Sitting of 28 July 1925

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, brought from the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords].

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Bill [Lords].

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Bill [Lords].

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Water) Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (no Standing Orders applicable).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, brought from the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Bill [Lords]

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Leeds Corporation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
London, Midland and Scottish Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till Thursday.
Surrey County Council Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Glasgow Boundaries Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.
Bethlem Hospital Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Kirkcudbright Burgh Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS).
STANDING ORDER 9a.— (Publication of notice, of the objects of the Bill.)
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. James Hope): I beg to move, in lines 12 and 13, to leave out the words "or Edinburgh."
This and the following Amendments to the Standing Orders relating to Private Business are concerned entirely with Private Bills in reference to Northern Ireland. The Parliament of Northern Ireland has jurisdiction over Private Bills in the ordinary way, but there are some which involve interests outside Northern Ireland and which still have to come here. These are purely drafting Amendments in order to regularise the position. If hon. Members wish to have them taken on another day, in order to have an opportunity of studying them, I shall be quite content to adjourn consideration of them, but I would ask hon. Members to take my assurance that they are purely drafting in character.
Question put, and agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In line 13, after the word "Gazette," insert the words
"and if any powers are sought by the Bill which affect Scotland or Northern Ireland shall also be published once in the Edinburgh or Belfast Gazette."
STANDING ORDER 33.—(Deposit of Private Bills at Treasury and other Public Departments.)
Amendment made: After Sub-section (3) insert the following new Subsection:
"(4.) Of every Private Bill relating to Northern Ireland at the Office of the Secretary of State for the Home Department."
STANDING ORDER 198 a.—(Endorsement by Chairman of Ways and Means in case of certain Petition.)
Amendments made: In lines 5 and 6, leave out the words
"and every Petition for an additional Provision."
At the end of the Standing Order, add the words
"and every Petition for an additional Provision 6hall require to be endorsed in like manner before it is presented to the House."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
Address for "Return showing the number of Experiments on Living Animals during the year 1924, under licences granted under the Act 39 and 40 Vict., cap. 77, distinguishing the nature of the Experiments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 135, of Session 1924)."—[Mr. G. Locker-Lampson.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    FILM INDUSTRY.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now received a deputation on behalf of the British cinematograph film industry; what was the result of the deputation; and whether
    218
    he can announce any proposed steps by His Majesty s' Government for assisting this industry?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Representations from various interests concerned in the film and cinema industries have been made to my Department, and I have received a deputation arranged by the Federation of British Industries. Various tentative proposals wore suggested and discussed. The deputation expressed their intention of going further into the questions raised, with the interests concerned. I have also arranged to meet representatives of the cinema exhibitors next week.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any deputation from the producers—the manufacturers of films?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think not. I do not think they were directly represented on the deputations which I received, but various suggestions have been put forward from time to time.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done, but I should like to know if he would be prepared to receive a deputation from the manufacturers themselves?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, certainly. I would be prepared to see any section of the industry. Obviously, if any proposals are ultimately to be evolved, they must as far as possible be proposals in which all interests concur.

    IRON AND STEEL IMPORTS (SOUTH WALES).
    Mr. LOUGHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department has received information respecting the dumping of goods from foreign countries into South Wales ports; and whether the Research Committee inquiring into the question of foreign imports of iron and steel, etc., have been furnished with the complete manifests of vessels arriving with foreign manufactures for South Wales during the past 18 months?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware that imports of iron and steel through South Wales ports have risen considerably, but I have no information that any conditions apply to such goods

    219
    which do not apply to similar goods imported at other ports. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

    GLOVE INQUIRY.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will be in a position to announce the decision of the Government on the glove inquiry before the House rises for the summer recess?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Government have decided that the Reports of any Committees set up in accordance with the Safeguarding of Industries Procedure, whether such Reports recommend the imposition of duties or not, shall not be published until such time as the Government are prepared to introduce legislation to impose duties in any case where the Government decide to recommend their imposition. The object of this course is to prevent so far as possible the undue accumulation of stocks in anticipation of the imposition of a duty.
    An exception to this general procedure will be made in the case of the Report on superphosphates, which has already been considered. This will be published forthwith. In view of the findings of the Committee, the Government do not propose to take any further action in this case.
    Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the question on the Paper, namely, have the Government decided to impose a duty on gloves?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will study the answer which I have given, he will see that that is exactly the question with which it deals.
    Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what I have asked—whether the Government will, before the House rises, announce a decision?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE LISTER: The answer to that question is "No."
    Mr. BASIL PETO: May I ask whether, when the announcement is made, the Government propose to introduce imme-
    220
    diate legislation to give effect to the finding of the Committee, if any legislation be required?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My hon. Friend will see from my answer that the decision of the Government is that, except in cases where there are special reasons for publishing the Report, no Report of any kind will be published until such time as it is possible to legislate.

    LACE.
    Mr. BROCKLEBANKasked the President of the Board of Trade how much lace has been imported from abroad in the period since the introduction of the duty was first announced: and how this amount compares with the total introduced in the corresponding period in 1924?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the trade returns of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are only made up for calendar months, I am unable to give information for the precise periods specified. For the month ended 30th June last, the registered imports of lace and embroidery of all kinds were valued at £417,526, compared with £364,879 during the month of June, 1924.

  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS (WIVES OF ALIENS).
  Captain BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether a British-born woman married to an alien who was killed in the service of the Crown during the War is disqualified from making application for any share in the money voted by Parliament for meeting reparation claims?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer is in the affirmative. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member in this connection to the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action and to paragraph 22 of their first Report (Cmd. 1,798).
  Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it just that a woman who is British-born, and who has, perhaps, lived all her life in this country, should not be compensated for the loss of a husband killed in the War?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That point does not arise. All the power I have is power to administer the fund provided by Parliament, in accordance with the terms of the Royal Commission. Parliament voted monies in accordance with the terms of that Royal Commission which excluded the consideration of such cases.

  CAUCASIAN PEROXIDE OF MANGANESE (CONCESSION).
  Mr. R. MORRISONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the agreement recently signed between the Harriman Combine and the Soviet Government has placed a monopoly of Caucasian peroxide of manganese in the hands of an American combine; and, as this product is largely used by British bottle manufacturers, whether any efforts are being made to find a substitute in order that British manufacturers may not be wholly dependent upon the owners of this monopoly?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no reason to think that the arrangement to which the hon. Member refers will interfere with the supplies to British glass makers. I may point out that satisfactory supplies of manganese peroxide are obtainable from other sources, such as India, and also that other substances are available for use as glass decolorizers.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it a fact, as asked in the Question, that a monopoly of this product has been given to an American combine by the Russian Government?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is, I believe, a concession, and I believe the terms do give a monopoly. It is only for a period, but that appears to be only transferring the monopoly which the Soviet already exercise to someone else.

  OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has further considered the question of oil in navigable waters and the general damage and nuisance it causes: if he is aware that the Congress
  222
  of the United States of America passed a resolution in 1922 requesting the President to call an international conference to deal with this matter; and whether, in view of the long delay and the continuance of this nuisance, he will advise His Majesty's Government to call such a conference, or, alternatively, instruct the British delegates at the Assembly of the League of Nations to raise the matter with a view to international action?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Kingston-on-Thames (Mr. Penny), of which I am sending him a copy.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That answer does not refer at all to the question of the Council of the Assembly of the League of Nations. Is it not the fact that the United States Government are awaiting further information, and would it not help in the collection of this information if the matter were raised at the Council by the British representatives?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should not think it would. I will bring the matter to the notice of the Foreign Secretary, but I think it will be much more effective if the United States, who have undertaken to convene an International Conference as soon as possible, take the initiative. The Government will cooperate with the United States Government in any way they can.

  LOSS OF "VERNON II."
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISHasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the recent investigation into the loss of "Vernon II.," and to the recommendations of the Court; and is he prepared to issue regulations which will ensure that in future such craft as the "Vernon II." shall not proceed to sea without the sanction of the Board of Trade?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Barn staple (Mr. Basil Peto) by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Admiralty on 23rd July, a copy of which I am sending him.

  GERMAN REPARATION.

    SHIPPING TONNAGE.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of shipping tonnage which, has been handed over to the Government during the last 12 months in the way of reparations under the Versailles Treaty; and how the same has been disposed of?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: During the last 12 months five vessels totalling 28,495 gross tons have been allotted by the Reparation Commission to the British Government as shipping reparation under the Treaty of Versailles. These vessels have, as in the case of previous deliveries, been sold by Lord Inchcape on behalf of the Reparation Commission.
    Mr. THOMSON: Is there any more tonnage to be disposed of in that way?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think not.
    Mr. MARCH: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us at how much per ton they were sold?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. I should certainly want notice of that question.
    Mr. J. BECKETT: Were they bought by British firms?
    Mr. CONNOLLY: In addition to the tonnage handed over, has there been any other tonnage seized?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of something which is quite a separate question. I am not sure that I understand it.

    PAYMENTS.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount paid by Germany in reparation up to the 30th June, together with the share credited to this Country?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): The total payments by Germany in cash or kind distributed by the Reparation Commission between the Allied Powers on account of reparation up to the 30th June is, approximately, £160,000,000. This excludes sums allocated to the costs of Armies of Occupation and other prior charges, sums un-
    224
    allocated, and also the receipts resulting from the occupation of the Ruhr, for which the accounts are not yet settled. Of the above total, the amount debited against the British Empire is approximately £25,000,000, of which the share of the United Kingdom is approximately £22,000,000.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the total include the value of State properties in transferred territories?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down another question.

  FOOD COUNCIL (NAMES OF MEMBERS).
  Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade the names of the members of the Food Council?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As I stated on the 25th June, in reply to questions by hon. Members, the Chairmanship of the Food Council has been accepted by Lord Bradbury.
  The other members of the Council are:

  Mr. G. A. Powell, C.B.E., Clerk to the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and member of the Royal Commission on Food Prices;

  Mr. F. W. Birchenough, J.P., General Secretary to the Oldham Operative Cotton Spinners' Provincial Association, and Chairman of the Management Committee of the General Federation of Trades Unions;

  Alderman Charles H. Bird, C.B.E., J.P., member of the Corporation of Cardiff;

  Mrs. B. M. Drapper, J.P., Chairman of the Greenwich Board of Guardians and of the Public Health Committee of the Deptford Borough Council;

  Mr. W. E. Dudley, O.B.E., J.P., Director of the Co-operative Wholesale Society, and member of the Royal Commission on Food Prices;

  Mr. A. E. Faulkner, C.B., C.B.E., Director of Sea Transport, Board of Trade;

  Sir Gilbert F. Garnsey, K.B.E., partner in the firm of Price, Waterhouse and Company;

  225

  Sir John Lorne MacLeod, G.B.E, ex Provost of Edinburgh, ex-Food Controller for Scotland, and member of the Royal Commission on Food Prices;

  Mr. C. S. Orwin, M.A., Director of the Institute for Research in Agricultural Economics at Oxford University;

  Mr. Isaac Stephenson, J.P., ex-President of the National Chamber of Trade, and member of the Royal Commission on Food Prices; and

  Mrs. Wilson, who gave evidence before the Royal Commission on Food Prices.

  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it proposed that the Council shall meet at regular intervals?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes: I hope that their first meeting will take place this week.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is it not a fact that this list includes only one official trade unionist, and that the recommendation of the Royal Commission was that there should be two trade union representatives?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that when the names are studied it will be generally agreed that the Council is given a very wide representation, and that all the people are selected as being likely to render the most efficient service.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: But we understood that the Government had adopted the recommendations of the Royal Commission; hence my question Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Trade. Union Congress has been consulted as to the trade union representation?
  Mr. HURD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if nobody on this body is to be in association with the production of food from British lands?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes. My hon. Friend will observe that among the Members included is Mr. Orwin, the Director of the Institute for Research in Agricultural Economics at Oxford University. [Interruption.] I hesitate to differ from my hon. Friend, but I am advised by those who have the interests of agriculture at heart that he is one of the ablest people connected with agricultural development in this country.
  Mr. HURD: What about food production?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Is that not agriculture? With regard to the point put by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), it was the duty of the Prime Minister and the Government, as they conceived it, to secure the most efficient Council that they could. The responsibility of this appointment is theirs, and they accept that responsibility.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Are we to understand from that answer that the Government have, in appointing this Council, had no consultation at all with either trade union or consumers' representatives?
  HON. MEMBERS: Why should they?

  BRITISH ARMY.

    PHARMACY.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOURasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now prepared to publish the Report presented in 1922 by the Joint Committee on the subject of pharmacy in the Army; and whether the Army Council are now willing to accept the modified requirements of the Pharmaceutical Society as presented by a deputation thereof to the Director-General, Army Medical Services, at the War Office in May, 1923?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The Report of the Committee referred to was published by the Stationery Office last year in response to the wishes expressed by Members of this House. As regards the second part, of the question, the Army Council are satisfied that the requirements of the Army in regard to pharmacy and dispensing are adequately met under present arrangements, and they would not be justified in incurring the expense of carrying out the changes advocated by the Pharmaceutical Society.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Seeing that there was agreement between the Army Medical Service Department and those who represent the pharmacy interests, is it not now recognised by the Department that there should be an improvement on the lines of those recommendations that were eventually made, as modified?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think the Service as now administered is an improvement on the past, and it is adequate.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to take the same care to safeguard the interests of the soldier that is taken to safeguard the interests of the civilian population?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Oh, at least as great.

    PAY.
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether it is proposed to reduce the rates of pay for the Army by amounts varying from 9d. a day in the case of privates to 2s. a day in the case of sergeant-majors: and whether an opportunity will be afforded to the House to express its opinion before any reduction is made in the pay of the Army;
    (2) whether it is proposed to make a reduction in the rates of pay of men in the Reserve called up for duty or will they be paid at the rates current at present while they are with the Colours?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: These questions both refer to matters which are still under consideration, and I am not at present in a position to give any information. The second part of question No. 13 should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

    POISON GAS.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether any kind of poison gas is being manufactured in this country for his Department?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Gas is being manufactured only on a very small scale, for experimental purposes.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the recent conference of the British Medical Association have unanimously decided not to print in their official publication any reference to the terms and conditions of service in the Royal Army Medical Corps, in view of what they allege to be a breach of faith by the Government; and if he will, in view of attracting the best type of medical practitioner into the
    228
    Service, cause a revision to be made in the pay and pension allowances to officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have seen in the Press that the British Medical Association are stated to have adopted the resolution referred to. I recently conferred with the British Medical Association on the subject of the Royal Army Medical Corps, and I hope in the near future to be able to announce decisions on the matters which were then discussed.
    Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British Medical Association have recommended their members not to join the Royal Army Medical Corps, on account of the pension that is being altered?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I said that I have seen the resolution referred to.
    Mr. J. BECKETT: How long are the Government going to submit to this favoured trade union dictatorship?

  SCOTLAND.

    ALLOTMENTS (EQUIPMENT).
    Captain BENNasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has considered the recommendations contained in the Report of the Scottish conference on agricultural policy to the effect that assistance should be given for the equipment of allotments; and whether he is prepared to formulate a scheme for devoting to this purpose the £4,000 per annum provided for the development of allotments in Scotland under Section 18 (3) of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act of 1919?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The recommendation that grants should be given for equipping ground for allotments is receiving my consideration, along with the other recommendations of the Conference, but I am not in a position to make a statement on the subject at present.
    Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to say what the decision is before the House rises?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No; I am afraid that is quite impossible.
    Mr. HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is that, in answer to any questions that contain the sum of £4,000, we never get that £4,000 mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman; where it is; if it is still there; how it is to be used; or any indication as to whether it is there or not?
    Mr. STEPHEN: Are we to understand that the Secretary for Scotland is considering at the present time the spending of the £4,000 mentioned in the question?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, because it does not exist.
    Mr. HARDIE: Where has the £4,000 gone?
    Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that Parliament has decided that £4,000 shall be spent in connection with allotments, and does he not think it only fair to the allotment movement to come to some decision as to what is the proper way in which to spend the money?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No. Parliament decided that a certain sum of money should be set aside for various purposes in connection with allotments, but, as it was not utilised, it reverted to the Treasury, and it does not appear in the present Estimates.
    Captain BENN: Is it not a fact that the Land Settlement Act actually gave statutory sanction to this? Of course, an Estimate is needed, but what does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do to implement the intention of the Land Settlement Act?
    Mr. HARDIE: Might I ask why they did not spend the money when they had it?

    EXPLOSIVES (NEWSPAPER STATEMENTS).
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is now in a position to state the results of his inquiries into the alleged preparations for a revolutionary outbreak in Scotland; and whether the editor of the "Sunday Mail" newspaper has disclosed the particulars alleged to been his possession?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The further inquiries which have been made since the date of the hon. Member's last question have not resulted in confirmation being
    230
    obtained of the allegations made in the article which appeared in the "Sunday Mail" of the 12th instant. The police are aware of the source from which the article emanated.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to put a stop to this sort of thing? Might I ask, in view of the public importance of this question, if the Secretary for Scotland will indicate to the House what steps he proposes to take to deal with newspaper proprietors who let loose these publications upon the public?
    Mr. HARDIE: Does this answer on the part of the Government mean that they are in complete agreement with the papers, who evidently are put up to it by the Government to get disturbances started?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This newspaper, like some others, seems to have found a mare's nest.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Is not the Lord Advocate going to take proceedings against the proprietors of this newspaper because they are taking money under false pretences?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put down a legal question.

    RESERVOIR DISASTER, SKELMORLIE.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary for Scotland the name of the proprietor of the reservoir at Upper Skelmorlie, Ayrshire, which burst on 18th April and resulted in the drowning of five people; and the amount of the rate levied upon the tenants in the district for the maintenance and supervision of the reservoir and the total amount of the money paid for this purpose?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed that the reservoir belongs to the Earl of Eglinton. I have no information on the points referred to in the second part of the question. As I stated in my reply to the hon. Member's question of 23rd June, the water supply is a purely private one.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Lord Advocate if he can now inform the House what steps he intends to take with regard to a prosecution in view of the jury's finding in connection with the bursting of

    231
    a hillside reservoir at Skelmorlie, Ayrshire, on 18th April, in which they returned a unanimous verdict that five victims were drowned by water which escaped from the lower reservoir at Upper Skelmorlie, and that the accident was materially contributed to by the absence of any regular skilled supervision and inspection of the reservoir?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Fleming): After full consideration of the evidence and findings of the jury at the public inquiry, which was held by the direction of the Lord Advocate, he is of opinion that there are no grounds for criminal proceedings.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Does the Solicitor General not notice that in the finding of the jury this accident is stated by them to have been materially contributed to by the gross carelessness of these people? Is he not going to take action because it is an Earl who is responsible in this case?
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I would point out that the jury did not find that there was gross carelessness on the part of anyone. They might have found that the accident resulted from negligence on the part of an individual person, but they did not do so. What they found was that the accident had been materially contributed to by the absence of any regular skilled supervision.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Is that not carelessness? We understand the language!
    Mr. HARDIE: What is it in the officers of the present Government that makes them keep from the subject of the question before them? This carelessness has killed many people. Are the Government going to remain inactive? [Interruption.] This is a question, Mr. Speaker, of human life, and there are other dams in Scotland.
    Mr. MAXTON: May I, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Is this a new question?
    Mr. MAXTON: No, but it arises out of the question. It seems not to be understood by this House that we in Scotland have no right to take private proceedings if the Lord Advocate refuses. There is no recourse to the courts for the relations of these people. It is a serious matter,
    232
    and we want an answer to the question that has been put as to whether the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to institute proceedings in this matter? Is it because it is a Noble Lord with similar political views? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister has given his answer.

  COAL PRICES (BY-PRODUCT COMPANIES).
  Mr. BECKETTasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is prepared to take steps to ascertain the price at which coal is supplied to companies dealing with by-products; and what effect this has "upon the amount of profits available for distribution in wages?
  Captain HACKING (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. This matter is one for arrangement between the parties concerned, and is dealt with in the manner which my hon. Friend explained in the answer which he gave the hon. Member on the 7th instant. In the event of any dispute the point is referable to an independent person, and intervention by the Government is unnecessary.
  Mr. BECKETT: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that many of these byproduct companies have the same directorate as the colliery companies, and that the price at which they supply coal from one company to another has a very bad effect upon the men's wages?
  Captain HACKING: No, I do not think that is quite accurate, because it is provided that a fair market price, based on the home market values, should be charged.
  Mr. BECKETT: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what provision is made to ensure that this is done?
  Captain HACKING: I have already replied that, in the event of any dispute, the point is referred to an independent person.

  MOTOR TRAFFIC.

    PILLION RIDERS (ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. FORRESTasked the Minister of Transport how many deaths and how

    233
    many serious accidents have been recorded within the last 12 months to pillion riders on motor cycles?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I regret that I am not in possession of the information which the hon. Member seeks, and I doubt whether it would be possible to obtain any reliable figures.

    DANGEROUS ROADS.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Minister of Transport whether, in cases where the deaths of pedestrians are in any way attributable to the narrowness of roads or the existence of dangerous turnings or corners, his Department makes inquiries to ascertain whether improvements in the conformation of the thoroughfares can be effected; and, if not, whether, in view of the rapid growth of motor traffic, he will take steps to do so?
    Colonel ASHLEY: In cases where my attention is drawn to serious accidents of this nature, either through the Press or through other sources, inquiries are made by officers of my Department with a view to ascertaining, among other things, whether the accident was in any way due to road conditions which are capable of improvement. Within the London traffic area, as my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, it is now the duty of coroners to draw my attention to fatal accidents of this kind.

    HEAVY VEHICLES.
    Mr. LOUGHERasked the Minister of Transport whether, having regard to the heavy cost of road maintenance and the damage done to road surfaces by un cushioned vehicular loads, he will initiate legislation to cause all heavy vehicles to be fitted with rubber tyres?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The nature of the tyre is only one of several closely related factors which must be taken into account in connection with damage done to road surfaces by vehicular traffic. I do not at present propose to initiate legislation imposing a general restriction of this nature, though I am taking steps to discourage as far as possible the use of uncushioned tyres.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in America vehicles over 10,000 pounds weight are prohibited if they have only
    234
    metal tyres, and does he not think that legislation on those lines would help us in this country?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, I do know that, and I am taking steps to discourage the use of uncushioned tyres.

    TRAFFIC RULES.
    Mr. LOUGHERasked the Minister of Transport whether his Department will make exceptional efforts whereby the new road traffic Rules and Regulations anticipated will be placed into operation in the next August bank holiday period, with the object of avoiding, as far as possible, the increasing number of accidents on the roads owing to the great progress of motor traffic?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am not quite clear as to the particular Regulations which my hon. Friend has in mind, but in any case no now Regulations could become effective before the data mentioned.

  TRANSPORT.

    UNDERGROUND TRAINS (STANDING).
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the coming new police, order to the effect that during certain hours of the day standing is not allowed in public omnibuses, he will take steps to ensure that during the same period standing is not permitted in the underground trains; whether he is aware that in this period the railway companies so reduce the size of their trains as to make it impossible to seat all passengers; and whether he can make investigations to promote the greater comfort of the travelling public in these hours?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am not in a position to take the action suggested, but I have been in communication with the Underground Railway Companies, who inform mo that careful investigation of the loading during those times of the day to which my hon. Friend refers shows that the accommodation provided is, except in cases of unforeseen delay, in excess of requirements. The companies add that if they are informed at what place and on what occasion overcrowding has been observed, they will be pleased to make careful inquiry into the matter.

    TOLL ROADS AND BRIDGES.
    Major GLYNasked the Minister of Transport what is the total number of toll gates in England and Wales, how many of them are for bridges, what is estimated will be the cost of buying out these tolls, and how many of these tolls are owned by companies and how many by private individuals?
    Colonel ASHLEY: In England and Wales there are 64 toll roads and 127 toll bridges As the yield of the tolls is not known, no estimate can be formed of the cost of extinguishing them. Particulars of ownership are not available.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman make inquiries as to what the yield would be?
    Colonel ASHLEY: It is very difficult to make inquiries from all these private companies. I have no power to compel them to give me information, but I will ask them for it.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN:Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in a certain corporation Bill— the Scarborough Corporation Bill—permission was lately granted to erect tolls on certain roads recently bought by the corporation? Does he not consider it likely to lead to waste of public money, if tolls are allowed to be erected in some cases, while under the Roads Improvement Act power is taken by the Ministry to buy them out in other cases?

    NEW ARTERIAL ROADS (COST).
    Major GLYNasked the Minister of Transport what has been the cost of constructing the new arterial roads completed this year; what does this represent per mile; and what is the average cost per square yard of surface?
    Colonel ASHLEY: New roads of arterial importance have been opened by numerous local authorities during the present year, and comprehensive particulars of their cost are not in my possession. Having regard to the great variations in the widths and specifications adopted, as well as in the cost of land and the engineering difficulties encountered on different schemes, any average figures would be of little utility. In the Annual Report on the Administration of the Road Fund now in course of preparation I ex-
    236
    pect to be able to furnish general information on this subject which will be of value to my hon. and gallant Friend.

    EAST HAM-BARKING ROAD.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Minister of Transport when the new East Ham and Barking by-pass road is likely to be open for public use; and whether he can state the cause of the delay?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The delay in the completion of this arterial road is due to difficulties attending the construction of bridges across the tidal waters of Barking Creek and over the London Midland and Scottish Railway line. For the former bridge Parliamentary powers had to be obtained, and the work of construction is already well under way. In the case of the railway bridge, arrangements have now been made with the Railway Company enabling tenders to be invited for the building of the bridge. Within 18 months the road will, I hope, be open to traffic.

    HAY CARTS, ALDGATE.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to introduce legislation for the purpose of removing the hay carts at Aldgate which are responsible for part of the congestion of traffic at this spot?
    Colonel ASHLEY: This matter is still under consideration by the London Traffic Advisory Committee. Investigations and negotiations are still proceeding with a view to ascertaining the cost of various suggested road improvements, including the abolition of the hay market in this neighbourhood. Until I receive and have had an opportunity of considering the Committee's Report, I am unable to state whether legislation will be introduced for the purpose of removing the hay market and other obstructions to traffic in Aid-gate.

  POST OFFICE.

    LETTER DELIVERIES (LLANHYSTYD).
    Mr. MORRISasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that, in the Penrhiw district of the parish of Llanhystyd, in the county of Cardigan, there are only three postal deliveries a week: and whether he is prepared to arrange for a daily delivery of letters in this district?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The hon. Member will no doubt recollect that a similar request covering the whole parish of Llanrhystyd had to be refused as recently as the 19th May last, owing to the disproportionate expense involved. The posts in the district are being slightly rearranged and I will write to the hon. Member if this affords an opportunity for more frequent delivery, but I think it very unlikely.
    Mr. MORRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this parish there are about 101 people, that there are deliveries only three days a week, and that the parish council have passed a resolution in favour of more frequent deliveries?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am fully aware of all the facts, and all relevant circumstances have been taken into consideration.

    WIRELESS TRANSMISSION FEES.
    Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOKasked the Postmaster-General if he will consider the adoption of a definite scale of fees in respect of transmitting licences for wireless telegraphy, so that the efforts of British research workers may be encouraged and that the valuable work of experimenters, particularly in the direction of short-wave transmission, may not be hampered?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: A definite scale of fees for experimental sending licences is already in operation, namely, an initial fee of 10s. and an annual fee of £l where the power authorised does not exceed 10 watts, and an initial fee of £1 and an annual fee of £2 where the power exceeds 10 watts. As I have already stated, no alteration in this scale is at present contemplated.

  MR. W. S. HARNETT.
  Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELERasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the costs of the action in the Law Courts which Mr. W. S. Harnett has had to defend have left him a ruined man financially, he is prepared to recommend that compensation be granted to him?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply to a similar question by the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck) on 2nd July. But I may add that Mr. Harnett was the plaintiff.

  EAST AFRICA (DEVELOPMENT LOAN).
  Mr. W. BAKERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to make any announcement as to the Government's intention with regard to the East Africa Loan Bill?
  Captain HACKING: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the subject in the course of yesterday's Debate on the Colonial Office Estimates.

  WAR LOAN INTEREST.
  Mr. BARNESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the sum represented in the appreciation of War Loan caused by the appreciation of the £1 sterling to parity; and whether he proposes to introduce any legislation to secure that interest on War Loan investments shall be stabilised at the value obtaining when the loans were raised?
  Mr. GUINNESS: Owing to conversions and other changes it is not possible to give an accurate estimate of this appreciation: but the hon. Member will find some information on this point in the answer given on the 26th May to the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) of which I am sending him a copy. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. BARNES: Has the right hon. Gentleman realised that, if the Government cared to explore the suggestion in this question, they might save the £10,000,000 necessary for next year's Budget with less hardship than will be caused by the introduction of the Unemployment Insurance Bill?
  Mr. GUINNESS: No, but there is no doubt they would commit an absolute and definite breach of a solemn contract.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    PRINTING WORKS (INQUIRY).
    Mr. NAYLORasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Government printing establishments will be presented to the House?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I understand that the Committee is now considering its Report, but I am not yet in a position to indicate when it will be available to the House.
    Mr. NAYLOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why there has been this great delay in presenting the Report?
    Mr. GUINNESS: No. I understand that the Committee are discussing the Report, and I hope that before the end of the year, at least, it may be presented.

    CIVIL SERVANTS OVER SIXTY.
    Major GLYNasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many civil servants there are in permanent employment and over 60 years of age?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid that I am not in possession of the information asked for by the hon. and gallant Member.

  COLONIAL RAILWAY LOANS (INTEREST).
  Mr. LOOKERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in the case of loans made for the. purpose of railway construction or extension in British Colonies or Protectorates, Treasury regulations or restrictions exist prohibiting the payment of interest on such loans out of capital during the period of construction?
  Mr. GUINNESS: No such general regulations or restrictions exist, and it would be a perfectly normal arrangement to pay interest out of capital during the period of construction.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES).
  Captain HUDSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will allow travelling expenses to be charged against Income Tax in the case of London Members, who have heavy expenses in getting to and from their constituencies by underground railway, omnibus, tramcar, or motor car and are unable to make use of the voucher system?
  Mr. GUINNESS: As stated in a reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Major Davies) on 24th July, 1924, under Rule 9 of the Rules of Schedule E in the Income Tax Act, 1918, a deduction may be claimed in respect of travelling expenses necessarily incurred and defrayed out of the emoluments of an office in the performance of the duties thereof. Following the issue of railway vouchers, a Member is not now necessarily obliged to incur and defray out of his emoluments the cost of travelling between his constituency and Westminster, and the Income Tax allowance is, therefore, no longer legally admissible.
  Captain HUDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that London Members cannot use these vouchers, and are now worse off than before the present system was introduced? Cannot he make some concession?
  Mr. GUINNESS: As a matter of fact, some London Members are using these vouchers. It would be very difficult to arrange a system under which expenses between the constituencies in London and the House of Commons could be paid by any other means than the use of these railway vouchers. As the House is well aware, it is only expenses between one place of business and another that are the subject of an allowance under the Income Tax regulations.
  Mr. R. MORRISON: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the suggestion that London Members should be allowed to have a T.O.T. season ticket, for tramways, omnibuses and tubes? It would be a comparatively small cost and would be a great help.
  Mr. GUINNESS: I will look into the matter, but it will only have to be for travelling between this House and an hon. Member's constituency.
  Mr. COOPER RAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the suggestion of providing an omnibus to call for London Members, in the same way that the London County Council take some children to school?

  CHINA.

    BRITISH INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES, SHANGHAI.
    Mr. CLUSEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that in the papers respecting labour conditions in China (Cmd. 2,442) the number of British-owned cotton mills is given as five for the whole of China; whether the list of industrial companies at Shanghai, on page 24, contains those of the whole of the city; and, if so, will he give the number and names of the British industrial companies within the international settlement?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and is so, also, to the second part, if I am right in presuming that the list to which the hon. Member refers is that on page 94 of the Blue Book.
    A list published by the Shanghai Municipal Council last year gives the number of British mills and factories within the International Settlement at Shanghai as 23, the names of which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the list of names:
    Shanghai Ice and Cold Storage Co., Ltd.
    British American Tobacco Company's Cigarette Factory.

    Liddell Brothers, Ltd.

    Oriental Cotton Mill.

    New Engineering Works.

    Laou Kung Mow Cotton Mill.

    Scott, Harding and Co.

    British and American Publishing Co.

    Trollope and Colls, Ltd.

    Ewo Cotton Spinning and Weaving Co.

    Yangtszepoo Cotton Mill.

    S. Behr and Mathew.

    Kung Yih Cotton Mill.

    Price Candle Factory.

    Arts and Crafts Factory.

    242

    Say Hwa Silk Failature.

    Yung Foong Silk Filature.

    Yung Kong Silk Filature.

    Jen Foong Silk Filature.

    Luen Ziang Silk Filature.

    Ewo Silk Filature.

    Liddell Bros. Packing and Sorting Godowns.

    McKenzie and Co.

    SHANGHAI DISTURBANCES (INQUIRY).
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is intended to hold a judicial inquiry into the circumstances attendant on the disturbances in Shanghai on the 30th May last; if so, whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the composition of the tribunal which it is proposed to set up and the scope of its functions; and whether, in view of the desirability of such inquiry being held as soon as possible, he will take steps to expedite its entering upon its duties at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. FOOT MITCHELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give the composition of the Judicial Committee which is to inquire into the recent disturbances at Shanghai: whether it will be sent out from Europe: and the date when it is expected to commence its investigations?
    Mr. McNEILL: I regret that I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply given on the 22nd July to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn).
    Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to publish the Report of the Commission which is to inquire into these matters?
    Mr. McNEILL: I could not answer that question offhand. I rather think the question has been already answered by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs told us last week £hat this Commission was to be set up, and does he not think that, if it is to be set up, the sooner it is set up the better it will be both in the interests of ourselves and the Chinese?
    Mr. McNEILL: I think the hon. Member is mistaken in saying that my

    243
    right hon. Friend said it was to be set up. The hon. Member must remember that communications have to pass between a number of different nations, and obviously, until an agreement has been reached between those nations, nothing can be said.
    Mr. BECKETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Government are doing their best to get an impartial investigation?

    MUNITIONS (IMPORTS).
    Captain BENNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that British manufactured munitions which have been held up by our Consular Service under the Chinese Arms Embargo Treaty, 1919, have subsequently been sold at scrap prices to other nationals and afterwards imported by them into China at greatly enhanced prices; and will he take steps to prevent a repetition of such proceedings?
    Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative In case the hon. Member has trustworthy information to the effect which he suggests, I shall be grateful if he will communicate it to me.

  HOUSING.

    CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS.
    Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELERasked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of houses built or building up to 1st July under the Housing Act, 1923, and the number sanctioned: and whether any schemes under the Act of 1924 are being delayed by lack of building operatives?
    Sir K. WOOD: Under the Housing, Etc., Act, 1923, 89,427 houses had been completed up to the 1st July last, 42,807 were in course of construction, 31,186 had been definitely arranged for but not commenced, and 51,053 had been authorised but no definite arrangements made. Under the Act of 1924, at the same date 6,282 houses had been completed, 19,423 were under construction, a further 24,027 had been definitely arranged for but were not commenced, and 14,537 had
    244
    been authorised but had not been definitely arranged for. With regard to the last part of the question, there is no doubt that the progress of housing generally would be expedited if more skilled labour were available.

    STATE-ASSISTED SCHEMES.
    Captain FRASERasked the Minister of Health how many houses have been built under State-aided schemes during the years 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924, respectively, and in 1925 up to the present date: how many are now in course of construction; how many have been authorised; how many houses have been authorised under the Housing Act of 1923; and how many under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act of 1924?
    Sir K. WOOD: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the consent of the hon. and gallant Member, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The numbers of houses completed each year since 1919 in connection with State-assisted schemes under the Housing Acts were as follows:

    1919

    …

    100

    1920

    …

    15,711

    1921

    …

    86,669

    1922

    …

    89,001

    1923

    …

    19,185

    1924

    …

    52,730

    1925 (up to 30th June)

    …

    44,293

    307,689

    Statistics obtained during the last two and a-half years show that, in addition to this number, 160,566 houses had been built by private enterprise without Government assistance in the period between 30th September, 1922, and 31st March, 1925.
    The total number of houses authorised under the various Acts is 499,464, and on the 1st instant 63,495 were under construction. Under the Acts of 1923 and 1924 the numbers of houses authorised to be built are 218.769 and 66,969, respectively.

  CANCER RESEARCH.
  Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the recent

  245
  cancer discovery by Dr. Gye and Mr. Barnard and the need for further research work, he will consider making a financial grant in order that further investigations as to this disease may be continued?
  Sir K. WOOD: As stated by my right hon. Friend in his reply to the hon. Member for Pontefract on the 23rd July, these investigations are maintained from the grant made annually to the Medical Research Council by this House. It is understood that the Council have already made arrangements for the further development of the work, both by their own staff within the National Institute for Medical Research and also elsewhere.
  Colonel DAY: In view of the very great importance of this discovery, does the Minister not think that a further grant should be made so that this discovery can be further explored?
  Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware that the want of money has been holding up this work in any way.
  Colonel DAY: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that they are making a public appeal for £75,000 because they are short of funds?

  ANIMALS (SLAUGHTER).
  Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health whether, with a view to the humane slaughter of animals and the need for the safety of those employed in slaughter houses, he will consider setting up a special committee consisting of experts to institute an exhaustive inquiry into the whole question of the slaughter of animals for human consumption, such committee to be representative of those employed in the slaughter houses?
  Sir K. WOOD: A Committee of the Cabinet exhaustively considered the whole question in 1923 and came to the conclusion that no case had been made out for re-opening it. My right hon. Friend has thoroughly considered this matter, and, as at present advised, he does not think that any useful purpose would be served by setting up such a committee as is suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an apparatus which does not discharge a
  246
  free bullet, which is therefore safe, and which is in increasing use; and therefore there is a case for reopening the matter?
  Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; but I understand that that can be used under the model by-laws.

  WANDSWORTH MATERNITY HOME.
  Mr. VIANTasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the maternity home of the Wandsworth Borough Council has been closed; that during the past 17 months there have been 87 cases of mothers suffering from abscesses of the breasts; that complaints have been made by patients and public bodies as to the lack of cleanliness and proper treatment; and that the services of all the staff have been dispensed with except the matron, who is retained and receiving wages as usual; and, in view of these facts, will he institute an inquiry into the matter?
  Sir K. WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the third part in the negative. My right hon. Friend has, for some months, been aware of the special incidence referred to in the question, but-repeated skilled inquiry has up to the present failed to clicit the cause of this unusual condition. He is informed that the borough council, who have made every effort to grapple with the problem, have now decided to close the home temporarily and to give notice to the staff. My right hon. Friend is suggesting to the council that a conference should be held locally, at which his Department would be represented, in order to discuss future arrangements.

  TEMPORARY AGRICULTURAL WORK.
  Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the difficulty experienced by farmers throughout the country in obtaining temporary assistance in harvesting operations; and whether he will cause prominence to be given at all Employment Exchanges for notices that the acceptance by men receiving unemployment benefit of temporary agricultural work will not disqualify them from receiving such unemployment benefit on discharge?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply (of which I am sending him a copy) given on l5th July to three questions on the same subject. Instructions have been issued to Employment Exchanges for the exhibition of the notice to which I then referred.
  Sir A. HOLBROOK: My question is whether the Parliamentary Secretary can say if these instructions have been posted at the Employment Exchanges for the information of the ordinary labourer?
  Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, I say in my answer that instructions have been issued to the Employment Exchanges for the exhibition of these notices.

  EX-SERVICE MEN (SPAHLINGER TREATMENT).
  Mr. FORRESTasked the Minister of Pensions whether any tuberculous ex-service men have been sent for their health to Switzerland to undergo the Spahlinger treatment or otherwise; and, if so, what are the Replications with respect to the selection of such cases?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): A few cases of pulmonary tuberculosis have been sent to sanatoria in Switzerland by the Ministry. The cases selected are those in which the Department is satisfied, on the advice of their experts in tuberculosis, that treatment abroad is essential and that equally good results cannot be expected from the facilities available in this country. I am informed that the Spahlinger treatment referred to has in fact been given in certain cases as an incident of their sanatorium treatment, but the resulting evidence as to the value of the treatment has not, in the opinion of my medical advisers, justified the sending of patients at the public expense expressly for this form of treatment.

  COLOGNE (EVACUATION).
  Captain BENNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the evacua-
  248
  tions of German territory now being carried out, how soon it is the intention of the Government to evacuate Cologne?
  Mr. McNEILL: Yes. Sir. The evacuation will take place as soon as the German Government have completed the execution of the measures of disarmament contained in the Allied Note of the 4th June.
  Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication of what progress is being made in regard to this matter?
  Mr. McNEILL: That is quite a different question from the one on the Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. MACKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: Is it intended to proceed with the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Bill before the Recess?
Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; I am introducing that Bill to-day, but I am afraid there is no hope of proceeding with it before the Recess.
Mr. ALEXANDER: In view of the unsatisfactory answer which has been given to Question No. 11, I wish to give notice that I shall raise this subject on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May we be informed what business it is proposed to take after Eleven o'clock if the Motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister be carried?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): We propose to take Orders Nos. 5, 6, and 7: The Second Reading of the Telegraph (Money) Bill, the Third Reading of the Diseases of Animals Bill, and the Report stage of the National Library of Scotland [Money] Resolution.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it proposed to take all the Supply Votes which are down as well?
Commander EYRES MONSELL: No.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business

249
other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the Clock, and that the Proceedings on Government Business other than the Business of Supply be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of
the Standing Order (Sittings of the House").—[Sir William Joynson-Hicks.]
The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 101.

Division No. 323.]

AYES.

[3.39 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Fermoy, Lord

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Ainsworth, Major Charles

Fielden, E. B.

Margesson, Capt. D.

Albery, Irving James

Fleming, D. P.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Forestier-Walker, L.

Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

Forrest, W.

Meyer, Sir Frank.

Applin, Colonel R. V. k.

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Fraser, Captain Ian

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Balniel, Lord

Gates, Percy

Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Murchison, C. K.

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Goff, Sir Park

Nelson, Sir Frank

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Gower, Sir Robert

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Grace, John

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Bethell, A.

Grant, J. A.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Betterton, Henry B.

Greene, W. p. Crawford

Nuttall, Ellis

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Gretton, Colonel John

Oakley, T.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Grotrian, H. Brent

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Boyd Carpenter, Major A.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Briggs, J. Harold

Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

Philipson, Mabel

Briscoe Richard George

Hammersley, S. S.

Pilcher, G.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Hanbury C.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Preston, William

Buckingham, Sir H.

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Radford, E. A.

Bullock, Captain M.

Haslam, Henry C.

Raine, W.

Burman, J. B.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Ramsden, E.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxford, Henley)

Rawson, Alfred Cooper

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Campbell, E. T.

Herbert. S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Cecil. Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Hilton, Cecil

Rice, Sir Frederick

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Holbrook Sir Arthur Richard

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Christie, J. A.

Holt, Captain H. P.

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Hope Capt, A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

Clayton, G. C.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Ruggles-Brice, Major E. A.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'and, Whiteh'n)

Shaw, Capt.- W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Cooper, A. Duff

Hume, Sir G. H.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Cope, Major William

Hurd, Percy A.

Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

Couper, J. B.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfast)

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

Skelton, A. N.

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Crook, C. W.

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Jacob, A. E.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Smithers, Waldron

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Jephcott, A. R.

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Knox, Sir Alfred

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

Stuart, Hon. j. (Moray and Nairn)

Drewe, C.

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Elliot, Captain Walter E.

Loder, J. de V.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Elveden, Viscount

Looker, Herbert William

Tinne, J. A.

England, Colonel A.

Lumley, L. R.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

MacAndrew, Charles Glen

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Waddington, R.

Everard, W. Lindsay

McLean, Major A.

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Malone, Major P. B.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Watts, Dr. T.

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Wells, S. R.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)

Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

Wise, Sir Fredric

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Womersley, W. J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Major Sir Harry Barnston and Mr.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

F. C. Thomson.

NOES.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Harney, E. A.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Hayday, Arthur

Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hayes, John Henry

Rose, Frank H.

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Baker, Walter

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Sexton, James

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hirst, G. H.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Barnes, A.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Barr, J.

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Batey, Joseph

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Snell, Harry

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Stephen, Campbell

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Sutton, J. E.

Broad, F. A.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Thurtle, E.

Cluse, W. S.

Kelly, W. T.

Tinker, John Joseph

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R

Kennedy, T.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Varley, Frank B.

Compton, Joseph

Kenyon, Barnet

Viant, S. P.

Connolly, M.

Lansbury, George

Wallhead, Richard C.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Lawson, John James

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Livingstone, A. M.

Warne, G. H.

Day, Colonel Harry

Lowth, T.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

Dennison, R.

Lunn, William

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Dunnico, H.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L

Mackinder, W.

Welsh, J. C.

Gibbins, Joseph

March, S.

Whiteley, W.

Gillett, George M.

Maxton, James

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Gosling, Harry

Morris, R. H.

Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

Greenall, T.

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Naylor, T. E.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Owen, Major G.

Windsor, Walter

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Paling, W.

Wright, W.

Groves, T.

Potts, John S.

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Riley, Ben

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

Hardie, George D.

Ritson, J.

Charles Edwards.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

MONEYLENDERS BILL [Lords].
Report and Special Report from the Joint Committee, in respect of the Money lenders Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), and the Moneylenders (Amendment) Bill (reported, without Amendment), brought up, and read, with Minutes of Evidence.
Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CHARTERED ASSOCIATIONS (PROTECTION OF NAMES AND UNIFORMS) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 243.]

SHERIFF COURTS AND LEGAL OFFICERS (SCOTLAND) BILL,
"to amend the Law relating to the offices of Sheriff Clerk, Procurator Fiscal, and
252
Commissary Clerk in Scotland, and to make further provision regarding proceedings in the Sheriff Courts," presented by Sir JOHN GILMOUR; supported by the Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland, and Mr. Guinness; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 242.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Tramways Provisional Orders Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—
Great Yarmouth Haven Bridge Bill [Lords],
London and North Eastern Railway (General Powers) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Therapeutic Substances Bill [Lords], with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to remove the liability of husbands for torts committed by their wives whether before or after marriage." [Married Women (Torts) Bill [Lords.]
That they do not insist on their Amendment to the Summary Jurisdiction (Separation and Maintenance) Bill to which the Commons have disagreed, and they agree to the Amendments made by the Commons to one other of their Amendments to the said Bill, without Amendment.

MARRIED WOMEN (TORTS) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 244.]
THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES BILL [Lords].
Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 245.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Colonel GRETTON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the National Library of Scotland Bill [Lords]: the Lord Advocate, Lord Balniel, Mr. Bethel, Sir Henry Cowan, Major Crawfurd, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, Mr. Robert Morrison, Mr. Palin, Mr. Robert Richardson, Mr. West Russell, Dr. Simms, Colonel Sinclair, Major Steel, Sir Victor Warrender and Mr. Windsor.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [17TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1925–26.
      CLASS II.

        MINES DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £113,045, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade."—[NOTE: £56,500 has been voted on account.]
        Mr. D. GRENFELL: I want the Committee to-day to bear in mind that we are not going to discuss the immediate crisis in the mining industry, that we are not for the moment concerned with the disagreements between the owners and the workmen, but that we are concerned with a subject which, like the poor, is always with us in the mining industry—the question of the safety of life and limb of the worker. I want the Secretary for Mines and the Committee to give more earnest attention to this subject than ever has been given to it before. The Secretary for Mines has immense responsibilities and immense power, if he chooses to exercise that power to the utmost. He is at the head of a staff of about 100 technically trained officials appointed because of their special qualifications to supervise the conditions under which 1,250,000 men and boys gain their living in the mining industry. The inspectors are in a very small proportion to the number of employés, and one of our criticisms against the Department is that they have not appointed a sufficient number of inspectors to do the work as adequately as it should be done. There is one inspector for each 12,000 workmen, and when we remember that the inspectors have a great deal of clerical work and duties falling upon them that
        266
        do not permit of their daily attendance at the mines, the actual inspection is reduced to the taking of samples of various mines of a district and assuming that those samples represent the condition of the whole.
        I want the Minister who, I presume, reads these reports very carefully, to remember that these sample inspections are not quite so useful as a thorough inspection of any one mine would be. I have had occasion to have interviews with the Minister and his advisers, and I remember less than 12 months ago one of the advisers of the Secretary for Mines said horses were not "roofing" in the mines of the country at present. I made a protest, and I remember telling the Minister and his advisers that they expressed a complete lack of knowledge of conditions in the mines in making a statement like that. It is because of the inadequacy of the inspection that Ministers very often are unable to gain a true appreciation of the conditions under which men work in a mine from day to day. I do not wish to criticise the inspectors as such. They are a very fine body of men. I have worked with them as a miners' representative for the last 10 years, and I have nothing but the highest commendation of them to offer. But to get anything like adequate inspection of the mines from day to day the hon. Gentleman will require an immediate increase of from 50 to 100 per cent. in his inspection staff.
        Now we come to the accident rate. I should like the Minister to bear with us when we repeat the melancholy figures once again. Of the 1,250,000 people employed in this industry no of were than 200,000 have been injured and disabled for a period of not less than three days each year in the last two years. Some have been disabled for life and others for more or less lengthy periods, but 200,000 men or boys were injured in the last year. More than 1,200 men are killed each year on the average. In these two years the figures are 1,218 and 1,297. The death rate is just over one per 1,000 persons employed per annum, and when you take the period of employment of the average miner, for every 25 men who enter the mining industry one meets his end by accident in the colliery. The rate per 1,000 of men injured is no less than 160. On an average every miner gets injured once in six years, and if you take again

        267
        the average working period you will find the average miner is injured and disabled for a more or less lengthy period five or six times during his lifetime. I do not think even the repetition and the analysis of those figures can convey to hon. Members opposite, perhaps to the Minister himself, what it conveys to us who have seen accidents, who have been witnesses of men maimed, who have helped to extricate injured men from beneath falls of ground, who have helped to withdraw dead bodies from their tombs underground. I should like the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Committee to analyse these figures in the several ways in which they can be presented. For every million tons of coal the death rate is 4·36 and the injury rate is 800, and when we view our stocks of coal, when we see the mile after mile of trains that we pass on our railway journeys and try to remember the thousands of tons that each of them represents, when you have passed 200,000 tons you can count that one life has been lost in getting the coal.
        4.0 P.M.
        This constant crop of accidents goes on day after day, hour after hour, and minute after minute. Since I have spoken here now nearly 10 men have been injured. Every minute more than one man is injured throughout the working day. When we realise how many of these accidents are avoidable, how by stringent regulations and full precautions many of these terrible cases of maiming and of loss of limb and loss of working capacity can be avoided, I think the House will realise its responsibilities and take the action that is necessary. I find, from the statement of the Chief Inspector of Mines, that accidents occur in the same way year after year, the same kind of accidents occurring in the same place, despite all the Debates in this House and all the controversy in the country. We find from the statement of the Chief Inspector last year that among the men working underground there were killed in explosions of fire damp and coal dust no fewer than 35 persons; killed by falls of ground, no fewer than 607; in shaft accidents, 59 persons killed; in haulage accidents, 262 persons killed; and in miscellaneous accidents, 124 persons killed. Is there no way of classifying these 124 deaths other than referring to them as miscellaneous? We find that
        268
        in 1924 92 persons were injured by explosions of fire damp and coal dust or a combination of both. We find that from falls of ground, 65,299 persons were injured; from shaft accidents, 1,186; from haulage accidents, 49,119; and from miscellaneous accidents, 63,083, making a total from underground accidents of nearly 180,000 persons. The proportion of surface accidents to underground accidents is one in 10. About 100 men are killed on the surface each year, and approximately 18,000 are injured. I do not know whether the number of surface accidents could be reduced by additional precautions, but those of us who have spent our lives underground and most of our mental energy in tackling the problems of production are firmly convinced that the accident rate underground can be reduced by one-half, taking a very moderate view indeed. Something is said in the Chief Inspector's report about shot firing accidents. I would like the Minister to tell us whether he has not had submitted to him appliances for improved safety in the firing of shots, whether those appliances have not been demonstrated to be very useful indeed, whether they are not simple in design and construction and are cheap, and whether his Department is not prepared to recommend or to compel the universal adoption of appliances that would save life and limb from this class of accident.
        You have miners working from depths varying from a few hundred feet to a couple of thousand feet. You must remember that all the time the miner's life is at stake, and he has to enter into a more or less unequal struggle with the great forces of gravitation to which the ground above him is always subject. He has to trust to his own skill, his own judgment, and his own unaided power to devise precautions, and he has at all times to run the risk of a mass of roof breaking away under the law of gravitation and mangling his poor body when it falls. This risk is present all the time, and protection can only be obtained by the artificial support which timber and other kinds of support provide. The timber cannot prevent the roof coming down. The force of gravity brings down the roof of the tomb in which the miner spends his day, and timber is only of use in preventing the detached masses of roof from coming upon him without

        269
        warning. The Minister can do a great deal to see that timber is provided. The law makes a definite provision which is not carried out universally, as we all know, and as the Minister should know. The Minister will be told by Members speaking on behalf of the miners in this Debate that very often accidents occur because timber is not placed convenient to the working face. On an average 500 miners have been killed each year during the last 50 years from falls of ground alone. The rate of accidents from this cause is almost constant. There is little variation. The rate per thousand employed may be diminished slightly, but the actual total of persons killed in the last few years has been greater than ever. This is what the Chief Inspector says about deaths from falls of ground:
        "The death rates in regard to falls of ground have remained stationary for more than 30 years, and, while it is to be admitted that more mining is being done now at greater depths than formerly, I do not think that the limit of progress in the reduction in the number of this class of accidents has been reached."
        That is the chief inspector's opinion, and we, who have spent our lives in the mines and had to risk all the dangers of the mines for years before we came to this House, say that there is no reason why 607 men, 500 men, or even 200 men should be killed each year from falls of ground, if proper precautions are taken. The chief inspector points to the difficulty of obtaining suitable men to act as deputies or firemen. There is no dearth of good men in the mining districts to act in any capacity. I do not know of any industry in which the men engaged pay more attention to the technical development of the industry. Go to any mining county in this country to-day, and you will find hundreds and thousands of young men devoting all their spare time to the study of the technical subjects connected with mining. There is no dearth of men who would make good officials in the mining districts. I do not share the chief inspector's view that there is any difficulty in obtaining suitable men. The fireman is usually quite competent and will do his work if he is free of all responsibility other than attending to safety. I myself have been a fireman and I have been a colliery manager, and I can say that if you give the average fireman a chance to perform his statutory duties, as the law requires
        270
        at the present time, you will find in the next year that your accident rate will be considerably reduced.
        I have been of the opinion for a long time that the firemen should be paid by the State. I am speaking from practical experience, and I know the pressure that can be put upon a workman, whether a fireman or a miner, by his employer, and I have the satisfaction of knowing that a growing number of miners take that view to-day. The choice lies between the appointment and payment of firemen by the State, or the French method of appointment of inspectors by the workmen and payment by the State. I do not care which of the two methods is selected. I know which is the most convenient. It is the one which I suggest, where the fireman would be State paid and have the security of employment by the State. I come now to the next point. There was a letter from the Mines Department to the owners, agents, and managers last year. I have no wish to criticise that letter. I will read some of the most important points to which attention is called. First of all, in order to reduce the accidents from falls of ground, they recommend the following to the owners and managers who are responsible for the supervision and conduct of the mines:
        "(1) The building of substantial roadside and other packs in longwall workings
        (2)The general use of substantial head pieces or lids.
        (3)The setting of temporary supports at the face before room is made for the permanent timbering.
        (4)The more liberal use of props and bars at the road heads between the ripping and the face. This method of support can with great advantage be extended on either side of the road head in longwall workings and should be general throughout machine-cut faces.
        (5)The setting of temporary supports when clearing away falls and when relining or renewing timber.
        (6)The lacing of settings of timber in roadways and the taking of other precautions to ensure stability.
        (7)The securing of the roof and sides of cavities above the roadway supports.
        (8)The more frequent use of safety devices for withdrawing timber."
        Those are most excellent drections from the Mines Department, as every practical man will agree. But what has been the response by the owners, agents, and managers to those instructions? Has the

        271
        Minister found, since this letter was sent, that more attention has been paid to these matters? I make bold to say that less attention is being paid to all the points of these instructions than any of us have known for the last 20 years. The entire disregard of these precautions shocks most of us who are so concerned in the welfare of our own people and the general conduct of the industry. What have the inspectors done to enforce these precautions? The right hon. Gentleman has a staff of inspectors. I do not think that there is any body of people in this country more competent in their profession. They are practical men, men who understand the technique of mining, well-educated men, men of vigour and initiative, and men as a rule of strong character.
        What have they done? Is it true that they have instituted some prosecutions, but let us see how these prosecutions work out. I do not think that I am entitled to criticise the action of the Law Courts in this matter, but I would like to call the Minister's attention to the fact—he will find it in the Chief Inspector's Report—that in 1924 there were 151 prosecutions of owners, agents, managers, and under-managers, and there were only 72 convictions. Less than half the prosecutions were successful. Cases wore withdrawn, and cases were dismissed. I have been in the police courts when these cases have been tried. I make no comment upon them.
        What happens, however, when a miner is brought before the Court for a minor offence? Last year 1,213 workmen were prosecuted for various offences under the same Act, and 1,133 were convicted. Almost every workman prosecuted was convicted, but the owner, the agent or the under-manager, because very often of lack of pressure by the Mines Department itself in prosecuting, or because of lack of organisation in presenting the legal case, gets off scot free, and very often, indeed, gets off with a medal for his successful defence. I do not hold the Secretary for Mines is directly responsible for the Courts, but I feel compelled to say that there is no hope of improved safety until the law is applied with equal rigour in the case of owners as in the case of workmen. An owner can prosecute a workman for an
        272
        offence, but the workman cannot prosecute the owner. The workman risks his own life only by neglect or lack of attention, and he can be prosecuted by the owner, but when the owner, as often happens, risks the lives of all his workmen, those workmen, individually or collectively, are impotent to protect themselves. They have to make application to the officers of the Mines Department, and very often it is very difficult to get a prosecution started on a complaint of that kind.
        We have been remarkably immune in the last few years from that terrible kind of disaster which occurs from explosions of fire-damp and coal dust. One might-say in vulgar language, "Touch wood!" We are glad to know of their disappearance. But there is a kind of accident that has happened in the last few years, and other hon. Members will probably mention detailed cases. I refer in general terms to the accidents which occur through proximity to old workings and the inundations of water from the old workings, when men are allowed to go blindly right into the body of old workings, where there are accumulations of millions of gallons of water. These men meet their death, as has been said, like rats in a trap. We have had several such accidents during the last few years. I want the Secretary for Mines to pay special attention to accidents of this kind. There is no excuse for the owner, agent or manager who allows his workmen to be done to death because of lack of attention to this menace, which always exists. They know sufficiently well where the accumulations of water are.
        Mr. A. HOPKINSON Mr. A. HOPKINSON indicated dissent.
        Mr. GRENFELL: I see that the hon. Member shakes his head. I know that there is no mining district in this country, no part of any mining district, where approximately the range of old workings is not known.
        Mr. HOPKINSON: That is a very different proposition from the one which the hon. Member first put forward.
        Mr. GRENFELL: Is it not the duty of the employer to see that no risks are taken? I know that all owners do not wait for instructions in the matter. The hon. Member knows quite well that there is on the market, and there has been in

        273
        use for 25 years, a special boring machine which will bore 200 or 250 feet. That machine is provided with appliances which, when there is a boring into old workings, can be stopped immediately, and the pressure of water or gas can be tested and ascertained. This costs practically nothing. The machine itself can be bought for a very small amount, and the cost of boring is infinitesimal. There is, therefore, no excuse for men being drowned in the way I have described. I know that the Coal Mines Act says that approach shall not be made within 40 yards of old workings which are expected to contain accumulations of water or other liquid matter. We know very well that very often they do go within 40 yards. There is a case in my mind—it may be improper for me to refer to it, because I believe that it is sub judice —in which there was no boring, and yet the owners and agents and managers tried to justify their part by saying that they did not know of the water.
        There is one Member of this House who is not a mining man, and in this connection I want to pay him a compliment. He does not belong to the Labour party. He owns a colliery near my home. His workmen were about to be prosecuted for refusing to work in the presence of water in old workings. He heard of the case. He made inquiries, and was told by his staff that there were old workings, but that they were not dangerous, and were far enough away from the area being worked. He said, "Are there old workings?" The answer was "Yes." He then asked, "Is there water?" The reply again was "Yes." His third question was, "Can it be taken away?" The answer once more was "Yes." His order was, "Well, take it away." That is the common-sense way of doing things. I refer to the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), who is not a mining man. But he had common-sense enough to know that here was a legitimate fear on the part of his workmen, and that they were men whose lives were in jeopardy. His experts may be as expert as they like, but here were hundreds of men whose lives were deemed to be in jeopardy, and he said, "Take the menace away from these men."
        I have worked in mines where there has been a fear of old workings. I have gone home to sleep and have wakened,
        274
        having almost experienced the actual inundation in anticipation of a possible terrible event. These things happen. They haunt the lives of our men, harass their days and nights. I ask the Minister not to be put off by excuses from anyone responsible for a mine where men are possessed by fear in this way. I will not pursue the subject any longer, but I would like to be able to drive home to the mind of the Minister what I carry in my own mind as a result of my experience. I would like the Secretary for Mines to see the miner at work. I would like him to go down into the bowels of the earth and see the men at their work. There are hundreds and thousands of them absolutely dependent upon compliance with provisions of the law for which the Minister is responsible—good men, brave men, most courageous men. On occasion I have risked my own life with others in trying to save men who have been entombed. I have never once seen a single yellow streak underground. I am prouder of that fact than of anything else pertaining to the mines. Never have I witnessed a single individual who was unwilling to risk his own life in order to save the lives of others. These men in their work are dependent upon the conduct of affairs in a reasonable way. They do not care for technical niceties or the judgments of the courts from time to time, but they do expect that common sense and the experience gained in past disasters shall be used to protect them from further accident.
        These men down there in the darkness may have a limited range of vision, but, thank God! they have an extended range of thought, with a concern for their families, for their duties as citizens. They risk their lives and give service to the community, and they should be given the fullest protection which the Secretary for Mines is able to give to them. I want him from this day to feel that he is the custodian of the safety of each and every one of those for whose welfare he is in a measure responsible. I want him from this day forward to drive home to the minds of his staff and of the employers of the country a full sense of their responsibility. I want some of the owners, the callous owners, to realise fully their responsibility. The Minister has the best opportunity for securing that end. If he wants to make the best use of his

        275
        office, if he wants to make himself honoured and revered by the class of people for whom he is responsible to-day, let him see to it that everything which the law requires is put into operation, and that where the law is weak a remedy is found. I am sure that in his time, if he but views the problem rightly and fulfils his responsibilities, the death roll and the accident roll of the mines can be considerably reduced.
        Mr. KIDD: I am sure that every Member of the House would wish to pay a tribute to the last speaker for his speech, and that every one will agree with him that the paramount consideration which should always be present in the mind of the Minister is the safety of the miner. I think the hon. Member will agree with me that judgment as to whether or not the management of our mines is being conducted with due regard for the safety of the miner could best be formed by comparison of the accidents in this country and the accidents in other countries. I am aware that there may be individual owners and individual managers who may seem to neglect the very important duty that is cast upon them, but when we come to speak of mining as a whole I think that the only safe test, in order to avoid doing injustice to anyone, is to make the comparison which I suggest. I think such a comparison will prove to be a tribute to the jealous anxiety shown by mines' management in this country to avoid adding to the insecurity of the miner.
        Reference has been made to mines inspectors. I have a fair acquaintance with them, and I have nothing but admiration for the perfectly independent, and, on the whole, the fair way, in which they do their work. I say that, notwithstanding the fact that my attitude towards the mines inspector has been very largely one of antagonism in my professional calling. But one has to be very careful not to overdo the inspecting. After all, the greatest security of the miner must always be found in the quality of the management of the mine. One does not want to impose on mines an inspectorate in such numbers that the management would be more concerned with ensuring the satisfaction of the orders or the desires of the inspectors than with watching the difficulties that arise from
        276
        day to day, from hour to hour, and, it may be, from minute to minute in the mines—difficulties in which the safety of the miner is involved. I can quite well imagine an inspectorate being overdone in numbers. Speaking as I do, I am not expressing nearly so much the mind of the management as the mind of the miners.
        The hon. Gentleman referred to prosecutions. He said that prosecutions could be taken at the instance of the owner, but they could not be taken at the instance of the worker. I cannot speak of what happens south of the Tweed, but the practice north of the Tweed is that the prosecution is brought neither by the owner nor by the miner, but by the Procurator Fiscal of the county, who act6 on information which may be communicated to him from any source—from the miner, from the owner, from the management or from the Mines Department. Therefore, so far as the bringing of prosecutions is concerned, in Scotland there is perfect impartiality, whether the prosecution had its origin in the miner or in the management. With regard to these prosecutions my hon. Friend said that they resulted, in the case of the owners, in only 50 per cent. of convictions. I cannot understand how any man can doubt the probity of our Courts. If there have been only 50 per cent. convictions obtained, relative to the prosecutions brought, that is prima facie evidence, not that there should have been more convictions, but that there should have been fewer prosecutions.
        The hon. Gentleman sought to make a distinction between prosecutions brought against managers and those brought against the men. The two prosecutions differ entirely in detail. Nine times out of 10 the prosecution brought against the owner or management is a prosecution involving mixed questions of law and fact, or exclusively questions of law. These are questions which occasion very great difficulty. These are prosecutions often brought with the precise object of having a judicial interpretation of the law, but once you come to prosecutions against individual miners you have different considerations there. There you are dealing simply with questions of fact. You may have a breach of regulation which forbids a man to have a pipe, a cigar, a cigarette, or a match in his possession.

        277
        I give that as an illustration of the simplicity of the questions which are, 99 times out of 100, involved in a prosecution against the man, and speaking with a fair amount of knowledge of the subject I want to distinguish fairly between the character of the prosecution on the one hand and on the other, and if you once make allowance for that distinction then you have a complete explanation of why in the once case you have a small proportion of convictions as compared with what you have in the other.
        But I come back to inspectors. From past experience I know that the worker is not particularly partial to over-inspection. He realises as well as any man the danger of having the management of the mines to a certain extent withdrawn from the hands of the manager, and of leaving the inspector in the position of a joint manager. One must be very careful to avoid that condition eventuating from the appointment of too many inspectors, but if I were to make any suggestions I do not think that you could have excessive qualifications in the management of the mines. If you make comparisons between this profession and any other, I do not think that there is any profession calling for the same knowledge, the same human sense, and the same resourcefulness as are demanded from those who are engaged in the management of the mines. Therefore, you cannot be too excessive in your demands for proper qualifications. You want the manager to be a man of very wide outlook. You do not want him to endanger either the mines or the safety of the men by taking too short a range of vision. You want him to have a human sense equal to the proper treatment of the large bodies of men who came under the control of a colliery manager. You want him with technical ability, and not only that, but with the technical ability which he can accommodate to the economic conditions prevailing at the mines. Therefore, if your object is to get the best possible management, you should encourage the largest and widest possible training in the manager, and that, might call for increased remuneration for the manager.
        I quite agree that perhaps in no occupation in the world do you get men in such numbers as you do with miners who are so keen on their jobs,
        278
        who are keen to know all about it, who not only wish to know the technique of their work but wish to be acquainted with the geology of their surroundings and so on. It may be asked: "If you put so much stress on the qualifications required from the managers are you not to a certain extent discounting the possibilities of the working miner ever attaining to that position?" That may have been the case in earlier times. To meet that point I would say that there should be some more gradation, but even to-day I do not think that there is so much substance in that point. Every working man to-day, roughly speaking, has an education equal to that of any other man. He starts off with that on leaving school. If he is alert at his business he has the opportunity, through a technical school, of receiving further training, and I would be the last to seek in any way to cut away any rung in the ladder of progress. Every miner and every worker ought to have every facility to reach the topmost rung in the ladder, but I do not think that the proposal which I submit to the Secretary for Mines would in any way discount the possibility of the working man reaching to the highest position. In any case it would all make for the security of the mines. If you have a good manager, with a proper outlook and a proper human and social sense, and technical knowledge and an ability to accommodate that knowledge to the economic conditions, then you have precisely the type of man who, when all is said and done, and making all allowance for inspectors, is the very best security which the miner can have in his dangerous work.
        Mr. ROBERTSON: In discussing the question of accidents in mines, it is very difficult to refrain from apportioning blame either to the management or the inspector or the colliery owner. I will try to avoid any statement that would divert the minds of the Committee from considering the question before us, the question of accidents in mines. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) has just told us that, in dealing with the question of accidents in mines and in deciding whether our mines are safe or not, we should take into consideration the number of accidents which occur in the mining industry in other countries. I am not prepared to accept that argument. We are not in Great Britain going to

        279
        continue killing and maiming our men merely because they go on killing and maiming men in other countries. Our responsibilities are here. Our responsibility is the safe carrying on of our own mines, and we have a moral responsibility to see that the mines underground are made as safe as it is possible to make them. Then the hon. Member has said that the miners are against this increased inspection.
        Mr. KIDD: I did not say that.
        Mr. ROBERTSON: Over-inspection. I wonder where my hon. Friend gets his knowledge. One does not like to say in this House "I worked in a pit." because it conveys the impression that you want people to know that at one time you were a miner. But I have had 20 years' practical experience in a mine, and nearly 30 years' experience as a miners' agent and an official, and I happen to be the son of one who was responsible for the management of collieries, and I have never yet heard from any real practical man any objection, but rather the reverse, to the proposition that the mines never will be as safe as they ought to be until we have independent supervision, entirely apart from the employers, in the mines of this country. Like my hon. Friend, I want to pay a tribute to our mining inspectors. I can remember the time when there was a great deal of suspicion about the mining inspectors. I am glad to say that in connection with the last generation of inspectors that has passed away. They are men who understand the industry from top to bottom. I believe that they are hard working men, and if I were speaking elsewhere I might say that they were underpaid, considering their duties.
        One finds it very difficult to debate this question in this House with non-practical men. After all is said and done, you cannot learn mining in a university. You cannot learn mining on (he pit bank, and you cannot understand mining in the office no matter how thoroughly you may study the theory of mines. If you want really to understand the mining industry, and the dangers of mines, you have to go through the mill as man and boy in the mines. Then you can speak with some authority. I regret very much that up to the present—I hope that the hon. and
        280
        gallant Gentleman who represents the Ministry will not take this as against himself personally—no Government, not even the Labour Government, have thought this question of miners' lives of sufficient importance to cause them to appoint as Minister of Mines a man with a practical knowledge of the mining industry. I would not be true to myself or to the mining industry if I did not say what I am saying now. I would prefer in discussing this question to be face to face with men who understood the mining industry and the difficulties and dangers which the miner has to undergo.
        With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Linlithgow as to increased inspection, if you search the records of the Debates 50 or 60 years ago, when they were speaking about appointing the first mining inspectors, you will find that the very same arguments were put forward then. If you introduced inspection, if you brought anybody into the mines, they said, it was going to interfere with the employers, and they would shut up the mines, and it was going to be the end of the mining industry. I am going to say that in spite of all the scientific discoveries, mining inspection has done more to save the lives and limbs of miners than anything else done in connection with the mining industry. I pin my faith to inspection or rather to supervision. If we were to consider the question of explosions—and I do not say that anything should be done to minimise the importance of preventing explosions—but if there were only explosions to be considered in reference to mines, mining would be almost as safe as being a Member of Parliament. Whenever an explosion takes place you usually have trotted out the statement about the miner with his matches, his cigarettes and his cigars in the mines. If I had my hon. Friend six months in the mines where there was fire-damp. I could convince him that it was not the miner's cigars, cigarettes or matches that had affected us. If there is fire-damp there the miner should not be there.
        Even rushes of water do not mount up the loss of life to such a great extent, and where rushes of water have occurred it was generally known previously where, approximately, there was water. There are men in the district nearly 100 years old who can remember the place where the

        281
        water afterwards rushed in being regarded as dangerous, on account of water, since the time when they were boys. But when we come to deal with the frequency of loss of life and limb in mines we have to consider other matters. If I had to work underground to-morrow, in spite of the high technical and theoretical skill of the mines inspector, I would rather go underground on the inspection of one of the colliery firemen than on that of the most highly-placed manager in this country. What are the classes of accidents which make up this loss of life and limb? They are falls of roof and side.
        You speak about the managers. The manager has very little to do with the management of the mines from the point of view of these accidents. The management very very seldom sees where the accident took place until afterwards. We have been speaking about prosecutions. I want to see a state of affairs which does not require prosecutions but where there is safety, without the necessity of prosecuting the manager or the miner. In the mines there can be no fancy methods of protecting the miner at the face. The miner to-day works as he did a thousand years ago, and protects himself in the same way as he did then, either with props or with pillars to keep up the roofs. There may be improved materials in our day and generation, but what the miner relies upon to-day is either the prop or the pillar to prevent accidents. The mine is not like the engineers' shop or like this House, where you lock the door at night and find things in the same place when you come back in the morning. I used to work as a miner, and I have worked at every type of job in the mine. We know how these accidents happen. First, the miner is paid by results. He has got to get his wage at the end of the day. Very often, against his own inclination and for the sake of others, he risks his life in order to get that day's wage. Life and limb should be the first consideration. The competitive system of one miner against another ought to be abolished and the miner ought to be paid a day's wage for a working day, like any other worker. Why should men in such a dangerous occupation have to be on a competitive basis, when the first consideration ought to be to look after their safety?
        282
        Where these accidents take place, the probability is that half an hour before the accident occurred the place may have been as safe as where we are now. The miner is working at the coal face. Everyone knows how quickly you become familiar with your surroundings and are apt to overlook your actual surroundings. The way to prevent these accidents by falls of roof and side is by independent supervision. It is not the manager who is the real inspector. It is not the gentlemen who are called the Government Inspectors who are the real inspectors. The real inspector is the colliery fireman, who is going his rounds every day. That man ought to be free from the interference of the employers in order to superintend twice a day, and to stop any work that is being carried on in dangerous places. Ho is the real inspector, who examines the mine in the morning for gas, and during the day for safety. He is supposed to travel along the roadway. I do not know whether he does so or not, but I want to put before the Minister a very important point.
        The firemen have an association and I suppose their evidence would not be undervalued on that account. No one would seek to accuse the fireman of not doing his duty or the firemen generally of not being capable men. The firemen themselves have over and over again carried a resolution and made representations to the Department of Mines that they ought to be free from the domination of the employers, and that until that is done they will not be able to carry out these duties in the manner in which they ought to be carried out. We may be told that this is dual control. I have heard it said before that, if you let the firemen interfere, there will be dual control. As a matter of fact, firemen do not carry out their duties at the present time under the superintendence or on the instructions of the management. I want that to be understood. The firemen carry out their duties under the instructions laid down in the Coal Mines Regulation Act, and until they are free agents from the domination of the employer, according to the opinion of the firemen themselves, they are hindered from carrying out their duties as they ought to be carried out. When we plead for more mines inspection we hear—and I heard this raised before I was a Member of this House—the question of the cost

        283
        put forward. But the firemen are being paid already. They are trained and practical men, and all that is required to be done is to give these men an independent position in the mines. I may be wrong, but I think I have nearly every practical working miner with me when I say that if you free the firemen there will immediately be a great decrease in the number of accidents in the mines of this country.
        One does not want to be accused of sentiment and "sob stuff," but I question if there is any industry where there are so many youths—even in the case of a less dangerous industry—who go into it with less supervision than in the mining industry. You have lads from school of 14 years of age, who go as trimmers or drawers, working as independent lads and there is no supervision—none whatever. On several occasions when an accident has taken place I have had to face the relatives. The most painful thing of all is when you have to go to tell the mother that her "wee laddie" has been killed in the mine. These lads are engaged on haulage roads and there is no supervision there, except the supervision by the colliery firemen under the domination of the manager.
        We plead for better inspection. As a practical miner, I am prepared to take the opinion of the practical man as against that of the theorist. There is nothing which would do more to reduce the number of accidents in the mines than the daily supervision of men with authority going round the faces and along the haulage roads, pointing out dangerous places and stopping the workers from going there until they have been made safe. You may ask, "What about the cost?" I am not in the habit of allowing myself to be reasoned or argued into putting the case in £ s. d. as against human life, but even as it is, I believe it would be sound economy. The cost of insurance at the present time is 4d. per ton—to say nothing about the time lost or the pain or injury or the great economic loss involved. In my opinion it would be a sound investment to put an end, as far as is humanly possible, to these accidents in the mines.
        I sincerely hope that this Committee and the Minister and the inspectorate, who are very largely responsible under
        284
        the existing system, will not get into the frame of mind of the hon. Member for Linlithgow, who tells us to consider the question of whether the mines are safe from the point of view of whether the number of killed and injured in Belgium, France, and America is more than in this country. It ought to be our pride and daily care to make our mines the safest mines in the world. I am confident that if we face this situation we shall bring about a reduction and make the mines much safer than they are at present.
        Sir BEDDOE REES: I agree with so much that has been said by speakers on the 'benches above the Gangway that I shall not follow to any great extent the points they are discussing. I must very cordially congratulate the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) in having put up one of the strongest cases I had ever heard on the question of accidents. These are real facts that the public ought to know. The figures are incontrovertible, and I agree it is not a fair comparison to say that there are more accidents in other countries. I think there should be a combined effort on the part of owners and employers to reduce, as far as is humanly possible, accidents both fatal and otherwise. I was very interested in some of the figures which the hon. Member gave. He quoted a figure of 65,000 miners injured and 500 killed from falls in the roofs and sides. How much of that is preventable is a serious question. Whatever you do it is not going to eliminate entirely the danger from falls of roof. You are up against the forces of nature; the force of gravity cannot be entirely overcome. Then, on the other hand, you have figures of, roughly, 50,000 accidents due to haulage. How much of that would be preventible if we had a campaign of "Safety first" for the miners themselves? I am casting no reflection on the miners, but there is this to remember, that when you live with danger you become so accustomed to it that you forget it is there. How often is an accident caused by a wrong coupling or by a pin not being put in properly? We had one in our own district, due to a faulty connection. There is this human element which is always uncertain and is responsible, to a certain extent, for some of the accident? underground.

        285
        5.0 P.M.
        You have these two great uncertainties—the forces of nature and that human element which gets so accustomed to danger—and I would like to make this suggestion to the Minister, that the Mines Department should carry out a campaign on lines which would be something similar to that of "Safety first" in regard to the traffic in London, so that the miners might be reminded constantly of the dangers they are up against. If such a campaign could only reduce the accidents by per cent., it would be worth while. You have good and bad coalowners, and I think the majority of the owners in this country would welcome any increased inspection that it might be thought necessary to try. The majority of the coal-owners are human, and they are as anxious as anyone to reduce, as far as is humanly possible, the appalling loss of life at present occurring in the mines. I, for one, have always been, and still remain, tremendously keen on copying any methods that might be brought forward, on putting in force any possible methods that would reduce the number of accidents, and I think we should welcome any possible suggestion from Members above the Gangway. I can conceive of no more appalling picture than that which the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) put before us this afternoon, and if the Ministry of Mines can do anything, if we can ginger them up, I for one will be glad to do it. I believe that as a body the Inspectors are a perfectly able and conscientious body of men. I pass no comment at all as to whether the numbers are sufficient. I do think that, taking them now as a body of men, they are endeavouring to carry out their duties efficiently, and if by increasing the number you would decrease the fatal accidents by one, then I think the Minister ought to consider that.
        I do not think that the Ministry of Mines is only concerned with accidents, serious and important as that question is. I think the Ministry can be doing a lot more to improve the efficiency of the coal mines in this country. We are told, with what truth I am always sceptical about, that mining in Germany is very much more efficient than it is in this country, and that it is very much more efficient in America. I do not think it is. I think it is the duty of the
        286
        Ministry of Mines to inquire and find out if it is so, and I think the Ministry ought to be able to circulate the information they get, and help the owners in this country to understand what other countries are doing, and if some new device or invention be introduced in the coal mines by Germany or America, it would be of great assistance for the industry in this country if the information in detailed form could be put before them. If the Minister could consider the possibility of doing that, I think we should welcome it.
        There is one other point. I do think the Ministry of Mines could be doing a lot more along the lines of research. We not only want efficient collieries; we not only want them as free from accidents as possible, but I am not satisfied that the Ministry of Mines is doing sufficient to help the coal trade of this country. By a system of more intensive research, I think we could help the industry enormously. I am raising this purposely, because I want the Minister to give us the latest information on the subject in which the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) is so proficient, that is, what is the present position of low carbonisation? I have heard it said that that is the one hope of the coal trade. I cannot go as far as that. I do think it is one of the main hopes of the coalfield. There was a question asked in the House as to the amount of coal that went from South Wales to the Navy, and the figure given was, approximately, 1,700,000 tons in 1913, but in 1924 it had fallen to 273,000 tons, so that there you have a reduction of consumption in the Navy alone of about 1,500,000 tons of coal from South Wales.
        What has taken its place? I suggest it is the conversion of ships of the Navy from coal-burning to oil-burning. The Mines Department should be seriously considering this fact, and I hope we shall have a statement as to what is the present position of research into the low carbonisation of coal as a commercial proposition. We know it can be done. Whether it is brought to a point of efficiency, or whether it is brought to the point where it can be a commercial success or not, is what we are all waiting for, and wanting to know. I hope the Ministry can do something to hurry on those investigations, and I do not think they should be entirely satisfied with

        287
        having a research station of their own. We know that there are a large number of private investigators who would be very glad indeed to give support to the Ministry of Mines, and what does it matter who solves it, so long as it is solved? Let us press the Department to do all they can to bring this thing to a point where it can be experimented upon on a large scale. I am interested in one coal mine where we have coal of a volatile content of from 32 to 35 per cent. Imagine the waste of burning that coal as steam coal. I say we are not getting 11 per cent. efficiency out of that coal. If we could get the by-products out of that, we should have gone a long way to solve the difficulty of the coal trade in this country. The competition of oil is a serious matter which the Ministry should be taking into account. I raise this in the hope that the Department will give us some satisfaction. On the general working of the Ministry of Mines, I think we are all agreed that we can congratulate the Ministry. I think the Department is doing its level best to carry out the Regulations and the responsibilities connected with that office, but here is a great field for investigation, and I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us all he can about it.
        Mr. HOPKINSON: There are only one or two small technical points I wish to bring before the Secretary for Mines on this occasion. We have heard a great deal about comparisons of accidents and deaths in our mines with those in mines in countries abroad, and I think there has been a certain amount of misconception in what the hon. Gentleman has said. The only criterion by which we can judge of the efficiency of the system of management and inspection in our mines is the number of accidents per million tons of coal raised, or per thousand men employed, and, therefore, in bringing forward the numbers of men injured or fatally injured in the mines abroad, and comparing them with our own. we are merely doing so in order that we may get, at any rate, a rough idea as to whether our system and our method of inspection are as good as those of other countries. We do not suggest in the very least, because we have the lowest death-rate of any country in the world—with the possible exception of Belgium, which
        288
        runs us very close, and occasionally beats us from time to time—that we do not regard these fatal accidents as something we should not reduce by every means in our power. I hope, therefore, hon. Members, in comparing the accident rate at home with that abroad, will endeavour to bear that in mind.
        Another point brought forward, which has been brought forward frequently in Debate in times past, is the question of the employment of firemen and deputies by the State. But those Members who have advocated that system have not, I think, perhaps put forward the main defence of the present system, which is that the fireman or deputy knows perfectly well that if, through negligence, an accident arises, then it is almost certain that he will lose his occupation. It is perfectly true, as has been said this afternoon, that, particularly in a large pit, the certificated manager himself cannot be everywhere in the pit and must delegate his duties. At the same time, his duty is obviously to see that the efficiency of his officials is always kept up to the mark, and his only way of doing that is to let it be known perfectly plainly to them that if an accident should arise through any negligence or laziness on their part, they must regard themselves as sacked, and they would have considerable difficulty in getting another job.
        Therefore, I say that we do get a considerable safeguard from the fact that the deputies and firemen are paid and employed by the employers. I do not think it can be said that the present system is by any means a perfect one, but hon. Members ought really to bear in mind that the risk the deputy runs if he does not carry out his duties is very severe indeed, and must lose him all livelihood in many cases. Take the case of a deputy who, by negligence, has allowed a fatal accident to occur. Everybody knows it is the universal custom in this country that, if a. fatal accident occurs in a pit, the pit is laid idle for the rest of the day. It is perfectly certain that no owner or manager is going to allow his pit to remain idle if he can possibly avoid it, as the loss is enormous, and, of course, the reputation of the manager suffers. Therefore, looking at it from the lowest point of view possible, and supposing the owners

        289
        and managers are concerned with nothing but their own personal interest, I think that is one of the great safeguards the men have. I must say that hon. Members ought not to regard the law and the Mines Department as the only Safeguard. There are other facts which come into the case, and, really, as one who has to go down in the pits all over the country, I say that what really gives us more comfort than anything else in a dangerous place in a mine is, that the man responsible is a human being, and does not want to see one crushed or burnt, quite apart from the trouble it would give him if such an occurrence took place.
        The two small points that I want to bring to the notice of the Secretary for Mines are these. In the first place, although his Department is, apparently, managed with very great economy, it seems to me there is one item, the salary of the Labour Adviser, which might be omitted. After all, we have not had an explanation of what the Labour Adviser to the Mines Department, or the Labour Adviser to any other Ministry, really does in return for the very considerable salary he draws. The second point is this. I find, in going about the colliery districts, that there is a strong feeling on the part of Inspectors of Mines that their work would be very much more efficiently conducted and would certainly be very much lighter, if it were possible for the Mines Department to provide them with more modern methods of transport from one pit to another
        An appeal has been put forward from the Labour Benches for an increased number of inspectors, but it seems to me the ordinary inspector wastes a very considerable proportion of his time owing to the fact that he has to go about from, one pit to another mainly by train, and quite a large part of his working day is occupied in waiting at obscure stations for trains. It may be said that it is going to be rather rough on the managers of mines if inspectors are to be given facilities for getting quickly from one pit to another, that the management is going to be rather oppressed by inspectors' visits. But, under present conditions, an inspector gets to a pit, goes down and converses with the men, and then comes out, and, possibly, has to wait two or three hours before getting a train. During that two or three hours, by the
        290
        laws of hospitality, the manager must be occupied in amusing the inspector. It is the custom, and when an inspector is about the pit, it is only common civility on the part of the manager to see after him instead of leaving him to walk about for an hour or two on the railway station platform until his train arrives.
        If the inspector were provided with some form of cheap light motor car and possibly a small allowance to enable him to keep it up on a reasonable basis, his time would be immensely saved, and not only his time but his temper, which is a very important matter indeed. Not only would his time and temper be saved, but also the time and temper of the manager. I say these things not without experience. In going about from pit to pit during the Parliamentary Recesses, accompanied by my own travellers, from time to time we help inspectors by giving them lifts from one pit to another and in conversation with inspectors that subject has always been brought up and they have asked, "Cannot we be allowed some form of small light motor car whereby we might save our time and get through our work more quickly and more efficiently than we do at present?" An inspector's visit involves changing into pit clothes and perhaps getting very wet in the pit and very cold, particularly in the winter, and if only from the point of view of the health and efficiency of the inspectors themselves, I think this addition to their comfort should be made if the Ministry can afford it.
        Mr. WARNE: I wish to take part in this Debate in order to bring before the Secretary for Mines a particular aspect of mining accidents. I would be the last to accuse either the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) or the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), when they were referring to mines accidents in other countries, of being in the position of the man who went into the Temple and thanked the Lord that ho was not as other people. I regard them as two of the most original and best types of Conservative Members in the House. Those who heard the speech of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) will agree that his opening of the Debate was very able indeed and I am greatly assisted by it in making my contribution. There are one or two of the points which were made by the hon. Member for

        291
        Mossley which can in some respects be replied to and in other respects amplified from a practical miner's experience. He referred to the position of the deputies and firemen. If I were to make a suggestion as to how deputies and firemen could do the work of inspection more effectively, I would suggest that they should be relieved of many of the other duties which they now perform and left more time in which to carry out this work of inspection. To-day deputies and firemen are not only occupied in carrying out their inspection but in other duties as well.
        It is quite true that coming into the mines before the shift of men enter, they have to make an inspection of all the working places, but once the men are informed that these places are quite safe—from that moment onwards, when the coal is being transported from the face to the shaft, the deputy is at the beck and call of everybody at any point between the coal face and the bottom of the shaft in order to see that the transit system is kept going. Deputies to-day have far too much work put upon them and it does not allow them to carry out the duty of inspection in the most efficient way. I do not think it is now the custom as the hon. Member for Mossley inferred—at any rate it is not the universal custom—for a pit to lie idle during the day when a fatal accident occurs, and I thank the hon. Member for the explanation which he has given of that old custom which we claim should be retained in the future. According to the hon. Member the fact that the accident represents not only a cost in human life but the sacrifice of the day's output, is a lever to make the managers of this country more careful. We know that, owners would like the men to agree to do away with that system, and not lose the pit output of the day, but I hope the miners will never give up that system. If there is not that loss of the day's output when a fatal accident happens, then we may look for many more fatal accidents to happen on such days. I mean by that, that we have to consider the effect which a fatal accident has upon the minds of the men when they hear it in the pit. That one concern would occupy their minds for the whole of the day.
        I wish to place before the Secretary for Mines a point relating to the case
        292
        which I brought before the House on 30th March last when we had the terrible inrush of water in the Scotswood pit in Northumberland. Since then 30 bodies have been recovered from that mine, but eight bodies still remain in it, and now we have the fact that the colliery management is going to cease pumping the water out and seal the mine, without making further efforts to recover these bodies. That has caused a great amount of indignation in the district, and on Sunday night in a picture house in that vicinity 1,500 miners and their wives assembled to protest against the threatened action of the management in sealing the mine. I think the susceptibilities of the mining community should have a little consideration from the managements of the collieries. I am sure hon. Members for mining constituencies will join in impressing upon the Secretary for Mines that they should receive that consideration at any rate from the Government, and that these eight bodies shall not be abandoned until the technical experts of the Department are satisfied that all methods of recovering them have absolutely failed.
        There is not only the question of the bodies, which is of course an important one to the relatives, but there is an even larger question involved. That is the question of getting the fullest possible knowledge of the cause of that disaster, and the management by their threat to seal the mine are placing themselves under the suspicion that there is something which they want to cover up. Humanity progresses on their dead selves and we are anxious that the fullest possible knowledge should be gained as a result of this terrible disaster and sacrifice—knowledge which will help miners in the future by preventing the recurrence of such accidents. There is a suspicion in the minds of the miners of Northumberland that in this particular case there has been a misjudgment—I am the last man in the world to suggest that it has been wilful—with regard to the plans of the present workings and the abandoned workings in that district. There is a suspicion that the royalty owners in that particular district, when the new colliery was commenced and the present owners entered on the new lease, drew a line over the old workings which misled the present owners where the mine was flooded.
        When I tell the Committee of these suspicions they will see how essential it

        293
        is that the Secretary for Mines should not give his consent to the sealing up of this pit. Furthermore, here is the ground for a valuable experiment in research. If the colliery company plead that they have not the money with which to keep the pumping operations going, then the Secretary for Mines should see to it that his Department undertakes the work. The rank and file of the miners in the country are very carefully watching the action of the owners in that district, and are looking to the Secretary for Mines to see that he uses the powers of his Department to ensure that before the inquiry is held, every effort is made to get the water out and to get the mine and the old workings surveyed, so that the inquiry shall have available the fullest possible information, and may thus be enabled to come to a decision of lasting benefit to the miners of this country in the future.
        There is another aspect of the work of the Department which I desire to mention. We talk about subsidence in mines, and inrushes of water and falls of roof and side, but there is another type of accident to which the miner is subject, and to which it is worth while to draw attention, because the cases are increasing at an alarming rate. I refer to the diseases contracted by miners, only a few of which are in the schedule of diseases for which compensation is paid. I put it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that his Medical Research Council should get to work to deal with this subject. The change which is coming over the mining industry, the introduction of coal cutting machinery, and different methods of mining, the extracting of oxygen from the already too small quantity of air available for the miner working these machines; all these things, it is obvious to anyone who lives in a mining district and has any observation, are having a terrible effect upon the miners. Colliery owners who are introducing the coal-cutting machine, if they can save the seam by doing so, cut the stone at the bottom or the top, and this stone-cutting by machinery is bringing diseases in its train to the men who handle the machines. It should be thoroughly investigated by the Medical Council.
        Anyone who has to take part in national health insurance work in connection with the Miners' Society as I have to do cannot fail to be struck by
        294
        the number of miners off work every fortnight owing to complaints or diseases which, one is satisfied, have been contracted through their occupation, but for which there is no compensation. These should be classified as accidents. Take the disease of nystagmus. The Department have had reports on this terrible disease, and nothing is more tragical than to see a stalwart miner, with the spirit of willingness for work, but rendered helpless in the flesh by this disability. It is these things that the Minister should be using his powers to investigate, because, after all, it is much better to get on and prevent these things. When people compare other countries with ours, I say that we are the oldest mining community in the world. We have got a store-house of knowledge at our disposal that no other country has, and if there are five accidents in a country that is just commencing to mine coal, with no experience behind it, and there is one in Great Britain, I say that the one in Great Britain is a greater crime than the five abroad.
        On the question of nystagmus, looking at the Mining Inspector's Annual Report, I see that in 1908, when you had an average number of 1,047,862 persons employed in the mines, you had notified as disablement cases under the schedule of diseases 1,689. When you come to 1923, when you had 1,214,660 people employed in the mines—not a very large increase—instead of having 1,689 cases notified, you had 15,768. I am quite well aware that the Minister may say that the scheduled diseases have been increased in that time, but that only shows the need why the schedule should be increased, and I am satisfied that if it were still further increased, we should find many thousands of cases happening in the pits to-day which are getting National Health Insurance benefit, but which rightly should be classed as accidents in the mining industry and paid compensation as such.
        The Minister for Mines has a very important office. As mining Members, we want to give him every encouragement. We recognise the limitations of his Department, but the miners of this country are not satisfied with that, for an industry which we are told is the most important industry in this country. We are not satisfied, with the sacrifice of

        295
        human life in that industry year by year, that the Department that controls that industry should be tucked away as one part of the Board of Trade. There is a Ministry of Agriculture, and a Ministry of this, that, and the other, each with its own Department and greater powers. We should have a Minister of Mines in this country, with greater powers, so that the can carry out this work to the fullest possible extent and reduce, as far as possible, at any rate, these terrible, accidents and the terrible suffering that are being caused in the mining industry to-day.
        Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: I was delighted to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), in which much of what we other Members might have had to say was dealt with t agree, with the hon. Member for Gower that sufficient interest is not taken in accidents over which the miners themselves have no control. As he said, there are innumerable prosecutions against the miners for neglect which jeopardises their own life and limb, but there are collective accidents that happen in our mines over which the men have no control whatever, and prosecutions ought to have taken place, but none have been put up against the management of the mines in those cases. Some of us would be very interested to know why these prosecutions do not take place. I have in my mind an accident that occurred in a mine in my own division. It was brought before the inspector's notice, and nothing happened. I myself, brought it before the Secretary for Mines, but up till now I have had little or no satisfaction.
        The case was this, that in the working of a mine some timber was knocked out, as we say in mining parlance, and after being cleared away, it was found necessary to get on again drawing coal at that particular place. The timber that had been put there for the safety of people who had to work there was not restored, however, and men responsible for the getting of the coal had to go there, and a wagonway man who had to pass there in the course of his duties was caught and killed. This man, who lost his life, had no control over that accident whatever, but the order was given that work must proceed. Let hon. Members rest assured that in a mine nothing is done merely for the sake of doing it, and the timber that
        296
        was put in there prior to that accident was put there for safety. It was then removed, and it ought to have been replaced before any man was asked to go and risk his life in that particular locality. I want to know from the Secretary for Mines if this sort of thing is to be allowed to be continued in the future, and if he will see to it that his inspectors have orders from his Department to the effect that, before work is resumed at places where accidents have occurred, such as I have enumerated, those places are made safe, so that men may pass and repass without risk of losing their lives.
        I want to draw the Minister's attention to another very serious matter that affects the lives of the men who are working in our deeper coal mines. I refer to the question of ventilation. To me, the lack of ventilation is one of the most serious things that the miner has to undergo. I never want to go back again into the mines. I can assure hon. Members of this House that, having had 40 years' experience of them, I do not want to go back again if I can avoid it. Some people have tried to make out, when miners have been seeking for better conditions, that they have a good life. The best thing for people who are of that opinion to do is to try it for themselves for only a very short period, and I feel sure that they would then agree with us who are saying that we do not want to go back into the pit after having had so many years there. Much has been said to-day with regard to the output in the mines. May I say to the Secretary for Mines that the better ventilation of mines would be a fruitful source for increasing the output?
        I will give a case from my own actual experience, where a place opened out was a mile from the shaft. They had another two miles to go. and when it was opened out the miners were paid— and I was one of them—something like 8s. for producing 11 tons 11 cwt. of coal. Before that particular district reached its boundary, on the same seam, the price paid to the miners was something like 19s. for 11 tons 11 cwt. of coal, because of the conditions being so different from what they were at the start. What is happening is this that too much is undertaken by ventilation of one shaft. I know of a place where there is an upcast and a downcast shaft,

        297
        each about 14 feet in diameter. In the downcast shaft that takes in the fresh air two sets of cages are running continually, and at the very outset the whole of the ventilation of the mine is checked in the shaft. The same thing occurs in the upcast shaft, but instead of two sets of cages, there is only one set of cages, so that with one shaft of 14 feet diameter over 2,000 men are working and doing their best to produce coal in an area of about 10 square miles. It is a sheer impossibility, under such conditions as that, to ventilate the mine as it ought to be, with men working over three miles from the shaft, and under conditions that are beyond description. May I say, without boasting, that I have worked in a mine with a thermometer behind me registering 93? I have been in places where a disturbance of the strata has taken place, and I have had to clear out, or I would have lost my life. These are the conditions that I want altered. I want shafts just a little more often. I want that overlapping that is taking place to be got rid of, and the nearer shaft to wind the coal to the surface.
        All this points to the need for reorganisation of the whole of the mining industry of this country. Once it was reorganised on scientific lines, I feel sure that the output would be greatly increased, and the lives of the men engaged would be vastly more safe, because it must follow that, where a man's vitality is sapped towards the end of his days accidents increase. That has been proved beyond doubt, and I ask the Secretary for Mines, whom we are all glad to see in his place—and I believe he is doing his very best—to understand that what we are offering is words of advice so that these things may be overcome. I am not at all satisfied that sufficient money is being spent in research. A question was asked and answered in this House only yesterday, and it was stated that for research in regard to mining something like £1,100 is now being spent, whereas in research for the destruction of human life hundreds of thousands of pounds are paid. I should have thought it would be better to spend money on research into the question of keeping men alive, but apparently the reverse is the case. I beg the Minister to look into these matters.
        298
        In conclusion, I only want to make one observation in regard to what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) said. He spoke of the inspectors being super-managers. Let him understand that the Miners' Federation has asked for an increased number of inspectors, so that efficient inspection shall take place. Let him also remember—and I want the Minister to note this fact—that very often the man who is responsible for the mine is sometimes kept under by a super-manager who never sees the pit. I want to see that the man who is responsible shall have full control and not be overridden by anyone whom the owners may place above him. A man, after all, is responsible to his employer, but he is more responsible to the people whose lives he has in his hands, and nobody should come in, between him and his work because of the owner's desire to make bigger profits. I put these things before the Minister, and ask him to give attention to them, and I believe that, if that were done, accidents would diminish, and the life of the miner would be more secure than it has been in the past.
        Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) said he was going to move a reduction of the Vote, but I do not think he did so, and I, therefore, wish to move it now. First of all, I want to say that I have a personal grievance against the Minister, which I think I had better clear up. Yesterday I put a question on the Paper, and the reply referred me to an answer given on the 7th July. I looked up that reply, and it had no bearing whatever on the question I put down. In fact, the question to which it was a reply was not at all the same question as I put down.
        The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane-Fox): Has the hon. Gentleman not received my letter explaining this matter?
        Mr. EDWARDS: No. I want to get back again to the question of accidents. I want just to give one or two figures which have not been given to-day, I think, and which, if they have been given, have possibly been forgotten by now. In 1924 no less than 1,279 men were killed in mines and quarries, and no less than 203,422 were injured. They could, I believe, be reduced very much. The hon. Member

        299
        for South Bristol (Sir B. Rees) said that he did not think that the thing could be altered very much in view of various things which he enumerated. I believe, however, these figures could be reduced very much. Accidents from falls of the roof numbered 614 men killed, and 65,534 injured. Haulage accidents in mines were responsible for 262 killed and 49,368 injured. Why are all these accidents taking place? I myself believe that the lack of packing or stowing—it is never done to-day—is one of the chief causes. The old process is not carried out as it was 20, 30 and 40 years ago. The practice to-day is not to stow the place at all, but to bring the whole of the rubbish out, and when by this rubbish they have half filled up some of the valleys in South Wales, they, in one place, have put up machinery at a cost of £60,000 to carry it to the top of the mountains. They do not seem to know what to do with it, but the way to deal with it is to properly stow it. I think this accounts a very great deal for the accidents. The roof has nothing to settle on, and the whole ground is on the move because, there is no proper banking done until it reaches the floor. In the old days when I was in the pit every old road used to be stowed from end to end, and I remember the time when a man was kept for the purpose of seeing that the roads were properly stowed. I think that what I have mentioned accounts for many of these accidents.
        Many of these falls of roof would never have occurred if the ground had been properly stowed. T do not know whether the Minister can deal with this or not, but it ought to be dealt with by somebody. The ventilation cannot under the circumstances be controlled as well as it should be in the old days, because today it is passing over the ground instead of being kept in its own surface. This is to me a very serious matter. The proprietors think that it is cheaper to get the rubbish out of the pit instead of stowing. I question that, however, very much. There is, when the miners go in in the morning, in every part a lot of rubbish, twenty, thirty, forty tubs to be dealt with by the hauliers and others, and the services of men are engaged for a couple of hours every day to deal with the rubbish. This would not be needed if it were stowed in the working places. I
        300
        hope that this very serious matter—because I do feel it is that—will be attended to. I think it is one of the things especially that the Minister of Mines should look into, because I am sure there is room for improvement, and we have gone back years and years in respect of this packing and stowing.
        There are others things, of course, which account for many accidents. Before the War matters were likely to be looked into in some respects; but many of these things were suspended because of the War. There was to be a separate travelling road for the men. I wonder how many collieries have these separate travelling roads? Very few, I am afraid. I should like some information on the point. That, perhaps, is responsible for many of the accidents. Another thing which is responsible for many of the accidents is the piece-work system, which is worked very largely in the collieries. The men are able to get higher wages on piecework, but I do not doubt that is responsible for a large number of accidents. I do not know any industry in this country which, to my mind, lends itself less to piece-work from the standpoint of safety than does mining. There is the rush and the taking risks, and the filling of another truck of coal, in the meantime hoping that everything will be right, although it very often happens that a man says: "I cannot go any further," and the reply to that is, "Very well, if you are going out there is no pay." A man must endeavour to earn a week's wages from somewhere, so he takes risks that he ought not to take. I believe the piecework system is responsible for a lot of the accidents, and many of them will not be done away with until the system is done away with.
        I want to come to another point, that of industrial diseases. Colliery cases are responsible for no less than 93 per cent. of the total cases that come under this heading. Hon. Members will find in the Statistics of Compensation, etc., which I hold in my hand—Command Paper No. 2306—very startling figures. In these diseases, I think that nystagmus alone accounts for 66·1 of the total number of cases. Beat hand, and beat knee, and so on, account for others, but nystagmus is the chief I want to give the Committee two or three figures that show the growth of this disease. They have not been given to-day yet.

        301
        I am rather surprised at that, because many old Members have spoken before me. In 1908 the disease was first scheduled. There were then 386 new oases. I want hon. Members to watch these figures growing year by year, and I am referring now to new cases, not the old ones which continue. In 1909 the cases numbered 631; in 1910, 956; in 1911, 1,379; 1912, 1,376; 1913, 2,402; 1914, 2,275. Then we come to 1919—because I think there were no figures taken during the War. In 1919 the figures were 2,718, 1920, 2,865; 1921, 1,913; 1922, 4092; 1923, 3,833 Hon. Members will see by the figures how the disease has grown. I do not know what is being done in regard to it, whether or not there is any medical research going on. It is not the weakest or the worst men that succumb to the disease but the very strongest which are affected. I do not know how that is accounted for, but I would ask whether there is any medical research going on into this disease?
        There is the question of lamps. I believe the Minister, two or three years ago possibly, set up a Committee to look into the question of the lamps. What has been done? When I go to the pit to-day—I do not know that I go very often—I find exactly the same lamps, with the same miserable light inside a thick glass, covered with gauze, and so on. It is exactly the same thing as we used to have there in my time. I think that the poor light the miner has to work with has more to do with nystagmus than anything else. How, also, does the question of electric lamps stand? There is one colliery, the Markham Colliery, Tredegar, that entirely uses electric lamps. Continual working with the ordinary lamps seems to have something to do with nystagmus. Cases of nystagmus are found with the electric light, but whether they are old cases that started before the electric light was introduced or not, I could not say. I am only stating the facts. I believe that the better light of the electric lamp is a very great thing and a very great help to the miner. There is, of course, a greater glare in the case of the electric lamp than in the oil lamp, but the better light more than makes up for that. Some 12 months ago our South Wales papers, the "Western Mail" among others, contained some articles on a new glass—a tinted glass—that was being talked about.
        302
        There would be something gained by a light that would not always get in the men's eyes as they walked to and from their work, a sheltered light, when they are walking in for two or three miles underground. The problem is one which ought to be very carefully looked into. The figures that I have given are sufficient to impress upon every Member of the Committee the seriousness and the responsibility of what I am talking about. I take it that the Minister will at least tell the Committee what is being done in the matter of research work in the lamp question, about medical research, and so on, because the matter is really important.
        6.0 P.M.
        There is one other matter with which I want to deal, and that is the stone dust in mines. Stone dusting has been made compulsorily, I think, since the explosion in South Wales when between 300 and 400 men were killed. I do not, however, know whether stone dusting is not doing more harm than good, whether it is not injuring the health of the miners, and whether there is not more danger from that than there was from the explosions. I am not one of those who want the old days back again. I am not one who believes that all the good has been left behind, but in the old days they used to clean and water the roads. I know many times a lot of spraying was done, and that was much more healthy than to have a lot of stone dust about. I should like to see as careful cleaning of the roads to-day as then. There is a disease which ought to be scheduled, and which we ought to be looking into very much in the future, and that is miners' phthisis. There is nothing more conclusive to that than coal dust which gets into the miner's lungs and clings to them. I am told that often there is anything from 6 inches to a foot of dust. That ought not to be. Some attention ought to be paid to the cleaning of the road. It is a serious matter, too, for the pit ponies, that people sometimes profess to have so much concern for, to be travelling through this dust all day. I put a question about this last year, and asked, if a committee had been appointed, that the members of it should go down a pit during working hours and see the haulage roads when the horses are passing backwards and forwards. The

        303
        reply stated that Dr. Haldane was one member of the committee and, I think, that Dr. Collis was another, and that so long as men like that were on the committee we had nothing to fear. I think we have, and I think that Dr. Haldane or any other man ought to see the actual conditions under which these men work. I will not believe they can get a proper idea of the extent of this trouble unless they go down a pit. It is all very well to study a thing in a laboratory, but a pit is a very different place, and the conditions under which the men have to work ought to be seen. I am not sure that there is not some research work going on into the question of this stone dust and its effect on the lungs.
        Colonel LANE-FOX Colonel LANE-FOX indicated assent.
        Mr. EDWARDS: I am very glad to have the assent of the Minister on that point. Then there is the question of compensation. I was not sure that that would come under this Vote, because the Home Office take some steps in connection with it and have entered into an arrangement with representatives of the indemnity societies, the assurance societies, and others limiting the charges, profits, and so on, so as to ensure that not less than 60 per cent. of the income should be paid as compensation, including legal and medical expenses, for the years 1924–26, and not less than 62½ per cent. for the following years. I do not know whether anything has been done in that direction, because the figures prove that more money is taken out than ought to be the case. The income for 1923 was £5,422,915, the interest on the reserves was £180,581, making a total of £5.603,496. There was paid out as compensation only £2,911,944; 51·97 per cent. went for compensation, that including not merely payments to men who were injured, but also legal and medical expenses as well. Of the remainder, 11·37 per cent. was paid for commission, whatever that means, 23·65 per cent. for management expenses, and13·56 per cent. was set aside for profits. Those figures prove conclusively that very much more is taken out than ought to be taken out, and I would like to know whether that arrangement has been carried out.
        Colonel LANE-FOX: I am afraid I shall not be able to give that information,
        304
        because that matter is under the Home Office and not under me.
        Mr. EDWARDS: I think the Home Office Vote is under discussion to-night, and possibly some of my friends might remember that. It will be interesting to know whether that very modest arrangement which says that for medical and legal expenses and payments 62½ per cent. was to be paid after 1926 is to be carried out. As far as I know, nothing has been done. They go on, so far, just as they used to do.
        Then there is the question of shot firing. I believe that shot firing is responsible for very many accidents and that many of the explosions could be directly traced to it. There are several safety appliances for use in connection with shot firing, but, as far as I know, it has not been made compulsory to use any of them. I do not know why. If we are waiting for a perfect safety appliance, we may have to wait a long time. If there is one that makes for safety at all, it ought to be used. Then there has been a reference to colliery firemen being paid by the State. I am a strong believer in this. It would make for safety more than does anything else of which we know. At present these men rely on their employers for their living, and they cannot be independent. The safety men in a colliery ought to be independent of employers or anybody else, and safety to be their first consideration. It may be argued that the expense would be too high. That might be got over if we did no more than provide one man at every colliery employing over 500 or over 1,000 men—fix the figure where you like—who was independent of employers or workmen and who could be appealed to by either or both sides. If we did not go any further than that, it would be the means of preventing some of these accidents. Such a man would serve a very useful purpose.
        As miners, we believe that the present Minister responsible for mines ought to be raised to the status of a Cabinet Minister. I think I shall carry the Minister with me on that point. We regard this as the most important industry in the country; the industry to which more legislation applies than any of the others; the industry in which there are more regulations, more forms to be

        305
        filled up, more reports to be made than, possibly, any other industry. The status of the Minister ought to be raised above that of a Parliamentary Secretary. I have put some points and I would be glad of a reply to some of them, especially the question of stone dusting, and of packing and stowing, which is a most important one, which is being neglected, and attention to which would make for safety and, I believe, for cheapness in the colliery.
        Mr. GREAVES-LORD: I want to say a word or two with regard to two questions which have been raised. If there be one question above others which ought to occupy the constant attention of those dealing with mines it is the very serious growth of miners' nystagmus, one of the most serious industrial diseases we have, and one which appears to have baffled those who have made researches into it. One point in connection with it is rather striking. I think it is right to say that, so far as there has been any change in lighting conditions in coal mines, the tendency has been to improve the lighting, but, notwithstanding that, we find a very serious increase of this disease. I understand there have been rather searching inquiries by the Medical Research Council into miners' nystagmus, and I believe I am right in saying there are in existence at the moment two excellent reports of the Research Council on the question. I would like to ask the Minister what effective suggestions arising from those inquiries have been made to those engaged in mining, and how far they have been put into operation? There are all kinds of suggestions. There is a suggestion as to improved lighting, and also a suggestion as to whitewashing, or something of the kind, so as to get still further improvements in the lighting conditions underground. These are matters of very serious importance, and, quite apart from the question of nystagmus, might improve the health of those who have to go down the mines to work.
        Unless steps are taken, the expense of miners' nystagmus will become a serious factor in mining conditions. The expense of remedying it will be very much less than the expense of allowing the conditions to continue as they are at present. But even if the expense were greater than the amount of saving in money, it ought
        306
        not to weigh against the saving in suffering and in human life, because I understand research has shown that this disease is not merely a physical condition of the eye, but that the neurotic and the persistent effects are of such a character that the disease in time endangers a man's mind and, by endangering his mind, endangers his existence. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some information which will tend to show that the mine owners are taking effective steps to carry out the suggestions which up to now have been made by the Medical Research Council. Many of us who have followed these matters know of the great work which has been done by Dr. Haldane, and as the hon. Member has suggested that it was not right to say that one could rely upon Dr. Haldane, and that it was only those who saw things under the real conditions who could effectively aid research, I think the House ought to be reminded that there is no scientist who, when engaged in research work in connection with industrial diseases, is more determined to know the conditions under which the men work and, as far as possible, to go through the actual conditions that the men go through. We know that those who have any acquaintance with the work of Dr. Haldane know the enormous amount of self-sacrifice which that great scientist has made in the direction of remedying the conditions which bring about industrial disease and curing them, and it is only right that this question should not be dealt with in any way which would suggest that Dr. Haldane did not investigate these matters under the actual conditions as they exist.
        Mr. EDWARDS: I do not think I said anything of the kind, and I do not think I reflected upon Dr. Haldane. I never said that he did not see the actual working conditions. What I said was that in all these matters the actual conditions ought to be seen.
        Mr. GREAVES-LORD: What I felt was that it could not have been present to the hon. Member's mind that Dr. Haldane had carried out his researches in the way I have suggested. In all the research work which Dr. Haldane has undertaken he has never spared himself, and he has gone very far out of his way to put himself under the actual conditions, and he has intensified them and

        307
        suffered extremely in bodily health in his investigations in order that he should be able to make his inquiries under the actual conditions. Those are the conditions under which Dr. Haldane works, and no doubt hon. Members opposite will be ready to pay their tribute to the work he has accomplished. I hope we shall continue to do all we can to bring about not merely safety but also the prevention of all unnecessary suffering in our mines.
        Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: With regard to what has been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord), who has just sat down, I would like to say that if he understands anything about the drastic nature of nystagmus he will not be surprised if we ask him how you are going to whitewash the coal face where 98 per cent. of the cases arise, and which are caused through insufficient light and the constant oblique strain occasioned in looking after the roof and the fissures in the coal. It may be possible to whitewash the long length of galleries leading to the coal face, but I do not know how you are going to whitewash the coal face itself.
        Mr. GREAVES-LORD: I never suggested whitewashing the coal face, because I know that is absolutely impossible, but the hon. Member will find in the reports of the Medical Research Council that great strides have been made in whitewashing the ways, and it has been found in Belgium, in particular, that, as a result, miners' nystagmus has been diminished in a good many coal mines.
        Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I do not think that is so, because the figures belie that statement entirely. Of course, we are all grateful from the bottom of our hearts for all the research work done by Dr. Haldane, and no one more than the miners themselves has reason to bless his name for what he has done, but do not let us have any erroneous statements made in this House on this question. We know that something may be done with regard to whitewashing the long galleries leading to the actual working coal face, but whitewashing can only deal with a very small portion of the locale where the injury and the damage arises. What we have to do is to concentrate our research work upon the actual coal face where
        308
        98 per cent. of our coal miners hewing the coal are affected by this disease.
        I am sorry to find that both the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) and the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) are absent, because I want to deal in the best possible feeling and good spirit with some statements made by those two hon. Members made with the best intention in the world. I also want to deal with the statement made by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) about so many hundreds of cases of prosecutions of the miners and so many hundreds of cases of prosecutions of the owners under the Mines Act of 1911. Working it out, the figures show that 48 per cent. of the total cases where owners were prosecuted on the instructions and on the authority of the Mines Department have been successful in obtaining convictions, whilst 98 per cent. of the total cases where proceedings have been taken against the workmen have obtained convictions. We heard a good deal from the hon. Member for Linlithgow to the effect that the prosecution of the owners was mixed up with law and fact, but he only gave one instance, that of taking a pipe, a cigar, a cigarette or matches into the mines. These prosecutions constituted only a very small percentage of those undertaken during 1924. However, I am not going to follow up that question because the hon. Member was very careful on this point, and I agree with the Secretary for Mines that they cannot help this state of things re convictions.
        Nevertheless, there is steadily growing up in the minds of working men a feeling that there is one law for the owners and the managers and another for the workmen. I pay my tribute to the King's Bench Division last week, because it reversed a magisterial decision, and sent a case back in order that a conviction should take place. That is the kind of thing we are asking for, because we want justice in every direction. We have heard a great deal about over-inspection. We heard a suggestion from the hon. Member for Mossley that we ought to provide automobiles for the use of the inspectors of mines in order that they might more frequently visit several collieries on the same day. We were told by the hon. Member for Linlithgow that there was over-inspection, and that the manage-

        309
        ment were engaged constantly in watching for the time when the inspectors were coming round, and they assert that if we put more inspectors on they would be engaged more fully in that occupation than looking after their fellows. That is a statement which comes from the other side and not from us. If hon. Members had any real knowledge of a mine, they would not make foolish statements of that kind.
        At the present moment we do not find any fault with the mine inspectors, because they are an exceedingly able staff, and they are doing their work very well, but they cannot be expected to examine a mine thoroughly under present conditions, and what the workmen and ourselves object to is that the present inspection of mines, because of the multifarious duties which the inspectors have to carry out is really an inspection by sample. Do hon. Members know what that means? A mine is divided into 10 or 12 different sections. Just imagine a system of ventilation in the House of Commons and the House of Lords under which the air comes separately into the various corridors and through the Central Lobby which is equivalent to the downcast shaft of the mine. Imagine also in the Central Lobby you have eight or 10 air-split divisions, and when the inspector comes to examine your ventilation he can only inspect one of these sections on the same day. Would you be satisfied with a system of that kind?
        At present, the inspector can only inspect one division where the air has been split on one and the same day, and he cannot even inspect that pit more than once a year. The inspector will not go into the same division the next year, and when he examines No.1 Colliery of the United National Colliery Companies with which I am acquainted he examines No.1 District, and he declares the condition of the pit on what he sees at that point. So sincerely do the miners feel with regard to the inspection though they would not say a word in deprecation or in questioning the work done by the mines inspectors, but I would like to point out that in a large number of cases out of the hard-earned money of the workmen, small as it is to-day, they make a levy amongst themselves in order to pay for a working man inspector once a month to examine
        310
        the mines. That shows the sincerity of their demand with regard to this question.
        I want, with other of my hon. Friends who have spoken, to urge that all our managers are not of the type against which we want to take some precaution. I am glad to say that there are a number of the kind cited by the hon. Member for Gower and by the hon. Member for South Bristol (Sir B. Rees), who is a coalowner. We have dozens such as those whom he cited, who, the moment they apprehend danger, do not ask our men to face that danger, but see at once, honourably in the interest of humanity, that that danger is removed. All that we ask is that the Regulations of the Act of 1911 shall be carried out to-day, that there shall be closer supervision of owners who are apathetic or careless and callous with regard to the requirements, and that, in their case at any rate, there shall be a rigid application of the conditions that we now have in the Act. We have no fault to find with the speech of the only coalowner who has spoken in this Debate, the hon. Member for South Bristol. It was commendable in spirit, and in the right direction. When you have, on an average, 1,200 lives lost every year, and over 200,000 men in the year suffering from accidents entailing absence of work for three days and over, if we can, as the hon. Member for South Bristol said, by co-operation and without too many attempts at fault-finding, but in the interests of saving the men, save only one life per annum, it would be worth it. These men have shown the greatest bravery. Their bravery is second to none in the world in any sphere, and all that we want to do is to make the conditions as secure and safe for them as humanity can possibly devise.
        Mr. JAMES BROWN: I should not have intervened at all, but that I want Scotland to have some little voice in a discussion of this kind. I am very glad that everyone who has spoken has spoken more or less sympathetically, which is just as it should be, because this is a question which is, or ought to be, non-political, and the burden of pleading for greater safety in mines should not fall entirely on Members on this side of the Committee. I am glad to think that everyone, in every quarter of the Committee, is very anxious to minimise as far as possible the

        311
        appalling number of accidents that occur in our mines. We all agree that the number of accidents in our mines, whether they compare better with other countries or not, is too great, and the loss of life and limb, and the loss of work incurred thereby, ought to be minimised as far as possible.
        There are one or two points that I want to emphasise to which allusion has already been made. Whether in Wales, in Yorkshire, or in Scotland, we have the same kind of burden to face. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bedwellty alluded to the question of packing or stowing. Like him, I do not think that everything was good in the old days. There were many things that were very bad, but at any rate we were saved to a great extent the eyesores that one sees everywhere now all over the country—large rubbish heaps raised everywhere with the idea of safety, or perhaps with the idea of cheapness, though I am certain it is no longer cheap at all. In our thicker seams, when the rubbish was stowed or packed, it kept up the roof to a great extent, and the rubbish was kept where it ought to be, namely, down below, and prevented a great many subsidences on the surface, as well as many accidents below. That alone, I think, deserves the attention of the Secretary for Mines, and, if he could induce the big employers to keep the rubbish down below, I think he would be doing a good stroke of business, not only for the mines, but for the country itself and for the safety of the men who work underground.
        Another point that was alluded to was piecework, and I agree with my hon. Friend that many of our men might not like our introducing a subject like this at all. In spite, however, of all that is being said against the miner to-day, in spite of the fact that many people think the only salvation for the industry is to add hours to our labour, there is not an industry that I know of where men work more whole-heartedly than the miner does when he gets down below. Those who have not any great acquaintance with coal mining do not know the anxiety that men have to produce a day's work, and thereby earn a day's wage. It is said that they do not care for work, and do not try to work. I know that that is only said by ignorant people, and I know
        312
        that it is truer to say that whenever our men get from the surface down below, they lose all sense, and work, not as human beings, but often work like brutes in order to obtain the livelihood which they go down to earn. That has a great bearing on the number of accidents that occur in our mines. There is no question at all that familiarity does breed contempt, and our men get very careless because of familiarity with danger. We risk—and I know what I am talking about because I worked for 30 years down below—we risk our lives many times in order to get our hutch of coal out, and if we could get the management to see to it that ton rates were paid, or that piecework was introduced, so that the mad rush to earn a day's wage would be minimised, I am certain that a great many accidents would disappear from our pits.
        Another question is that of the paid inspector or deputy. That is a very big question. I entirely agree that these men should be quite free from either employer or employed, but, if the Minister thinks that that is too big an undertaking, will he not be able to try it in certain sections or in certain collieries? Can he not introduce the system somewhere, and watch it carefully as an experiment, to see whether it would not help in regard to the many accidents that occur quite needlessly. Let me say that I do not charge the employers as a body, or the management, with this, but even the deputy many a time has to gloss over things in order to keep the work going, aye, and in order to escape the censure of his superiors. I have stayed out myself many times until the gas was dusted out with my jacket, and the man dared not report, or, at least, was afraid to report, not, as was said by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), because he would be convicted, but because he would be dismissed if he reported gas too frequently. I know that that occurred over and over again. I am glad to think it is less now than it used to be. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty says he- does not know, but I have been a few years out of the pit, and I understand that considerably more freedom is given to the deputies than there used to be. At any rate, what I am pleading for is that an experiment should be tried with the paid deputy, either in a colliery, or in several

        313
        collieries, or in sections of a colliery, comparing that with what occurs in other collieries or sections of collieries. That would enable us to get at the truth as to whether these paid deputies would be better for the mines or not.
        The only other point upon which I desire to touch is in connection with convictions. In my own county, not long ago, we had an inquiry because four men lost their lives needlessly—I say that without any fear of contradiction whatever. It seems to me that, whenever we get into a Court of Law on a coal inquiry, we are not always concerned with getting at the truth. A court of inquiry ought to be something different from an ordinary criminal Court. I know that legal gentlemen are employed to get their client off by hook or by crook, but in a court of inquiry that ought not to be the case. We ought to get at the truth of things, we ought to discover where the difficulty was, and, having discovered that, to take precautions against its occurring again. We ought, in spite of our sympathies with the deputy or the manager, or whoever it may be, to see to it that suitable punishment should be meted out to the careless deputy or the careless manager who has conduced to bringing about an accident. I trust that the Minister will look into these things. It is not a coincidence that most of the officials escape and that all our men are punished. I am not pleading now that men should escape who break the law, although, as I have already said, they often break the law in order to get a day's work. I am pleading that the Minister will see to it that, when any of these accidents occur, those responsible for them shall be brought to book and summary justice shall be administered to them.
        Keeping these points in mind—proper stowing, the trial of deputies in certain collieries, and the other matters I have mentioned—I trust that this Debate will have the effect of making the Minister and his staff, I will not say more alert, but making them assert themselves more, and making them compel officials in mines to put the law in motion. We are not suffering from lack of law. We have plenty of law already. Acts of Parliament have been passed over and over again, and many of these, if they were put into operation, would do everything that we are asking now. I would ask the Minister,
        314
        when he is dealing with the matter, to take these points into consideration, and afterwards to be more determined, if that be possible, that every precaution shall be taken to got rid of the appalling number of accidents from which we suffer in the coalfields of our country.
        Mr. TINKER: The whole subject of this Debate is what is being done to prevent the accidents which are happening in the mines. It is that which animates us, and, I think, animates everyone in the Committee. One or two points have arisen in the course of the Debate which have been very interesting to me. One was in regard to the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord). I am very pleased to know that he is sympathetic towards the miners in regard to nystagmus. I remember very well that we have had to fight cases when the hon. and learned Member has been on the other side, and I have been wondering whether his sympathy for the miners is not due to the knowledge he has gained of what has happened, so that, now that these cases have been brought to his notice, his mind has been changed in the direction he explained to us during his speech. That fact alone is important, because, the more we can get those on the other side to recognise the great danger of nystagmus, what it means to our people, and the suffering they have to go through, the more readily, I feel confident, will the assistance we require be given to us.
        The other point is with regard to accidents. When you compare mines with other industries, it must be evident to everyone that something will have to be done. I have here the figures of 1923. The Home Office issues figures from the seven largest trades, and in comparison with the mines you will see exactly how we fare. In shipping, for every thousand men employed, there are 1·1 fatal accidents, in factories 0·1, in docks 0·8, in mines l·1, in quarries 0·7, in constructional work 0·5, and on railways 0·5. Taking an aggregate, it is 0·4 over the whole seven industries, as against 1·1 in mines, so we are more than double the average of fatal accidents. In non-fatal accidents it is the same. In shipping it is 20·8 per thousand, factories 33, docks 83, mines 215, quarries 76, constructional works 66, and railways 35, or an average over the, whole of 65 per thousand. as

        315
        against 215 for mines. So a comparison shows at once what the mining industry has to put up with, and, if we can lessen that, there is not only the moral point to be gained, but it means a great economic saving to the industry. At present, on the 1923 figures, it is costing 3.2d. per ton. What it will mean in 1924–25, with the addition of children coming in for compensation, I cannot say, but even that figure is a big burden on the coal industry, and we want to remove it if we can.
        May I suggest one or two remedies. First of all, I think if the employers or the inspectors paid more attention to Section 51 of the Mines Act there would be a smaller number of accidents. The Section refers to the support of roofs and sides, and says there shall be a sufficient supply of timber within 10 yards of the working place and it should be suitable timber. Anyone who knows the mining industry knows that that Section is not carried out as it ought to be. A man on piecework does not find the timber where it ought to be, with the result that, seeing that he has got to get his wage within a certain time, he takes a risk that he ought not to take. If the management and the inspectors would pay more attention to that, there would be fewer accidents.
        My second point is in reference to firemen. The Act of Parliament itself is fairly good, but it does not go far enough. It stipulates that the fireman shall not have a district that is too large for him, but it is left to the inspector to determine, and I wonder how many times he goes into the matter whether the fireman has too big a district or not. Another point is that the fireman can measure and can also fire shots. I claim that the fireman ought not to do that kind of thing. It is quite sufficient for him to look after the safety of the workmen and to give a thorough examination of the roof and side, and point out to the workman what is required, and, if he had more time to devote to that, it would obviate many accidents. The chief point of all is that the fireman ought to be paid by the State. The last speaker spoke about not daring to report. That is quite true. As regards gas, the fireman often does not report what he ought to do. He is afraid of his position. These are the
        316
        points I want to put before the Minister. First of all, to pay more attention to the supply of timber, and see that it is suitable timber. Also the fireman's work ought to be regulated so that he can give ample time to the needs of the workmen whose lives he has in charge, because, after all, the fireman has the men's lives in his trust more than any other man in the mine. The third point is payment by the State At some future time the Ministry of Mines ought to consider whether the State cannot take over the firemen and pay them, so that they can report any danger, and look after the work much better than they do at present.
        Mr. PALING: We have been discussing, among other things, the question of nystagmus, which is one of the greatest scourges from which the miner suffers. Many cases are assigned to this disease. There is great variation of opinion among doctors as to what actually causes nystagmus, but most of them will be agreed that one of the contributory causes is eye-strain, and one of the reasons for eye-strain is that the lighting arrangements are not sufficient to enable them to work in comfort. No one, I think, would suggest to-day that the ordinary safety lamp, be it as efficient as it may from the gas testing point of view, has reached the point when it gives sufficient light to enable a miner to work in comfort. None of them do. How far has the Mines Department investigated the question of electric lamps in the pits? I should like some information as to how many companies have adopted electric lamps and how many of the miners are working with them. I think there is no question that at the pits where they have been adopted there is a unanimity of opinion among the men in favour of the electric lamp, as against the safety lamp, from the lighting point of view. In the Doncaster district, I believe, most of the pits use electric lamps, and in no case would those who have had experience of them be prepared to go back to the safety lamp.
        Could not the Secretary for Mines get some indication as to the number of cases of nystagmus in pits where electric lamps are used as against pits where safety lamps are used? It would be difficult, for many reasons, to get an accurate measure of this. I asked questions about it some time ago, and the hon. Gentleman thought

        317
        it would be very difficult to get, because men were continually coining in and going out from pits where safety lamps were used, and there were many cases where men would have come to work at a pit when they already had nystagmus. But there are pits which have used electric lamps for years, and it would be possible, if sufficient pains were taken, to get some evidence as to the effect of electric lamps on nystagmus, and to the extent that he got evidence in favour of them I should like to see electric lamps adopted nationally. They would not have done this had they not been certain in their own minds that electric lamps were good. I know of a pit where safety lamps are used, but, wherever there is a complaint that a man or a boy is suffering from nystagmus, or there is an indication of nystagmus, he is given an electric lamp where everyone else still has the safety lamp. In a few months after this was started, those who had electric lamps were so delighted that everyone else in the pit wanted them.
        There are some disadvantages connected with it. It is heavy, and it gives rather a dazzling light to those who have to follow behind, but, generally speaking, its lighting efficiency is so much greater than that of the safety lamp that the men prefer it. Perhaps one of the reasons why it has not been adopted on a national scale is that I believe it is more costly. Another reason is that you cannot test for gas with the electric lamp, but that might be overcome by having one or two safety lamps used in every stall where there are electric lamps for the purpose of testing for gas. The electric lamp is much safer in some respects. The safety lamp is of rather delicate construction, and the gauze within it is liable to be crushed by a fall of stone or coal, and perhaps the naked flame might be exposed for a short time to the atmosphere. That is hardly possible with the electric lamp, because the moment the glass is fractured the light goes out. From all these points of view, there is a case made out for the electric lamp, and if the Secretary for Mines followed out the suggestion I have made and made some research and got some evidence as to the beneficial effect of electric lamps, the Department ought to do something to make their adoption compulsory.
        7.0 P.M.
        My next point is in regard to winding axles. A conference was held at Don-
        318
        caster of the Managers' Association, which functions round Yorkshire, Nottingham and Derbyshire, and a paper was read on Electrical versus Steam Winding. The lecturer stated that accidents where electric winding apparatus was used were much lees in number that where steam winding apparatus was used. As a result of that I put a question in this House, and an answer was vouchsafed after a few weeks' time. I asked whether I could be given an answer as to the number of accidents which occurred in 10 years in this country where steam winding apparatus was used, and the number where electric winding apparatus was used. The number of places where electrical apparatus was used as compared with steam is very small. The answer showed that the percentage of accidents at pits where electrical apparatus was used was very much less than where steam winding apparatus was used. I went further with that question. The lecturer also stated that in Germany, where electrical apparatus is used in a much greater proportion than in this country, the winding accidents were much less numerous than in this country. I asked for that information. The hon. Gentleman could not give it, but promised to collect it. I would like to press him for that information. I would like to follow this line of investigation with a view to finding out whether winding accidents can be diminished by the adoption of electrical apparatus. I do not quite know whether I am right in this, but from what one hears, generally speaking. I believe, there is a greater inclination at the moment to adopt electrical winding apparatus in this country than there has been in the past. I think there has been a prejudice against it among mineowners in the past, but that is breaking down slightly. If there is a prejudice existing, and if the Secretary for Mines could get this information and it was on the lines of the question, that where electrical apparatus was used the number of accidents is much less, and if he could supply it to the mineowners of this country, that would be a reason why the mineowners should adopt the safer method of winding. I commend it to him and I hope he will get the information for which I have asked him.
        Colonel LANE-FOX: I think the Committee will agree that the speech to which

        319
        we have just listened is a very interesting one. I am sorry I cannot at the moment give the information as regards the proportion of accidents in pits abroad where there is electrical winding. I am trying to get it, but the Committee will understand that in foreign countries statistics are not kept as completely as in this country. I am very often asked for information with regard to pits abroad which I cannot give.. Previous speakers have made interesting statements with regard to nystagmus. The hon. Gentleman showed considerable knowledge of that, and what he said about it was very accurate. It is a most difficult disease to deal with. A short time ago there was a very interesting report by a committee of the Health Advisory Council, and they pointed out that in this country we are more humane. In foreign countries they take the line of saying that nystagmus is largely a nervous disease. We are more humane. The matter is receiving very considerable attention, and constant research is going on. There is a scheme now being elaborated between the Home Office and the Mines Department for dealing with this disease, and I hope very shortly that will be in operation. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the scheme?"] I am afraid I cannot give the information. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question, I will endeavour to answer it. I cannot exactly tell the position just now.
        An hon. Gentleman asked me as to electrical lamps compared with safety lamps. 350,000, one-third of the total lamps used are electrical. It is pretty obvious that electrical lamps must give a better light than safety lamps. No doubt, it is very much to the advantage of safety that the number of electric lamps should be increased. There is the corresponding difficulty about testing for gas. A gentleman brought me a lamp some time ago and claimed that at last he had found an electrical lamp which would test for gas. It was a very elaborate piece of machinery and too elaborate to put into general practice for rough work at present. At the same time, it was interesting as showing at last that the inventor had got to the stage of being able to secure some form of electrical lamp that was sensitive to gas. I hope something may come of it. If
        320
        you have electrical lamps in a pit, you cannot test for gas, and it means that you have to have extra lamps of a less illuminating power. The risk of unnecessary lamps that people do not want being about in the pit and subject to careless usage and neglect is a very serious one. Once you give more than one lamp, you may be certain before long that there will be some risk of accidents.
        Mr. PALING: I do not agree with that statement.
        Colonel LANE-FOX: The hon. Member must admit that risk.
        Mr. SPENCER: There are plenty of pits where they take two safety lamps. Can the hon. Gentleman point to a single accident which has been due to taking an extra lamp?
        Colonel LANE-FOX: I never said there had been many accidents, but at the present moment the only way you can test gas is by having an extra lamp. When we get electric lamps made sensitive to gas they will be of very great advantage to those who work in the pits. In a previous Debate some Members accused me of complacence and said they wished to stir me out of my complacence. There is nobody less naturally complacent than I am. There is nobody more thoroughly aware of his shortcomings and of the difficulties which his Department has in dealing with all these complex problems. I do want to thank hon. Members who used such very well deserved terms of praise about the inspectors of the Mines Department. I think every word that has been said is justified. I am sure that they are very efficient and hardworking, and that the Committee does appreciate their work. I should like to have a larger staff. We could do very well with more inspectors. The inspectorate has been increased, but the trouble is that for really efficient inspection which hon. Members opposite would like, the numbers would have to be enormous. The work of the inspectors, of course, is very wide and complex.
        Allusion has been made to the particular disaster which is more fresh perhaps in the minds of the Committee, the Scots-wood pit disaster. I should like to deal further with what hon. Members said. I received a letter referring to a meeting of protest against the sealing up of the pit. I would like to tell the Committee

        321
        what happened. Some time ago I was informed that it was proposed that this pit should be sealed. I was informed that the position was this. The water had been got down to a certain level, and, as pumping went on, the management became aware of a bumping noise which they thought indicated the gradual escape of gas. I do not think any hon. Member would suggest, or that it has been suggested, that the management were really trying to conceal something, and that the reason they did not want to put down the water was that they wanted to conceal the actual cause. I do not believe that is true. They have been put to considerable expense getting the pumping done which has been done. I believe that they were genuinely afraid of what the risk might be. They not only did that, but they got hold of two very eminent engineers who reported that there was serious danger.
        When I suggested to the Miners' Federation that this objection had been made, they made light of it. I at once asked the management of the pit to come to London and see me. They came up, I think, the following day, and they at once put the opinion of their expert engineers against my desire to see the pit rid of water. I put to them the suspicion that if it was under water we should never know the cause of the accident. They told me that that was not so, that all the evidence is available showing where the workings got to; and it is not necessary for that purpose to drain the water I recognised the importance of allaying that suspicion. I asked the management if they would agree to me sending an expert engineer to investigate it. They agreed. I sent a gentleman who is a well-known mining engineer, called Hyslop, and his report is just arriving now, or is on the way. I have not yet seen it. When I have it, I will do the best I can. I realise the very natural desire to get the bodies out of the pit. I fully realise what it must mean to the relatives to know that their friends are left there, and that there is no chance of getting them. At the same time, the Committee will agree that if it really is the opinion of the expert engineers that there is serious risk that there might be a further disaster involving the loss of more lives, I should think very carefully before I go further.
        Mr. WARNE: When the report is received, would the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer a question about it?
        Colonel LANE-FOX: I have not yet received the report, but, if the hon. Member will put a question to me when it is received, I will tell him whether I can answer him or not. One hon. Member in the course of the Debate, has thought it necessary to remind me that my duty was to protect the miners. I hardly think he meant that seriously. I am sure that that is a duty which I realise to the full and intend to carry out. As to the water difficulty, that is perhaps the more recent, and at this moment the most serious, of any dangers with which we have to deal. The worst accidents that have happened in recent years have been due to an inrush of water. I do not want to repeat what was said in a recent Debate, but I would say that we are taking every step that is possible, first of all to find out where these disused workings are. It is all very well to say that everyone ought to know where they are. It is not so easy. Since 1872, when pits have been abandoned plans of them have had to be deposited in my Department or what corresponded to it in the past. But before 1872 there was no such provision, and there are many old workings of which we have no plans. No doubt such plans are hidden away somewhere, and I have sent out an appeal to all who are likely to be in possession of them—mining engineers, surveyors, and estate agents—pointing out the urgent need of these plans, and asking that I might be allowed to copy them, so that if on a future occasion any one wants information about particular ground I would be able to point out where that information is obtainable.
        I hope that in due course we shall be able to establish a sort of catalogue of all the old workings of the country. Anything we can do to minimise these dangers certainly will be done. Perhaps the most serious fact is that, as more pits close down and there are more old workings, this danger increases every day. At this moment we have a Water Danger Committee travelling about the country to make investigations. I have had several reports already, and when the investigation is complete there will be valuable information available. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell)

        323
        referred to an instrument which can be used when the presence of water is suspected. I hope that that instrument will be more extensively used in future than it has been in the past. Just to show that my Department is not by any means asleep, I would allude here to the issue of two recent Orders, in which I am interested, because they were started in my previous term of office. The completion of these Orders or Regulations takes a long time. It is no good agreeing to a Regulation unless you are satisfied that it will effect its purpose and will not unnecessarily harass anyone concerned. The Explosives Order came into operation in the last month of my predecessor's term of office, that is in September, but the one dealing with coal dust I had the pleasure of bringing into operation. These two Regulations deal with what were most serious dangers.
        The Explosives Order deals with the treatment of coal dust in proximity to shot firing, and prevented shot firing under certain conditions. I hope that the result of the Order will be to make the procedure more safe. As regards the Coal Dust Order, I was surprised that the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards), whose opinion I value much, should suggest that stone dusting was undesirable. He says that the result of stone dusting is an enormous accumulation of dust. But that certainly should not be so. Anyone who is acquainted with mining practice knows that that is a matter which should be dealt with. Everyone must realise that the practice of stone dusting, as a means of covering the danger of coal dust and the appalling explosions which coal dust used to give rise to in the old days, is of incalculable value. The experiments which have been carried out for some years have been of tremendous value in reducing the risks from coal dust. Whereas in the past there were appalling accidents due to explosions of coal dust, in the last few years there has been practically none of a serious character, though it is clear that such accidents would have occurred had not stone dusting been resorted to.
        That leads me to another point made by the hon. Member for Gower. I think we are often too much inclined to decry our own affairs and to say that things are going from bad to worse. I did not
        324
        think that the hon. Member for Gower was that sort of person. Everyone deplores the large number of accidents still occurring in the mines. Yet it is not good, and it is not necessary or true, to say that things are so much worse than they used to be. One hon. Member said that we ought not to compare the number of accidents with those in foreign countries. As we are told that the conditions of inspection abroad are better than those existing here, if we make the comparison suggested it is at any rate a satisfaction to find that the death rate from accidents in this country is distinctly lower than in any other country in the world. As to non-fatal accidents, foreign countries do not keep their statistics with the same care as we do, but as the death rate is distinctly lower in this country it is fair to assume that the rate of non-fatal accidents is lower also. I do not say that that is any justification for the high rate still existing in this country, but I do not think things are quite as bad as some hon. Members described them.
        The hon. Member for Gower asked me about shot-firing appliances. I have often been asked that question. There are good appliances in operation in many mines. To make the use of a given appliance compulsory is to give the use of that appliance special sanction, and the result is not always what one would wish. It is far better that tests should be made of different appliances as they appear. Our technical appliances committee consider very carefully any inventions submitted to them, and that is a far better way of securing what is wanted than to say that appliances which are not wholly satisfactory must be adopted. Another point that was raised related to the Government payment of deputies. I know that many hon. Members hold strong views on this subject. It seems to me that if you take away responsibility from the management in this way, to that extent you weaken the management. Unless you make the management absolutely responsible for the deputy, I do not believe that you strengthen the men's case. I know it is often said that they are given extra work, work which they have not time to do, and that their time is occupied rather in trying to increase the profits than in attending to the safety of those

        325
        who are working in the mines. That is a matter which our inspectors go into carefully. I always specially ask them to inquire into it, but I do not see my way to support the view which has been presented by hon. Members opposite.
        Mr. WARNE: Can the hon. and gallant Member say anything as to the amount of manual work?
        Colonel LANE-FOX: That is a matter into which my inspectors are always inquiring and into which I inquire myself. I quite agree that there is a possibility of abuse but everything that is possible is done. One point to which I should like to refer is miners' phthisis. There has been considerable difference among medical men on this subject, but recently we have had inquiries made by an eminent expert on this subject, who is an inspector in South African mines. He was over in this country, and we asked him to make certain inquiries and to let us have a report and it is possible that there may be some addition to our knowledge on the matter. Of course, on any experience which we may get it may be necessary to take action according to whatever may be proved, but the matter is being gone into carefully and as soon as we have received the necessary information there will be no delay in dealing with it at the earliest possible moment. I must have missed a large number of points in the various speeches to which I have listened, but perhaps I have kept the Committee longer than I ought to have done. I am extremely grateful to hon. Members, and I thank them very much, for the very sympathetic references which they have made to the work of the Department. I was glad to hear what was said about the inspectors in particular. They are a hard working, thoroughly good body of men, and I like to think that they are appreciated by the House of Commons. I hope that I shall now be allowed to have the Vote.
        Mr. SMILLIE: I apologise for intervening at this late hour in the Debate. Circumstances prevented me from being present, and I much regret that I had not an opportunity of hearing the discussion. There was one point raised by the hon. and gallant Member to which I would like to refer. He said that fault had been found with his Department on the ground that they were tardy in moving, particularly in the direction of safety. I am
        326
        sure that if he were in the position of some of our Members on this side he would have a fuller understanding of why, from time to time, they find fault with the tardy movements of his Department. I do not think that there is any desire to say anything against himself. We know that he desires to give us all information he can from time to time, and to carry out the Acts of Parliament as fully as possible, but I would remind him that the reason why we are sometimes rather upset about the tardiness of his Department has not arisen merely during the last few years.
        Explosions in mines have practically disappeared, and now there are very different causes for the vast majority of serious accidents which take place in mines, especially rushes of water. I remember very well when the vast majority of fatalities in mines arose from serious explosions due, in the first place, to the ignition of gas. I remember serving on the Accidents in Mines Commission, and I remember an incident there which led me to think that everything had not been done and was not being done to safeguard the interests of the miners. There were Divisional inspectors of mines in this country, men who had given years and years of study to the part which coal dust played in mines explosions. There were Mr. Galloway in South Wales, and the two brothers Atkinson, one Chief Inspector in Scotland, and the other in Wales. They devoted years of their time to experiments with coal dust, and I remember that Mr. J. B. Atkinson, Chief Inspector of Mines in Scotland, sent in his annual Report, and that part of his Report, referring to the danger of coal dust in causing explosions, was cut out by the Home Office, and never presented to this House.
        Attention was called to the matter and the Secretary of the Mines Department at the Home Office was asked whether this portion of the Report had been cut out, and he said that it was true. He was asked why it had been cut out? and he said that it was because they did not desire that those who wanted to advertise their own particular ideas should do so through the Home Office. He was pressed further in this matter, and he replied, a few weeks afterwards, and said that it was cut out because the cost of printing was going up at such a rate that

        327
        they could not afford to go on printing this kind of thing. Those men had devoted all their spare time to this matter, and they were anxious to direct the attention, not merely of the Home Office and the Mines Department, but of the House of Commons and the country to the serious danger of coal dust, and they were prevented from doing so by the Department which, above all others, ought to be concerned with the safety of the miners.
        I might say that, as a result of the Commission which was sitting, we had inserted in the law a provision that the inspectors' reports were to be printed as sent in by them, as they were their reports and not reports of the Home Office. The nation took up the question after that. They spent thousands and tens of thousands of pounds in experiments and finally they found that those men were right, and that most of the great explosions, leading to the loss of hundreds of lives, were caused by coal dust, which was the main factor in carrying the explosion when ignition had taken place. Is it any wonder that, in circumstances such as these, we should fear that the Mines Department is a little slow?
        I put a question to the hon. and gallant Gentleman some weeks ago in this House as to when we were to have the proposed exhibition of safety appliances in mines. It is well known that in every mining district of Great Britain there are people who, rightly or wrongly, believe that they have perfected inventions which would save the lives of the men. I asked when the exhibition of those apparatus or appliances was to take place, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he had never heard of such a thing, and that he did not think that the present was the best time for a thing of that kind. He will be astonished, and the Committee perhaps will be astonished, to know that this matter has been before the Mines Department for nearly 10 years. The Chief Inspector of mines, not the last one, but the one before him, discussed it again with the Miners' Federation with the object of getting those appliances from different parts of the country and making arrangements for holding, in the presence of experts, an exhibition of all those proposed appliances for safety in pits, and he
        328
        said that it would be only a, matter of a few months until this exhibition would be held, and that Government experts would be offered from the Mines Department to examine those appliances and to see whether it would be wise for the Legislature to make them compulsory.
        I quite agree that the Mines Department, or any other Department, so far as safety is concerned, must endeavour to make sure that there is something in any proposed appliance, and that it will not lead to greater danger, but it is not necessary to wait until there is a perfect appliance for this purpose. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that there is a hope that we may ultimately secure an electric lamp which will at the same time indicate the presence of inflammable gas, and, I sincerely hope also, of another gas which is quite as dangerous—black damp. The Committee may be astonished to know that nearly 10 years ago Mr. Williams, an eminent Welsh engineer, exhibited before the Mines Department of the Home Office an electric lamp which had attached to it a contrivance which would enable the holder of that lamp to test for explosive gas. At the same time he was experimenting with, and I believe that he ultimately perfected, a method of discovering black damp or CO2.
        I do not desire, and I say this as a practical man, to put an electric lamp into the hands of a miner in order to enable him to work in the presence of gas. I do not desire to put into his hands an electric lamp that may be a better lamp, and save his eyes and give him more light to do his work, in order to enable him to work in black damp, the first indication of which would be that the man would fall down insensible. I desire to have the best light possible. We know that it would add to the productivity of the mines and the safety of the men if we could have a better lamp, and we desire to have me best possible illumination and the best possible electric lamp, but we desire with that lamp to have some other method to enable a man to know when he is working in the presence of dangerous gas.
        I have known instances in which it was impossible to work in. certain sections of a mine, because of the presence of black damp, and men were withdrawn from it and other men were put there with electric lamps to work in the

        329
        presence of that dangerous gas. The electric lamp burned all the time in the presence of black damp, and the men worked in that section until some of them fell down and had to be carried out. We do not want that kind of thing, but we do want the Mines Department to give every encouragement possible to inventors of safety appliances. It is not beyond the wit of man. When the Davy Lamp, the original and first safety lamp, was invented it was far more difficult than it would be now to get an electric lamp which would give indication of explosive gases and black damp. Surely there ought to be encouragement given. It is not too much to ask that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should inquire about the exhibition which has been spoken about in his Department. He will find that the question has been discussed over and over again between the Miners' Federation and his Department. It would only be right that all persons should have an opportunity, not of forcing him in any way to accept their appliances but at least an opportunity given them for experts to examine those appliances. It would not be a very costly thing to examine them and decide as to which of them would be best. There are appliances to prevent overwinding, appliances for shot-firing, and appliances for minimising many of the dangers which exist in the mine, and we are only pleading that those who have invented these appliances should have an apportunity of having them proved unsatisfactory or accepted if they are satisfactory.
        With regard to the question of the Scotswood Pit, the miners are particularly anxious when such a casualty takes place that those who are entrapped should be brought up. If it is not possible to rescue them alive, then we feel that everything should be done to bring up the dead bodies at least, and that their relatives should know that the bodies have been brought up. It is said there is serious danger standing in the way in the case of this mine. There have been two practical miners down the mine, Mr. Herbert Smith and Mr. Richards, and they have made a public statement that they would not ask any mining engineer or manager or anyone else to go where they would not go, but that they were prepared to go down and see the mine workings if necessary. They have been there again and
        330
        again. They do not fear that there is very serious danger in the matter, but if there is danger they at least are prepared to take the risk. Now an expert has been appointed. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when that expert was sent to examine the mine, there wag a representative from the mining side—not a mining engineer, because there are men working in the mines who are experts, although not managers. Could not, say, Herbert Smith, Richardson or Straker have been asked to go down with that expert, and to express their opinion jointly with him? Your expert's opinion will not be accepted by the mining community merely on his word. We ought surely to have opportunities of having either Mr. Smith or Mr. Richardson or Mr. Straker along with your expert in order to find out whether or not there would be a. serious danger.
        I do not think anyone on this side or the widows of the poor men lying there at the present time would plead for the mine to be opened up if it was going to lead to further loss of life. I do not personally think it is wise seriously to risk life, in order to recover dead bodies, but it must be proved to our people that there is some grave risk before we can justify those bodies lying there and the wives and children never to see even the bodies of their people. I sincerely hope that this matter will be gone into very closely. I hope the hon. and. gallant Gentleman will not believe that we know all about the Scotswood disaster. We desire to see the conditions where the work was going on. If that can only be done, we believe that there will be revelations there which would prove conclusively that there was gross negligence. That opinion never will leave the minds of our people in Northumberland and Northern England unless we have an opportunity of getting to the scene of the disaster.
        When the Redding disaster took place it was from the same cause, through an old working where the plans of the previous working ought to have been in the possession of the mine-owner who was working the mine. The plans were in the possession of the landlord, but they were, not in the possession of the colliery company. In the Scotswood disaster there

        331
        was an inrush of water in exactly the same manner. We found that the root cause at Redding was that they had gone through an old working, and had they been as careful as they ought to have been they would have avoided it. I plead with the hon. and gallant Gentleman not to keep this mine sealed up, and not to depend on one expert, no matter how great he may be, unless you have some other person from the other side with him in making his examination. It will not be a costly matter, and I feel sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give a satisfactory answer to what is the unanimous opinion of the whole of the miners of this country.
        Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £112,945, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.

        HOME OFFICE.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £233,744, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices, including Liquidation Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary and extra-statutory Contributions towards the Expenses of a System of Probation."—[NOTE: £185,000 has been voted on account.]
        The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I think there has been a misunderstanding, for the Debate was not going to begin until 8 o'clock, and the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) was going to commence. Cannot one of the hon. Members opposite get up and make a speech for a few minutes to keep the Committee?
        Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I should like to submit one or two questions to the right hon. Gentleman, prior to the recognised leader starting off on the real Debate. During the past week various complaints have been made of punishment that has been inflicted and is being inflicted on various youthful offenders, having little or no opportunity to go under the ordinary probationer officer, who can give them a real opportunity for improving their ways and for generally seeing the bright side of life which they have been prevented from seeing in the days prior to their fall. I should like to ask the right hon.
        332
        Gentleman what the exact position is to-day, and when a first offender is sent to an industrial school, or is held over for purposes of either the Quarter Sessions or sentenced to a term of imprisonment, what the position really is at the moment as to probationary officers. Is there a sufficient number in every district? I am particularly interested in the Doncaster area. There I notice within the last week one individual who had been hailed before the bench on what would appear on the face of it to be a very flimsy offence was rather kindly dealt with by the magistrates, when it might very well have been one of the opposite cases where severe punishment was inflicted. I think it was generally felt by the magistrates who dealt with the case that if this youth could have been placed under a probation officer and that guiding influence had operated for a period, the chances are this youth might have developed into a really good citizen and have been worthy of all the attention paid to him. Although it was the expressed view of the magistrate that this person ought to have been placed under the probationary officer, no officer appeared to be available, and apparently nothing has happened except that the boy has been dealt with leniently and has been sent possibly to continue in the same way he had been doing previously.
        Is it fair to assume that there is a shortage of probationary officers; and, if so, what steps is the right hon. Gentleman intending to take to fill that breach? In the case of children who may have no parents, and who may have been adopted or for some reason or other have not had that parental control and who have lost themselves for the moment, are they going to have the same guiding influence, or are they going to be allowed to continue down the wrong path? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman going to take to see that probationary officers are in plentiful numbers?
        I should like to draw his attention to a recent case at the Doncaster West Riding Court of a youth of 18 or 19, whose parent was suffering from cancer, and for whom there is little or no hope, and apparently it is merely a question of time before he passed from this world. He has had no control over his son, unfortunately, in consequence of his own physical infirmity. He is quite unable

        333
        to earn his own livelihood. The boy, having no parental control, apparently, has gone down the wrong path, has been led away from his own home and has become employed by 3ome other person with whom he went to reside. For some reason or other, he fell foul of the employer, or they had a disagreement. The result in this particular case is that this boy has been charged either with stealing or with committing some offence, for which he has been sent to the Quarter Sessions, and now the parent whose infirmity has deprived him from taking that parental share in the case which otherwise he would have done, has been deprived of his boy, and the wages on which he depended. Now that the boy has got in trouble, he has been sent to the Quarter Sessions, and the parent is deprived of his son, his wages, and the son of his character.
        I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what really happens in a case of this description? Is there no hope for the boy who, for some unfortunate reason, goes astray once. Is there no chance for him in the future or could not a youth of this description be placed for a period under the charge of somebody or some authority where he may be given a chance to see the bright side of life, and the better side of life, and develop into a really good citizen?
        8.0 P.M.
        There are in many provincial districts numerous cases of young juveniles and youths of 16 and 17 and 18 years of age who, if they were caught at the proper moment and taken charge of and given that parental guidance they were entitled to, would instead of going from bad to worse, improve themselves and be good citizens for a very long period. There is another question I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman. Have there been any instructions recently given to superintendents of police, any suggestion in any shape or form whereby a superintendent, or any one of his officers, shall be permitted to enter any hotel and instruct the landlord to refuse to supply miners with any liquid refreshment until they have been home and washed, etc. Cases are known where this has taken place quite recently. At one very large colliery, some 900 yards deep, when the men leave the mine to indulge in the so-called national beverage, they make straight for this particular
        334
        hostelry, but a fortnight ago, on the Saturday, they were refused a drink after leaving the coal mine, on the instruction of the superintendent of police. I do not know from where the instruction came, why it was given and by whose authority. I gather that it has been withdrawn since, but what I should like to know is, is it general, and, if not, why should there be these isolated cases? There may be other Members who may bring forward questions of this description referring particularly to cases in their local district.
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Where was this?
        Mr. WILLIAMS: New Edlington, near Doncaster. I have a complaint that at one hotel, at all events, no miner could be served with a drink until he had been washed, and performed the usual domestic functions. It seems to me this is an unwarrantable action on the part of the person responsible in interfering with the normal privilege of the ordinary individual. I hope the Home Secretary will make some inquiry, and see that this thing is not extended, and that men are not deprived of what they conceive to be the ordinary liberties of the ordinary British citizen.
        I should like to make one other observation with regard to various types of aliens who are permitted to enter this country or who are kept on the opposite side. I brought a case to the notice of the Home Office of a parent with several boys and girls, very young, who came over from Germany at the request of large colliery proprietors in Great Britain some 20 to 30 years ago. He showed what German coal bye-product works really mean, and for over 20 years managed the whole thing. He also superintended the erection of other bye-product works built on German lines, and was held in very high esteem by the employers. In the meantime, his children reached working age, and commenced to follow the parent's lead at these collieries, and have become useful workers and useful citizens, and very helpful to the mining industry as a whole. But the War came, and the father, for reasons over which he had no control, was sent away to Germany. All the boys and girls were interned. Since then the boys and girls have all married, the girls having married British boys and the boys having married British girls. The father and mother were in this

        335
        country for 20 odd years, the father rendering wonderful service in German bye-product work. He is now refused permission to enter this country, although he is willing to make any declaration the right hon. Gentleman would desire not to fall upon any pension scheme that might be in existence, or might subsequently be brought into existence. His sons are prepared to undertake to maintain their parents, should the parents need maintaining, for the remaining part of their lives. All they desire is merely to return to join their children and spend the few remaining years with them. They have been refused permission to come back to their children.
        Other people, who happen to be much wealthier, but much less useful to industry, and certainly have been less useful in the past, can, by some manner of means, surreptitiously creep in for a three months' holiday, and can make their permanent residence in Great Britain. The right hon. Gentleman must know that, while this discrimination can take place, it is most difficult, with his closest scrutiny, always to do the right thing. I do not think he would do the wrong thing intentionally, and I do not think discrimination between one section and another section is definitely shown by the Minister, but cases do happen where one family are deprived of what ought to be their privilege, while another family, entitled to no privilege, get all the privileges. I would like to ask, what would be a fair line for him to take to decide whether or not a couple of old parents should be permitted to return to their children, merely to live with them for the remainder of their days, when they are willing to undertake not to be a charge upon industry, not to be a charge upon the nation, not to be a charge upon the Poor Law guardians or anyone else, but that they shall be self-supporting from the moment they enter? What reason is there, either on earth or in heaven, why a couple of that description should not be permitted under the existing alien laws to come back to this country?
        Lord HENRY CAVENDISH BENTINCK: The hon. Member who introduced the discussion on the Mines Department Vote this afternoon attributed the large percentage of accidents
        336
        among the miners to the fact that there were not enough inspectors. My complaint is the same with regard to the factories and workshops of this country. In many previous discussions on this subject, I have raised this question. Last year we were told by the late Home Secretary, that directly the Factory Bill wa3 passed into law, the number would be increased. We have had the same assurance again from the present Home Secretary. I should be quite satisfied with, that assurance, were the Factory Bill not quite such an elusive will-o'-the-wisp as it is at the present moment. But what I want to know is, why should we wait for the passing of a Factory Bill to do what is urgently needed at the present moment, and that is, increase to a very consider able extent the number of inspectors on our factory staff?
        There is an urgent need for greater vigour in affording protection to the lives and health of our workers in factories and workshops, and I cannot help feeling that a very large percentage of the deaths and ill-health is due to inadequate inspection. We have a splendid and most efficient staff of men and women, but when you come to think that these factory inspectors have to look after 1,500 factories and workshops, you begin to realise how inadequate the staff is, and what an impossible task is imposed upon them. I do feel that we need a greater vigour for the protection of our workers. When you look at the Factory Inspector's Report, and see that there were 169,723 accidents, on increase of 44,172 accidents reported for last year, there is, I am sure the Committee will agree, a most grave necessity for serious searchings of heart on our part as to the lack of protection for the working people in our industries. There were no less than 956 fatal accidents last year, an increase, I think, of 89 over the year before. There is no room for complacency, and I would urge that something more vigorous should be done. I cannot help thinking that a very large number of these accidents are utterly unnecessary, and need never have taken place.
        In shipbuilding, the casualties last year were 103, and in building construction, 104. Why should we regard this very serious toll of life as absolutely inevitable and necessary in the conduct of our shipbuilding and building construction? It is true that ships are higher than they

        337
        were, and so are the buildings, but the deaths in both cases are due to the fact that the platforms or stagings on which the men have to stand are too narrow and unprotected, and the slightest slip hurls a man to a certain death. I submit that if the Home Secretary would insist on railings being put to these small, narrow stagings, he would save an enormous number of lives both in shipbuilding and in building construction.
        Again, transmission machinery last year was responsible for no less than 58 deaths, or nine more than last year. Transmission machinery is dangerous, because it is unfenced. Why is it unfenced? Shafting and belting have been well known for many years to be dangerous. Why is this danger not being remedied? Then, prime movers were responsible for 202 accidents last year, and nine deaths. The Chief Inspector of factories says these could have been prevented if adequate fencing had been provided. There is nothing more striking, and, to an artistic eye, more beautiful in modern industry than these enormous cranes that we see lifting their heads to the sky; but though there is nothing more beautiful there is nothing more dangerous than they are. The Chief Inspector of factories says that as the greatest accident producers, they stand in front of any single type of machinery known in industry. They are dangerous, because they are liable to collapse, and they are liable to collapse because they are not periodically inspected by a competent person. As a layman, I ask, why are these not periodically inspected by a competent person? They would be if the Home Secretary were to insist upon it.
        Let me pass from accidents to disease. I think it is very disquieting that though we are and have been for a considerable time in a period of bad trade, yet the number of people suffering from lead poisoning is greater than ever and is increasing to an alarming extent. In fact it is double what it was in 1921. The number in 1921 was 230 cases and in 1924 there were 486 cases. Take the instance of the pottery trade. There are regulations which I suppose are good regulations, but I cannot help feeling they are not as good as they pretend to be or else they are not properly carried out. In 1920 there were 19 cases, in 1921, 35 cases, in 1922, 42 cases, in 1923, 44 cases and in
        338
        1924, 47 cases. The disturbing part of this very serious tale of disease is that lead poisoning is more and more infecting young people. Will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary make special inquiry as to why in the pottery trade the cases of lead poisoning are on the increase? Ship breaking is responsible for an appalling amount of lead poisoning. There were only seven cases in 1921, and last year we had 131 cases. Is that inevitable? Are we to sit down and see this going on without any serious effort being made to stop it? Electric accumulators are responsible for an enormous amount of this sickness. There were 35 cases in 1921 and 101 cases in 1924.
        Before leaving the question of disease I wish to refer to the subject of anthrax. Last year there were 43 cases of anthrax and four deaths. A committee was appointed in 1918 which reported that the proper way of dealing with anthrax was be international co-operation in order that wool, hides and hair should be treated as near as possible to the country of origin. It also recommended that a trial disinfecting station should be set up here. This was done, and the station treats more and more wool every yea: and is I believe a successful experiment, but so far all attempts to secure international co-operation have failed. An attempt was made in Washington in 1910 and again in 1921 and 1924, but co-operation to combat anthrax is really more an Imperial than an international question, because India is the greatest sinner in this respect. India refuses to help in any way whatever, and I ask my right hon. Friend, would it be possible to have an Imperial conference, as it were, to deal with this question in order that the pressure of public opinion might be put upon the Indian Government. Obviously it is far better that wool and hides should be treated as near to the country of origin as possible in order that no infected wool could enter this country at all. Stations like those at Liverpool are useful, but they cannot possibly deal radically with the situation so long as wool and hair conveying danger of infection enter the country at all.
        One more subject to which I desire to call attention is that of night baking. I would urge my right hon. Friend to take some action with regard to night baking, and I find great difficulty in understanding the action of the Govern-

        339
        ment representative at Geneva last year. He seemed to have gone there—no doubt, acting on orders from the Government—in rather a wanton and mischievous spirit, because he moved an amendment to the Night Baking Convention and then plainly announced that, whether the amendment were carried or not, the British Government had no intention of ratifying the Convention. That was a purely wrecking policy, because the countries of Europe are practically unanimous as to the necessity of abolishing night baking, and why should we drive a wedge into the foreign countries if we ourselves have no intention of ratifying the Convention? Why should the Government be so unhelpful and backward in this matter? In 1919 a Committee reported unanimously in favour of the abolition of night baking. During the War there was no night baking and nobody was a penny the worse, and nobody was inconvenienced or incommoded. It is true that a Sub-Committee of the Food Commission reported against the abolition of night baking, on the ground that bread might be increased in price if it were necessary to provide bread absolutely fresh. But is it necessary that the people of this country should have their bread absolutely fresh? The medical evidence before the first Committee was strongly opposed to fresh hot bread as being bad for the teeth and bad for the interior, and likely to create all sorts of diseases, such as appendicitis and ulcerated stomach.
        If the abolition of night baking were to improve the health of the population they would soon be reconciled to having their bread a little less fresh and more wholesome and we could kill two birds with the one stone by improving the health of the people generally and improving the health of the bakers. Why should we hesitate? What is the origin of night baking? It arises from the disastrous competition of the bakers themselves. One baker gets up a little earlier in order to overreach his competitor and so on. In Manchester, night baking was not practiced at all for two years after the expiration of the night baking order and nobody suffered any injury. But, unfortunately, new bakers came into Manchester and began to compete and to deliver the bread earlier,
        340
        and in consequence all the Manchester bakeries had to revert to night baking. That to my mind is an instance of the necessity for the State stepping in and preventing that disastrous internecine competition which springs up owing to the greed of certain individuals. If the right hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to give these matters which I have raised his sympathetic consideration, I shall be very grateful.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I approach the consideration of these Estimates with a great deal of pleasure, because for a great part of the administration of the Home Office I have nothing but praise. As the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary knows, I have supported him against the flank attacks of some of his own followers in various matters affecting the administration of the principal Secretaryship of State. For example, I consider that we have the very finest police force in the world, and that, compared with the police forces of other countries, we ought to be extremely thankful indeed. I resent any attacks made upon the police, and I am always prepared to support the right hon. Gentleman in defending them, as I know he always would. Secondly, I always support him, and hope I always will, in resisting any attempts at weakening the law with regard to reckless motor driving. Here again I consider that the police have a very delicate and difficult task, and that they carry it out very excellently indeed.
        The CHAIRMAN: There is a separate Police Vote, and questions regarding the police can only be raised in so far as the Home Secretary may have given any instructions or may have taken any action with regard to the Metropolitan Police.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Thank you, Mr. Hope, but that was only my preamble. On the question of night clubs, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's attitude at the Home Office, in view of the grave scandal of these bogus night clubs in London, which I am sorry to say are spreading to the provinces, and I am very sorry that the pressure of Parliamentary time and, possibly, certain vested interests and prejudices represented in other parts of the House, may have prevented legislation to end or to improve this state of affairs. Therefore, my few remarks are not in any sense

        341
        those of a Member who wants to oppose for the sake of opposing or to criticise for the sake of criticising. Before I come to the main question with which I wish to deal, may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a very small sum of money on page 42, of the Estimates, a sum of £136 for the "Roll of the Baronetage" We have the remuneration of the assistant registrar, £126, and incidental expenses, £10, the same this year as last year. This is only a very small sum, but it is the spirit in which expenditure is incurred that is the important thing, and if we are determined to save the small sums where we can, it is possible that the Departments will agree to save the large sums where they can. I should like to know why we should pay to keep a Roll of the Baronetage. The baronets are a very worthy body of men in the country, but they have no place in the Constitution at all. They have no Parliamentary status of any kind. They are half-way between the Peerage and the commoners, and I do not see why they should not be charged a small sum per year to keep up this registrar. A very small tax on these baronets, who are swarming as a result of the Coalition and other Governments of recent years, would pay for this £136, and why the general taxpayer should pay this money T cannot understand.
        I should like a declaration from the Home Secretary as to the policy of the Government with regard to the naturalisation of respectable law-abiding and useful aliens who have been living in our midst for many years. There is, I understand, a very long list at the Home Office, and while I quite agree that every possible examination should be made and the greatest care exercised before the privilege of naturalisation is granted to a foreign-born person living in this country, nevertheless I think, when a man has lived here for a number of years, has brought up a family, has never broken the law, and is well spoken of by all his neighbours, that that sort of man should be welcomed and, if in every way desirable, should be naturalised without difficulty. I see that the Home Secretary received a deputation a few days ago, and I have a, report of that deputation, printed in the "Daily Telegraph" newspaper of last Saturday. I see that a number of societies interested in the questions of
        342
        the naturalisation and admission of aliens into this country waited on the right hon. Gentleman, headed by Lord Queen-borough. Speeches were made by Lady Sydenham, representing the British Women's Patriotic League, Dr. Wansey Bayly, representing the Workers' Liberty and Employment League—I do not know what this body is—and Mr. Arthur Kitson, representing the Banking Reform League.
        "The deputation handed in a short memorandum praying for the amendment of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, to make more stringent the conditions under which certificates of naturalisation may be granted."
        I do not know whether it is supposed to be patriotism to preach hatred of foreigners. You see xenophobia flourishing in France and this country and other countries since the War, but I do not think a man is really more patriotic if he simply abuses the stranger that is within our midst for no just cause. The Report continues:
        "It was urged that the grant of British citizenship should only be given to aliens having long and meritorious residence in. this country"—
        we all agree with that—
        "and then only after the most searching inquiries into their moral and financial1 status. It was suggested that aliens and naturalised persons form a very large proportion of the criminal population of this country; that many of them are being; maintained at the country's expense, whether in hospitals, prisons, asylums, or on the poor rate."
        I quite agree that criminal aliens should be rejected from the country. The deputation went on to deal with the case of British women who marry aliens and of alien women who marry Britishers, and altogether they demanded a stiffening up of the present administration of the Act. The Home Secretary replied, and I may say that my complaint is that the present administration of the Act, not only by this Government but under the former Governments, the Labour Government, the former Conservative Government, and the Coalition Government, has inflicted hardship on very deserving people. This is what the right hon. Gentleman replied:
        "He entirely agreed that British nationality was a gift not lightly to be conferred …. The present position was that no alien could be naturalised unless he had had at least five years' residence in the British Empire; in actual practice,

        343
        the average duration of residence of aliens naturalised during his term of office was in excess of that period."
        That is a fact, as I shall presently show to the Committee.
        "He could not agree that any distinction should be made, for naturalisation purposes, between residence in England and residence elsewhere in the Empire."
        All this is common cause among all parties.
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. and gallant Member agrees with it?
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman is not carrying it out, as I am going to show. I am quoting the right hon. Gentleman's words to this super-patriotic league and followers, the Banking Reform Association and these other people, who, I presume, are a lot of busybodies who went to him and attacked him for being too lax. What is the Banking Reform League? Who are these people?
        Mr. LANSBURY: Perhaps they want to abolish the banks.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not see that they have any mandate to interfere in these matters. The right hon. Gentleman was attacked, and he defended himself, quite naturally, and pointed out the principles on which he acted, but he is not acting on those principles. He went on to say that responsible and respectable people should be given a chance of naturalisation after a certain number of years. My complaint is that that is not being done, and the enormous waiting list of these people is being delayed, for some reason or other, perhaps shortage of staff. At any rate, there are very good people who have been here many years, who have brought up families, who have a stake in the country, who are well spoken of on all hands, but who cannot get naturalisation.
        I will quote an actual case, and I do not want to give the name publicly, for obvious reasons, but I have given it privately this afternoon to the right hon. Gentleman, and he knows all about it. It is the case of a man living in Hull, who is known to me personally. He had the misfortune, it is true, to be born in Poland, but ho is a man of splendid physique, handsome, and intelligent, the sort of man we ought to welcome here.
        344
        He has been here for 30 years, he is a man of high character, an orthodox religious man of his religion, and he is well spoken of by all his neighbours. He has produced letters recommending his naturalisation, in the highest and warmest terms, from the Lord Mayor of the City, from the Sheriff, from the Deputy Lord Mayor, from the Chief of Police, from religious ministers, from Magistrates, from the Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, and from other people in the highest positions in the City of Hull, which I have the honour to represent in this House.
        This man has been here for 30 years, and for 13 years he has carried on a successful and prosperous business in Hull. I repeat that if the right hon. Gentleman could meet him, he would see that this man is a gentleman and that he is healthy, vigorous, and worthy to be given naturalisation. On 29th September, 1922, the man applied for naturalisation. Nothing came of that, except that the letter was acknowledged, and he was informed that the case should receive attention. On 10th October, 1922, I wrote pressing the claim, and again an acknowledgment was received, but again nothing was done. He already had had his application in for three years. In March, 1924, I took the case up again. It had then been under consideration for several years. This gentleman was anxious to go abroad, and only wanted to be naturalised before he went. On 24th March—this was during the Labour Government—I pointed out to the then Home Secretary that it had been engaging attention for some years—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about his politics?"] His politics do not matter in any case. He had a certificate of character, and letters of recommendation from all the leading gentlemen of Hull, men of all parties. I wrote, I say, stating that the man had lived in Hull for 13 years and urging the Home Secretary to hasten the case as much as possible. This letter was to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Arthur Henderson). I got an acknowledgment from him, and on 30th April the right hon. Gentleman wrote stating that the papers relating to the application had been referred to, but he regretted that he then could not give any indication as to when it would be

        345
        possible to proceed with it. There was no question of the man being unsuitable or anything of that kind.
        On 1st May I took the matter up again with the late Home Secretary. He was good enough to grant me a personal interview at which I laid the facts very fully before him. On 28th May I wrote again to the late Home Secretary. Finally, on 30th June, the application was refused. Now we have the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary, who, in the course of receiving a deputation that had waited upon him, giving utterance to these admirable sentiments about the people who are respectable and have a stake in the country, and who ought to be naturalised. I wrote to the present Home Secretary, and he was also good enough to see me about this case. On 4th March he replied, saying that this was not the sort of case which he could at present bring to an issue, and he could only suggest that the gentleman in question should ask for it to be considered again in two or three years' time.
        Well, now, what is the policy of the Government? Three years have passed, and now word has gone against the applicant, who, as I have said, has the recommendation of the Chief of Police, of magistrates, and others. He is a man who is in a prosperous position, a man of good character, living a good religious life, is industrious and sober, and is a man who would be an acquisition to this country. He has been 30 years in the country, 13 of them at Hull. After all the applications and letters that have been put forward he is told to apply again in two or three years' time. I really think that we ought to have some statement of policy on this matter from the right hon. Gentleman. I do not ask him to deal here and now with this particular case of the man to whom I am referring, but I ask him to state what is the policy of the Government in similar cases to this where a man is respectable, in a good position, would be an acquisition to the country, and who has lived a number of years here? How long has such a man to be resident in this country before he can become naturalised? Would it not be better to encourage people like that to become naturalised, to live here, and to bring up their families, and to become, as good citizens, a source of strength to
        346
        the country? Of course, in the case of a man of criminal tendencies I have nothing to say. I would support the right hon. Gentleman in any stringent measures against criminal aliens. In the case, however, of a respectable man who would prove a worthy citizen we ought to encourage him to become a citizen of the British Empire.
        Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I must apologise to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary because I was not here at the commencement of this Debate, but circumstances over which I had no control prevented me from being present. I would ask the Committee to bear with me while I touch on two aspects of Home Office administration. I will deal in the first place with the administration of the factory laws. Members of the Committee will probably have seen the splendid Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories, which contains a review of the work in this connection for the year 1924. In the very first few sentences of the Report there is provided a good subject for a speech, because under the title of "Safety" in regard to Accidents, the Report states that
        "During 1924, 169,723 accidents, including 956 fatal accidents, were reported, an increase of 44,172 over the previous year. The figures of the two years are not properly comparable because the basis of comparability has been altered by Section 28 of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1923."
        In other parts of the Report I have noticed clear indications that factory life has become more dangerous during the last few years, and the year 1924, apparently, does not bring us nearer the time when preventable accidents are being prevented. Before proceeding to deal with the Report proper I think I would not be doing my duty if I did not congratulate the Home Office on its research work. I am referring in particular to the operations of the Industrial Fatigue Research Board. The work performed by that Board is admirable, and the pamphlets and booklets issued by the Home Office as a result of their investigations are well worth reading. The only further point of comment I would make on them is that, after the Reports are issued, little or no action is taken upon them. Nearly all that I have to say this

        347
        evening on factories and workshops will be in relation to the inaction of the Home Office in regard to the problems dealt with in the Reports issued by the Board and by other sections of the Department of State for Home Affairs.
        The Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) has touched the pivot of the whole administration of the factory laws and I want to emphasise one point in particular he has made. The number of inspectors, after all, must determine very largely the safety of the millions employed in our factories and workshops. In 1914 there were 222 inspectors employed by the Home Office under the Factory Acts, and they paid effective visits numbering 470,742. By the end of 1924 the number of inspectors had been reduced to 205, a decrease of 17, and the number of effective visits had declined to 342,949. There is, however, something very much more important to remember in connection with the Report now under review. In 1914 the number of effective visits made before or after legal hours was 42,629, and these visits, after all, bring the most successful results. Instead of increasing as ought to be the case, the number in 1924 was reduced to 11,379. There is undoubtedly a distinct and intimate connection between the visits of inspectors and the number of accidents in factories and workshops. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to lose no time in going into the question of the number of inspectors, not only for factories and workshops, but as the Noble Lord suggests, the time has now arrived when inspectors ought to be employed to inquire into, and report upon, the conditions under which operatives in the building trade work. There have been several serious accidents of late in the building trade in connection with large cranes which are employed on the job. It was the intention of the late Government to deal with this question last year, and I would ask the Home Secretary to tell us whether anything is contemplated in the near future.
        In the Chief Inspector's Report a reference is made to a Committee appointed last year to inquire into the examination of young persons for factory employment. The Committee sat for
        348
        several weeks in the Home Office and inquired into this interesting subject. I do not know how many hon. Members are aware that there are over 1,000 certifying factory surgeons engaged on this task. They look with a medical eye on the young person of 14 years of age about to enter a factory or workshop in order to certify that he or she is fit for employment. I never knew before I inquired into it recently that the system of medical examination that prevails now, and the task performed by the certifying surgeons, is conducted on exactly the same lines as it was done 80 years ago.
        The Committee to which I referred made certain recommendations. Has the Government taken any notice of those recommendations, and what is likely to be done in that connection? The number of certifying factory surgeons in 1933 was 1,771, and during that year they examined 300,814 young persons. The fee received by the certifying factory surgeon is 1s. per case. For a small fee like that I do not see how any medical man can give proper attention to any young person, and the Committee recommended that it should be increased.
        The fundamental recommendation of the Committee, however, dealt with this position. There is now no connection at all between our school medical service, the work of the certifying factory surgeons and the panel system under the National Health Insurance scheme. I would impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the desirability that such a connection should be made. An extended school medical service ought to he capable of doing the work of the present certifying factory surgeon. At the present time the school medical service examines the child several times when at school and at or near the school leaving age. It is a waste of energy to have these two services in operation, and there ought to be, I repeat, a connection made between the school medical service, the work of the certifying factory surgeon, and the panel system of the Health) Insurance scheme.
        Above all, I would like to see an industrial medical service established through the municipalities under the control of the right hon. Gentleman's Department on the lines already followed by the best private firms in this country. Those firms are doing valuable work by

        349
        providing for medical examination and treatment in their establishments. If a school medical service is essential, as I believe to be the case, there is a very much stronger reason for examining children periodically while they are at work and treating them when necessary.
        At 16 years of age the young person comes of course under the National Health Insurance Scheme, but the gap between the school leaving age and the entry into the Health Insurance ought to be closed by the right hon. Gentleman's Department. I trust he will be able to tell us the intentions of the Home Office in that direction.
        I turn now to another point in that report, and I feel sure that I shall carry Members with me irrespective of their political prejudices. Last year a deputation of very influential men and women from the city of Liverpool saw the Home Secretary and called his attention to what I regard as an extraordinary state of affairs. I understand that scores of boys may be seen at any time waiting about the docks at Liverpool, without shelter from rain or snow, expecting to be engaged for the work of scaling ship boilers. I have here, a paragraph from a report which will explain the task performed by those boys:
        "Scaler boys are employed in chipping off the encrustations formed in boilers through impurities in the water. Access to the boiler is gained through an oval opening about 16 by 12 inches."
        Mr. SEXTON: And sometimes Less.
        Mr. DAVIES: I was simply staggered to learn that boys of from 14 to 16 years of age were employed to work there for three or four hours at a stretch scaling the inside of pipes, sometimes 100 to 150 feet long. When they come out there is no shelter for them and no mess room in which they can eat their food. They eat their meals in wet clothes and filth and dirt, and then go back again for two or three hours more work, after which they go home without any change of clothing. This is not a party issue at all; and I would like the Home Office to lay it down in Regulations that any firm employing those boys ought to provide shelter, a mess room, a change of clothing, a place to wash themselves, and in short to treat them decently. I felt ashamed when I heard of the conditions under which these boys work in Liverpool.
        350
        The case of Liverpool is worse than anything I have heard from any other part of the country. I would press upon the right hon. Gentleman to take immediate administrative action in this case. Complaints have been received that the boys travel home in tramcars with their clothing filthy with oil and dirt. I am not going to speak of their wages, because that question is not one for the right hon. Gentleman's Department, but their wages, I understand, are on a very low scale indeed. They are not employed by the week, they are not employed continually, they are not in any trade union, and nobody seems to care about them. When Parliament finds such a condition of affairs it is its duty to demand of the Department of State concerned that it shall intervene in order to help these boys out of their difficulties.
        I join with the Noble Lord, too, in making an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take steps to deal with the question of white lead in paint. I very much regret to notice that in this connection, a reaction is setting in. I gather, on very good information, that on 7th January this year the War Office published an Order prohibiting the use of white lead paint for their internal painting. The War Office may have been influenced, in this matter by the experience of the Office of Works, which for years has not used white lead in paint at all. The War Office would probably be influenced, too, by the Bill introduced last year to ratify the Geneva Convention in this connection. The reason I state that a reaction in this connection has set in is that I understand that the Federation of British Industries called the attention of the Government to this Order issued by the War Office, with the result that it was almost immediately withdrawn. It is a monstrous thing, when a Government Department issues an Order of that kind to try and save the lives and health of painters, that any section of the community like the Federation of British Industries should come along and influence the Government in that way. I wish to enter my protest against action of that kind. The Office of Works has found out that painting can be done without the use of white lead; and a Convention to deal with this problem has been passed at Geneva. I dislike the reactionary tendency which has manifested

        351
        itself, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will take this matter up and see that the Geneva Convention is ratified to the full, and not on the lines of his Bill.
        I have taken some interest in the question of anthrax which the Noble Lord has touched upon. Like him, I am a little concerned about the situation which has arisen, although I do not desire to blame the Government because I know there are difficulties in the way within the Empire itself. There are difficulties with India and Australia, but I would nevertheless like to make the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman should not allow this matter to drop. At the moment the position is this. Last year there was an endeavour at Geneva to secure a convention to apply to all the members of the International Labour Organisation. That failed because of differences of opinion not only in this country but within the Empire.
        I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might undertake to call a conference of all the Dominions affected in order to see whether we cannot get some agreement amongst ourselves to commence with. I quite appreciate the ridiculous situation which would arise if the British Government raised this issue at Geneva once again only to find that Australia and India were at variance with the Mother Country. Although the number of deaths are not great, the amount of suffering caused by anthrax is serious. I have seen photographs of men who have suffered from this terrible disease, and anything the Home Office can do to prevent even one man suffering ought to be done quite irrespective of the cost.
        9.0 P.M.
        This Vote provides us with the opportunity of mentioning the point which has also been referred to by the Noble Lord, and that is the prohibition of night baking. I would like to ask what is the attitude of the Government in relation to this problem, because at the last annual conference of the International Labour Organisation in Geneva, a draft convention was passed by the requisite majority. On this point, too, I quite appreciate the difficulties which arise. Some Continental countries already have legislation on their Statute Books which enable them to adopt and ratify this convention without difficulty. The process on the Continent is that when
        352
        they prohibit night baking at all they do so not only in regard to the operatives but in regard to the employers as well. In common parlance, they go the "whole hog." In this country we proceed on the lines that safeguard the interests of the worker, leaving the employer to do what he likes. But, irrespective of this difference in the treatment of the problem, I want to say, now that the convention has been passed, that it would be wrong on the part of any single country to turn round and say that "although the convention has been passed, we cannot ratify it because the laws of our country are contrary to those of other lands." We should always do our best at Geneva to amend conventions to meet our own point of view, but, having done that, we should not turn round and say to other States associated with the International Labour Organisation that we will ratify only if we find ourselves in a majority.
        I will now turn to the second part of my remarks. The hon. and gallant Gentleman below the Gangway raised the issue about aliens, and he cast some reflections upon the policy of the Labour Government in this respect. It is not for me to answer on behalf of the Home Office, but I will say to him that the history of the Labour Government shows in connection with the alien problem that we were very much more considerate and generous than the present Government in this respect, as can be proved by statistics.
        The Home Secretary has been delivering many speeches recently, and, if I might say so, I do not think some of them have been very discreet. The right hon. Gentleman has a very strong anti-alien feeling. I do not know why. I have never understood Conservative statesmen in this country Toeing anti-alien, because, after all, this is the centre of a big Empire, where all sects and creeds and colours are brought within its ambit; and it ill becomes us who are under the British flag with millions of coloured men, millions of folk who do not agree with us in religion, to have any anti-alien feeling on the lines exhibited by the right hon. Gentleman.
        I would like to refer to one or two of the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman, to prove my contention that he is not favourable to aliens.

        353
        First of all, I think we ought to clear our minds as to the powers of the Secretary of State for Home Affairs in this connection. His powers over the alien are immense. He has power to say whether an alien shall come here at all. He has power to say whether an alien, having resided in this country for any number of years, may be naturalised and made a British subject. He has power, also, which is greater than either of the first two, namely, the power of deportation. When I went to the Home Office I was very much struck with one thing there. I was astonished to find that the first person to be naturalised by the Home Office, many years ago, was a Welshman. I failed to understand that, and I said to myself, "How can this be? We were here before they came. I am not sure whether we shall be here when they have left."
        The right hon. Gentleman, in June of this year, made the following remarks:
        "A desperate attempt was being made to-day, in conjunction with the people of a country which was not our country, in conjunction with the ideals of a community which was not our community, to force upon us by what was known as the National Minority Movement a scheme of policy, a constitution, which was utterly foreign to the British nation. He referred to the condition of Russia and Bolshevism, and observed, 'I am responsible as Home Secretary to see that we do not allow ourselves to be conducted by devious methods into the same state as Russia is in to-day.'"
        I have many other quotations on the same lines, and, if I may say so, there is not a better advertiser of Bolshevism than the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure he is doing the Communist and Bolshevist cause a great deal of good. Needless to flay, I do not agree with the Communist party. I would never, myself, stand a dictatorship of any kind from any quarter. But this country has been renowned in history, and I hope it still will be, as a country where freedom of expression' of opinion prevails.
        The right hon. Gentleman is afraid of something. I can assure him that to keep out an alien with an idea that he dislikes does not of necessity keep out the idea. Ideas have a strange way of travelling, irrespectively of pamphlets or of speech, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to believe with me that nothing that he will do, that no Acts of Parliament ever devised or passed by
        354
        any Parliament in the world, can ever prevent an idea from travelling from one country to another. The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, afraid of Bolshevism. I can assure him that, if there is any truth in Bolshevism, no Government can prevent its coming to its own. Bolshevism will fail in this country merely because it makes no appeal, because it does not appeal lo the culture of our people. I want to make this request to the right hon. Gentleman, that he should not fear new ideas. He talks of subversive propaganda. Statesmen in all ages have been afraid of everything new. They have always had a hatred of other people's opinion; there has been opposition to progress and change at all times.
        Once upon a time it was subversive to no a Christian; it was subversive to form a trade union; it was subversive to belong to a Socialist organisation; it was subversive, during the War, to be in favour of peace. I was said to be carrying on subversive propaganda during the War because I opposed the War. I shall oppose the next war, and the one following that, irrespective of consequences. It was subversive once upon a time to be a Protestant, or to be a Catholic, and, certainly it was subversive to be a Labour advocate. The most subversive thing of all during my early life was to advocate a strike. If the right hon. Gentleman had been Home Secretary a quarter of a century ago, I suppose he would have imprisoned all Labour leaders. We have quite passed that stage now, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, as I have already said, that he will not fear new ideas. If they are good, they will find a place in the hearts of our people; if they are bad, they will perish. If he shuts the door, he may prevent his opponent from entering the house, but an idea can pass through the keyhole nevertheless. Ideas can never be prevented by Government action at any time.
        As I have said, I have other quotations from speeches delivered by the right hon. Gentleman, but I would ask him to allow freedom of expression of opinion to prevail in this country. He does that in the case of the Fascisti. I have never seen a single speech of the right hon. Gentleman against that body, and the methods advocated by the Fascisti are exactly the same as those advocated by

        355
        the Bolshevists. Both movements want to secure something by force. I would not object to the right hon. Gentleman dealing sternly with either a Fascist or a Communist if he found a revolver in his pocket; but when he has nothing more than an idea in his head, that idea should be allowed to come out. It is safer out than in. Those are the criticisms that I desire, to make, and I trust that the Home Secretary will be able to give us a reply, especially on the points I have raised in connection with the administration of the factory laws. He has a great duty to perform to the community. He has difficulties to contend with, but I want him to be a little more generous to people who disagree with his point of view. Men and women, after all, have a title to say and to write what they think, and the only danger with which the right hon. Gentleman ought to deal is the danger which may arise from the revolver or the bullet. When he apprehends that anywhere, he is entitled to step in; but when a man desires to deliver a speech he is entitled to do so, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will do nothing to destroy the great name of this country for liberty and freedom of speech.
        Mr. R. MORRISON: The time at the disposal of the Committee this evening is so short that it is not sufficient by any means to cover the whole of the ramifications of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, or even to cover his own actions, but I should like to follow on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. E. Davies), and to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it occurs to me that, when the end of this year comes, and we look back and survey his work since he was appointed Home Secretary in this Government, one outstanding thing that will be to his credit will be that he has, during his term of office as Home Secretary, given a new lease of life to the Communist party in this country. I think the year 1925 will be remembered as the year in which the right hon. Gentleman was the chief publicity agent of the Communist party. It does seem to me that it would be far better if he and his Government would pay more attention to remedying the social conditions which are making people Communists, and
        356
        less to instituting proceedings against Communists, the only result of which is to advertise them, and to get bigger crowds to their meetings and to get more people to read their publications. The right hon. Gentleman apparently not only pursues his vocation industriously during the week, but at week-ends regularly he appears to attend Primrose League gatherings and there, amidst very pleasant surroundings, he has been indulging in wild and whirling denunciations of the people he is pleased to call the Reds. If he will, when the Vacation comes, quietly think over the work he has done in his Department in the past few months, does he think as the result of all the speeches he has delivered and the action he has taken up to now against the Reds there is one Communist less in the country? [Interruption.] Obviously if the numbers have increased his efforts have not been successful. Consequently, I hope he will consider whether a change of tactics might not produce more desirable results even from his own point of view.
        I wish to refer to the question of naturalisation. T suggest, without in any way desiring to be rude, that, so far as I can see, the right hon. Gentleman, since he came into office, has been administering the Act in a somewhat high-handed and pompous manner. I intimated to his secretary that I proposed to raise one case as an example of the sort of thing that is making some of us wonder what his policy is. I want to give the case of a man named Krupp, who came to this country 32 years ago and has never been out of it since. He has six children, all of whom were born here and have attended local schools, and if I am informed aright, at least two have won scholarships. This man has never been in trouble of any sort and neither have any of the members of his family. During the War he did his share as well as most other people. From 1915 to 1917 he was engaged in making munition boxes—perhaps not a very important job, but none the less necessary. In 1917 he was at the Small Arms Factory at Enfield. In 1918 he was making aeroplane sheds and from 1918 to 1919 he was in a Government factory at Walthamstow. I should like to read the manager's state-

        357
        ment given to the man when his employment ceased:
        "His Majesty's Factory,
        Blackhorse Lane,
        Walthamstow.
        I have much pleasure in stating that Mr. A. Krupp has been engaged here as a general fitter from 20th August, 1918, until 20th December, 1919. During the whole of the time he gave every satisfaction and showed himself to be a very good worker. His only reason for leaving is on account of the closing of this factory as the result of the cessation of hostilities."
        This man applied to be naturalised a few months ago, and some weeks after his application a detective called at his house and examined him in reading and writing. After the examination he said he was perfectly satisfied, and told him there was nothing against him. On 24th June the application was turned down without any reason being given. Hearing of several cases of a similar sort I asked a question as to how many applications for naturalisation have been turned down between last November and June of this year. The answer was that 126 applications had been definitely turned down and a very large number were still under consideration. I asked another question, whether any reasons could be given why those 126 had been turned down.
        This is how I argued the matter. If a person has been in this country for anything from 20 to 40 years and has been well-behaved, has never been in trouble of any sort, the police have never made any allegation against him and he has been a desirable resident, surely there must be some broad, general ground, which Members of the House would very much like to know, why people, under these circumstances, are turned down. I was referred to the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, Part II, Section 3. That Section says:
        "the grant of a certificate of naturalisation to any such alien shall be in the absolute discretion of the Secretary of State and he may, with or without assigning any reason, give or withhold a certificate as ho thinks most conducive to the public good, and no appeal shall lie from his decision."
        These seem to be powers almost after the Home Secretary's own heart. I am not mentioning this case because I want to specify any particular case. I am taking it to make my argument more
        358
        clear. Has this man been refused because of his particular nationality? He has not been refused on the ground of length of residence, because the Act says five years or more. The right hon. Gentleman says that since he took office it has been more, but this man has been here for 32 years, therefore he cannot have been refused on the ground of insufficient length of residence. He cannot have been refused on the ground of unsatisfactory conduct, because the police themselves say, and everyone knows, he has never given any trouble of any sort. If he had been an Austrian or an Italian, would he have been refused? Is there a definite time for different nationals? I endeavoured to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman general reasons, but the only reply he made was that to give reasons for the rejection of 126 people would entail a great deal of research.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What was the nationality?
        Mr. MORRISON: He was a Russian or a Pole. I think the right hon. Gentleman's answer was simply "fudge." It would not require any considerable amount of research to give the general reasons for the refusal of 126 applications for naturalisation. Can he give us any information as to the nationality of the 126 people who have been definitely refused, although they have conformed to the ordinary conditions required, since he took his present office? In this case the length of residence is 32 years, and in the case quoted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) it is 30 years. The second condition is that the man must be of good character. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's case was a man of good character, and mine is a case of exceptionally good character, as I know from my own personal knowledge. Thirdly, the man must have an adequate knowledge of the English language, and this man has been informed by the detective that he was satisfactory in that way. I want to repeat the question I asked the Home Secretary last week. If a man has been resident here for 20 to 40 years, and has never been charged by the police with any offence, on what ground would his application be turned down? I think the House is justified in getting some information upon that. The right hon. Gentleman

        359
        said last week in answer to a Supplementary question that this was "rather a large question which could be debated next week." It is now being debated, and we wait with interest the reply he will make. May I finish on the note on which I began? I want to make an appeal to him to consider during the Vacation, when, I hope, he will have more time than he has had in the last few months, the way he is administering this Department. There are many signs of serious industrial trouble in this country, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether there are not any ways in which he can run his Department in order to make things better instead of worse. He might realise that it sounds very fine for him to say, "Under this Act I am empowered to make any decision I like without assigning any reasons to anybody." I do not think the Act was intended to be administered in that spirit, and I hope he is not going to administer it in such a spirit of dictatorship. I hope that he will realise that the part of the dictator has never been a success in this old country, that it is never likely to be a success, and that in either case the right hon. Gentleman himself, neither by nature nor temperament, is fitted to make a success of the part.
        Mr. COOPER RAWSON: The last speaker said there was a great deal of industrial depression, but he forgets the fact that a great deal of that is due to the introduction of so many aliens over here. That unrest is due entirely to the discontent fomented by his alien friends. It is such an extraordinary thing for Members on the Opposition side of the House to love aliens better than their own countrymen. They want to throw the doors open to aliens, when we have over 1,000,000 unemployed. The hon. Gentleman the Member for somewhere in Wales said that years ago it was subversive to have a strike in this country, but he forgot to mention that it was the Conservative party which made it possible to have strikes, to have peaceful picketing, and to have trade unions in this country. The Home Secretary, far from exceeding his duties in regard to aliens, has not satisfied some members of his own party. We have not only discontent among aliens throughout the country but we have dis-
        360
        content stirred up by numbers of this House. I will not say to which side they belong, because it is perhaps sufficiently obvious. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad hon. Members on the Opposition side are with me this time. Again, the hon. Member likened the Fascist to the Communist. You could not imagine any two sections of the community more widely different in every possible way.
        Captain BENN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the head of the Fascists is an ex-Communist himself?
        Mr. RAWSON: I am not talking about the head of the Fascists but of the movement as a whole. The Communist movement is for causing trouble in this country, causing revolution and splitting up the Empire. The Fascist movement is defensive, to counteract the effects of the Communist in this country and other parts of the Empire. I do not say I approve of the Fascist movement, because in this country we are sufficiently levelheaded to realise that the Communists are mostly fools, or they would not be Communists, and that we can deal with them by ordinary legitimate constitutional methods. The methods we have, such as the methods being pursued by the Home Secretary, are quite adequate to deal with Communists. It is most regrettable that the Socialist party should encourage Communists in every way, and I am certain the Committee will wish the Home Secretary to go on with the excellent work he has been doing to rid the country of the undesirable aliens of whom we have too many over here.
        Mr. LANSBURY: I want, first of all, to join with the other speakers who have asked the Home Secretary to deal with the industrial question, especially in regard to accidents and increasing and improving the inspectorate. It ought to be possible for the country to afford a larger body of inspectors, and I hope very much indeed that, if more are appointed, some will be detailed to deal with those big public buildings and with the machinery that is used on those big public buildings in order to see that all proper precautions are taken for safeguarding the lives and limbs of the men who are employed. I am sure there is not a Member on this side of the House who is

        361
        not deeply grarteful to the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) for the manner in which he puts this forward, and I am only sorry he and the rest of us have not more influence with the powers that be on these matters. It is a melancholy thing that at this time of the day we should be recording increases in accidents and that at the time of very bad trade and when, one would imagine, the hurry-up-and-make-haste methods would not be so prevalent as previously. That very tiny thing the Noble Lord pointed out of just putting a rail round a very narrow kind of landing stage on which men stand is one which I should have thought most humane employers would only have been too glad to do of their own free will. I say this because all of us are guilty in one way or another of want of thought, and I think if some steps were taken by the Department to deal with that and bring it to the notice of the employers it would be done.
        We really must face up the fact that to-night we have had a terrible story told of accidents in mines, followed by a very clear statement by the Noble Lord opposite as to accidents that come within the jurisdiction of the right hon. Gentleman, and it is not to the credit of this House or of any public Department that these things should continue. I very earnestly hope that, whatever else we do not get out of this Debate, we shall get an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he will go very thoroughly into the question of the inspectorate and add to their numbers and, if possible, increase their powers. I am quite certain that with more care and efficiency we could get down those accidents to a very much less number than they are at the present time. I would also like to join in the appeal about anthrax. I went on a deputation to the India Office on this subject knowing its difficulty, but difficulties are made to be overcome. From that interview I gathered it would be possible with good will on the part of all Departments concerned to stamp out this very terrible disease, so terrible that none of us can think of it without a feeling of real loathing and also deep sympathy with anybody unfortunate enough to suffer from it.
        Having said that, I would like to come back to the perennial subject of the aliens. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Rawson) made the usual speech on
        362
        this subject. It really is absurd at this time of day to tell us that a handful of aliens coming into this country make all the trouble and strife. It is conditions that make revolutions. The Bolsheviks in Russia did not make the revolution in Russia; it was the conditions which made the revolution. No one will deny that. If the conditions are not there, there will be no revolution. Long before the Bolsheviks arrived the revolution had taken place in Russia, and it took place because of the corruption of the officers of the Tsar, because the troops were starved, because they had neither food nor ammunition, and they turned round and refused any longer to be dumb, driven cattle. The same thing would happen in this country under the same conditions, whether you had 1,000 aliens or no alien at all here. Human beings being what they are, they will not starve quietly, any more than rats will starve. Anyone with intelligence knows that that is true. I can prove conclusively that even before the advent of the present regime in Russia there were a few atrocities committed even under the Tsar.
        Let me deal with the question of the Home Secretary's powers. No one denies that at a time of grave national emergency great powers were given to the Home Secretary. I have never denied that if you have a war you cannot have the ordinary law running. The last time I spoke on this subject I said that this was part of the price we were bound to pay for war. The war conditions have gone by now. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary stands at that Box and talks to us as if this House had endowed him with the powers and the intelligence of a kind of demigod. He stands up and treats us to a disquisition as if he were the only person in the world who could never make a mistake. As a matter of fact, when Parliament gives anyone powers it expects that those powers will be used in an intelligent way. Parliament also reserves to itself the right to discuss and to decide whether the powers are being used in an intelligent way. Why have we this Vote before us to-night? Why have we the opportunity of putting questions to the right hon. Gentleman, if it is not that Parliament at the back of its mind imagines that occasionally it may give some one powers which may be used badly? Therefore, there is no

        363
        wrong in our calling into question things that the right hon. Gentleman does.
        Take the case in which he got rather indignant with me, the case of the man Homer. Here is a man who is an agitator. He is a Communist. I happen to be a Communist, although I am not a member of the Communist party, and do not suppose I shall ever be a member of that party. That is because I disagree with them on a fundamental principle, exactly as I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman and with many of my hon. Friends on this side. I am against force under any conditions—force for revolution or force for a racial war. That is my disagreement with the Communists. But when the right hon. Gentleman claims that he Has a right, and that the police have a right to go into a man's house to search him, and then that man has either to be taken by force or to be persuaded to come to Scotland Yard to be examined, not publicly before a magistrate, but in some office in Scotland Yard, and is told to give an account of a certain document which turned out to be a most innocuous document—then I am against the right hon. Gentleman. That was as stupid a thing as was the putting of police officers under the platform at the Communist meeting last year—perfectly ridiculous. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will give us the credit of saying to our own people exactly what we are saying to him, that it was a perfectly idiotic thing to do.
        But this sort of thing is bound to happen when we have this Red mania running around. You see bogies and off you go chasing after them, and nearly every time you catch a loser. What have you done with all your hunting after the Beds? You have arrested this man, you give him all the publicity of arrest. You search his house, and then you find some "dangerous" document that is out of date, a document which conveys no information of any worth to any one. Then the right hon. Gentleman later refused to allow certain delegates to come to this country to attend a Communist conference. He said, "These people in their own country may preach what they like, and in this country we have to put up with Englishmen who preach the same doctrine." Does
        364
        anyone seriously think that a couple of delegates coming from a foreign country to take pare in a conference here for a week or 10 days can really upset this Realm? If so, it rests on a very poor foundation indeed. For the life of me I cannot see even now what good the right hon. Gentleman did, because the persons he tried to keep out actually did attend the conference. How they got there I do not know, but their presence proves that the net is not quite as close as the right hon. Gentleman and his friends imagined it was. In that case the action of the right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong.
        But he not only keeps out that sort of person. I have been trying to find out why certain people in India should not be allowed to come to attend a semi-religious conference in this country and in Holland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Semi-religious!"] Yes, semi-religious. If hon. Gentlemen do not understand the word, let them look at a dictionary. Some of them would not pass the naturalisation test for a knowledge of English. The point I am making is that it is not only the dangerous Reds, but people who happen to hold what are considered rather extraordinary views on religion who are excluded. They are not allowed to travel about. It seems to me perfectly montrous that that should be so. It is all part of the fear of new ideas, the fear that in some way or other there is running through their religion some insidious sort of theory which will upset the accepted order of things.
        It is time that this sort of thing was stopped; it is time that we went back to the good old days when men like Mazzini and Kropotkin, who in their own country and even here talked very seditious stuff and wrote quite seditious pamphlets and books—we ought to go back to those days and allow absolute freedom of expression for any view which people may hold, however extreme it may sound to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. My view is that the more you allow people-to speak, the more you let them write, the more you allow them to have perfect freedom of expression the more safe the country is from any danger from their propaganda, because as my hon. Friend here said if a thing is true it will live whatever you may do. You may kill an individual, but you cannot kill an idea.

        365
        The New Testament tells you that the word of God will live, and the word of the Devil will die. That is the attitude which I wish—
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Before the hon. Member passes from this I would like to know what he is driving at when he refers to Indian religions? What Indian religions have I prevented from coming here?
        Mr. LANSBURY: I cannot tell you their religion. I only know that they were people who wanted to travel. I will send the right hon. Gentleman the correspondence which I had with the India Office on the subject of their coming here.
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The India Office?
        Mr. LANSBURY: Yes. It is all part of this theory that people are dangerous if they hold views with which you disagree. These people are said to be dangerous because they hold new views of life and the policy which the right hon. Gentleman represents of keeping out aliens. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are not aliens!"] They happen to be Indians, but they are a subject race, and they must not be allowed to get about without permission. I will give the right hon. Gentleman the correspondence which I have had in this connection, because it is part of the policy of the present Government to prevent the freedom of movement of certain people even within the Empire simply because they hold the ideas which they happen to hold. There are three other things to which I wish to refer. One is the question raised by my hon. Friend on this bench and the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I want to know how long is it necessary for a man or a woman to live in this country before they can be naturalised? I have a case here of a man who has lived for 30 years in this country to my knowledge, and there Is nothing against him. He was told to advertise the fact that he had applied for naturalisation. When he did advertise he was informed that his application could not be further considered. I will give the right Hon. Gentleman the name and address of this man.
        What I want to emphasise is, that if a man has been in this country for 30
        366
        years, you either ought to deport him as a person unworthy to remain here or you ought to allow him to be naturalised. It seems to me that you have no choice in the matter. I say further, in connection with aliens generally, that I often look round in this House, and occasionally outside I look at the names of people balloting for seats, and occasionally I look at the little book there, and I ask myself, "Where do we all come from?" How many of us could trace our genealogy right back and say where we come from? How many of you have any choice as to your parents? You talk about the British race as if you all had something to do with it. It is a mere accident that any of you were born here or anywhere else. I was wanting to throw on hon. Members the responsibility of being sensible enough to realise that nobody is responsible for where he is horn, or for who his parents are. I know-perfectly well that, from the highest to the lowest in the land, we have all come from a very mixed sort of race, and none of us are so pure blooded that we can claim to be absolutely British through and through. I defy any single Member of this House to produce the history of his house and to prove, whether he is one of the richest or the poorest, that there is not some of this foreign blood somewhere in him. As Tennyson says:
        "Saxon and Norman and Dane are we."
        —Where did you get the Saxons from?—
        "Saxon and Norman and Dane are we,"
        —and so we are and a lot more too. Therefore, it is time that you gave up all this sort of Mother Hubbard talk of Britain for the British. Find the British. That is the problem for you. I want to see the time when you will mete out to all aliens the same kind of treatment. That brings me to the question: Who pays for the officer who trots up and' down before the residence of a gentleman called Duke Michael? Is he registered? Where is he registered? Is he doing anybody out of a job? It all appeared in the press the other day. I only want equality of treatment for all aliens. If you are going to deal with the pure communist you wart to deal with the pure white. If we are to have one set kept out I want to see all kept out. I am as much against the white Russian propaganda in this country as I would be against any sort of propaganda if I was against any at all.

        367
        [Laughter.] I mean if I were against anything in the nature of propaganda at all. I am sorry that I missed out a word. You take a little explaining to at this time of night.
        The other point which I wish to raise is a perfectly simple one. I have been egged on to ask does the Duke Michael get police protection? I am told that he does. That is why I want to know about the policeman who is walking up and down outside his house. I would like to know a little more about him. Is he registered, because we have to see that everybody is respectable whether he has a title or not? Having to come up here for my sins pretty often I see huge crowds of police keeping back huge crowds of people, looking at weddings and other functions, and I always ask myself—who is paying for them and whose property is being left unprotected while the police are doing this sort of work? Is it not time to ask the people who have these functions to provide a special kind of police for their own special wants and to pay for them themselves? [HON. MEMBERS: "They do pay for them."] It would help the unemployment problem. You are hard up for some proposition to deal with the unemployed. Here is one of which I make you a present. You can take some of these unemployed, and organise them as a special police to look after you on your wedding and christening days, and at any other function at which you want protection.
        I hope that the Home Secretary will pay attention to the request which we have made to him with regard to factory and other administration, and I hope that he will give up hunting and chasing and will leave these people to whom I have referred alone, and will remember that if the conditions of England are such that people can live without being dissatisfied with the conditions there will be no fear of revolution, and that if the Government ever do want to prevent revolution they will get rid of the causes that make for revolution.
        Mr. RHYS: Before I return to the perennial subject of Bolshevism, I should like to ask the Home Secretary if he will consider one question very far removed from any revolution or red peril. Perhaps I ought to have given him notice that I was going to raise it, and I will
        368
        not press him for an answer this evening. I raise it in view of the local elections, which, I understand, come under his Department, and it is connected with the elections for rural district councils and parish councils. There is considerable confusion at present as to what happens if one individual is elected for two wards, and as to whether a vacancy in a rural district council immediately creates a by-election or whether another candidate can be co-opted to serve. This is a matter which is causing some confusion in some districts, and I think it is a point which may well be raised and which is worthy of his consideration.
        I turn now for one moment to another subject which has inspired such discussion, namely, the question of Communistic agitation. I only ask the Committee to cast its mind back to last October and the publication of a remarkable letter when the late Prime Minister was in office. I know in my case it turned a large number of votes to me. As the letter was published when the Labour Government was in office, I cannot think that they will have any complaint to make when the Home Secretary takes strong action in dealing with the Communist menace in this country. I know from going about that there is nothing this Government can do to please the country on the whole more than the strong action which I hope is going to be taken after the strong speeches which have been made to deal with the enemies in our midst. I am not one of those who say that because a man votes Socialist he wants to cut my throat to-morrow morning. That is the most foolish policy the Conservative Party could pursue, to go about the country telling every man who votes Labour that he is a revolutionary. I do not agree with that and I do not believe it for a moment.
        10.0 P.M.
        I have the honour to represent a constituency which has a rather large area which is very poor. In order to get to my constituency I go down every week through the East End. When one travels down and sees miles of poor streets, when one sees Employment Exchanges with men standing outside with nothing to do but prop up the wall with their backs, one cannot help feeling that here is a state of affairs which must inevitably be a very fertile breeding ground for dis-

        369
        content. It is a thing which impresses me more every day that I see it. I am proud to say I have very many friends among the poorest of the poor. They are kind enough to do me the honour of coming to tell me their troubles and to ask me if I can help them, and I am absolutely lost in admiration at the patience of these people and the magnificent way in which they struggle against adversity. I say, quite frankly, that if I thought Socialism to be a remedy for that state of affairs, I would be a Socialist, but I am convinced that it is not, and that it would only make affaire much worse. [An HON. MEMBER: "You will alter!"] An hon. Member says I shall alter, but I cannot alter be cause one cannot get away from the teachings of history and fundamental truths. Socialism has never succeeded, and it has always resulted in lowering the standard. If we take the country as a whole the standard of living, except in certain black areas, is very much higher. One has only to study accounts of the conditions of the industrial areas a hundred years ago and compare them with the conditions to-day to see there has been a very remarkable improvement. The spirit that I should like to appeal for is the spirit we have heard expressed this afternoon in the mining Debate, when Members on the benches above the Gangway on this side appealed to the Secretary for Mines to urge the employers to see that proper Regulations were enforced and everything done to ensure the safety of the miners and in the same way that the miners should co-operate in order to make conditions better. I will say this, that where the employer asks more of the men, the men are absolutely entitled to ask for the most modern machinery and most up-to-date conditions. If we can get a state of affairs of co-operation and, at the same time, of individual liberty, I think we shall go a very long way towards stopping any Revolution in this country.
        Mr. HARRIS: I want to raise a matter of some importance, which has been raised on similar occasions by questions to the Home Secretary, and that is, the small number of persons from Northern Ireland still detained in prisons in this country. We know they
        370
        were arrested because of political crimes with political objects. That was a considerable time ago, and there is a very strong feeling among their fellow citizens in Southern Ireland who are, after all, members of the British Empire, that it would strengthen the spirit of growing good feeling between Southern Ireland and this country if an act of clemency could now be exercised by the Home Secretary and these men released. I make this appeal to the Home Secretary because I feel the time has come when there should be an inquiry as to their position and whether it is possible to release them.
        On other matter I should like to raise is the case of a constituent of mine, which seems to me to raise a very important problem of principle. I raised it across the Floor of the House in the form of a question, but I got a most unsatisfactory reply. A young man employed in a factory at Watford went during the dinner hour into a newspaper shop quite innocently to buy a newspaper, and what was his surprise to find himself touched on the shoulder by a police officer in plain clothes. He was then taken into a back room and searched, but no incriminating documents were found on him, no betting slips, find nothing to associate him with anything irregular. Not only was he detained, but any chance person who happened to enter this newspaper office was also similarly searched, and even in cases where no incriminating papers were found on the men they were all taken off to the police station and detained there for over two hours, being driven through the streets of Watford in open cars in view of everybody, not only suffering great indignity but in most cases the loss of several hours of work and forfeiture of pay. When I addressed the Home Secretary on the matter, he took up the position that he had no responsibility, that it was entirely in the hands of the county constable, who had powers to search any man going into the shop, and he himself had no power to interfere. I put it to him, is it not a serious proposition that an innocent citizen going into a shop should be open to the suspicion of being there for betting purposes, liable to arrest without any evidence against the individual, who is kept from his employment and taken off to the police station?

        371
        I do think it is entirely against the spirit of our laws. It has been our pride and our boast that everybody is innocent until he is proved guilty, and that the individual is free from arrest. I do think it is a very serious statement for the Home Secretary to make, that ho is not responsible in the matter, and that the whole discretion of taking high-handed action of this kind must be left in the hands of a county constable. I am one of the first to realise the serious danger of the growing vice in question becoming general, and it is certainly one it is well to put clown, but, serious as it is, there is something far more important, and that is the liberty of the individual. We have to be very jealous in this House to protect our citizens from arbitrary arrest, and certainly, in such a case as that, of my constituent who happened to be in Watford on that particular day, and was arbitrarily arrested when going about his ordinary business, going to a factory as he was, and was caused great personal distress and inconvenience. I have taken advice on this matter, and I believe this man could have taken action for wrongful arrest, but how can you expect a working man to give up work to consult a solicitor and go to the expense and through all the paraphernalia of taking action against such a powerful machine as the Government? I do hope I shall get a satisfactory statement from the Home Secretary to satisfy people who have suffered great inconvenience and distress from this action.
        Mr. MARCH: I desire to bring to the notice of the Home Secretary one or two cases of complaints brought to me from my constituents. The first is that of a lad who was charged, with two other men, with felony, and all three were sentenced to three months' imprisonment. They served their term of imprisonment, and the two men were discharged about a fortnight ago. The lad, however, was detained for a fortnight after those two men had been discharged, although their terms were exactly the same. According to the report I received from the mother of this lad on Saturday night last, the lad was detained because it was thought he was a little bit wrong, and he was discharged from Wandsworth Prison and then sent off to a mental institution. She was told by the governor that if she
        372
        wanted to find out any further particulars with regard to her son, she had to communicate with the doctor or superintendent of this institution. The mother complains most seriously about the lad having been detained a fortnight after the other two men had been discharged for the same offence. She communicated with the governor and her son at Wandsworth Prison, and got to know nothing at all as to why he was detained for a further fortnight, and why he should be sent off to a mental institution without her being consulted in any way whatever. She seems to think it is very high-handed action, and I certainly hope the Home Secretary will be able to give us some explanation.
        I have also written to the Home Secretary with regard to complaints I had brought to my notice about the warrant officer from the Thames Police Court. I sent a letter, which I received from a woman constituent of mine, to the Home Secretary about this warrant officer going to her house and interfering with her after notice had been given that she had to quit her apartments at a certain time. I have numerous cases, as I said in the letter I sent to the Home Secretary, as to the attitude of this warrant officer in his work. I thought the Home Secretary would be able to judge better by the person's own letter than he would if he got the particulars from me. After the Home Secretary had had this letter in his charge for a month, I got a reply to say that he had had the matter inquired into, and the warrant officer used no undue efforts in connection with this matter. What we would like to know is, if a case to dispose of a tenant is taken to the Court by a landlord, and the magistrate gives the woman a fortnight or a month to get out of the place, what right has the warrant officer to go down four or five days before the time is up, to interrogate her and make all kinds of representations and threats as to what is going to happen two or three days before the time is up. I understand the warrant officer told this woman, although her time would not be up till Monday, she would be expected to have herself and her things out on the street on Saturday. I should like to know whether that is in accordance with the proper routine of a warrant officer.
        I would also like to bring to the notice of the Home Secretary a case like that

        373
        which the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has mentioned. I have two or three cases in my side of the Division, but one particular case of naturalisation. This person has brought to my notice that he arrived in this country in 1891, and therefore he has been here 34 years. He has been in business for himself ever since 1911. He applied for naturalisation in 1914, and from 1914 up to now nothing definite has been told him as to whether he is to be naturalised or not. He sent along his sovereign in the usual way with the application, and it was kept. We understand that is in accordance with regulations, but it is very rice to be able to get these sovereigns sent along with an application for naturalisation, and the man is to be kept all this period not knowing why he is not receiving the naturalisation papers, or whether he is to have them or not. I shall be glad to give the Home Secretary the name of the person afterwards. It does seem very strange that applications of this description should be made, and inquiries and investigations made—the man has visited the Home Office with the deputy town clerk of our district, and has given further particulars which they required about six weeks ago—and from that time nothing has transpired as to whether he is to be naturalised or not.
        I want to bring to the right hon. Gentleman's notice something which I think is doing a good deal of good, and that is that we have a number of horse-police parading up and down Commercial Road. It has a very great effect upon slow-going traffic in keeping it away from the tram-lines on to the near side. I travel about the main roads a good deal, and I think we ought to have a few more of these horse police. It would make a great deal of difference, especially in regard to slow traffic, if we could have more mounted police. They do a great deal of good where there are steam driven vehicles the drivers of which cannot hear the whistles or the horns of motors and get out of the way. The mounted police are rendering excellent service, and I should like to see the system extended. I desire to touch on the subject of night baking which was raised by the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck). I happen to have been in the baking trade in my very early days, but
        374
        we had no night baking, and I do not think you will find the system prevailing to any extent in the country districts. There we knew how to rise early, and we were always able to have our baking finished at 8 o'clock in the morning, and to carry out the deliveries during the day. I think it is only in the cities that night baking is carried on to a great extent, and I think it could easily be abolished. We had the experience during the War of not having bread until it was 24 hours old. That was for the purpose of economy, but if we could manage to put up with that, surely most people can put up with bread which is six or eight hours old? It is only because a few people demand hot rolls for breakfast that pressure is brought to bear on the authorities to carry on night baking; but as one who has been in the trade, I should be glad if we could get away from the system for health's sake and carry out the Night Baking Convention.
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I wish to thank the Committee for the very kind way in which these Estimates have been received. Hon. Members have occupied some two and a-quarter hours in putting various questions, but, with one or two exceptions, kindness has been shown towards the Home Secretary and the Home Office. Member after Member has spoken, not in regard of myself, but in regard to the Home Office, in the highest terms, referring to the work done by the inspectors of factories, by the police, and by the Prison Department, and of the wonderful way in which the gentlemen connected with these various Departments carry out their duties. I think it is agreed that they do their work in the manner we would expect from English civil servants. I am glad that, on the first occasion on which I have appeared here in support of these Estimates, the work of the Department should have received such a general testimonial. I I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. March), having made various complaints, refer to the increase of mounted police in the East End and mention that they are doing good work. It has been a great experiment in the direction of improving the management of traffic, and I believe it has been successful. I should like to see more mounted police, as indeed I might like to

        375
        see more police of all kinds, but there is such a thing as economy, and I cannot ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at this time for any increase in mounted police, which represent a rather expensive item in the police Vote. I am sure the hon. Member for Poplar did not know it is usual to send notice to me of difficult individual questions such as he raised, but it is quite impossible for me to deal with these individual cases without notice. I cannot carry in my mind all the thousand and one cases which come before the Department, but if he will let me- know the names of the cases to which he referred, I will inquire into them and communicate with him directly in regard to them.
        The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) raised a point that was raised before—I think he raised it—with regard to betting at Watford. The Act of Parliament provides that a magistrate must be satisfied on sworn information before he issues a warrant in regard to premises used or alleged to be used for betting purposes. I have no control over the magistrate. When he is satisfied that it is right to issue a warrant, he issues it on his own responsibility, and when he has issued that warrant the police of the district to which it refers have the right by law to arrest anybody found on the premises. I cannot give any further explanation than that. I am not personally responsible, either for the magistrate or for the Watford police. They are outside the Metropolitan police area, and the Chairman of the Committee ruled, earlier in the evening, that detailed cases in regard to the police force would be out of order. I can only deal on this subject with directions given to the police by myself, and I am bound to say that I gave no directions in this case, and, therefore, I am not responsible.
        The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who opened the Debate, dealt with questions in regard to probation officers, stating that more were required. I entirely agree with Kim that more probation officers are required. I am strongly in favour of the probation system, and I have had the privilege of carrying through, as far as the Committee stage of this House, the Criminal Justice Bill, which deals largely with the recon-
        376
        struction of the probation system. I hope it will be taken through its Report stage during the first week when Parliament meets after the Recess, and when that is carried, if the House does me the honour to carry it, and when it is carried by the other House, there will be a very large increase of probation officers, and all the good work which the hon. Member for Don Valley said has been done on a small scale will then, I hope, be done on a very much larger scale by the greater number of probation officers who will be appointed under the provisions of that Bill.
        If I may, I would like to deal with the larger questions which have been raised by various hon. Members, and particularly by my Noble Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) and by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who was the Under-Secretary for the Home Office in the late Government. My Noble Friend sometimes seems to think that he and I do not get on very well in political matters, but I should like to join in the tribute which has been paid to him by the other side for his interest in factory matters, and I should like to tell him that I do not in the least degree resent the pressure which he sometimes puts on me in the endeavour to get things done in connection with my office. He has very rightly complained of the lack in the numbers of the factory inspectors. I am with him all the time. I have said in this House, and I said only last week, in reply to a deputation, that I agree that I have not got enough factory inspectors. I would like to get more, and I hope I shall get more. The same complaint was made during the last Government, and the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary made the same answer, that considerations of economy, in the first place, prevented an increase in the number of factory inspectors.
        I am bound to say that I think it is essential, that my experience and my inquiries of the factory inspectors themselves lead me to the conviction that they are over-worked, that they are working at very high pressure, indeed. I agree that the more factory inspectors there are, the more visits they can pay to the factories, the better, is the record of accidents. I can only say that, if the

        377
        new Factory Bill is passed into law, the Bill which I hope to introduce before very long, further necessity will arise for a considerable increase in the inspectorate, and that that will be the time, I think, when a concerted scheme can be put before the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury, to apply for an increase. In any case, I think it will be inevitable in the near future in regard to the factory inspectors.
        The hon. Member has referred to the increase in accidents, and has suggested that some explanation might be offered. Curiously enough there was an improvement in the steel and electrical trade, amongst others, and in respect to some other trades which are doing well, with more men employed, and where trade is good and more work is being turned out. It is, I agree, very regrettable that there should be these increasing accidents, and if we could get more factory inspectors devoting more time, that increase in the number of accidents would go down again. We should, I think, find that there will not only be a decrease in the total number but a decrease in the fatal accidents. I have been able to get regulations with regard to docks, and substantial progress has already been made in regard fro Regulations for shipbuilding and operations in the building trade. These are two great businesses where those accidents do take place. The Dock Regulations are in the hands of the trade, and I hope, certainly, before the House meets again, that I shall be able to announce that these Regulations have been issued. These are the two trades in which there are a considerable number of accidents. If we can get the Dock Regulations to work, and further Regulations issued with respect to shipbuilding and building operations, I think we shall again go a long way in regard to these particular trades. Then the hon. Member for Westhoughton put a question to me with regard to dangerous buildings. Dangerous buildings are matters with which the local authorities are more concerned. But I have been in touch with the Minister of Health and it is now proposed, I think, to have a Clause inserted in the Public Health Bill giving additional powers to the local authorities. They are the people who at present deal with the Acts relating to dangerous buildings. If we can get further powers,
        378
        of course subject to the sanction of this House, that will go some way in regard to the point put forward by my hon. Friend.
        Mr. R. DAVIES: What I had in mind was buildings in course of construction.
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In regard to buildings in course of construction, I have prepared Draft Regulations. I hope very shortly to get an agreement with the trade, and then the Regulations will be issued—when, exactly, I do not know. I should like to say further that the factory inspectors as they go about do call the attention of the local authorities to any dangerous buildings which they may see in the course of their duties. I wonder whether the House will spare me one or two minutes in dealing with accidents: and may I be allowed to refer to the National Safety First Association, which they will find referred to in the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories, on pages 24 onwards. I have the honour to be president of the association. If hon. Members will look at that report they will find that there is a decrease 'in accidents where the "Safety first" principles are put into operation in any of the factories. There is, it is pointed out, a remarkable decrease in accidents resulting in a decrease of cost to the employer by compensation. Where the effort has been successful in getting employer and employed to work together it has reduced the number of accidents. If the Committee will consider, apart altogether from the cost to the business, apart altogether from the pain and suffering to the working people, there is the personal and moral aspect of it. The efforts have been successful not only, as I say, in reducing the sum of human misery, but also in helping to reduce the very great cost to industry at the present time.
        I have asked to deal with the question of lead poisoning. Most cases of lead poisoning occur in the manufacture of electric accumulators and in the work of ship-breaking. The manufacture of electric accumulators is one of the industries which has been booming, the increased work increases the possibility of lead poisoning, and it is fair to assume that, so long as those conditions continue, lead poisoning will increase in that industry. The subject has been under

        379
        careful consideration by my Department, and I have issued new Regulations which, I hope, will have the effect of removing the dangers in that industry. One hon. Member made some observations with regard to the action of the War Office in regard to lead poisoning. Of course, I have no responsibility for the proceedings of the War Office in that matter, and my officials tell me we were not consulted about it, but it can be raised with the Secretary of State for War. The shipbreaking industry, also, is an industry which has been busy during the last year or two, owing to the large number of warships broken up, and in the ordinary course of things when there is much shipbreaking going on the cases of lead poisoning are likely to increase, and have undoubtedly increased during the past year or two. There are technical reasons which prevent our taking the usual preventive measures, such as clearing away the lead fumes from confined spaces by blasts of fresh air, because that precaution is not applicable to shipbreaking, which is performed in the open air. I am informed that the number of warships being broken up is now decreasing, and it is fair to assume that the cases of lead poisoning will diminish again. The amount of lead poisoning now is less than it was 10 years ago. I admit the number of cases has gone up in the last year or two, for the causes which I have mentioned, but the sum total to-day is less than in 1913-14, and I have every reason to hope that under the new regulations the number will become much lower than in 1913.
        My noble Friend the Member for South Nottingham and the hon. Member for Westhoughton have referred to the subject of anthrax, a horrible disease, a disease which the Home Office would like to stamp out if it were possible to do so. But as the hon. Member for West houghton knows, that can only be accomplished through a Convention with foreign powers. The hon. Member himself headed the British delegation which went to Geneva last year to consider this question. He did his best to secure a unanimous Convention for dealing with disinfection of wool, which gives rise to anthrax poisoning, but there was opposition from two of our own Dominions, India and the Dominion of Australia. In
        380
        any matter of this kind it is quite impossible for the Imperial Government to dictate to our great self-governing Dominions. It is desirable in the interests of humanity that a Convention should be arrived at, and that those two great Dominions should join in, bus at present they decline to do so. They have their own views on the matter, and it is quite impossible for the Imperial Government to attempt to dictate to them. A suggestion was made that I should call a conference of the Dominions in order to deal with this matter, but really that would be futile unless I knew that those Dominions were prepared to reconsider their decision. It would be almost insulting to ask them over here to a conference when I know beforehand what their views are on this question, and until those two important Dominions change their view it will be impossible for us to get very much further. If anyone wishes to have the full details, they will find them in the Report made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton to the International Labour Office last year when he tried his best to get the convention to agree with him, but found it impossible owing to the opposition of those Dominions.
        I am doing something in regard to the safeguarding of the workers in hides and skins against anthrax. This disease affects mainly workers in wool and workers in hides and skins. Recently the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department received a deputation with respect to a disease which had broken out in a tannery at Northampton, and I want to do all we possibly can to get rid of this disease. To this end I have arranged a conference between the Home Office, the employers and the workers in this trade. In these matters the Home Office is purely a non-party organisation, and its object is to do what it can utterly irrespective of party politics for the good and welfare of the people. At this conference there will be employers and employed, and I hope something will be evolved which will enable me to make Regulations which will be agreed to by both employers and employed for at all events minimising the effects of anthrax in the case of the workers in hides and skins.
        Now I come to a rather more debate-able question, that of night baking. This subject has been discussed by question

        381
        and answer in this House more than once during the last few weeks. The hon. Member for Westhoughton tried to get the Convention at Geneva to agree to the views of the Labour Government on this question, but he could not get them to agree. He told them that, unless they could agree to certain amendments, this country could not agree to the Convention. We told the Convention again this year that we wanted certain amendments made in certain directions. It is quite true that we put before them reasons why we were not prepared to agree to the Convention straight away, but if the Convention had then and there said they would insert in the Convention the amendments the British Government asked for last year, then they would have been in a very much stronger position to come to us and ask for the ratification of the Convention. A further reason why we are not disposed to ratify the Convention is because of the inquiry made by a Commission which reported this year, and they reported that the abolition of night baking would increase the price of bread by at least a halfpenny on the quartern loaf. I am bound to say that the Government are not prepared to ratify the night baking proposal and certainly—
        Mr. DAVIES: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest, after the British Government has put forward amendments to a draft Convention, that merely, because we failed to carry those amendments, we are not going to ratify a Convention passed by a majority of the members of the Conference?
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly. I have not the least hesitation in saying that the British Government is responsible for its conduct of this country, and if the British Government comes to the conclusion that any Convention whatever, although it may be passed by the whole of the International Labour Organisation combined, is not suitable to the position of trade in this country, we certainly should not ratify it. Please do not let the Committee sail under any false misapprehension with regard to that. I take the fullest responsibility for advising the Government not to ratify this Convention, and we shall not, so far as we can help it, ratify it, at all events in its present form.
        382
        The hon. Gentleman also asked me about certifying surgeons in factories. He was himself chairman of the committee with regard to the medical examination of young persons in factories, and I think I am not betraying any very great secret when I say that the main part of the recommendations of that committee with regard to the examination of young persons and the position of certifying surgeons are embodied in my present draft of the Factory Bill. I think that will be a satisfactory answer on that point. With regard to boy scalers, what the hon. Gentleman said is perfectly true. The scaling of boilers is carried on by unfortunate boys who, as the hon. Gentleman told us, have to get through a small aperture 16 inches by 12 inches in a boiler. It is a filthy, dirty business. There is at present no control over them, and no welfare work amongst them, and their conditions are not such as any humane Minister would desire to see. The position, however, is, unfortunately, that I have no powers as Home Secretary to deal with them. The work is carried on in harbour and in wet docks, which at the present time are outside the purview of all the Factory Acts. Again, however, I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Gentleman—I am here, of course, trenching upon the subject of legislation—that improvements in regard to the position of these boys are embodied in the draft Factory Bill which I have in hand and which I hope to present to the House. When I do present it, there may be questions in regard to several points in it, but I am perfectly certain that any provision we may propose for the improvement of the position of these unfortunate boys will be unanimously carried by the whole House.
        I should like, if I might, to sum up for a moment or two what we have done at the Home Office since the present Government came into office. Three new codes of Regulations relating to dangerous trades have been made. It is true that we have not passed the Factory Bill, but we have gone a long way towards it in various trade Regulations. There is the code with regard to electric accumulators, which are one of the main sources of lead poisoning. There is the code with regard to work in docks; and there is the code with regard to the weights that men, women and boys are

        383
        to be allowed to carry in the woollen trade—a code, I may say, issued by me with the full sanction of the employers and employed in that great trade. It is not a bit of use either for me or for the House to attempt to embark upon legislation or Regulations that are in advance of public opinion. It is for the Home Office and for the Home Secretary to get the trade concerned to come together and agree as to what should be done. A new Order has been made regarding the notification of industrial diseases such as carbon bi-sulphide poisoning, chronic benzine poisoning, aniline poisoning, mule spinner's cancer, and moisture in cotton factories. A draft of dangerous trade Regulations has been issued dealing with shipbuilding, building operations, and grinding, a frequent cause of silichosis. Draft Regulations are about to be issued, or are under consideration, for vehicle painting and the painting of buildings. The Committee, will see that the Home Office, even under a Tory Government, has not been idle in doing its best to improve steadily the conditions of the workers of the country, quite irrespective of political questions. All we have tried to do is to get unity between employers and employed, and as soon as we can get it we shall put into effect Regulations which will deal perhaps with the bad employer who is not prepared to carry out voluntary arrangements. There is one small point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull. T like to deal with all his points, because I know they are all serious. He complained of a cost of £136 for baronet's fees year by year. I think he will be satisfied to know that the receipts from baronet's fees come to over £400 a year, so that as the cost of keeping the list is only £136 there is a total profit of some £300 to the Exchequer.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWO RTHY: Does not that depend on the number of baronets created by successive Governments?
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, but when the hon. and gallant Gentleman's turn comes to be created a baronet, he will realise that the fees for a very few baronets will not bring in a very great
        384
        deal of money. Let me now deal with the question of aliens and naturalisation. I am not going to be led away into a whole disquisition on the subject of Bolshevism and Communism. I think the Committee will probably agree with me that, at the present juncture of industrial affairs, it would ill befit a Minister of the Crown to say anything which might not be conducive to peace in the coal trade or any other trade. I have been challenged, and it is very tempting to accept the challenge, but I forbear to-night. There will be other opportunities when the present crisis has passed by on which I can be challenged.
        Mr. LANSBURY: None of us will deny your courage, anyhow.
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sure, although the hon. Member attacked me, he is always courteous, and I make no complaint of his attacks. The question of aliens is strictly within the purview of the Home Office Vote. Let me once more repeat the lines on which I have gone with regard to the admission of aliens. I have said in previous debates that, were this country not in the position it is today in regard to unemployment, much might be said for allowing it to be used, as it has been for many centuries, as a refuge for the distressed of other nations. There is no secret about my policy. Where we have 1,250,000 unemployed I am not prepared to allow any alien to come into the country to take a job which might by any possibility be taken by an Englishman. Really, if hon. Members would look at any case where I have refused admission to aliens, they will find that is the guiding principle. There are other reasons under the Act, but with regard to the ordinary alien at the present time, that is really the main rule I have carried out. My right hon. Friend: the Minister of Labour is equally concerned in it, because it is not really the Home Office that is involved. Any alien who desires to come here to undertake work can only do so if he gets a permit from the Minister of Labour, or he has to come under the purview of my officers. That will undoubtedly be carried out for, I fear, many years to come. So long as the condition of unemployment is as it is, I could not take any part in diminishing the restrictions now placed on the introduction of aliens. The hon. and gallant

        385
        Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) referred to a speech I made this week in regard to aliens—men, women and children—who had been here 30 or 40 years, who came in when the door of England was open. We have obligations to them. I think it was the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) who suggested with regard to some of them that they should either be naturalised or deported. If I were to attempt to deport men who had been here 30 years, there is a very great difference indeed—
        Mr. LANSBURY: I mean what I said. I think if they are not fit after 30 years to be naturalised, they are not fit to stay in the country.
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid if I took that view, there would be wholesale deportation. My view is that when they have been admitted by the policy of my predecessors, the policy of the open door, and have settled down, it is impossible for me to comb them out as long as they conform to the laws of the country. If they decline to do that or become criminals, if they are unfit or unuseful members of society, the House has given me the right to deport them. I do not deport them unnecessarily. Very rarely do I deport unless the man is convicted of crime. Even in those cases, I go through them very seriously. They are gone through first of all by my staff, then by my Parliamentary Under-Secretary, and then by myself before I sign. It is a very serious matter to turn a man out of the country in which perhaps he hopes to make his home. There, again, the guiding principle is the same. The interest of the country first, second, and last. With regard to naturalisation, I have been asked about two special cases, one put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Hull. He told me the name. I have the papers. I think there must be a misunderstanding. The hon. Member said this man has been in the country for 30 years. The papers show that he has been 13 years only. It may be that the hon. and gallant Member is right, and that he has been 30 years, but the papers show he was married in Poland in 1901. At that time, quite naturally, that man was of Polish inclination. He sought his wife in Poland and went back to Poland and was married there. The distinction I make with regard to these
        386
        matters of naturalisation is, first, Is the man really heart and soul a British subject? Has he made up his mind? If he has married an English wife, that goes a long way to convincing me his heart is in England. If he has married a Russian or Pole or German, that rather shows his connections. I find out a great deal more than the hon. and gallant Member may know. I find out what a man's connections are, what his relationships are, with Poland or Russia or Germany. If he keeps up connections there, showing that he is at heart still a member of his own nationality, that is a case where I think it would not be right for me to give him the very inestimable privilege of British citizenship. Then I have to consider various other things.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is that the reason in this particular case?
        Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In vain is the net spread in the sight of the Home Secretary. I am not going to say what the reason is. If a man desires to be naturalised, and I find him at the present moment a burden on the State and in receipt of Poor Law relief, I do not say that he is a satisfactory kind of person to be naturalised. All these things have to be gone into by me or by the officers of my Department, and there are many reasons of that kind why it is not possible always to say to hon. Members opposite what the reason is. The House of Commons has given the Home Secretary duties and responsibilities. They are both very heavy indeed. If Parliament desires to defer all these questions of naturalisation to a Committee it would save me a great deal of trouble and would take a large load of responsibility off my shoulders, but when Parliament has placed the responsibility upon me, and has given me the duty of deciding in the interest of this country whether it is desirable to naturalise a man or not, you must do one of two things—either turn me out or trust me. If I once gave reasons I should have to give reasons for every single refusal and delay, the whole thing would have to be opened up in Parliament day by clay, and there would be no possibility of forming what I have to form—an opinion to the best of my ability, whether these men should, or

        387
        should not be naturalised. I hope that the House will accept my statement. I have given it on previous occasions.
        I assure hon. Members that I am not opposed to naturalisation. When a man, whoever he may be, shows signs of settling down in this country, of becoming in his business relations and connections a useful member of the community, and of bringing up his children here, then I say that, after a reasonable number of years, the sooner he is admitted to British citizenship the better. I am very glad that the question of anti-Semitism has not been raised. Religion has nothing whatever to do with it. Whether a man is a Churchman, a Nonconformist or a Jew makes no difference whatever in my settlement of this question. All that I desire to find out is whether a man will make a, desirable citizen, whether by his residence here, his affiliations here, and his conduct here, he has shown his desire to be a good citizen, and has convinced me that he is likely to make a reputable member of the community.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We now have a new crime for a man, and it is that 25 years ago he married a Polish girl. Because a man has had the wickedness to write to the relatives he has left behind, and has shown filial devotion, that is an added crime. [Interruption.]
        It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
        Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
        Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  I do not think it desirable to detain the House long with this Bill, but perhaps I ought to say a few words with regard to its provisions. As regards its particular form, there is nothing to say. It is practically in common form. That is to say, it follows the general lines which are customary in Bills of this character. I ought to explain that
  388
  although it is called the Telegraph (Money) Bill it has nothing to do with telegraphs, but is confined to the single purpose of providing credits for fresh capital expenditure on the telephone system of the country. I pointed out on the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution that the financial position with regard to telephone development in this country was, shortly speaking, as follows: that we had on the 1st April last available for capital purposes, from previous Bills, £9,400,000; and that the amount included under this Bill was £30,000,000, making a total of £39,400,000. I went on to say that it was our intention within the next three years to proceed with capital expenditure on telephone development to the extent of £35,000,000, which figure, deducted from £39,400,000, makes the total balance available at the end of three years, that is to say, on the 1st April, 1928, £4,400,000.
  What we are proposing to do by this Bill is to authorise the State to raise credits for expenditure on telephone development in this country at the rate, during the next three years, roughly speaking, of £1,000,000 a month. I tell the House frankly that that represents a considerable acceleration in the rate of telephone development. For the year 1923–24, the capital expenditure on the telephone service was £7,800,000. In 1924–25 that was considerably accelerated, and it was £9,700,000. In 1925–26 we propose to spend, as I have already stated, £12,000,000; about the same in the succeeding year, and £11,000,000 in the year thereafter.
  Now let me say one other word by way of explanation on this question of telephone development. Let me point out to the House that this is expenditure, not on revenue account but on capital account, and accordingly it is found not from Vote money but from loan money. That is important for more than one reason. It is important in the first place as regards the particular form which this Bill is taking this year. My hon. Friend behind me rightly pointed out the other day when this matter was last before the House, that we were in one sense departing from precedent in that we were laying down to the House a programme over a series of years rather than a programme to cover a much shorter period. I told him then, and I tell the House now,

  389
  that that has been deliberately done. We are deliberately laying down a programme for a series of years because we believe that that will be to the advantage of the Treasury, to the advantage of the industry, and to the advantage of the Post Office telephone service in general. It will be to the advantage of the Treasury because it is of considerable assistance to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the present state of national finances to know exactly in advance over a period of years what his large commitments on capital account of this nature are going to be. It is of advantage, and of very great advantage, to the industry—and the industry knows quite well that as far as we can we try to share out these orders over the whole field of industry affected—because the industry affected knows beforehand the programme of development and the expenditure which the Post Office proposes to make and that enables them in arranging to lay out their works programme and their output generally over the period of the next three years, to look ahead and forecast their development in comparison with the rate of orders which they know are going to come. It is of great advantage to them, and that advantage reacts to the benefit of the Post Office, because it not only means that the industry is in a better position to carry out its orders successfully, so far as its own financial results are concerned, but also in the long run it means that the Post Office gets the benefit of cheaper prices.
  Let me point out further, and I will not detain the House more than a few minutes, that this expenditure involves no charge (although for purpose of precaution it is provided in the last resort that recourse may be had to the Consolidated Fund) by way of direct provision by the taxpayer, nor indeed does it involve, if T am right, any charge on the user of the postal services. It falls solely on the telephone service, and that service, as I said in Committee of Supply the other day, we try to carry on on the basis that it is to be self-supporting and pay for itself as a separate service.
  The charge for investment and for amortisation on capital and for depreciation arising from the borrowings which it is proposed to make under this Bill, will be borne solely by the telephone service. The actual method of raising the
  390
  money is, of course, one which appertains more strictly to the Treasury than it does to myself. But, so far as the practical working is concerned, I may explain that the way in which it is worked is, that the Post Office applies to the National Debt Commissioners periodically for an advance on capital account, and towards the end of the financial year the advances made during that financial year are converted into an annuity, repayable over a period of 20 years. The cost of that annuity is then charged against the Post Office telephones, and to that is added a charge for interest and a charge for depreciation.
  If the telephone service were functioning as a private enterprise, I make bold to say that the telephone service would have no difficulty in raising the capital which it requires. It is quite true we have no national capital account, but I can give one set of figures with regard to the capital account of the telephone service which may be illuminating, and which may help to show that there is good ground for what I have just said. Taking the figures at the 31st March last, the end of the last financial year, the total capital expenditure on telephones was, roughly, £77,000,000. The total amount of indebtedness outstanding was £46,000,000, and the depreciated value, the value of the assets after writing off depreciation, was £68,500,000. It may be said, "What profit are you making after service? "The answer is that, viewed strictly from a profit-earning standpoint, of course, the telephone ser-vice would not commend itself directly to an investor. But the House must remember that, being a national service, it deliberately sets out, not to earn large profits, but rather to put back those profits into the business, partly in the form of renewals and fresh expenditure, and partly in the form of reduction of rates. That has been the deliberate policy followed for years by the telephone service, and I believe it is the right policy. From the commercial point of view, I have not the slightest hesitation in commending this proposition to the House. If the telephone service of this country is to prosper, if it is to grow, and if it is to thrive, it must be in the position to pull new business, and be able to deal with new business.
  I said on another occasion we were sadly behindhand as regards telephones

  391
  in this country. Perhaps I may tell the House in a few figures how we actually do stand. These are the figures of population in the different countries per telephone. In the United States it is 7, Canada 8, Denmark 11·4, Sweden 14·9, Australia 18·8, Switzerland 22, Germany 26, the Netherlands 36, and then—and not till then—you come to Great Britain with 38·5. In the last few days I have seen exhortations to start an advertising campaign to try to popularise the telephones. There is no good advertising, unless you are in the position when you get replies to your advertisements to deliver the goods, and, frankly speaking, owing to the arrears which accumulated during War time, we are not in the position to deliver the goods the demand for which ought to come from a largely extended advertising campaign. We have in many districts a good service, and we do hope, and we do expect, that we shall have, as the result of efforts which we are making now in those districts, fresh business, which will give us fresh revenue, and will, we hope, in its turn create fresh demands. But there are districts in the country where, owing to sheer shortage of plant, we are not in a position to give any largely extended service. In some districts, as I know too well, people have to wait far too long when they apply for telephones.
  For these reasons, from the commercial point of view, it is good business to spend money on the development of this service. The money which you spend, directly and immediately becomes revenue-earning, and I have no hesitation in saying, from what I know of the feelings of the commercial community generally, that there is no dissent from the proposition I have just laid down. On the contrary, I think everyone believes this is an expenditure which will well repay itself. May I refer to the matter from another angle from the point of view of employment. This expenditure, if on no other ground, would be very largely justified from that point of view. I cannot look further ahead than the present 12 months, because I cannot say at this period of time exactly in what proportions the expenditure will be divided during the ensuing 12 months. But I can say roughly that during this 12 months the expenditure of £12,000,000 will be divided up in this way: Trunk
  392
  works, £3,600,000; new exchanges, local lines and junction circuits, £7,650,000. The House will see that out of £12,000,000 that only leaves a balance of about £750,000 which represents actual expenditure likely to be made during the present 12 months on land, bricks and mortar.
  Sir FREDRIC WISE: Will it all be spent on British goods?
  Sir W MITCHELL-THOMSON: The largest possible proportion will certainly be spent on British goods. As I was saying, only a relatively small fraction goes to bricks and mortar and land. Therefore, this expenditure is valuable in more than one direction. In the first place, it provides a certain amount of unskilled labour, for those who sometimes to the annoyance of people open up roads and close them again. That is, relatively speaking, unskilled labour. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Well, it is very important to have that labour. On the other hand, it provides—and this is even more important in the industries affected —employment for the highest forms of craftsmanship. Not only does it do that, but this expenditure, unlike some other forms of unemployment expenditure, almost immediately becomes revenue-earning. It is quite true that the expenditure which is undertaken in the development of the more rural parts of the country does not immediately become revenue-earning, hut, apart from that, all expenditure made under this proposal becomes directly revenue-earning. It not only becomes directly revenue-earning but it at once proceeds to react on the service by improving the service given to the consumer. Not only that, but it ends by leaving the country with a capital asset, and that is something which cannot be said of every form of unemployment expenditure. For all these reasons I commend the proposition to the House, and I ask them to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Mr. HARTSHORN: I cannot but ex press my regret that so important a Bill as this should be brought on at this time of night. After all, we are authorising the expenditure of a huge sum of money. In 1922 we authorised the expenditure of £15,000,000, last year of £17,000,000, and now we are asked to authorise the expenditure of £30,000,000, or £62,000,000 in

  393
  all. This House ought to have the opportunity of having explained fully the whole scheme of development which is being brought about in the Post Office, and the whole country ought to know exactly what is being done. I think it would be a very good thing if the country and the House did know. I think it would be very much more appreciated than merely having these figures placed before the House. It was the same last year and in 1922, and it is the same to-night. I think it is much too important a matter to be disposed of in this way.
  My hon. Friend beside me the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), who has been associated with the Post Office all his life, suggests that we should ask certain questions about development in certain directions, but I think it would be largely a waste of time to go into details unless we can have the whole scheme expounded to the House. I do not think that can be done at this hour of the night, and I think the Postmaster-General has occupied as much time in putting the Bill forward as the House would desire that he should do at this time. I am sure that the House would not desire that I should occupy much time, and I have only to say that my experience convinces me that there is so much congestion on the existing lines of our telephone service, largely as a consequence of not having gone on during the War, that it is necessary that these developments should be proceeded with and that the money should be voted, and as far as I know there is no opposition from our party.
  Colonel GRETTON: I wish to say a few words in regard to the form in which this Bill is presented to the House. It would be preferable if the expenditure proposed in each financial year were put before the House and examined and criticised according to the results ascertained from the expenditure. We are asked to vote £30,000,000 on the explanation which has been given by the Postmaster-General, sanguine and, no doubt, on the facts as they present themselves to-day, justifiable, but when this Bill is passed the Post Office will have absolute power to raise this money and to make expenditure without any further criticism or any further requirements from year to year as to what is being done.
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Always subject to Treasury control.
  Colonel GRETTON: But I prefer the House of Commons control. Treasury control is always brought forward by Ministers when they wish to escape the criticism and the difficulties of House of Commons control. I think it is a great pity that this programme for three years should be combined in one Bill. It is a course which is being taken by no other Department. We shall be asked tomorrow to discuss and agree to a certain programme of construction in regard to the Navy, but this year we shall be asked to agree only to the expenditure for this year, and the House in each succeeding year will have the opportunity of discussing, criticising, and examining that expenditure. Schemes of this magnitude should not be taken at this time of night, when we have little or no real opportunity for their examination. The only other criticism I desire to put forward is to express my regret that the Postmaster-General, when challenged as to whether this vast expenditure was going to be on British products and material, qualified his reply by saying "as far as possible." What does that qualification mean? Is there anything he cannot get in this country from the electrical trades, for instance, which were established, and necessarily, during the War? It would have been much more satisfactory to the House if the right hon. Gentleman had been able to say that the expenditure would have been on British materials made by British labour?
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The conditions under which foreign goods will be obtained are: First, if the work cannot be done in this country; secondly, if no British goods of the same quality are available; or, thirdly, if the British price is such that I cannot justify the difference between it and the foreign price in the House Commons.
  Colonel GRETTON: I do not know that that answer is quite as satisfactory as it might have been. Ministries come and go. What we really desire is an assurance that no part of this money will be expended on foreign goods, or used for the employment of foreign labour in preference to British. We have no opportunity of discussing this matter except

  395
  by questions or by a vote of censure on the Postmaster-General, because when this Bill has passed the whole subject will be dismissed.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: Very large schemes of development are projected by the Post Office. I have come across several instances where schemes of telephone extensions have been started, and before they could be completed the extension has become inadequate. In Manchester the overhead lines were replaced by underground cables, but almost before the overhead wires were taken away the underground cables were found to be insufficient for the needs of the district, and many applications for new telephones were held up, people being told: "Unfortunately you cannot be connected up until we have taken up the streets again in your neighbourhood to lay more cables. The same thing is happening in other parts of the country, and I think there ought to be a more generous anticipation of developments. There would be a saving of expense in connection with these extensions, if that were done.
  Mr. BASIL PETO: The speech of he hon. and gallant Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nail) is the first of the three which has provided a real argument for the proposal for a three years' programme in connection with the extension of the telephone system. The Post Office desire to know in advance what their programme should be, and contractors ought to know precisely what is required of them. I may incur the censure of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton, but I think his criticism overlooked this great business consideration on which the Postmaster - General is basing his scheme for an expenditure of £30,000,000 spread over three years. It may be undesirable from some points of view that the House will not have a debate year by year on every detail of expenditure, but if there be one matter on which a programme extending over several years is justified it is this case of telephone extensions. The House will be well advised to give the power to the present Postmaster-General, at any rate. He deserves the confidence of the House. As far as rural, areas are concerned he has pursued a progressive policy in telephone extensions,
  396
  and if it does not bring in the direct revenue to which he referred it is of great benefit to farmers all over the country in increasing their facilities for doing business, securing veterinary assistance, and the like. This programme ought to remove to some extent the stigma under which the country rests of being one of the most retrograde in Europe and in the world in the matter of telephone service.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson.]

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Having considered the Amendment of the Tuberculosis Order referred to on the Committee Stage of this Bill, I am satisfied that the Minister has done as much as he can to meet the point which I raised having regard to the restricted area covered by this Bill. That does not mean that I am satisfied that my contention has been met with regard to the use of the remains of carcasses for human consumption. I can only deal with the wider question of the inspection of meat generally in the interests of the consumer by drafting a separate Bill which I will introduce at an early date.
  Mr. FENBY: With reference to the resale of carcasses I am glad to observe that the Minister has drafted an Amendment, a copy of which I have just received, under which it will be possible for an authority to sell the carcass but there must be special authority in writing given by the medical officer of the local authority, or other officer of the sanitary authority. The point I with to put is to ask the Minister to insert in the draft Amendment the word "Competent," so that the Amendment will read:
  "and in any such case the carcass of the animal shall not be removed for human con-

  397
  sumption from the premises on which the slaughter takes place except with the permission in writing of the medical officer of Health or other competent officer."
  A good many small Authorities are burdened with heavy expenditure in other directions in their administration, apart from the inspection of meat, and it may be that for reasons of economy the officers appointed to carry out this inspection may not be particularly trained or competent. I am very much concerned that no carcass that has been suspected or has a taint of tuberculosis shall be passed on for human consumption, and if the Minister will add to his Amendment the word "competent" he will satisfy me, and it will be an additional safeguard for the community.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): So far as I can give an answer off-hand, I see no objection of the insertion of the word "competent", and I will certainly undertake to accept it unless I find that there is some objection to it of which I am not aware for the moment. I do not think there will be any objection, and if that turns out to be the case the word "competent" will accordingly find its place in the Order. I do not think it is necessary to insert this word, because I assume that all the officers of a sanitary authority are competent, otherwise they ought not to be appointed. You might also say that any individual Member of this House, unless he was competent, would not be in the House of Commons. With regard to what the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) said, I am grateful to him for accepting my Amendment. I notice that he has decided to take a wider course and treat the question on more general lines. I hope that when the hon. Member has investigated this question on general lines, after consultation with the Minister of Health, he will find that his fears are not so well founded as he appears to think.

  NATIONAL LIBRARY OF SCOTLAND [MONEY].
  Resolution reported:
  "That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to establish a National Library in Scotland on the foundation of
  398
  the Library gifted for that purpose by the Faculty of Advocates and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of (1) any expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Works in connection with the reconstruction, extension, or adaptation, and the repair, maintenance, and insurance of premises to be made available by the Faculty of Advocates for the use of the Trustees of the National Library of Scotland, or with the re-adaptation of such premises for the use of the said Faculty, and of rates and taxes leviable on the said premises during the occupation thereof by the said Trustees; and (2) of any expenses incurred by the said Trustees in carrying the Act into effect, including any salaries or remuneration, superannuation allowances, additional allowances, or gratuity paid to the librarian and other officers of the said Trustees."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Colonel GRETTON: Can the learned Solicitor-General give us an assurance as to the amount of the expenditure which is involved in this Resolution? Times are difficult, and public expenditure should be very closely watched and examined. No doubt the amount to be expended may be small, but can we be assured that the demands at present are not serious, and that there will be no further future liability to be considered?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Fleming): I think I can give my hon. and gallant Friend the assurance for which he asks. The House will remember that the Bill provides for the taking over of the Advocates' Library by the nation without any charge, and in addition there is, owing to the generosity of Sir Alexander Grant, a large endowment, which also will be taken over by the nation, amounting to over £100,000 at the present time. There is no prospect of any immediate large capital expenditure though a new building may be required eventually. The only charges that will require to be met will be certain expenses in connexion with the buildings, and there will also be the expense of providing salaries and superannuation allowances for officials who will be taken over. On the other hand, there is at present a grant of £2,000 from the Exchequer, so that it is estimated that on balance, taking into

  399
  account the revenue from the endowment, so far as we can judge at the present moment, the Resolution will only involve an immediate additional expenditure of about £1,000 a year.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half past Eleven o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Sixteen Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

SCOTLAND.
  POLICE CONSTABLE, KILMARNOCK (OFFICIAL STATIONERY).
  POLICE CONSTABLE, KILMARNOCK (OFFICIAL STATIONERY).
  POOR LAW RELIEF (UNSUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS).
  POOR LAW RELIEF (UNSUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMEN
  ADMIRALTY (HOLIDAYS).
  ADMIRALTY (HOLIDAYS).
  AIR MINISTRY (EDUCATION OFFICERS).
  AIR MINISTRY (EDUCATION OFFICERS).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
  SALARIES AND PENSIONS.
  SALARIES AND PENSIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS.
  MANUFACTURES (EXPORTS).
  MANUFACTURES (EXPORTS).
  COLD STORAGE.
  COLD STORAGE.
  FOOD PRESERVATIVES.
  FOOD PRESERVATIVES.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
  SANITARY INSPECTORS (SALARIES).
  SANITARY INSPECTORS (SALARIES).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  CRUISER CONSTRUCTION.
  CRUISER CONSTRUCTION.
  RAILWAY EMPLOYÉS (DISCHARGES).
  RAILWAY EMPLOYÉS (DISCHARGES).
MOTOR TRAFFIC.
  HEAVY VEHICLES.
  HEAVY VEHICLES.
  ANTI-MUD-SPLASHING DEVICE.
  ANTI-MUD-SPLASHING DEVICE.
TRANSPORT.
  RAILWAY EXCURSION TICKETS.
  RAILWAY EXCURSION TICKETS.
  BARKING TILBURY ROAD.
  BARKING TILBURY ROAD.
  REGISTERED CLUBS (DUTY).
  REGISTERED CLUBS (DUTY).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four Of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SLOUGH TRADING COMPANY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
WEST CHESHIRE WATER BOARD BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
STOCKTON-ON-TEES CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MENTAL DEFICIENCY (AMENDMENT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL of CHELWOOD): My Lords, this Bill is not, I think, a contentious matter at all, and it is being introduced by the Government
458
in order to render possible the ratification of the Opium Conventions agreed to at Geneva in February last. It is necessary because the Conventions cannot be ratified without some slight changes in the English law, and, as your Lordships are aware, it is the practice of British Governments to put themselves in a position to carry out Conventions before the Conventions are ratified. It is very important that the measure should be passed as soon as possible because the Government are very anxious to ratify these Conventions at the very earliest moment. They cannot be ratified before September 30, however, because, until that date, the Conventions are open for signature. The Government are very anxious to ratify as soon as that period is over, and desire therefore, if possible, to obtain the passage of this Bill before the adjournment next month.
I do not think I need detain your Lordships more than a very few minutes on the clauses of the Bill. The Bill proposes to do four things, none of them, I think, is any way contentious or of very great moment. The first clause proposes to extend the Dangerous Drugs Act to coca leaves and hemp. That is necessary if we are to ratify the Convention dealing with those substances. As it is proposed to make a small change in the machinery of the Hague Convention, under which these things have hitherto been governed, a small change is necessary in our legislation on the point, and that is made in Clause 2. I need not detain you on that matter at all. By the third clause it is proposed to bring up to date, in accordance with scientific opinions, the divisions of certain alkaloids—morphine, cocaine, ecgonine, diacetylmorphine, etc. —which have been very carefully defined with the assistance of the experts assembled at Geneva. The fourth point, dealt with by Clause 5, is to give power to strike out of the list of dangerous drugs those drugs which by experience have been found not to be capable of being used by addicts and therefore are no longer really classified as dangerous drugs. Those four relatively small changes are all the changes introduced by this Bill.
Perhaps I ought to say one word as to the main reasons why the Government are anxious to ratify these Conventions at the earliest possible moment. They regard them as constituting a very valuable advance in the struggle to bring

459
under control the illegitimate use of the drugs or substances referred to in these Conventions. There are three broad divisions of the subject dealt with by the Conventions. There is raw opium, used for eating in India, which really is not an international question at all. It is concerned only with what the Indian Government allows its Indian subjects to do with opium grown in India. Then there is opium smoking, which, apart from a few relatively unimportant exceptions, is purely a Chinese question. Practically it is only the Chinese who indulge to any extent in opium smoking, and there I am bound to say that comparatively small advance was made by the Conventions because of the immense difficulty of dealing with the thing in any way satisfactorily so long as there is a very large growth of opium in China, while the unhappy condition in which that country is renders it impossible in any way to control the illegitimate export of that drug from China.
By far the most important subject dealt with by these Conventions was the question of the use of those very dangerous and formidable drugs heroin, morphine, cocaine and the like. That is an evil which your Lordships will require no words of mine to emphasise. It is a very serious evil even in this country and a still more serious evil in other countries in the world. In some countries, indeed, it has reached the point that those who traffic in these drugs have been found pushing their pernicious wares even in the schools of the country and leading the unhappy children—for they are little more than that—into vice before they know what vice really means. It is a formidable evil, rendered all the more formidable by the fact that there are behind it, apparently, syndicates with considerable financial resources which drive this horrible trade and batten on the vices of their fellow creatures.
The most important way of dealing with this vice is by the efforts of the national Governments and I am glad to be able to assure your Lordship on the authority of the Home Office that, owing to the great efforts we have made, the evil certainly is not a growing one in this country. It is to a very large extent under control here. But in addition to what can be done by the Governments of the countries concerned there are some ways in which international effort can be
460
of service. There is no doubt that an international control of the traffic in these drugs would make it far less easy for the fiends who deal in them to have the means of pushing their iniquitous traffic and the main purpose of the greater part of the provisions of these Conventions is to institute an international supervision and control over the traffic in these drugs. It is not so hopeless or so difficult a matter as one might assume at first because, fortunately, the drugs are only manufactured in a very small number of factories. I am speaking from recollection, but I think there are not many more than ten. If proper national control can be obtained over these factories and international control over the traffic problem then a good deal might be done to assist in diminishing, or even extirpating, this vice.
That is the main purpose of the Opium Conventions. I will not attempt to describe the detailed provisions of them. A Parliamentary Paper, Command Paper No. 2461, has been presented to Parliament very recently, and your Lordships will find there a full account of the whole proceedings at the Conferences on the subject. An untoward incident that occurred was the difference of opinion that arose between the American and Chinese Delegations and the rest of the Delegations assembled at Geneva. I regret that difference as much as anybody, but it is a satisfaction to me to remember that it was a difference which had really nothing whatever to do with the control of the drug traffic on which a very general agreement was reached, and though, owing to the withdrawal of those two Delegations they did not sign he Convention, it is to be hoped that that does not mean that they will not be ready to co-operate in every way in which they can in carrying the policy of those Conventions into effect. I think your Lordships will agree with me if you read the Paper that this is really a very considerable advance that has been made and that it is urgent for Parliament at the earliest possible moment to give effect to those Conventions. I should not like to close these very few observations without paying a tribute to the great services of the gentleman who preceded me as the representative of this country in those Conferences and has done more, I think, probably than any living man to carry forward the struggle against the illegiti-

461
mate use of these drugs—I mean that exceedingly able member of the staff of the Home Office, Sir Malcolm Delevingne. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, a Bill of this kind has necessarily to be taken by the House to a large extent on trust. It deals with a highly technical subject and it is impossible to form any judgment on the details of the Bill. I can only say that, having read it, I see no reason to doubt it, but that is the furthest to which I can go. That brings one at once to the principle. The principle is whether it is possible by international convention to regulate the use of dangerous drugs throughout the world. That is no new principle. It originated with regard to opium, if my memory does not deceive me, at the Hague Convention in 1912. It is pushed forward in this Bill to a number of other drugs which I should think were as important as opium, although not so widely used. It is one of the most valuable and least controversial functions of the League of Nations that, apart from what it does with regard to questions of peace, it deals with social questions of this and other kinds which affect all parts of the world. That is a valuable side of the League of Nations which I think we ought to encourage and the noble Viscount is well entitled to lay stress on it in connection with this Bill as an example. Speaking for myself I see no reason why your Lordships should not give a Second Reading to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Before your Lordships pass from the Bill I should be very glad if the House would allow me to take the Committee stage to-morrow. It is, as the noble Viscount has said, not a controversial matter and the end of this part of the Session is now so close that if there is to be any chance of getting it through the other House I am afraid I must suggest to your Lordships that it would be desirable to proceed quickly.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: In the circumstances I think you might.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I certainly have no objection to the Bill because I think it is a most admirable one, but I do not quite understand why there is this sudden urgency for it. There was plenty of opportunity to introduce the Bill earlier so that we might have had an opportunity of considering it properly.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I shall be very glad to consult with my noble friend on the subject. I did make a communication to some of his noble friends before I ventured even to suggest this course. I am, however, entirely in the hands of your Lordships. It is evident that, whether the Government has or has not been to blame in the past, now we are in a difficulty unless we can induce your Lordships to take the Bill rapidly.
EARL BUXTON: I think the noble Viscount might have given reasons.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Government will not put the Bill down definitely at this moment, if the noble Earl will be good enough to confer with my noble friend.
EARL BUXTON: I was not objecting to the Bill itself.

MINISTERS OF RELIGION (REMOVAL OF DISQUALIFICATIONS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

WIDOWS, ORPHANS, AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I regret that it is my duty to bring this very important Bill, the most important of the Session, before your Lordships at this late period of the Session. But any noble Lord who his been a member of the House of Commons will be aware of the reasons why so important a measure has taken a long time to pass through that House and why therefore its appearance is so belated here. But we have still time to discuss it, I think, as thoroughly as is requisite. Your Lordships are, of course,

463
very familiar with the Bill. It has been debated not only in another place, but in the public Press at great length, but I think you will expect me to give some reasons for it and at any rate an outline of its provisions.
The first reason which stands upon the face of matters for the introduction of the Bill is that we held out anticipations and pledges to that effect. The present Prime Minister, speaking in October of last year, said:—
"A scheme of widows' pensions we shall lave and if it be an acceptable one we shall do our best to carry it out."
It is, in fact, an example of what I may call active Conservatism. When Mr. Bonar Law was Prime Minister there was a word which was very familiar in men's mouths. It was said that a Government's primary duty was to restore tranquillity. That is a very important function of the Conservative Party, but it is not its only function. We have active duties to perform and not merely to restore tranquillity. This Bill is the first fruits of our efforts. It is undoubtedly an example of State intervention. It is not State intervention of the kind which I apprehend is advocated by noble Lords who sit, I will not say upon the Back Benches opposite but upon the Front Benches opposite; still, it is an example of State intervention. Laissez faire has never been part of the doctrines of the Conservative Party.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am always glad when I command the support of the noble and learned Viscount. No! We believe in State intervention, subject to certain conditions. In the first place, the object of that intervention must be carefully chosen. In the second place, we must take care that the intervention does not do inure harm than good. I think that in this ease the objects of the intervention are certainly such as we may approve from the strictest Conservative point of view. In this Bill we are setting out to help those who are handicapped in life through no fault of their own—widows and orphans and veterans of industry who, having reached the confines of old age, are no longer able to maintain themselves with the vigour of their prime.
464
Those are the objects of this intervention. But there has been no forgetfulness of the other limit—that we should not do more harm than good. On the contrary, our object is not to undermine the self-respect and self-reliance of the people.
It is of the very essence of the scheme which we place before your Lordships and the country that it should be a contributory scheme. Unless it be a contributory scheme I am certain the Conservative Party would have nothing whatever to do with it. That is absolutely essential; and not only is it a contributory scheme but, as a matter of fact, it is not a complete scheme; that is to say, the State intervention will not relieve even these recipients of the necessity of making all other provision or effort. It will only go part of the way towards it. Therefore, both by their contributions in the past or the contributions of those who are responsible for them and by the fact that the benefit conferred upon them is not sufficient by itself to support them, we still leave the necessary motive of self-help and therefore of self-respect, which, as I have said, is in our view essential as a condition of State intervention. There is, of course, an additional reason why we are advocates of this plan. Not only does it help those who are old, not only does it help the widows, but it helps the children, the rising generation, those who have the care of the future of our country, who are necessarily and obviously helpless and for whom provision is made when their father, the bread-winner, is unfortunately taken from them.
With your Lordships' leave I will now describe some of the main features of the Bill. In the first place, it provides insurance for widows of insured men who die after the appointed day; that is, after January 4, 1926. It provides 10 s. a week for those widows until they are seventy, when the other procedure takes it over, or until re-marriage. I need not dwell upon the obvious justification for those limitations. There is also a transitory provision dealing with widows of insured men who have children, where the husband has died before the appointed day. In that case there is a pension of 10 s. for the widow until six months after the youngest child has reached the age of fourteen, when the

465
widow's pension comes to an end. In both cases, in what I may call the transitory cases and the permanent cases, the children are treated alike. An allowance for them is paid of 5s. for the eldest child and 3s. for each of the others. Where there is neither a mother nor a father then, in the case of the father having been an insured man, there will be a pension of 7s. 6d. till the child reaches the age of 14. There is a further provision both with regard to the children whose mother is alive and to the orphan namely, that if the child is still spending full time at school after the age of 14 and until the age of 16, then the pension continues to be paid, 5s. or 3s. in the case of the child of the widow and 7s. 6d. in the case of the orphan.
The conditions which make a man an insured person are the following. He must, in the first place, have had insurable status—that is to say, he must be insured tinder the Health Insurance Act. In the second place, he must have been whilst insured in insurable employment for 104 weeks, not necessarily continuously but 104 weeks altogether. In the third place, he must have paid 104 contributions; and in the fourth place he must have paid an average of 26 contributions during each of the last three years before his death. Those are rather technical conditions and I shall not delay your Lordships by describing the defence of them. Any limits such as those I have mentioned are in their nature arbitrary, but you must draw the line somewhere. What is necessary is to have some limit which shall make it certain that the man is properly and duly insured and that he has been insured for a sufficient period to make the thing a reality. The difficulty arises of how to deal with cases of sickness and of unemployment. A man may be anxious to fulfil all these conditions, but he may be struck clown by sickness and the opportunity may be denied him. In the same way, through no fault of his own, he may be thrown out of employment and in the same way the opportunity of making the average of twenty-six contributions may be beyond his power, and so we make a very important concession. Weeks of sickness or weeks of genuine unemployment—that is to say, unemployment which is not due to his own
466
fault—are counted as contributions within the meaning of the Bill, so that arty possible hardship under that head is removed. I need not say that if your Lordships desire to have the clauses under which these provisions are made I can give them, but I shall not interrupt my narrative for that purpose unless I am asked. I will do my best to answer any further questions which noble Lords may raise in debate respecting the intricate conditions of this part of the Bill.
I pass to describe the case of the extended contributory old age pension. To any insured person, man or woman, who reaches the age of 65 before January 2, 1928, there will be given a pension of 10 s. a week for the remainder or his or her life. Your Lordships will observe that it is a different appointed day. The appointed day for the widows' pensions is January 4, 1926, while the appointed day for the extended old age pension is January 2, 1928. Not only will insured persons obtain this extended old age pension, but the wife of an insured man, where the man has reached the age of 65 and the woman herself also has reached the age of 65, will have a pension of 10 s. for life as well as her husband. That is to say, when this old couple both reach the mute of 65—not so very old, my Lords, when I reflect on my own age, still for the purpose of this class it is old—they will have between them £1 a week for life. I think your Lordships will admit that that is a very substantial benefit. I ought to describe what are the conditions of insurance in this case. The insured person must have been continuously insured for five years up to the age of 65—that is, a continuous five years up to the date. He or she must have paid 104 contributions, and must have a certain number of minimum contributions. I do not pause to describe those, because they vary a little, and I apprehend your Lordships would not wish me to go at this moment into such particulars. That is the ordinary extended old age pension.
Then there is a benefit to insured persons of 70. Insured persons who become 70 on July 2, 1926, and who become 70 between that date and January 2, 1928, the appointed day, that is to say, all persons of 70 reaching that age under the conditions I have described, now or hereafter will have this great benefit which corrects what I must describe as a

467
failing in the Old Age Pension Act—namely, there will be no inquiry as to their means. The 10 s. will be free. There will be none of that very awkward, very inconvenient and, I think, very unwelcome inquiry into the means of the recipient. I suspect many of your Lordships have come across it when giving, as you often do give, pensions to old servants on your estates. You have been checked by the thought that if you gave the money it would pro tanto diminish the old age pension. All that is cut away. The 10 s. now will be given without reference to the means of the recipient. That is another tremendous boon. Lastly, there is a small but valuable provision that all insured persons of 65 will have free medical benefit for life. Here again weeks of sickness and genuine unemployment will be counted as contributions. I am sure the House will agree that these provisions will be a very great boon to the working class. I ought to mention a provision—I will not go into details—for cases where men and women who have been in insurance and have dropped out of employment want to retain their insurance status. They may become what are called voluntary contributors, that is to say, persons having been for two years at any time in insurable employment may become voluntary contributors and may pay their contributions, in this case, of course, both of the employed and the employer, and may enter into or retain the benefits of the Bill.
There are 10 s. a week for life for these widows, 5s. and 3s. for the children, 7s. 6d. to the orphans, 10 s. to the old men and women of 65 years of age, 10 s. to the wives of men of 65 who are in insurance. These are great benefits. There is no inquiry into means and there is free medical benefit. Your Lordships may ask how many people will have advantage of the provisions. Let me take the case of widows first. I am not going to trouble your Lordships with a great number of figures. I can assure you that I recognise the tedious nature of such a process. Let me take the first complete year, 1926–7. There will be 245,000 widows benefited. These, of course, are actuarial estimates. Take the year 1965–6, which is the limit of the tables supplied to me, there will be as many as 1.305,000 widows benefited. Similarly there will be in 1965–6 406,000 children benefited. Turn-
468
ing to old age there will be in that year just over half a million, 529,000 of these old men who will be benefited and 297,000 old women, and the total of beneficiaries in that year will be just over 2,500,000. But that, of course, is not the full way of looking at it. You have to think of all the people who are potential beneficiaries, all the people for whom provision is made under this Bill. That number is 30,000,000 or 70 per cent. of the population, who will receive these very large benefits.
The contribution of the men will be 4d. and of their employers 4d., that of the women 2d., and of their employers 2d. I ask this question: What would be the contributions which on a true actuarial basis would correspond to the benefits I have described? That is the important way of looking at it. There is not so much difference in the case of a man or woman who enters insurance at the earliest age; that is, at sixteen years of age. In order to earn them a woman would have to pay 5d. and a man 10 d. But your Lordships will remember that we are going to provide not merely for men and women who enter at the earliest age, but for men and women who are entering now at any age, and up to 60 and 65. I take the age of 60, and I find that in order to earn the benefits we provide a woman would have to contribute 8s. 4d. a week. She is only going to contribute 2d. A man would have to contribute 16 s. 8d. at the age of 60. He is only going to contribute 4d. Your Lordships will see that in respect of all the ages, except the earlier ones, the benefit conferred by this Bill is on a most generous scale.
I must deal with one other set of figures, but I will be very brief—the cost of this boon to the country. Although your Lordships do not deal in detail with this part of legislation, yet I know it is of interest to you. In 1925–6 it would have cost £2,700,000 if it had been allowed to go on without the further provisions which I am about to describe. In 1965–6 it would have cost £60,800,000. But there must be taken off that a certain relief on account of health insurance and unemployment insurance, which will be diminished by the provisions of this Bill. In addition to that it is designed in the Bill at the end of ten years to increase the amount of contributions paid by beneficiaries by 2d. in the case of men

469
and 1d. in the case of women and that will reduce the expenditure in 1935–6, which is the end of the decennial period, to £15,300,000; and if the same process is repeated again in 1965–6—it is not provided in the Bill—in 1965–6 it would reduce it to £23,000,000. I say it is not provided in the Bill, but it is contemplated by the Government that there should be successive increments in the contributions. The only increments which are distinctly provided are at the end of each of the first three decennial periods. That would be the cost as I have described it. But by a provision in Clause 11 the cost for the first ten years is to be spread, so that the cost will be £4,000,000 each year. I hope that I have made the financial provisions clear, and I think that your Lordships will agree that these are very great benefits, conferred upon a very large number of people.
Undoubtedly the figure provided by the country is very large, but I think it is justifiable. Let me say one word as to the costs of the work. The 4d. and the 2d. to which I have referred, undoubtedly constitute a burden thrown upon the workers. We should be very loth to throw any extra burden upon the worker, but it must be admitted that this is not excessive. Let me put it to your Lordships in this way. How much work does 4d. really represent? Taking wages at something between £2 and £3 a week, then 4d. corresponds to 20 minutes' or perhaps a quarter of an hour's work each week. That is its equivalent, and that is all that is thrown upon the worker.
I turn to the employers. A great deal has been said as to the extra burden that we throw upon industry, and undoubtedly there is an additional burden. The Government have been most anxious to mitigate that burden so far as they possibly could. I am glad to say that, by means of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, which will come before your Lordships shortly, it will be seen that in one important particular we have been able to mitigate the burden that falls upon employers. A sum of 2d. in respect of the man and of 1d. in respect of the woman is going to be saved by that Bill, so as to reduce still further the burden upon the employer and upon industry. That is not all. The effect of this insurance will be an immense saving to the rates, which are paid by the employing classes. A sum of £3,000,000, rising to £7,000,000, will be saved off the rates. Lastly, there will be
470
a great diminution in the number of the ranks of the unemployed, with a proportionate relief to the taxpayers of the country—that is, again, to the employing classes. Consequently, although undoubtedly these very large benefits conferred upon the persons whom I have described do involve very considerable figures indeed, yet we have been able in the way that I have detailed to your Lordships to mitigate in a great degree the burden which is thrown upon the industries of the country.
I have said as much as I propose to say at this stage about the actual provisions of the Bill. In spite of the large figures, I recommend this Bill to the favourable consideration of the House. I have already mentioned the pledges of the Government, but it is our hope that this Bill will vet not only as a great boon to the people of this country but as an incentive to thrift. If it were a complete support to the beneficiaries it might not have that effect, but the very fact that it falls short of a complete support, while it yet gives them this boon, ought to act as an incentive to the mea and women themselves, by their own savings or their other resources, to supplement the provision made by the Bill, and so it may act as an incentive to thrift. Above all, we hope that by this Bill we shall earn for the Government of this country, apart from Party considerations, the confidence of the people. That is what seems to us to be of such vital importance. We desire that they should be convinced that we have their welfare at heart. That ought to reflect itself in the political complexion of the time.
I have already said to your Lordships, but I may be allowed to repeat it, that it seems to us most important in the interest of industry that there should be a reduction of direct taxation. That has been provided, as the House is aware, in the Budget. I am satisfied that it would have been impossible unless it had been accompanied by a measure such as that which I have described to your Lordships in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, which is for the direct benefit of the wage-earning classes. If we are able to earn their confidence with this Bill, we believe that they will realise that, in lowering direct taxation, we were seeking not merely to benefit the employing classes but to relieve industry as a whole.

471
Finally, we hope that by this act of confidence we may do something to mitigate the industrial unrest which, alas, is so prominent at this moment. In some ways I speak at an unlucky moment when I say this, but you cannot expect that remedies of the kind which I now recommend to the House will have effect immediately. It is, of course, a process of time. We do hope—nay, we confidently anticipate—that when legislation of this kind becomes law, becomes appreciated by the people, and enters into their daily life, it will act in the way I have described, and mitigate the feeling of unrest that prevails. If that be so, this legislation will have earned that which I believe it deserves—the gratitude of the country and the favour of Parliament. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, the noble Marquess in his opening remarks said that this was an important Bill. It is an important Bill. It is a Bill which has naturally excited deep interest in the country and has been subjected to much criticism in another place. I propose briefly—I am not going to make a long speech—to put before your Lordships sonic of the main objections of the Labour Party to this measure. In the first place we are opposed to the contributory basis of the Bill. We contend that this scheme should be non-contributory. Strictly speaking this is not a pensions Bill at all, These pensions will, for the most part, be paid for by insurance contributions. A pensions Bill is a Bill which gives pensions and an insurance Bill is a Bill which gives insurance benefits. This is really an insurance Bill.
The noble Marquess, in the concluding part of his speech, referred to the effect which these contributions would have or which he hoped they would have, in regard to thrift. I will not pursue that point beyond saying this, that at any rate these contributions are not themselves thrift, because thrift is voluntary and these contributions are compulsory. They really are a form of taxation. Now, quite apart from the burden which they place upon the workers—and the workers are already heavily burdened with existing insurance contributions, high taxation and the high
472
cost of living—these contributions impose a heavy new charge upon the industry of the country, about which I notice that the noble Marquess, so far as industry is concerned, with admirable discretion, said very little. As a matter of fact, under the régime of the present Government the trade and industry of the country have become as bad as, and probably worse than, they have ever been since there was any trade and industry. But this Government has a genius for doing the wrong thing in regard to industrial and financial problems, possibly because it scarcely contains a single member with any real business experience, and the Government chooses this moment of all moments to place a heavy new charge upon industrial concerns, many of which are finding it extremely difficult to carry on at all.
I can only conceive of one circumstance which would justify that, and that circumstance is that from the Budget point of view it would be an impossibility to make this scheme non-contributory. But in the current year, with the recollections of the Budget fresh in our minds, any such argument as that is not merely untenable, but ridiculous. It was absurd for the Minister of Health to argue in another place that this Bill could not be made non-contributory when in the Budget which the Government introduced and passed only a few weeks ago there was given away to the Income Tax and Super-Tax payers £42,000,000 a year. What is the finance of the Bill? In the first year the contributions under this Bill will amount to about £22,000,000. As I have said, the Government almost simultaneously is giving away to the Income Tax and Super-Tax payers £42,000,000, and so it is perfectly clear that there is, or perhaps I should say was, plenty of money with which to have made the scheme non-contributory and also to have made the benefits more generous, and they ought to be more generous in various ways, as I will indicate to your Lordships in a moment. Even looking ahead, although the scheme will cost more as time goes on, the necessary finance could have been arranged, and I can easily demonstrate this to your Lordships particularly with the declining cost of old age pensions. However, the Government is quite adamant. Great efforts have been made to get them to change their minds, but without success.

473
Although the Bill bristles with injustices and anomalies, many of which are directly due to the fact that it is based on a contributory principle, I scarcely think that the House would have realised that from the speech of the noble Marquess. I want to put a point which is of great importance in my view. It is this, that owing to the fact that this scheme is contributory all workers who are not working for a definite employer are shut out altogether from the widows' pensions and the old age pensions at 65 and from the other benefits of the Bill. They are outside the scope of the Bid simply because the Bill is contributory and is worked upon the basis that persons have to be employed by definite employers. You therefore shut out persons who need old age pensions and widows' pensions just as much as, or possibly more than, those who are brought within the scope of the Bill. There are persons such as fishermen, costers, crofters, and petty traders, and so on, all of whom are cut out from the Bill, and they number many millions.
Then let me emphasise the burdens which the contributory basis is imposing upon industry. It is quite true that owing to the Unemployment insurance Bill which was introduced a few weeks ago that burden has been somewhat alleviated since this Bill was first brought in, but still it is a very heavy burden. It amounts to about £10,000,000 a year, which will be imposed upon business, trade, and industry at the present time. That is a very serious matter, especially for the export trades, many of which, I would again remind your Lordships, are suffering very great difficulties, and some art those difficulties have been seriously aggravated by the gold standard policy of the Government. These insurance contributions which the employers have to pay operate most inequitably amongst the various classes of persons engaged in trade and industry. For instance, merchants, retailers, and distributors have been on the whole doing well, certainly much better than manufacturing concerns, but these persons, merchants, retailers, and distributors employ comparatively few people, and therefore their contributions under the scheme will be proportionately much less than the contributions of the manufacturers, many of whom
474
are finding it extremely difficult to make a profit at all.
Take the professional classes, barristers, solicitors, stockbrokers, estate agents, and so forth, some of whom make large incomes. These people employ little labour and come off extremely lightly, in spite of the fact that they are well able to pay. Then I ask why should the rentier class escape contribution? It is surely just as much their responsibility to provide for the widow and old age pensioner as it is the responsibility of people carrying on the work of the country. I submit with confidence that the more the matter is examined the more it will become clear that a non-contributory scheme would not only be fairer to the workers and more progressive and more inclusive, but very much better adapted to the needs of industry and of trade.
I leave that and I proceed to criticisms other than the contributory basis of the scheme. I turn to the inadequacy of the benefits. This Bill, as the noble Marquess has said, gives 10 s. per week to a widow. Under existing conditions 10 s. a week is not nearly sufficient to keep a widow.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said it was not.
LORD ARNOLD: I know the noble Marquess said it was not sufficient, and he seemed to think that that was a very satisfactory feature of the scheme. We do not, and I will tell him why in a moment. A widow with two children will get 18 s. a week—5s. for the first child and 3s. for the second child. 18 s. a week for a widow with two children is even more inadequate than 10 s. a week for a widow without children. Many boards of guardians at the present time are paying to a widow with two children up to 28 s. a week. Surely the main case for widows' pensions is Oaf the widow should be able to bring up her children properly and should not be driven into the labour market. But if she has only got 10 s. a week, or 18 s. a week, that will not happen. It is nut sufficient to enable her to keep out of the labour market or to avoid resorting to the guardians. There is a very important principle at stake here which was not made clear to the House. It is this, that it is in the best

475
interests of the State, as we of the Labour Party say, that children should be properly brought up and looked after.
In the United States, where they have widows' pensions, those pensions are sufficient to enable a woman to live and to bring up her children. They say that it is an economic proposition, a good investment, that it pays the State well to see that children are properly brought up. But this Bill will not do that. A woman who has 18 s. a week only, and who has herself and two children to keep, is either driven into the labour market and has to get somebody else to look after the children—if she can—or has to resort to the guardians. That is a most unsatisfactory position. Moreover, I am afraid that one result of this Bill will be that guardians—or some of them—will cut down the relief which some of them have been giving. They may well say. "If the central Government considers that 18 s. a week is sufficient, why should we pay 28 s. a week?" So that one result of this Bill—of this social reform which the noble Marquess told us was the product of active Conservatism—may well be the cutting down of relief given by the guardians to some of the most needy and harassed of our people.
Let me make another comparison, which in my view furnishes an unanswerable case for higher benefits. It is a comparison with what happens in the case of the widows and children of ex-Service men. The widow of an ex-Service man was not given 10 s. a week, she was given £1 6s. 8d. a week; she was not given 5s. a week for the first child, she was given 10 s. a week for the first child; she was not given 3s. a week for the second child, she was given 7s. 6d. a week for the second child. If you add those together—£1 6s. 8d. for herself, 10 s. for the first child and 7s. 6d. for the second child, the total is £2 4s. 2d.; so that the widow of the ex-Service man with two children is getting £2 4s. 2d. per week against 18 s. given to the widow with two children under this Bill. I am very glad that widows of ex-Service men are getting that, I rejoice in it, but I entirely fail to understand on what principle the widow of the man who dies in industrial service is to be so much less well treated than the widow of the man who was killed on military service.
476
Take another injustice of the Bill, and it is a very serious injustice. The noble Marquess, naturally enough, did not say anything about it. It concerns the position as regards unemployment benefit of the man who reaches the age of 65. Under this Bill, as the noble Marquess said, when a man reaches 65, if he is an insured person he will get 10 s. a week. Yes, but as a result of getting 10 s. a week under the Bill he will fall out of unemployment insurance benefit. That is a very serious matter. Under unemployment insurance benefit the man does not get 10 s. a week, he gets 18 s. a week for himself and 5s. a week for his wife, so he gets 23 s. a week. But now under this Bill, and because of this Bill, if his wife is under 65—and it is not uncommon for a wife to be younger than her husband—all they will get is 10 s. a week as against 23 s. a week unemployment insurance benefit. Look at that position. Here you have a man who may have been paying in for a long term of years heavy unemployment insurance contributions with a view to helping himself when the period of unemployment comes. The noble Marquess said in his speech that at 65 a man is old He is very old from an industrial point of view and that is just when a man is likely to be hit and to want his benefit He has reached the age when he is most likely to be faced with unemployment and then, instead of getting as he should have done 23 s. a week, he is only to get 10 s. a week.
That is a very mean and shabby provision. All that can be said in its defence is that it is cheap. You can buy cheapness too dear if it is bought at the expense of breaking faith with the workers, and this is a direct breach of contract. The Government in this provision is doing something which, if an ordinary insurance company did it, would lead to legal proceedings, I believe even to criminal proceedings, but at any rate to legal proceedings. And what is the defence? The strongest representations were made in another place to get this injustice put right. The real reason why the Government did not put it right was that there is no money. And the reason why there is no money is that the Government has given £40,000,000 a year to Income Tax payers.
And that is not the last hardship done by the Bill. This Bill actually throws

477
upon certain classes the cost for contributions towards some benefits which they now get for nothing. As time goes on, the young men and women of sixteen who come in under this scheme will be contributing to the cost of the old age pensions which they are to get when they are seventy. But without this Bill they would get those for nothing. What does it come to, therefore? It comes to this: that the non-contributory scheme of old age pensions which has existed in this country since 1908 has been done away with. That is what will happen in due course; yet all Parties in the State support old age pensions on the noncontributory basis for persons over seventy. I will not say that all persons support them because I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, is still opposed to them.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Oh, yes.
LORD ARNOLD: The noble Lord told your Lordships not very long ago that he was one of the very few who had voted against that beneficent measure.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: And Lord Robert Cecil.
LORD ARNOLD: Yes, but Lord Robert Cecil did not seem to take the same pride in it that the noble Lord did. The noble Lord seemed to glory in his shame. He flaunted it before the House and he still seems to be adamant. He is one of a very minute percentage of the population, because, practically speaking, the whole population of the country supports, for people over seventy, non-contributory old age pensions, which are now to be done away with.
Before I sit down I wish to make one thing clear, and I do not think this will be denied by anybody who has been following the proceedings. Certain valuable concessions have been secured in this measure in another place owing to the very vigilant and able work done during the Committee Stage by the Labour Party. The noble Marquess told your Lordships with great satisfaction, as it seemed to me, that if a child remained at school up to the age of 16 the allowance was to be continued until that age. True, but that was not in the Bill when it was introduced. It is the Labour Party which
478
is entitled to the credit of that, not the Government. That was inserted owing to a Labour Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Government accepted it.
LORD ARNOLD: At any rate, I am not doing wrong in calling attention to the fact that it was the Labour Party who got that put in, and, if it had not been for the Labour Party—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not deny that the Labour Party is sometimes right.
LORD ARNOLD: The noble Marquess is always fair-minded, and I am sure he will agree that on this occasion the Labour Party did very good service to the country. I regret to say that many other Amendments of great value were not accepted, but were refused. The only reason why they were refused was that there is no money. Well, I have dealt with that; your Lordships know why there is no money. I will not go into further detailed criticisms of this Bill, because, if I were to put before your Lordships in regard to this measure all the things which ought to have been done, but which have not been done, I am afraid I should make a quite undue draught upon your Lordships' time and patience.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the noble Marquess the Leader of the House a short time ago rebuked me, on the discussion of a Party Bill, for imparting too much of a Party character into the discussion which was then taking place. I am quite prepared when a suitable occasion arises to justify what I said on that occasion, but I cannot but contrast his rebuke of me for making a Party speech on that occasion with his own speech this afternoon. Your Lordships will remember how he emphasised the principles of this Bill as being the principles of active Conservatism. This Bill touches two important measures which have been introduced during the last twenty years for the welfare of the working classes of this country and, embodying as it does the principles of active Conservatism, this Bill refers to two measures, one of which was introduced by my noble friend Lord Oxford and the other by my noble friend Lord Buxton. It was my noble friend

479
Lord Oxford who was responsible for the initiation of old age pensions and it was my noble friend Lord Buxton who was first responsible for the introduction of insurance against the ills to which the working classes are subject. I think in those circumstances I may fairly point out to the noble Marquess that his principles of active Conservatism have gained a great deal from the Liberalism of the last generation.
But owing so much as the Bill does to the principles of Liberalism, the noble Marquess will naturally realise that I am not going to adopt the same tone of criticism in regard to the measure as that adopted by the noble Lord who has just sat down. There is a great deal in this Bill which was common to all political Parties at the last General Election and I think also the last but one. There is a great deal in it which is good. Therefore, although I have criticisms to make, they are rather on points of administration and of detail than on any matters of principle. I take, for instance, the point which is involved in the very title of the Bill. I confess that it seems somewhat less necessary to endow childless widows than to endow widows who are mothers. A childless widow, who is quite young and who, perhaps, at the age of 25 is thrown upon her own resources, is not so much in need of money as the widow who has a number of children to look after. I do not know what the actuarial figures would be, but it is evident that the childless widow with a pension which is awarded to her under this Bill will be able to go into the labour market and perhaps depress the conditions under which other women work. If the money available for the childless widow could have been available for the children of the widowed mother I think it would have been a great advantage.
We realise, of course, that His Majesty's Government have not gone so far as they would probably wish to go, and not so far as some of your Lordships would like them to go. But that they went no further was because they had not the money. I confess that I should be very much interested if the noble Marquess has the figures and can tell us what would have been the result if the money which goes to childless widows under the Bill had been made available for the children of widowed mothers. It is evident from what was said by the noble Marquess that
480
the amount of money is not adequate to the demand.
My other criticism is in regard to the administration of this Bill. The Bill in many respects is an extension of the National Health Insurance Act. It involves an amendment of the Act and of the administration under the Act. At the same time I should have hoped that the scheme for administering the Bill would be the same as that in vogue under the National Insurance Act; instead of which a new bureaucracy is set up which will cost something like half a million—a subject on which I shall say something in a few moments. Meanwhile, a large part of the administration will be done by the Post Office, which has already a great deal to do in managing the postal affairs of the country. The reason why I should have preferred the scheme to be administered by the approved societies is that, generally speaking, administration by Government is notoriously less efficient than administration by such bodies as the approved societies.
You give these approved societies an incentive to administer well, and I am sure that, instead of these inquiries being made by bureaucrats, it would have been very much better if the staff of the approved societies, which already have a great deal of experience in these matters, could have been induced to take on the work. They do it already. They do it with sympathy. They have a great deal of experience of these matters, and I feel that they would have been able to do it a great deal better. They have experience of people who malinger and who pretend to be ill when they are not. They have facilities in the matter, and had this work been handed over to them I believe the fact that they would have been enabled to give increased benefit would have led to very careful administration. It is clear that under this scheme, although I am not sure that it is altogether unavoidable, the younger people will be made to pay for the older, because the older will come into the scheme at such a very short date. As the noble Marquess has told us, they come in during next year and immediately get the benefits provided in the Bill. In those circumstances I confess that I think it is wise that His Majesty's Government has provided that every ten years there shall be a review of the charges under the Bill.

481
I turn to the Actuary's Report upon the Bill, and I would point out to your Lordships a somewhat serious figure which appears on page 25. He says that the charges at the end of ten years front now, in 1935–36, will exceed the contributions by an increasing annual sum, the excess amounting in that year to nearly £13,000,000. That is no doubt the reason why there must be a revision under the terms of the Bill itself of the charges and the scale of contributions. It is indeed a very serious thing to contemplate that in ten years the contributions under this Bill will be insufficient to pay for the charges by no less than £13,000,000. I think we may not unfairly compare the scheme under this Bill with that of the Health Insurance Act. Under the Health Insurance Act reserve values were created at the start which were equal to the age of the members, those reserve values were credited to a society and as they were written off the benefits were increased. Under this Bill there is no possibility of increased benefit because, owing to the very large charges it makes upon the contributors, there would be no extra fund and no reserve of capital value, as it is, would be created at the beginning of this measure. The fact that the "dead hand" of a Government Department will be chiefly occupied in administering the Bill is, I regret to think, probably due to the struggle which took place some time ago—two years ago—between Sir William JoynsonHicks and the approved societies over the remuneration to be awarded to the doctors.
There is, of course, the point about contributions which was raised by the noble Lord who has just sat down, and I confess in this matter I occupy a middle position between the noble Marquess and the noble Lord. It is acknowledged that the amount which will fall upon the Treasury during the next ten years will only be £18,000,000, and it might have been well worth the consideration of His Majesty's Government whether they could not have borne all the charges which will fall upon industry for the next three years and will be employed in this matter. For three years they might only have found the same sum of money as would have been necessary to pay for the charges under this Bill.
I return to the question of the cost of administration. That has
482
been estimated by the noble Lord at a sum of £500,000. I wish I could think it was likely to be limited to that sum. We may take as a comparison the amount of money which it costs to administer the old age pensions. The Old Age Pensions Vote is for £28,000,000 Old age pensions cost us £28,000,000 a year and there is a sum of £62,000 set aside for the Committees under the Old Ago Pensions Act. But that is not the amount for which the pensions are administered. The Inland Revenue charge no less than £530,000 a year, and if we deduct the amount per year sent to Ireland that brings it roughly to a round £500,000. The Pest Office pay £250,000 and therefore we find that the administration of the £26,000,000 of the old age pensions costs £750,000 a year. In those circumstances I think that there is very little hope that when the amount administered under this Bill comes to the large sum mentioned in the Actuary's Report, rising as it is said to rise in 1935 to £38,000,000, we shall find that the cost of administration will be kept down to £500,000.
We all know that, generally speaking, this Bill is so largely finance that it would be difficult for your Lordships to amend it. I shall, however, venture to put down one Amendment for your Lordships to consider in Committee, and that is that the provisions of this Bill be extended to those who, having paid their contributions, go to reside in other parts of the British Dominions. When the Committee stage comes I hope to be allowed to move that Amendment.
Before I sit down, I should like to make some reference to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, who spoke on behalf of the Labour Party. I wish to refer not so much to what he did say as to what he did not say. I hope he will take an opportunity of completing those remarks that he made upon the Second Reading of the Finance Act. Your Lordships will no doubt remember how, in the course of his remarks on that occasion, he spoke of the £300,000,000 which are paid in interest on National Debt, and said that as they were returned, generally speaking, to the wealthier classes, it really meant that as compared with their conditions before the War broke out they were not so very much worse off now than they were in 1914. I confess that I thought at the time that

483
his arguments on that head were fantastic. I admire his skill in juggling with figures, taking them out of one side of the account and not putting them back on the other, and I had hoped that he would have completed his remarks on this occasion by referring to the advantages which are given to the poorer classes of the community under this Bill and under similar measures which have been introduced during the last two years.
LORD ARNOLD: May I be allowed to interrupt the noble Earl? I am sure he wants to have this matter stated aright. I am afraid he has not grasped the point which I made. My point was not that the wealthier classes were slightly worse off or little worse off than they were in 1914. About that I said nothing. What I said was that if you looked at both sides of the national account and took into account what went to the wealthier classes and what was going to the poorer classes, you would find that the wealthier classes were in very much the same position as compared with the poorer classes as they were in 1914.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The noble Lord with his usual anxiety has not allowed me to make my point, therefore he can hardly say that I have, not grasped the point that he made. No one is so intolerant of criticism as the noble Lord, who is constantly interrupting other speakers, yet I remember on an occasion recently, when he refused to give names in reference to some cases upon which he was speaking, that he stated that he declined to be deflected from the course of his argument by giving names. I really think that the noble Lord does not like being criticised, but he must realise that we are allowed to criticise other people in this House and that it is the usual custom for us to do it, as a rule, without interruption. I now pass on to try to complete the point that I was making, which is that the amount of money that is distributed amongst the poorer classes of this country is very great. If we add together the amount of money which they receive under the Unemployment Insurance, under the Poor Law, under National Health and under Old Age Pensions, Workmen's Compensation, Employers' Liability and State grants for relief works, we get a total of something like £200,000,000 a year, to which must be added the money that will be spent under this Bill.
484
It is perfectly true that that money is partly contributory. On the other hand, nobody helps the wealthier classes when they have to make their contributions to Income Tax. We are, therefore, not wholly unfair when we say, if we are to compare the position on the one side and the other, that we ought to take into account this £200,000,000, which will rise in the course of time to some £250,000,000 a year. Although part of it is certainly contributory, it is at this moment being spent for the benefit of the poorer classes in this country. That amount of money, of course, has to be paid partly by the taxpayer, partly by the ratepayer and partly by the employer, but it is an amount of money to which a great many of us have to contribute in all three capacities—and if we make a general survey of the condition of the people in this country it is wholly unfair and fallacious not to admit figures such as those. If we are to consider she £300,000,000 we ought at least to consider also the £250,000,000 on the other side.
May I, in conclusion, say to the noble Marquess that I should be very glad if he could give us some assurance that this is not the end of what His Majesty's Government propose to do in this matter? I hope they will take into consideration the possibility of giving more benefit by, perhaps, a scheme of what is commonly known as all-in insurance. This ought not to be the end of the good work which can be done in benefiting the more unfortunate classes of this country. There are various schemes of all-in insurance which are fairly well known, and if something of that kind could be done I believe it would be a very great advantage. The reason why it is not clone generally is that very many people are afraid that the amount of money which would have to be paid by the employer—it has been estimated as 2s. 6d.—would be too much. On the other hand there is an estimate, which I have seen—I think a reliable estimate—that employers have to pay something like 3s. per head for all men and women they employ if you take into consideration health, unemployment, rates, and liability to compensation. A great deal might be, done in preventing overlapping and the frittering away of money if there could be one big State scheme of insuring against all these various things.

485
I should be glad if the noble Marquess could assure us that that was not altogether outside the purview of His Majesty's Government, and that they would be willing, as time goes on, to consider the possibility of improving the administration of these Acts. The result of that would be a very considerable advantage to those who are insured, or contribute, under this Bill. If that is so, then I think we may fairly congratulate His Majesty's Government upon having introduced a Bill which, in spite of the somewhat small criticising that I have made, will, I think, be very largely to the advantage of a large section of the community.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, told us he objected to this Bill because it was going to put a very heavy burden upon the industries of the country. If he will allow me to say so I agree with him there. I think this Bill is going to put a very heavy burden upon the industries of the country. But the noble Lord went on to say that he would like to add to those burdens by making the scheme non-contributory. I do not know where he is to find the money to make the scheme noncontributory unless he increases the burden on, amongst other people, the industrialists of this country. It is true that he suggested that £42,000,000 had been abandoned by the Government in reduction of the Income Tax and Super-Tax. I do not know whether he has added the increased burdens of the Death Duties. I have not the figures before me at the moment, but I would point out to him that that £42,000,000, if it had not been taken away, would have been paid, or some of it, by the enterprise and business of this country. Therefore, the burdens which he objects to being thrown on the industries of the country would still continue.
I am opposed to the Bill altogether. I should like very much to move the rejection of the Second Reading, and I would do so if I thought there was any possibility of defeating the Bill. But though the majority of noble Lords on this side of the House would, I believe, vote with me if the vote was by ballot, I am not quite certain that they would vote with me in the ordinary way, and, therefore, I do not propose either to make a long speech
486
or to divide your Lordships' House against the Bill. I should like, however, to say why I object to this Bill, and to this class of legislation. After the Napoleonic Wars there was a great increase in outdoor relief, and the result of it was that nobody wanted to work as long as he could gel something from somebody else which was sufficient to keep him from starvation. And human nature—I draw no distinction between classes—in every class is inclined not to work if it can get somebody else to support its existence. The result of all these "doles," a certain number being kept by other people, is to discourage the habits of work, of industry and of thrift. If the majority of people think that they can get some other people to support them it is quite certain that they will not take any steps either to obtain work or to support themselves.
I was a member of another place when a former Insurance Bill was brought in. We are told that people were going to get 9d. for 4d. Now I understand from the noble. Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that widows are going to get 8s. 4d. for 2d., and therefore—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY indicated dissent.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Well, a good many widows, not all. It was not everybody who got 9d. for 4d. I did not get it, and other people besides myself did not get 9d. for 4d. No doubt there are a certain number of widows who will not get 8s. 4d. for 2d., but there is a considerable number who will. Taking men, women and children, 70 per cent. of the population will obtain these benefits which are contributed, to the greatest extent, by 30 per cent. of the population.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They will not obtain benefits, but provision will be made for them.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: And as 70 per cent. is larger than 30 per cent. the unfortunate 30 per cent. will have to find the money. Not only do I object to this on the ground that it is bad for the people but also because it is imposing an enormous burden on posterity which it will be unable to bear. The sum of £750,000,000 is the capitalised value of the charge which will be imposed upon

487
posterity by this Bill. That is the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place, and it is an amount which is larger than the total Debt of this country in 1914. This is an additional burden of £750,000,000 at a time when the expenditure of this country is, in round figures, £800,000,000 a year, and when the total Debt of the country is very nearly £8,000,000,000. Not only do I think that we cannot afford it, I know we cannot afford it; not only is it bad for everybody, but it is had electioneering. If the Government have it in their mind that they are going to obtain gratitude from anybody I would ask them to remember that gratitude is a sense of favours to come. If the Government had, four years hence, brought in a Bill of this sort I should still have opposed it on the grounds I have given, but it would have been good electioneering, because people would have probably voted for the Conservative Party on the understanding that they were going to get something.
But what is going to happen now? We have the Labour Party saying that these pensions must be non-contributory, and as certain as I am standing here we shall at the next Election be faced with this problem. The Labour Party will say: If you return us we will make the pensions non-contributory. Where is the money coming from? And how, when 70 per cent. of the population are going to benefit, can we resist that. Bribe—I can call it nothing else—by the Labour Party? To make matters worse the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, to be quite certain that the Liberal Party was not left behind in the race to offer benefits to the electors, appealed to the Government to extend the benefits at a certain time. Therefore two different Parties at the next Election will be recommending an increase in the benefits or a decrease in the contributions, or both. And where will the wretched people be who will have to find the money? Our industries cannot now compete success fully with foreign industries, and where shall we be if we have to pay, I think it is, up to £90,000,000 a year for this particular benefit, and for the increased benefits which the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, and the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, are desirous of seeing?
488
One reason given for this Bill was that it was going to put all these various reliefs upon a contributory basis, but the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place gave that away, and Clause 18 gives to widows whose husbands have never paid a single shilling towards pensions the right to a pension. I propose in Committee to move the omission of Clause 18. At any rate we might begin by making the Bill contributory. Then we are told that it will reduce the rates. We were told exactly the same thing when the Old Age Pensions Act was introduced in the year 1908. And what has been the result? The rates have gone up, and they will go up in this case. All that will happen will be that the man or widely who gets 10 s. a week will say: "It is not enough for us to live on. We are not going to do any work; we ought to have a great deal more, and we will go to the Poor Law and get something in addition." There will be no diminution in the Poor Law rate, but an increase. I should like very much to divide against this Bill, but I have made my protest. I feel sure that the Bill is a mistake. As an electioneering measure it was had, and as a financial measure it is worse.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as I listened to my noble friend who has just sat down I wondered whether there could be any Bill of which he would not vote against the Second Reading. I think there is one exception—the Dogs Bill. That, I believe, is the only piece of legislation which Parliament could consider to which he would not be opposed. I am afraid I cannot hope that in anything I can say I shall convince him that there is a good case for this Bill, but he himself, towards the close of his speech, seemed to indicate that there was some value in the contributory principle. I am glad of that, and I wish that the weight of that consideration were sufficient to cause him to be in favour of the Bill.
The great distinction, of course, between a good pensions Bill and a bad one—and here, very respectfully, I differ entirely from the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, who spoke just now—is the presence of the contributory principle. To us the contributory principle is essential and it does not at all frighten me to be told that the contributions are upon such a scale that in course of

489
time they may make not merely the pension at sixty-five years old contributory but also the pension at seventy years old. I shall be delighted if that turns out to be the case. I believe that a great mistake was made when the existing Old Age Pensions Act was passed in not placing it upon a contributory basis. I should be sorry to believe that the people of this country are opposed to the contributory basis. Why should it be imagined that they do not value the principle of self-respect as much as your Lordships do? I believe that they do. This Bill differs altogether from outdoor relief, of which the noble Lord spoke. I should be very sorry indeed if these pensions had to be supplemented by outdoor relief.
The noble Lord said that if we do not have outdoor relief the pensions are insufficient and the beneficiaries will have to do a little work. Of course, I do not want the widow to have such a burden of work that she cannot look after the house and the children. But she can do a little. We who live in the countryside and know what passes, know that in the cottages a little washing is done or a little sewing, and a few shillings are earned: Why not? It is an admirable thing. We do not want to do anything to stop that, and we differ entirely from the noble Lord in that respect. To us the contributory principle is essential. That it should be supplemented by work and by other resources is wholesome and beneficial, and this idea would, I am sure, earn the confidence of the Party to which I belong, if not that of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury. I see that the noble Lord has left the House; I hope that he felt that his case could no longer be sustained.
Then the noble Lord said that there were persons outside employment who were badly treated by this Bill. I am sure that we should have been very glad to bring them inside the Bill if it could have been done. Perhaps it may be done in the future. But that which the noble Lord said was not altogether accurate, because people who have been insured persons at any time since 1912 may, under the clause concerning voluntary insurance, come back into the Bill, and so are not altogether excluded. Many persons may avail themselves of that power. Similarly there is a provision in the Bill under which soldiers who served
490
in the War can come into the Bill even if they are not being employed at the present moment, so that the noble Lord's remarks were not altogether accurate. It is a good principle, though the noble Lord did not seem to appreciate it, that industry should insure itself. That is in line with what I have already said. It is all in the direction of helping those who help themselves, and we are anxious that this system should finally be bound up with industry and that, by the contributions of those engaged in industry, both employers and employed, widows' pensions and old age pensions may be provided, of course with the assistance of the contributions which the State is able to afford.
Then the noble Lord found a great grievance in the fact that a man who, at the time when lie becomes sixty-five, is in the enjoyment of unemployment benefit should drop from that figure—I think he gave it as 23 s.—to the 10 s. provided by the old age pension scheme. But the two things are not comparable. The 23 s. is received by the unemployed man only while he is unemployed, but he gets the 10 s. for life. I can assure the noble Lord that he is quite wrong in imagining that the man loses. The actuarial calculation is, I believe, that the benefits between the ages of 65 and 70 are three and a half times the value of the present rights of the man under the health and unemployment insurance scheme. Accordingly I am afraid that I cannot accept the charge which the noble Lord made.
I turn now to the speech of the noble Earl. I ought to say that I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for his support of the Bill. His criticisms were very gentle and, on the whole, I think that we may be grateful that he and the Party which he leads at the moment in your Lordships' House are supporters of the Bill. He did, however, make some criticisms, and one of his criticisms was that childless widows were admitted to benefit. That matter has been very carefully considered. I may say that I myself was one of those who questioned the value of that provision, just as the noble Earl has done. But, to use a colloquial phrase, there is no money in it; I mean that the number of widows in question is very small. I think that it would be true to say that on the average only 4 per cent

491
of the individuals becoming widows in one year will be under 35 and childless, and most of those, or a good many of them, will re-marry, so that the case, although I admit that there is something to be said for the noble Earl's view, is a very small one if it is looked at statistically.
It must also be said on the other side that, after all, the husband who has died has paid the contribution in the hope that if he dies his wife will be insured. It is not with him a question whether he has children or not. He is thinking of her, too, and it is a little hard to say to a man: "Although you have paid contributions, if you, unfortunately, die it will make no difference, your widow will not get a sou, for you have no children." I think this has to be remembered. This is in the nature of insurance. A man has paid for insurance and he is surely entitled to benefit in the shape of a pension for his widow. For these reasons, after careful thought, the Government rejected the proposal which the noble Earl has made, and I hope he will realise that we have carefully thought the matter out. Then the noble Earl said that he wished we had acted in the payment of these pensions through the approved societies. That also was very carefully considered. There was a meeting with the representatives of the approved societies, and they were convinced that it was impracticable, and the reason it is impracticable is that insured persons, although they may insure in a particular locality, may move all over the country, and the approved societies in many cases have no machinery by which they can follow the pensioners wherever they may have gone.
Therefore it was abandoned and the Government have used the other channel. They pay the benefits through the Post Offices, which, as your Lordships are aware, exist everywhere. It is for that reason we could not take the approved societies. Then the noble Earl said that he proposed to move an Amendment in Committee to provide for the cases of pensioners who emigrate to different parts of the Empire. That is a matter which has given us a great deal of thought and I am able to inform your Lordships that a Departmental Committee will be appointed to consider what arrangements can be made, with reference to unemployment, health and pensions, to meet the cases of contributors desirous of
492
emigrating within the Empire. The matter is very complicated, but the Government have already resolved to appoint a Committee to look into it.
The noble Earl also said something about the cost of administration. We hope that the cost of administration will be kept within the figure of 2 per cent. of the contributions, and the reason we hope to do it cheaply is that there will be no committees such as exist under the present Old Age Pensions Act, because there will be no means test. These committees exist in order to verify the means of the recipients, and they are costly things, of course, like all machinery. We have abolished the means test. Therefore, these committees are abolished likewise, and great economy will result. Then the noble Earl said that he hoped that this did not mark the end of our good work. I was immensely pleased at that phrase of the noble Earl. It contemplated a long career of excellent social legislation which will be passed by the Conservative Government. I make my bow to the noble Earl and assure him that it is my hope, too.
But I am afraid it will not take the form of all-in insurance. That has been Carefully considered and found to be impracticable. I am afraid that nothing in that direction is possible, although there are many other beneficent directions in which I hope the Conservative Government will justify the confidence of the noble Earl. I think I have answered all the questions which have been put to me and I am glad to think that there is no menace, even from my noble friend, Lord Banbury, of opposition in the Lobby. I hope and believe that this Bill will be the unanimous work of your Lordships' House, even in spite of the criticisms of the noble Lord, and that we shall be able in a very few days to place it upon the Statute Book as the first fruits of our active Conservative policy.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order).
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, there are some Amendments to this Bill which should have been moved on the Committee stage, but, unfortunately, we could not

493
definitely certify that two of them were drafting Amendments. With the exception of the Amendment, to Clause 9, page n, line 8, and the Amendment to Clause 18, page 22, line 16, the Amendments are purely drafting Amendments. I should like to say just one word on the Amendment to Clause 9 at page 11, line 8. It is merely an Amendment to meet the circumstance, which was evidently overlooked, that a few public elementary schools are not provided or maintained by the local education authority. It is therefore really almost a drafting Amendment. As to the other Amendment to which I have alluded, Clause 18, page 22, line 16, it was intended to provide by rule that service under 18 should not he pensionable, and this was done in the case of the 1918 Act, but it is not quite clear that under this particular Bill a rule of that kind can be made, and so the Board of Education proposes to insert this provision in the Bill instead of making a rule, as has been done before. I beg to move the Amendments on the Paper.
Amendments moved—
Clause 2, page 4, line 16, after ("a") insert ("grant aided")
Clause 3, page 5, line 41, leave out ("service") and insert ("employment")
Clause 9, page 11, line 8, leave out ("or in a") and insert ("maintained by the local education authority or in any")
Clause 13, page 16, line 17, leave out ("when") and insert ("where")
Clause 14, page 17, line 40, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 2 on page 18.
Clause 14, page 19, line 27, after ("section") insert—
("(a) in the case of an organiser over the age of sixty-five years, who at the date of the commencement of this Act is in employment which would be contributory service if he were under that age, the Board may treat him as if he were employed at that date in contributory service; and
"(b)")
Clause 18, page 22, line 16, after ("is") insert ("over eighteen and")
Clause 18, page 22, line 26, after ("service") insert ("and includes any period during which a person though not actually serving in such service as aforesaid was, as the result of his service, prevented or hindered from procuring work as a teacher owing to injury, illness, or any other cause")
Clause 19, page 22, line 29, leave out ("1898") and insert ("1918").—(Lord Somers.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I do not think it will be necessary to occupy much of your Lordships' time in the consideration of this Bill. The noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Front Bench opposite remarked yesterday, when the business of the House was under consideration, that we must not assume that this Bill was the same as the English Bill which your Lordships passed last week. He was, of course, perfectly correct in what he said so far as the form of the Bill is concerned. But as a matter of fact the result of this Bill on the teachers in Scotland will be precisely the same as the result of the English Bill on teachers in England. Indeed, the main object of this Bill is to assimilate the conditions of superannuation of teachers in Scotland to those which may be adopted in the case of teachers in England and Wales. The difference of form which exists in this Bill arises from the fact that, instead of specifying the conditions of superannuation in the Bill, the Bill provides that the Department shall submit a scheme for superannuation the main lines of which are laid down. This is following the precedent of the Acts of 1908 and 1919, and it is a method which has worked well in the past and which it may be confidently expected will work satisfactorily in the future.
In this matter of superannuation of teachers Scotland has always been ahead of England. Public opinion in Scotland has always favoured a scheme which would be contributory, not only by the education authority but also by the teachers themselves, and the plunge into a non-contributory scheme which the example of England forced us to take in 1918 was regretted in Scotland both by the employers, the education authorities, and by the, teachers themselves. I think I can say with some confidence that a return to what we regard as sound lines of policy

495
will be welcomed by the employers and by the teachers in Scotland. The intention is that in future the contributions are to be a permanent feature of the scheme. At present the contribution of 5 per cent. by the teachers is levied under authority, first, of the Act of 1922 and extended by the Act of 1924, and the Parliamentary authority expires on July 31, which is the reason why it is necessary for your Lordships, if you see fit to do so, to ensure the passage of the Bill by that date.
As to the scheme for superannuation allowances, although the directions in the Bill are of a general character, a preliminary draft of the scheme has been circulated and all parties are satisfied that it is, in fact, in conformity with the English Act which was passed last week. The main result of the passage of the Bill will be to promote the circulation of teachers between the two countries; not only between the schools of Scotland on the one side and England and Wales on the other, but also between the schools and to some extent the Universities, for a teacher who passes from service in a school to service in a University will carry with him his rights to superannuation allowances. Anything which links up the educational system in this way must, I think, promote the sense of unity in the service in which lies strength. The Bill was welcomed by all Parties in another place and no opposition of any kind was offered. I think that anything which will help to get rid, as this Bill will do, of the feeling of instability and uncertainty which has surrounded the question of superannuation allowances for some years cannot but promote good feeling and contentment in a profession where discontent and dissatisfaction cannot but be fraught with special danger to the community. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to this Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered. —(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES BILL. [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  [The references are to Bill No. 43.]
  Clause 3, page 2, lines 31 and 32, leave out ("Commissioners of Customs and Excise") and insert ("licensing authority")
  Clause 3, page 2, lines 34 and 35, leave out ("the substance in question manufactured") and insert ("that substance, if the substance is one the manufacture of which is carried on in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, or, if such manufacture is not so carried on, with such standards (if any) of strength, quality and purity, as may be prescribed for that substance, or, if no such standards are so prescribed, with such standards of quality and purity as are prescribed in the case of therapeutic substances of a similar class, the manufacture of which is carried on")
  Clause 4, page 3, line 28, after ("Council") insert ("one member appointed by the British Medical Association").
  VISCOUNT GAGE: The first three Amendments on the Paper are Government Amendments, and to all intents and purposes are drafting Amendments. I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to Clauses 3 and 4 be agreed to.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. —(Viscount Gage.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 5, page 5, line 9, at end insert ("Provided that, if an Address is voted by either House of Parliament within twenty-one days after such regulations have been laid, being days on which that House has sat, praying that such regulations be modified or annulled, such modification or annulment shall be made without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under the regulations").
  VISCOUNT GAGE: This proviso has been accepted by the Government. It is for the purpose of reserving to Parliament power to control additions to the Schedule under the Bill and to review the regulations made by the joint committee which is the rule-making authority under the Bill. The Ministry, however, desire certain drafting Amendments to be made so that the proviso will then read as follows:
  "Provided that, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of

  497
  Parliament within twenty-one days after such regulations have been laid, being days on which that House has sat, praying that such regulations be annulled they shall thenceforth be void without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under the regulations or to the making of new regulations."
  The alterations which the Government propose are purely drafting Amendments to the Amendment which has already been accepted by the Government. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment subject to the following Amendments:
  Line 2, leave out ("voted") and insert ("presented to His Majesty")
  Lines 5, 6 and 7, leave out ("modified or annulled, such modification or annulment shall he made") and insert ("annulled, they shall thenceforth be void")
  Line 9, after ("regulations") insert ("or to the making of new regulations"). —(Viscount Gage.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Bill returned to the Commons.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL (DISUSED BURIAL GROUND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

REFUGEES AT TANGIER.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government for information as to the number and condition of refugees from the Spanish and French zones in Morocco who have come into Tangier for safety; whether relief will be given if required; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will have noticed from time to time reports of the distressing conditions of Arab and other refugees in the international zone of Tangier, and on the 22nd of this month in The Times newspaper allusion was made to the work which has been carried on by the British Red Crescent Society, a society with which I have worked for a considerable time. It was stated in the The Times that the funds of this society were running low, and in a very short time they would have to discontinue giving relief. It also mentioned the fact that a Quaker missionary was
498
setting out to see what ought and could be done in the way of supplementing relief given by the British Red Crescent Society.
All the reports that we have had show that there has been an enormous amount of serious distress. The association have been relieving from one thousand to two thousand people every day. The money which was at their disposal is now almost at an end and numbers of people clamouring for relief have had to be turned away. It is no wonder that refugees coming into the international zone at Tangier occupied a very uncomfortable position in their own country in Morocco. In the districts taken over by Spain or France these people, more or less accepted the rule of whichever Power was in occupation. Those civilian people would be termed "rebels" if they did anything against, or showed any hostile feeling towards, those two great European Powers. On the other hand, if Spain or France had to retire from any of the occupied districts the probability is that these wretched Moroccan civilians would be regarded as traitors by their fellow tribesmen. Consequently, they desire to get into a secure district—the international zone at Tangier. I imagine that is the reason why so many have taken refuge in that international zone. The head of the British Red Crescent Society, to whose heroic endeavours to alleviate the distress great credit should be given, wrote a letter to the Foreign Office at the end of June, I think, asking whether further relief could be given. The Foreign Office replied that under the new régime at Tangier the Assembly, under the ægis of the Sultan, were responsible and they could not interfere, and that any money which was given had to be given as an act of grace entirely.
I would make this point—that I do not think we can get rid of all responsibility so easily as that. It must be remembered that when Morocco was divided up, some twenty years ago, we joined with France and Spain in the partition. The unhappy condition of affairs which now prevails in that country, and the continued fighting there, are due to the fact that there was no League of Nations in those days to carry out a Mandate and consequently the partition of Morocco was undertaken by the three great Powers without any consultation of the

499
people living in Morocco. Hence, all the subsequent trouble and the trouble which now obtains. It is to be hoped that in consequence of the appeal made to the Riff Leader, Abdel Krim, he will be moderate in his views and that some arrangement will be made between him and France and Spain. That, however, will not relieve the prevailing distress in that part of the world. If it is the case that great distress prevails there—I can only imagine that this is the case from the reports I receive; no doubt, the Government have better information at their command—if it is the fact that there are numbers of refugees there who are daily increasing and are almost starving, I ask whether His Majesty's Government cannot see their way to give some relief. I beg to move.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOUR): My Lords, I am sure that every one of your Lordships will agree with my noble friend Lord Lamington that nothing seems more desirable than that the present troubles in Morocco should come to a speedy and peaceful end. But I do not think your Lordships will go the length my noble friend went of attributing all the misfortunes which are now happening in Morocco, and in particular the distress of these refugees, to the arrangement that was come to twenty years ago and more with regard to European intervention in Morocco. Does my noble friend really think that the state of Morocco would have been better had that arrangement not been reached? Has he any ground for supposing that the evils from which these refugees suffer is in any sense a direct consequence of the diplomatic arrangements come to at the period to which he refers?
It is, unfortunately, true that there are a good many refugees, not I believe from the French zone but from the Spanish zone, now seeking refuge from the disorders which prevail in their country, in the international zone at Tangier. I am told that the number is approximately 6,000, of which 2,000 are men. Where my noble friend seemed to me rather to have failed in his statement of the case was in showing that His Majesty's Government had in any sense a responsibility for what has occurred or had thrown upon them any responsibility for providing
500
relief for these unhappy persons. Tangier, under the International Government, is after all, more peaceable and is better governed than the part from which these refugees have fled. So far, that international area has been a clear advantage to these refugees; but the Government of that international area is quite independent in its administration of His Majesty's Government. We neither have a responsibility nor have we the least intention of accepting a responsibility for what has occurred in a Government over which we have no control and I do not think that my noble friend has shown the smallest reason for thinking that the British taxpayer ought to come to the assistance of this particular class of unfortunate refugees.
He said that the world is full of unsatisfactory conditions. Among the "unsatisfactory conditions" which are to be discovered by even the most careless eye at this moment are refugees in many parts of the world, who have been driven by the unfortunate conditions prevailing there from their homes where they were brought up and the places where they live and which have compelled them to be refugees in other and often in distant areas. We cannot be responsible for misfortunes of which we are not the authors in districts which we do not govern, and I am sure, if my noble friend would consider the matter, he would see that we should be carrying out in a very unfortunate fashion our own responsibilities to our own people if we were to ask the British taxpayer to come to the assistance of these refugees. Any information which the Government have at their disposal they will be very glad to communicate to my noble friend: but they cannot accept the responsibility which, if I understood his speech aright, he would desire to throw upon them.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I am somewhat disappointed at my noble friend's unsatisfactory reply, in the course of which he questioned whether the condition of things in Morocco would have been any better had the agreement of some twenty years ago never been made. That is the sort of question which it is beyond the power of mortal man to answer; but I maintain that there is this responsibility, that it is in consequence of that agreement that there is this number of refugees in Tangier to-day, and if

501
we were a party to that agreement being made I do not see why we have not some responsibility. Whoever were concerned in that agreement has, it seems to me, a burden of responsibility now thrown upon them for these 6,000 refugees who are in an international zone. It seems to me that the great Powers of Europe are responsible for what takes place in that international zone. The National Assembly, which has just been formed, has hardly felt its way yet, and it is impossible to conceive that it can be in a position to grapple with the task of feeding and maintaining against absolute starvation this large number of 6,000 people. I still hope that at some future day His Majesty's Government will see their way to do something more than has been indicated in the answer that has
502
been given to me. In the meantime I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in moving the adjournment of the House I beg to remind your Lordships that by the pleasure of the House we meet at 3 o'clock to-morrow. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn till 3 o'clock to-morrow.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn until 3 o'clock to-morrow. —(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.

Preamble
The Lord Cozens-Hardy—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

BEDWELLTY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL.
NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL.
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (GUNTHORPE BRIDGE) BILL.
SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

NEW SHOREHAM HARBOUR BILL.
Reported, with Amendments
BATH CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

BARROW-IN-FURNESS CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Clydebank Burgh Extension.
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Sandwich Port and Haven.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
PONTYPRIDD AND RHONDDA JOINT WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.

ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDERS.
Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the Urban District of Oundle and parts of the Rural Districts of Thrapston and Oundle, all in the County of Northampton.
Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the City of Wells, the Borough of Glastonbury, the Urban Districts of Highbridge, Midsomer Norton, Radstock and Shepton Mallet, part of the Urban District of Burnham, the Rural District of Clutton, and parts of the Rural Districts of Oxbridge, Bath, Frome, Keynsham, Shepton Mallet and Wells, all in the County of Somerset.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

LEICESTER FIRE BRIGADE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  SALFORD PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    LAND DRAINAGE (OUSE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    Reported, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
WEST HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  LANARKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
    LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
    To be read 3a to-morrow.