty to do so.
§ It will be remembered that during the debates in November, the Government sought to defend what they had done on the ground that the Draft Convention did not really bind the country, and that all the Government had to do was to bring the Draft Convention before Parliament. Although that contention may be technically true, as a defence of what has happened it is wholly untenable. It suggests that the decision of Parliament is a thing quite apart from the views of the Government of the day—that the Government do not give any lead. It is a flimsy and ridiculous plea to bring forward. The responsibility rests with the Government, and in the circumstances I think it is a pity that they should suggest the contrary. The true position is that when, after weeks of discussion at Geneva, a decision was reached to which Great Britain and twenty-nine other countries agreed, it was fully expected that the Convention would be ratified, and the only circumstance which would justify the Government in refusing to ratify would be some new fact which materially altered the situation as it was known at Geneva. Has any such new fact emerged? Not a bit of it. Nothing whatever has happened to warrant this country in going back upon what it agreed to at Geneva in 1921, and the position is rendered all the worse because the proposal at Geneva, which led to the Draft Convention being unanimously agreed to, was actually made by Great Britain. That is the proposal upon which the Government have gone back.
§ Let me deal with the so-called qualification made by Sir Montague Barlow, the senior Delegate of the Government at Geneva in 1921. He made a qualification, so the Government contend, at the time 182 when he voted for the Convention. Sir Montague Barlow told the House a Commons that although he voted for the Convention he stated at the time that he did so "on the basis of the compromise being a satisfactory one acceptable to all." Whatever he may have meant by this very general remark, to which he obviously, as I will show, did not attach any importance whatever, it is certain that these words about being acceptable to all cannot fairly be used by the Government as a defence of their action in yielding to the pressure of the white lead manufacturers, because that is what they did in the Act of last year when they proceeded by way of regulation instead of by way of the prohibition of the use of lead paint for interior work.
§ I should like to make clear that it is the white lead manufacturers of this country who hold that it is their industry which would be injured without the Act of last year. Their's is the vested interest which caused the Conservative Government to break faith and to pass that measure. It is really quite idle for any one to argue that the so-called qualifying words of Sir Montague Barlow meant that he agreed to the Convention on the understanding that it was wholly acceptable and satisfactory to the white lead manufacturers of this country. Of course it was not wholly acceptable to them, and Sir Montague Barlow knew that perfectly well when he voted for the Convention. Be knew that the Convention was a compromise—that was the word that was used—and nothing has happened since 1921 which makes the position of the white lead manufacturers in all these matters genuinely different from what it was in or before 1921.
§
There were two statements made by Sir Montague Barlow, one of which was made just before voting for the Convention and the other some time later, both of which are totally inconsistent with the Act of last year and either of which plainly demonstrates that Sir Montague Barlow did not attach any importance to this so-called qualification. The first statement was made by Sir Montague just before he voted for the Convention. This is what he said:—
It redounds to the credit of this great Conference that we have now come to an agreement, which I understand is satisfactory to all parties, not only employers and workers but also to the Governments concerned.
183
Under those circumstances it would be ten thousand pities—it would be more than that; it would be a calamity—if through any technical reasons relating to the quorum this Convention was not finally and legally adopted. Under these circumstances and on the basis of this compromise, agreed to by all concerned, and in order to avoid difficulty with regard to the machinery, the British Government's vote will be passed in favour of the Convention.
There is no qualification in those words and it is abundantly evident that Sir Montague Barlow had no other idea than that the Convention was a good thing and that it would be ratified.
§
This fact is further emphasised by the second statement which I will read to your Lordships. This was made later, after Sir Montague had returned home and had had time to confer with his colleagues. But before I come to that let me also mention that later still a dinner was held at the Savoy Hotel to celebrate, so to speak, the achievement of the Draft Convention. Among others Sir Montague Barlow was present and, I think, one or two of the leading white lead manufacturers, and throughout the proceedings there was no suggestion of not ratifying the Convention. Now I return to the attitude of Sir Montague. On November 30, 1921, he contributed an article to The Times and the article was headed "Good Work at Geneva: Labour Parliament's Success." In the course of this article Sir Montague Barlow wrote:—
The great achievement of the 1921 Conference was undoubtedly the settlement of the vexed question of the use of white lead in paint.
Your Lordships will notice that he speaks of the "settlement": there is no question there of going back, or anything of that sort. And indeed a little later on he says in the same article that the compromise in the form of an agreed Draft Convention was voted unanimously by the whole Conference. Again there is no qualification, and by way of further praise for what had been done, he went on to say that the humanitarian interests involved were obviously very serious. This was the position of Sir Montague Barlow and of the Coalition Government of 1921. And about that I should like to make one or two observations.
§ There are certain members of the present Conservative Government who have not a very high opinion of the 184 Coalition Government. They have often been very scornful about the Coalition Government. They take up a superior moral attitude with regard to that Government; they seem indeed to have regarded it, the Coalition Government, as the embodiment of iniquity: and for my part, speaking in general, I do not dissent from that view.
§ LORD ARNOLDYes, but it is only right to point out that so far as this white lead issue was concerned the Coalition Government, despite its manifold sins, had more regard for humanitarian interests, more care for the welfare of the workers, than the present Conservative Government. So we see that those members of the present Government, despite their superior attitude, almost bordering at times upon spiritual pride, so far as this lead paint issue is concerned are on a lower moral plane than the Coalition Government which they despise.
The white lead manufacturers, not very long after the Convention of 1921, opened a campaign whereby they sought to break away from the Convention, but nothing had happened which would justify any change in the attitude of the Government. The white lead firms will, I know, maintain that they were justified because of two circumstances which I can put quite shortly: first, because of a speech made by M. Albert Thomas, the Director of the International Labour Office at Geneva. There has been a correspondence about that speech in the Nation, and the Chairman of the white lead makers' section of the London Chamber of Commerce wrote suggesting that certain words of M. Thomas in a speech which he made tore up the peace made at Geneva. In point of fact that is not the case at all. M. Thomas himself wrote to the Nation rebutting the contention and stating—I think these are his very words—that all his efforts have since 1921 been directed towards securing ratification of the Convention, which embodies the compromise agreed to at Geneva. Moreover, it is preposterous—and your Lordships must I think agree with this—for the white lead manufacturers, or anybody else, to contend that any speech made subsequently—and this was made eighteen months or two years after the 185 Convention—can tear up a Draft Convention made between thirty nations.
The second circumstance which the white lead manufacturers adduce in support of their action is the development, of the process of waterproof sandpaper; and the Government also brings this out, so I am now speaking not merely of the white lead manufacturers but also of the Government. I rather gather from the fact that the noble Lord opposite nods assent that he is going to bring it up again, so, with your Lord ships' permission, I will forestall him and tell you the facts about it. I have previously explained that the harm done by lead paint in interior work mainly arises from rubbing down the old paint, in order to prepare the surface for the new paint. In this rubbing down process particles of dust of the old paint and so forth are necessarily spread about. These get into the system, chiefly through the lungs, and cause the poisoning, with all its serious consequences. The same thing does not occur to anything like the same extent in external painting, because in that work very much less rubbing down has to be done, and also, the work being in the open air, the particles of dust, lead paint, and so forth are blown away. Waterproof sandpaper is supposed to meet the difficulty because the old paint is rubbed down wet, and therefore—so the case is put—the particles of dust, etc., are not scattered. This may sound all very well in theory, but in practice the case for waterproof sandpaper breaks down. The truth is that so many things have to be done when using waterproof sandpaper, if it is to be regarded as I preventative against lead poisoning, that in practice all these things will hardly ever be done. That is the position. I will not go through all the details though I am prepared to do so if anybody should ask. If I did I am quite sure that the list of things which is put down is sufficiently impressive to convert the most sceptical. As further proof of what I am saying I would add that the sale of waterproof sandpaper amongst housepaperers has so far made very little progress.
A vital point in all this matter and one which the Government, I am sorry to say, has hitherto entirely failed to apprehend, is the injurious effect which the action of Great Britain, in going back upon the Geneva Convention of 1921, is 186 bound to have upon future international meetings at Geneva held for the purpose of raising labour conditions. Just consider the position. This important Convention was held in 1921. It was unanimously agreed to by thirty nations and since then it has been ratified by nearly all the important industrial countries in the world. Is it not perfectly evident that owing to the action of the present Government confidence in the good faith of Great Britain at these Labour Conventions will be rudely shaken? I do not think I need labour that; it is so obvious. Thus Great Britain, which we have been prone to regard as in the forefront of civilised countries in efforts for raising labour conditions, bids fair to lose that position, to lose her influence abroad in these matters and to become an obstacle instead of a help to progress. That is what the present Government have reduced us to.
This is all the more true because, unfortunately, this Geneva Convention does not stand alone. To it must be added the failure of the Government to ratify the Washington Convention and the reactionary position taken up by the British official Delegates in regard to the regulation of the hours of seamen. But that is another story and I cannot go into those matters to-day. I will say this: that as regards the Washington Convention the record of the Government, if not so discreditable as in the case of the Geneva Convention, makes a good second. I am glad to see the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, here to-day, because he is a firm supporter of the League of Nations and of all its activities, including the International Labour Office, and it would be very interesting to know what his views really are in regard to these matters. I will undertake to say that if he were in Opposition sitting on this Bench his attitude would be widely different from his present one of silent and complaisant acquiescence.
I cannot help thinking that in his heart of hearts he agrees with every word of the letter in The Times to which I am about to refer. It appeared only last week and was condemnatory of the Government's action regarding the Geneva Convention. Ii is a letter published in The Times of Wednesday last and signed by Major John W. Hills, M.P., the Rt. 187 Hon. George Barnes and Mr. E. L. Poulton. Those signatures will command respect, I think, in any quarter in any assembly. I need not remind your Lordships that Major Hills is one of the most influential supporters of the Government in another place. Probably most of your Lordships have read this letter, which deserves the closest perusal, and I must not take up time by reading the whole of it. I may, however, be allowed to read one passage as follows:—
Technically, no doubt, our Government was free to refuse ratification; morally, it was not. A compromise to which the different parties had sacrificed so much, obtaining unanimous agreement for reward, deserved to be honoured by those who set their hands to it, and most of all by Governments who accepted it through their representatives. It is a matter of serious concern that this consideration should have had no weight at all with the British Government. The Lead Paint Act, passed last year, throws the Convention over. Instead of forbidding the use of lead in internal painting it relies upon the unworkable method of regulation. Thereupon Sir Thomas Legge resigned his official position at the Home Office. A man of conviction, who had played so decisive a part in bringing about the decision of 1921, he refused to take refuge in the accepted plea that the civil servant is without responsibility for Ministerial acts. In his case, to attempt administration of Regulations which, in his opinion, offer no real protection to the 150,000 house-painters exposed to the danger of lead poisoning would have been to accept tacitly the position of complaisant expert adviser of a policy which he knew to be wrong. Of this suspicion he has cleared himself. At the same time he has made ninny of us profoundly uneasy. We can find no answer to several questions.I think those words should give deep concern to all who value the honour of our country.It is—I am sorry to say it, but I do say it—unfortunately true that owing to their part in the coal dispute last year and in other ways one does not expect to find much sense of honour in the present Government. But the breaches of honour last year were in regard to domestic matters. This is an international matter and that makes it very much more grave. Your Lordships may well ask: What is the explanation of all this? How is it the Government have done this thing? How is it the Government have gone back upon the Convention and refused to ratify it? I am afraid the explanation is to be found in this fact. What has occurred is only a 188 further proof, if any were needed—and I do not think it is—of how extraordinarily difficult it is for a Conservative Government to interfere with a vested interest. The truth is that this Conservative Government, like all Conservative Governments, is a Government of vested interests for vested interests. This white lead industry is only a small vested interest, but it is a powerful one, and is well organised and apparently can bring successful pressure to bear upon the Government. That I believe to be the real truth about what has happened.
I will now call attention to certain words that the Home Secretary used in another place, which should not, I think, have been used, because they give a wrong impression and they have the effect of concealing the gravity of Sir Thomas Legge's resignation. After Sir Thomas had resigned a Question was asked in another place about the matter, and the Home Secretary, in his reply, began by saying that Sir Thomas Legge, having reached the pensionable age, asked to be allowed to retire. As a matter of fact, the question of the pension age has really nothing to do with the matter. Even if Sir Thomas had reached the retiring age—he had not reached the retiring age—there was no reason to suppose, in view of his experience, that his term of service would not have been somewhat extended; indeed the Hone Secretary, when pressed in another place, admitted that that was so.
A further point is this. The Home Secretary concluded his reply by saying that Sir Thomas gave as the reason that he did not wish to be concerned in the administration of the Lead Paint Act. That statement is not really in accordance with what occurred. Sir Thomas did not put the matter in that way. The main reason he gave—and this was given also in a letter in Time Times which appeared two days before this reply was given—was that he could not recede from the position he had taken up as representing one of the Delegates of the British Government at Geneva. That was when Sir Thomas Legge voted for the Draft Convention. I will ask the noble Lord: Is it not also the case that Sir Thomas in his letter of resignation to the Home Office used words to 189 that effect? I leave your Lordships to judge whether that is not a very much more serious reason than the one which the Home Secretary gave. I do submit that we are entitled to some explanation of, and some apology for, this reply of the Home Secretary because it really had the effect of giving a wrong impression. It had the effect of misleading Parliament as to what had occurred.
In conclusion I come to the Draft Regulations and I can be fairly brief about these. I confine myself mainly to one point, though that is of great importance. In the letter which was sent out by the Home Office, dated 31st December last, explanatory of these Regulations, the statement is made that the terms of the Regulations had been discussed at a series of conferences held between the Home Office and various bodies, including, amongst others, the National Operative Painters' Society, and that complete agreement Was arrived at. That statement is grossly misleading, to use no stronger language, and it seems a very extraordinary thing that a letter like that should have been sent out by the Home Office. It is a very extraordinary thing, but perhaps after all it is not so extraordinary, perhaps after all it is not surprising, when von have a Government which obtained the greater part of its majority by fraud on the electorate, that there should from time to time be issued statements which are misleading.
I will tell your Lordships the facts and it will be seen how utterly different the position is from that which the letter suggests. The fact is that the Regulations referred to were nearly all drafted to apply to external painting. They were not drafted for interior painting, which is the question at issue, and they were drafted as long ago as 1922. They were agreed to then by the various bodies named in the letter, when it was understood that the Geneva Convention was going to be ratified and that so far as interior work was concerned the use of lead paint would be prohibited. Consider, then, how very different the position is from what the letter suggests. Would anybody reading the letter from the Home Office understand that to be the case? In the first place, anybody reading the letter would naturally; assume that the conferences referred 190 to were held quite recently—the conferences at which it says complete agreement was arrived at. That is not so. The Act did not receive the Royal Assent until December 15. This circular was sent out on December 31. No conferences were held between December 15 and December 31, so far as I know, and I think I do know. No conference had been held since 1922, nearly five years ago. In the second place, this Home Office letter does not in the least make it plain that the Regulations were nearly all drafted for external painting and were intended to carry out the Geneva Convention which involved the prohibition of the use of lead paint for interior work. That is not made clear at all. The Government speaks of complete agreement being arrived at. That, again, is not in accordance with the facts. Complete agreement was not arrived at on the basis of this letter. I say again that when this letter was issued no conference about these matters had been held, so far as I know—I ask the noble Lord whether that is not so—no conference had been held since 1922.
There is another point. Certain additional Regulations were issued about which, so far as I know, there had never been any discussion or any conference at all. The letter quotes the National Operative Painters' Society as one of the bodies which is in complete agreement. That also is' not in accordance with the facts. So far from that being the case the fact is that as soon as the letter was issued it claimed the attention of the National Operative Painters' Society and that society has made various objections to the Regulations and has pressed for various amendments. I think that it is a serious matter to send out a letter like this, a letter so grossly misleading, and I think the Home Office is deserving of censure in the matter. It will be no defence for the Home Office to say that though the Regulations provide for external work, yet in the changed circumstances—the circumstance being that the Convention has not been ratified—the Regulations can now apply to both questions. That will be no defence—leaving aside the totally wrong impression the letter gives; there can be no dispute about that. I must emphasise that the Regulations will, as a matter of fact, be of very little use in stopping 191 lead poisoning. The Government, I know, express the expectation that the Regulations will succeed. A noble Lord says "Hear, hear" but he cannot bring any sufficient evidence to support those expectations. As a matter of fact, those expectations are not based on experience, cannot be supported by experience, and are contrary to experience. In these circumstances I submit that this is a totally inadequate defence to put that forward.
What are the facts about trying in the past by regulation to stop lead poisoning? Both in the manufacture of white lead itself and in the potteries industry Regulations have not been able to stop the evil. The most they have been able to do is to minimise the evil. That is not surprising in view of the fact that even so minute a quantity as one-thirty-second of a grain of white lead absorbed daily may cause chronic poisoning in the course of years. I want to say one word about another industry and that is the manufacture of electrical accumulators. In that industry, despite stringent regulations, lead poisoning is still very common.
Finally, I desire to say one word about a vital matter, the question of a substitute for lead paint for interior work. When the Convention was signed in 1921 there was to be an interval of no less than six years given to white lead manufacturers in which to turn to some substitute for lead paint—a substitute which would not have the harmful effects of lead paint. In France, for instance, lead paint is hardly used at all now. The noble Lord says they have no lead, but they could get lead if necessary. Zinc paints are used. Although climatic conditions are somewhat different in this country, zinc can be used for interior work because that work is not affected by climate As a matter of fact, zinc paints are used in this country now and zinc paints are not harmful to health. Moreover, they give a beautiful surface. In the opinion of some they give as good a surface as, or indeed a better surface than, lead paint. Further, there is reason to suppose that other substitutes as well as zinc could be found for lead pain t—substitutes not harmful to health. It is probable that if the Convention had been ratified in 1921, in the intervening years until 1927 when it was to come into operation 192 other substitutes would have been found. One of the many evils of the Act of last year is to make the necessity for white lead manufacturers to begin manufacturing zinc or other substitutes less urgent than it otherwise would have been.
It comes to this—that the Bill of last year puts a premium on lead paint with all its harmful consequences, so that the action of the Government last year, in addition to being, as I have said, a breach of honour, means that hundreds of men will suffer from the terrible effects of lead paint who, but for that Bill, would have been free. I do urge, therefore, most strongly that the Government should make it clear that they will before long introduce legislation prohibiting the use of lead paint for interior work. The Government ought to make it perfectly plain to the white lead manufacturers that, despite what took place last year, it is to their interests to begin as soon as possible manufacturing zinc paint or other substitutes for lead paint, so that the sufferings caused by lead paint may once and for all be ended. If things work out in that way then the resignation of Sir Thomas Legge, though the sacrifice has been great, will not have been in vain. As regards my Motion for Papers I should like to keep that in reserve. I beg to move.
§ VISCOUNT BURNHAMMy Lords, I very much regret to think that the noble Lord opposite has thought fit to make a speech of such vitriolic violence upon one of the most vexed and difficult problems of industrial policy in international affairs. The only reason that I rise this afternoon is that I presided over the International Labour Conference of 1921 at Geneva and, as Chairman of the Drafting Committee, I was to some extent responsible for the Draft Convention that is under debate. Personally I regret that His Majesty's Government have not been able to recommend Parliament to ratify the White Lead Convention. On the other hand, listening to the somewhat uninformed arguments that have been addressed to the House, your Lordships might be led to imagine that this was a question of breach of faith without regard to the health and welfare of the workers in the trade that uses white lead in interior painting or to the general opinion of the civilised world.
193 The facts are very different. The Conference sat for some six weeks in that year and, of all the questions submitted to it, there was none that provoked so much controversy as the use of white lead in painting. It was not, as the noble Lord led your Lordships to believe, a matter of humanity against callousness in regard to human health and welfare. On the contrary, it was a great struggle of trade interests in which the arguments were very powerful on both sides and as the result of which a compromise was adopted, entirely owing to the persuasiveness and the ability of Sir Thomas Legge. It was a fight between the lead-producing and lead-using countries and the zinc-producing and zinc-using countries. The Commonwealth of Australia, for instance, was unanimously against any such Convention, and the whole of its Delegation voted in that sense. Germany ranged itself on the same side as Australia while, on the other hand, France and Belgium, being zinc-producing and zinc-using countries and not requiring to use lead, saw an advantage not only from the hygienic but also from the commercial point of view in the adoption of such a Convention. Three Committees were appointed to consider the matter and sat for three weeks—a Commercial, a Scientific and a Hygienic Committee. They had experts of the greatest authority sitting upon them. I recollect that there was one who was paid £5,000 for coming to Geneva, but he was not paid in the least from any reason of public health but because the vital interests of a great many countries which were Members of the League of Nations were concerned, and especially those of Australia, of which lead constitutes one-third of the whole mineral production.
It was almost certain at last that no agreement could be reached and I recollect breaking ail the rules of procedure in order to allow Sir Thomas Legge to move, almost as a desperate hope, the resolution that was finally embodied in the Draft Convention that has not been brought to the notice of this Parliament. On the other hand, many of those who favoured the Convention believe that half measures, though not wholly effective, might do a great deal to stop the evil of which complaint is made. I recollect that that year the 194 number of deaths arising from lead poisoning in the whole of the countries amounted to four hundred—a very serious but not an enormous figure. We thought, therefore, that it was possible that in six years such scientific discoveries and such application of those discoveries might be made as would not put this country and other countries using lead at a disadvantage as compared with the zinc countries. It does not seem that this has taken place. Moreover, the building trades were themselves altogether opposed to any such Draft Convention. I recollect that a representative of the master builders spoke for the British employers as one of their delegates during the Conference.
It was quite open, as it has always been open, for the Government of any country to recommend or not to recommend the adoption of a Draft Convention. It is only, as your Lordships know, when a Draft Convention has been ratified by the national Parliament of any country that is a party to the League of Nations that it then becomes a matter of honourable obligation. If the Convention is adopted and then, by some means or other is not made operative in respect of the trades involved, there is procedure under the Treaty of Peace for bringing the offending country to the High Court of International Justice and awarding economic penalties, which, personally, I do not think could ever be applied. But that does not apply in this case. There is no question of dishonour in the decision of the Government to take the course that it has now recommended.
This is without question one of the most difficult matters that could be considered in regard to a great staple trade in this country. Nobody who has seen the effects of lead poisoning could underrate them and nobody could feel anything but commiseration for those who are its victims. I believe that the course now adopted, which finds expression in the Act passed last Session, will have some effect for good, On the other hand I believe that it will be necessary, after it has been tried and, as some of us fear, has failed of its full effect, to propose again a Draft Convention for the consideration of Parliament. But the only point that we have to consider now is whether the Parliament of this country should always be the corpus vile of experiment in social legislation which has 195 not been adopted elsewhere and to which some of the sister dominions object so strongly.
I venture to think that in any case to try to make partisan capital out of the resignation of Sir Thomas Legge is a very monstrous abuse. Nobody who knows him and has seen anything of his work over a long period of years can feel anything but the highest respect for him, and no doubt he is heart and soul in favour of this Convention. It was his work to a large extent, in that the compromise that was accepted—a period of years before which no Convention should come into effect—was the proposal that he himself brought forward. If we can consider that we are postponing the enactment or ratification of the Convention in order to try whether anything short of that will effect its purpose, then I do not think that the Government is far wrong, because trade interests will undoubtedly be prejudicially affected and it is not quite certain that we cannot save lives and avoid suffering without it. I should like to end, as I began, by saying that, had I had any say in the matter, either at Geneva or at home, I should have been in favour of ratifying the Convention. On the other hand, if it is only postponed for a little time for further experiments and for the concurrence and co-operation of the other nations which are involved, I cannot think that much harm has been done.
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEMy Lords, it is difficult for any one who has listened to the speech of the noble Viscount who has just sat down to know on what side he stands in this controversy, He has sat on each side of the fence and propped himself first on one foot and then on the other alternately. He began by telling us of the Convention. He began by telling us of his experience of it and expressing his regret that the conclusion which was reached at that Convention was, not adopted by this country.
§ VISCOUNT BURNHAMQuite so.
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEThen he went on to tell us of the number of trade interests represented there from various countries, of the conflict of opinion and discussion, and finally reminded us that the resolution come to was a unanimous resolution and was embodied in the Convention, which, therefore, put an end to 196 the discussion and superseded it. The noble Lord, in other words, said truly that the important thing was the Convention itself and not the discussion which took place and led up to it. But then he went on to announce the most extra, ordinary doctrine of all, that the obligation upon us in respect of the Conference at Geneva was an obligation which, as I understood him, was only to have binding effect if adopted by the Parliaments of the countries which had taken part in it. I should like, when the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, comes to speak, to ask him very clearly whether he accepts that doctrine about the League of Nations. Is it the case that it is only subject to whatever may happen in the Parliament of the countries concerned that the resolutions of the League of Nations have any efficacy?—because that is the doctrine of the noble Viscount, Lord Burnham.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD)I think the noble and learned Viscount forgets that this is under the special procedure of the International Labour Office.
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEBe it so, but the Convention was adopted in 1921 and there it is, and what I want to know from the noble Viscount is whether he considers that such a Convention has no effect unless it is approved by the Parliaments of the countries concerned? If so, then, I would ask, what is the use of the League of Nations? We seem to have been listening to a great deal of hypocrisy about it if that be the case. As I understood the foundation of the League of Nations it was not a body to which the countries concerned delegated their sovereignty. They retained their sovereignity, but they went into conference to see whether they could agree upon certain principles and then go to the League with the general consent of all concerned. That was the doctrine of the League of Nations. If you once assented to a principle at Geneva then you had assented to it, and, although no one could be said to have given up his sovereignty, the very purpose of the League was to some extent to qualify sovereignty by assenting to certain principles on which nations could agree. I think that the next debate that we shall have to raise in this House is a 197 debate upon the foundation of the League of Nations, if that doctrine is challenged, and from what the noble Viscount has said I am not quite sure what his own position is in regard to it.
Anyhow, here we are with a great proposal, which was adopted unanimously and in which this country concurred and which now the Government says it cannot carry out. That was not the original proposal of the British Government, but it is now the proposal of the British Government. What can you expect from the people of this country when you so deal with things in which they are deeply interested? There is a popular supposition that the Labour Party is a Party which depends only upon some written and rigid programme The Labour Party goes far beyond that. The Labour Party is a spirit which is very active in the constituencies just now. It is a spirit which is costing the Government by-election after by-election, and may cost them many more in the near future. All I can say is that a Conservative Government which flouts and disregards that spirit is a very foolish Government and will bring a Labour majority upon themselves if they persist in that attitude. The tree course is to study the spirit in which people look at those things and to remember that the Labour movement is a movement of idealism which will revenge itself upon those who flout it.
I think that the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards this question has been a very dubious one indeed and that my noble friend has been well advised in bringing forward the subject to-day. I think it is a clear illustration of the way in which the Government are apt to overlook the spirit and hold to the letter, and it is just that which is bringing up the Labour Party in increasing strength, which they will have to encounter before they are much older as a Government.
§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODMy Lords, I only desire to answer a definite question, out of courtesy. I have no desire to take part in the general debate. My noble friend Lord Desborough is well qualified to deal with the points which have been raised by Lord Arnold. As to the particular point raised by Viscount Haldane, I 198 think it is really quite clear. The Labour Office sits, as the noble and learned Viscount is well aware, under quite different Regulations and constitution to the League itself. The League is governed entirely by the Covenant; the Labour Office is governed by the Articles in the Treaty of Versailles which constitute and direct its proceedings. With regard to this particular question of a Convention, as my noble friend who has done such admirable work at Geneva has already told you, the position is quite clear. The governing body and the Conference of the International Labour Office meets and you may either have a Convention or a recommendation proposed. If it is a Convention and it is passed by the adequate majority, the obligation undertaken by each member of the Conference is that the matter shall be presented to the proper constitutional authorities at home.
Perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to read the actual Article (Article 405) which I have before me. In that Article it is stated:—
Each of the members undertakes that it will, within the period of one year at most from the closing of the session of the Conference, or if it is impossible owing to exceptional circumstances to do so within the period of one year, then at the earliest practicable moment and in no case later than eighteen months from the closing of the session of the Conference, bring the recommendation or Draft Convention before the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, for the enactment of legislation or other action.That is the only obligation that is undertaken. The Article, In a subsequent paragraph, proceeds:—If on a recommendation no legislative or other action is taken to make a recommendation effective, or if the Draft Convention fails to obtain the consent of the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter no further obligations shall rest upon the member.
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEWhy does not the Government make a recommendation? That is what we complain of.
§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODThe Government are entitled to present and have presented to Parliament their views on the subject. It is for Parliament to judge whether their views are right and also to take whatever action it likes.
§ LORD PARMOORI should like to join issue entirely with what the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, has said. I will join issue with him on the Report which is issued by the Foreign Secretary as regards the last meeting of the Council which took place at Geneva. In addition to that I have here the recommendations. The Report says:—
On the 24th September, 1926, the Seventh Assembly adopted a resolution calling the attention of the Governments of all States Members of the League to the necessity for taking all possible measures to expedite the ratification of Conventions and Agreements signed in their name, and inviting the council to call for a report every six months on the progress of ratification and to consider methods for securing the more rapid bringing into force of those Agreements and Conventions … The Council accordingly instructed the Secretary-General to submit at its next session a report on the progress made in the ratification of international engagements concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations.
§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODHear, hear. Not of the Labour Office.
§ LORD PARMOORThat denotes this. Although there may not be a technical obligation there is an understanding throughout the Assembly. The Assembly itself has passed a resolution in the sense that it is desirable that these Conventions should be ratified, that the question of their ratification should be brought before Parliament and that an opportunity should be given to Parliament for their ratification. I have read what was actually stated in the Report itself.
§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODThat has nothing whatever to do with it. It is quite irrelevant. That was in reference to engagements concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations, not of the Labour Office which proceeds entirely separately from the League of Nations. I moved the resolution myself, which was for the purpose of preventing the delays which have unfortunately taken place in the ratification of Agreements signed in pursuance of the proceedings at the meetings of the League of Nations. It has nothing whatever to do with the Labour Office, which is under a different constitution.
§ LORD PARMOORI am sorry again to be in disagreement on a point of procedure with the noble Viscount. I have before me the copies of these Conventions for ratification or recommendation which the Assembly asks should be dealt with as soon as possible. Among others is this veer Convention which we are discussing this afternoon. It makes no difference whatever whether the Convention comes from one source or the other. It is equally in the form of a Convention and equally desirable, according to the views of the Assembly, that it should be recommended for ratification. I have here the whole list from the League of Nations Union. You may see in it what we have not ratified and not even recommended for ratification, including the Convention relating to white lead. It is to these Conventions that the White Paper from which I have read a passage has reference.
§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODThe noble Lord is entirely wrong. If he had read carefully he would have seen it is headed "International Labour Office" and has nothing whatever to do with the League of Nations.
§ LORD PARMOORI am sorry again to interrupt. It is because it is headed "International Labour Office" that it does include this Convention to which I have alluded. I do not want to argue the matter any further, but I think it is quite clear, and I have read the passage from the Report.
§ LORD DESBOROUGHMy Lords, I rise to say a very few words in answer to the Motion which has been put down by my noble friend Lord Arnold with reference to the much regretted resignation of the Senior Medical Inspector of Factories, Sir Thomas Legge, and I should like to join with those who have already spoken in expressing the appreciation of the Home Office, of employers of labour and of employees, of the inestimable services rendered by Sir Thomas Legge over a very long period of years. I can assure your Lordships that the Home Office heard with very great regret that he considered it necessary to resign on account of a difference of opinion—there is no doubt about it—as to the proper method of dealing with this very important question of lead poisoning. There is no doubt that he 201 and the Government had a very serious difference on this point and he thought it necessary to resign. It has already been pointed out that his resignation could not have been very long postponed—I think he was in his sixty-fourth year—but it is none the less to be regretted, because I should also like to point out this, that if all distinguished civil servants thought it necessary to resign because they happened to disagree with the head of a Department or the head of the Government, the Civil Service upon which the good government of this country so largely depends would soon find itself in the Slough of Despond.
With regard to the Motion itself, I do not propose to go into it at length. I have already gone into it on two occasions, and I am not sure whether one was a very proper occasion on which to go into it—namely, in Committee on the Bill when we discussed whether we should proceed by the method of absolute prohibition of lead paint for interior work or by the method of regulation on which I have already said a good deal. I do not propose to repeat what I have said. It has already been pointed out in the course of the debate by my noble friend behind me who attended this Conference that there was to a great extent a very sharp difference of opinion between those countries who used lead and those who used zinc. I do not know whether the House would bear with me if for one moment I quoted what was said by the Chairman of the Committee at the Conference. I believe that the Chairman of the Committee of Experts at Geneva was a Canadian Government Delegate.
§ VISCOUNT BURNHAMThere were several Committees but he was one of several chairmen.
§ LORD DESBOROUGHHe was the Chairman of the Committee of Experts which considered the whole position with the help of a Medical Sub-Committee, during several weeks, the essential question being how best to reconcile the protection of painters with the practical indispensability of lead paint. This is an expert who said that you cannot absolutely knock out lead paint, and he went on to say that the Committee recommended that the reasonable solution of the hygienic problem was the establishment of Regulations, which they outlined 202 very much as in the Bill. He also said that he considered that the Convention would have been unanimous on the question of proceeding by regulation and not by prohibition
… if the majority of the workers representatives had (as it was understood they had agreed) voted for it instead of abstaining. It was owing to the interposition of the French and Belgian representatives (upon arguments which were not strictly scientific, and possibly influenced by the fact that their countries are the chief producers of rival pigments) that the Conference itself on the last working day, in a state of hustle, rejected the Committee's recommendation and put forward the Draft Convention.It was due to the assiduity and ability of Sir Thomas Legge that in a hurry the Convention adopted it rather than allow the whole thing to be a failure and no conclusion come to. I think it has been quite clearly proved that in those Conventions nothing whatever is signed. Therefore there is no question of going back or of any point of honour. There is actually no question of honour involved.
§ VISCOUNT BURNHAMOnly the President signs.
§ LORD DESBOROUGHThe Delegates do not sign. The British Government have been attacked. Because a British Delegate in certain circumstances agreed to and voted for this Draft Convention and the Government have not, carried it out, it is said that there is some want of honour on the part of the Government, or some derogation of duty. Nothing of the sort. I will read to your Lordships what happens at these Conventions:—
Each of the Members undertakes that it will, within the period of one year at most from the closing of the session of the Conference, or if it is impossible owing to exceptional circumstances to do so within the period of one year, then at the earliest practicable moment and in no case later than eighteen months from the closing of the session of the Conference, bring the recommendation or Draft Convention before the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, for the enactment of legislation or other action.We have not yet got to the point where we are governed by Geneva or even by Moscow.The Government of each country no doubt pays great attention to anything which is unanimously voted in the hope that there may be on these labour 203 matters some general agreement among all countries, but there is no unanimity about this. Take, for instance, the British Empire. Australia is strongly against it, Canada is against it and South Africa and New Zealand are against it. The British Empire is not in favour of this and has not ratified the Convention. Nor do I think that there is very much chance of their ratifying it.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships over these matters, but I should like to point out that one great step has been taken in the passing of the Act, which your Lordships did by a two to one majority. It does seem to me unnecessary to rake this up for a third time after this House has by a two to one majority passed this on two occasions. The Government were justified in proceeding by regulation instead of by total prohibition and they, in fact, took the opportunity of being as much in advance as they could with the Regulations. They have had a great many conferences with all those interested, including employers and employed, in order to draw up the best possible Regulations. There has been a little delay at the last moment with regard to them. We are very carefully going into the question of the protection of people who use lead paint, by, for instance, prohibiting the use of any lead paint in the form of spray and by prohibiting dry rubbing down and scraping. These Regulations are in hand and I think they will shortly be issued.
Those who are interested in this question should at all events be grateful that the Government of which my noble friend opposite was a member for the first time passed an Act requiring a return of cases of lead poisoning occurring in the house-painting industry and also for the registration of employers. That provision was made for the first time. Previously I do not think the returns had been official. After the Act has been in operation we shall have figures before us on which we can rely. I can only conclude by saying that it is rather late in the day to open for a third time a question which has already been decided by Parliament. I would urge those who wish to put a stop to this admitted evil—that is to say, lead poisoning—to give every assistance in their power to the Government in order to draw up Regulations 204 which will fit the case and give the greatest security to those who are engaged in what is admittedly a dangerous occupation.
EARL RUSSELLMy Lords, in the middle of this debate two noble Lords engaged in some technical discussion as to the procedure at Geneva. As they were both experts on that matter and did not agree I am not proposing to follow them into those difficulties, nor am I proposing to deal with the question of any breach of honour, but it seems to me that there does remain a word or two to be said on this question. I would first challenge the concluding words of the noble Lord opposite—and he employed the same expression more than once in his speech—which seemed to suggest that it was an impertinence and an impropriety to raise this matter again for the third time, I think he said, when it had been dealt with before. What we consider and what we feel is that men are being poisoned every day and that is going on day by day. Whatever your Lordships' Resolutions may be and whatever Conventions may be agreed, while that is going on day by day it seems to us to be a matter of continuing interest and one which it is proper to raise until it is amended.
I cannot accept any sort of censure by the noble Lord opposite for raising the matter, and, indeed, I think we are entitled to say that, this Convention about which we are talking having been agreed to six years ago, a good deal of patience has already been shown. Six years' poisoning has been allowed to go on unchecked and only now is some attempt made to deal with it. Surely that is a matter with which we are entitled to deal. I do not think that the Government were very happy in their first defender who spoke from the opposite Benches. I am not sure that he was not too honest and did not prove rather too much. He began by telling your Lordships with what difficulty this Convention was arrived at, how conflicting the interests were, how difficult to reconcile, but how at the end of all this difficulty and all these conflicts they were reconciled and there was a unanimous agreement on this Convention. It was said that Australia did not agree and the noble Lord opposite repeated that. My noble friend, who is better informed 205 than I am in these matters, will no doubt deal with that. All we have heard is that it was unanimously agreed to. It seems to me that the very difficulty that was encountered in arriving at unanimity and arriving at the Convention makes it the more imperative when such agreement has been reached that some steps should be taken to carry it out.
On this question of unanimity the noble Lord opposite made what seemed to me a very remarkable statement. In one portion of his speech he said that after a long discussion, when matters seemed hopeless, in rather a hustle, at the end of the proceedings, they finally and unanimously agreed upon this Convention. What exactly are we to understand by that? Are we to understand that after a hot fit of humanity at Geneva it is now felt that file agreement was a mistake in the light of a cold fit of finance? Is that what we are to understand?
§ LORD DESBOROUGHThat was a quotation from the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Obed Smith. He was there.
EARL RUSSELLDid the noble Lord quote that with agreement or disagreement? I understood him to quote it to this house with agreement. If so, I would ask: What exactly are we to understand? For my own part, if the Government are under the impression that this Convention is a mistake, that this attempt to stop lead poisoning is a mistake, I should very much prefer their denouncing it and saying we will have nothing to do with it rather than pretending to carry it out by this Lead Paint Act, which seems to us a piece of camouflage. That is not the right way of dealing with it.
I would like to recall to your Lordships' consideration what is and will be the attitude of the ordinary man in the street about this matter. The noble and learned Viscount has already called attention to that. The man in the street does not care about Conventions or ratifications or anything else. Tie says here is a dangerous trade by which people are being poisoned. Surely it was very unfortunate that the noble Viscount, Lord Burnham, in the course of his observations, after saying that about 400 people a year are poisoned and that this was not an enormous number, should go on to talk about the great trade interests involved 206 in lead paint. That was an unfortunate comparison between little and great. These are the sort of things considered outside and they produce the impression that vested interests are always likely to succeed as against the health and lives of working men. I very much doubt if that is the individual feeling of noble Lords opposite—I should be the last to accuse any individual member of your Lordships' House of less humane feeling than I possess myself—but that is the impression produced outside, that vested interests are always allowed to find a way of doing anything in their interests and that anything that tends to eliminate danger to the life and health of working men is not done.
Forty deaths a year—I think that is the number stated—occur in this country and I think we may fairly say there are four hundred cases which do not result in death. This is a very serious and horrible form of poison. The noble Lord opposite admitted that. Is it right that even in this House, and by the two to one majorities which are used against us, we should put aside consideration of these deaths and injuries and should not do our utmost to say they should stop? We are now asked to wait an untold number of years to see how this measure will succeed. By whom are we told that it cannot succeed? By this civil servant who has thought fit to resign upon this issue. The noble Lord opposite said that if all civil servants were to resign whenever they disagreed with what their chiefs did there would be no civil servants left. That undoubtedly is perfectly true, but it is a tradition of the Civil Service to serve loyally and faithfully a succession of different masters with different views and different political ideals. When, therefore, a case arises in which a distinguished civil servant feels it necessary to break with such a tradition he never does it on a matter of political disagreement but does it on a matter of honour, on a feeling which makes it impossible for him to continue. I do not think the noble Lord gained anything by minimising the resignation of an important civil servant upon grounds which he has publicly stated.
TEE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARKMy Lords, I do not rise to discuss the Geneva Convention or the resignation of Sir Thomas Legge, but 207 there is a practical matter which I should like to bring before the House in connection with these Regulations. I am one of those who believe that the matter would be far better dealt with by the Geneva Convention than by Regulations, but the Regulations have been accepted and very shortly they will be issued. The point I want to make is this, that the Regulations will be perfectly useless unless you have a sufficient number of factory inspectors to see that they are enforced. These Regulations do not deal with large bodies of men collected together in factories or working under one or two large employers. They deal with large numbers of men working in twos and threes or in many cases individually. It will be extraordinarily difficult for these Regulations, excellent as they may be on paper, to be carried out unless there are sufficient inspectors to see that they are enforced. This was recognised by the Home Secretary in another place. On the Second Reading of this measure he said that although it was quite impossible to appoint 70,000 inspectors to look after 70,000 men, yet he would ask for more factory inspectors so as to see that this measure was properly put into effect.
While I am sorry these Regulations have been adopted instead of the other policy, yet I want them to have a fair chance. The Government believe this to be the best way of remedying this evil The results will be very easily tested in about a year's time by statistics of disease and deaths. If the numbers are reduced the Government will have been largely justified in their policy. If, on the other hand, the numbers are still showing on appreciable decrease, the Government will have to fall back on the other policy, the policy embodied in the Geneva Convention. But there is no possibility of these Regulations having a fair test unless the Government are prepared to see that there are sufficient inspectors appointed to enforce them.
§ LORD ARNOLDMY Lords, I would ask permission to deal with certain points raised in regard to my own speech. The noble Viscount, Lord Burnham, referred to my speech as being uninformed, but he did not attempt to reply to a single argument I used nor to rebut a single statement I made. Having said that my speech was uninformed, he then gave as an illustration that Australia was against 208 this Convention at the time of the Convention. That is not so. Australia voted for the Convention in 1921.
§ VISCOUNT BURNHAMAustralia opposed the Convention all through and the policy of the Convention. It accepted a compromise at the last moment. I used the argument in that sense.
§ LORD ARNOLDA vote is a vote. There may be any amount of discussion before hand but when a vote is given it is given. Australia voted for the Geneva Convention.
§ LORD DESBOROUGHAustralia has not ratified it.
§ LORD ARNOLDThe noble Viscount also said that employers' and builders' delegates did not like what was being done. I cannot be absolutely certain on the point, but I think I am correct in saying that when it came to a vote no delegate in that category voted against the Convention. Indeed, I think every delegate of that kind voted for the Convention. Then the noble Lord said that we should not be asked to do something that is not adopted elsewhere. As a matter of fact the Convention has been adopted by nearly every country represented at Geneva, by nearly every important industrial country, except Germany. In view of the defection of Great Britain it is not certain whether Germany will adopt the Convention now. At the time there was practical unanimity. The phrase used by Sir Montagu Barlow was that the Convention was agreed to unanimously. I believe Canada at that time did not actually vote for, but also did not vote against, the Convention. There was unanimity with that exception. What has happened since? I am afraid that this suggestion about Australia and Canada and one or two other countries now being against the Convention is really only a further confirmation of what have said about the extremely powerful nature of the white lead industry. I think a good deal of explanation could be found in that way. I cannot be sure, but I think that is an important consideration. At all events, all countries voted in 1921—except Canada.
I turn now to the observations of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. I understood him to argue that there was no kind of obligation on the Government 209 of the day to recommend to Parliament that the vote of a country's Delegate—our own in this case—should be honoured by the Parliament in that country. I cannot think that this is his view of the case because, if that were to be the position the result of every Conference of this kind at Geneva might end in perfectly hopeless confusion. Surely there is an obligation on the Government to recommend that the vote of its own Delegates should be honoured by Parliament. I think there can be no dispute about that.
I come to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Desborough. My noble friend Lord Russell dealt so effectively, if I may say so, with the question of civil servants' resignations that I need not say anything about that except to remark that it is, of course, a question of degree, and that in this case Sir Thomas Legge felt that, as so much suffering to these men is involved, he was bound to resign. The noble Lord, Lord Desborough, if I may say so with respect, has let the case go by default. He did not attempt to deal with any of the new facts that I brought forward. He said that we had had them all before. But we have not had them all before. We have not had before the Home Office letter of December 31. Not a single defence did the noble Lord make of that letter, which is grossly misleading. He did not even refer to the misleading nature of the letter, and he made no defence or apology for the reply given by the Home Secretary which also gave a wrong impression. As I say, he let the whole case go by default, and in those circumstances I do not see that I can say anything more at the moment except that that point will not be overlooked.
No attempt has been made to reply to the main contentions advanced from this Bench. He said that there was a majority of two to one in your Lordships' House for the Bill. Certainly there was, and it might just as well have been seventy to one, because that is the majority against myself and my colleagues on this Bench if all the Peers attend. But there is nothing in that. The Conservative Government can always get a majority. We do contend, however, that in this matter the rights of the case are upon the side that we have put to the 210 House, and it is a matter for regret that the noble Lord in his reply has given no indication that the Government sufficiently realise the gravity of the position or that they will at an early date bring in legislation prohibiting the use of lead paint. I do not intend to press for Papers, though, if the noble Lord had made some defence or had told us that some conferences were held in December regarding the Home Office letter, I should have asked for particulars, but, as evidently there were no conferences, it is no use my pressing for Papers. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.