Sitting of 14 July 1927

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Conway Extension) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (New Sarum Extension) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Newcastle-under-Lyme Extension) Bill [Lords]
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wokingham Extension) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders
Confirmation (No. 6) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Airdrie Burgh Extension, Etc., Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
Address for Return,
"showing the number of Experiments on Living Animals, during the year 1926, under licences granted under the Act 30 and 40 Vic., cap. 77, distinguishing the nature of the Experiments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 129, of Session 1926)."—[Captain Hacking.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  NELLIE CLARK, BIRKENHEAD.
  Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether
  2284
  he has received any official information to the effect that a man recently executed in Germany was also the murderer of the Birkenhead girl, Nellie Clark?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): No, Sir. I have seen a statement in a newspaper published in June, but it was incorrect in the most material particulars.
  Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Birkenhead police have any information on the matter which may not have come through his Department?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should say it is certain that there is no truth in the statement in the paper. The hon. and gallant Member is mistaken in thinking that there is any connection.

  RURAL DISTRICTS (AMENITIES).
  Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the rapid urbanisation of the rural districts, he is prepared to introduce legislation dealing comprehensively with the whole question of the disfigurement of the countryside, and especially of beauty spots and holiday resorts, by advertisements, industrial plants and other objects?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government are always willing to consider any practicable suggestions that may be put forward for protecting the natural beauties of the country, but I am unable to conceive how it would be possible in a single Measure to deal with a subject of such complexity and involving so many different interests. I may remind the hon. Member that extensive powers have during the life of this present Parliament been conferred on local authorities to protect their districts against disfiguring advertisements, and that in town planning schemes for land about to be developed For building purposes provision may be made for securing the amenities of the area.
  Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the steady encroachment of urban conditions upon the countryside, consequent upon the easy access afforded by motor transport,

  2285
  he has considered the desirability of setting apart certain districts as national parks for the purposes of health and holiday-making, with restrictions upon the erection of houses and industrial buildings?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): Measures are not contemplated in this direction. Action on the lines suggested by the hon. Member would involve considerable expenditure, and I do not think the time has come for it. He will appreciate that much can be done by local authorities under town or regional planning schemes.

  TRANSPORT.

    STEAM TRACTORS (SMOKE EMISSION).
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Home Secretary how many Reports were submitted by the Metropolitan police in the matter of emission of smoke from steam tractors during the 12 months ending 30th June, 1927; and in how many cases action has been taken by the police?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: During the period in question three Reports were submitted, but owing to the qualification in Section 1 (1) of the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, as to the emission of smoke or visible vapour from a temporary or accidental cause it was not possible to take proceedings in these cases. This qualification also accounts for the small number of cases reported. The police have, however, in the same period instituted proceedings under a London County Council by-law for the prevention of smoke and noxious vapour in Blackwall and Rotherhithe Tunnels in 180 cases, 29 of which are still pending, and secured convictions in practically every case.
    Mr. BAKER: Does not part of this difficulty arise owing to the fact that it is necessary for the police to take action under the London County Council bylaws?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There is a difficulty in dealing with the accidental emission of smoke.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these steam Juggernauts, with their ironrimmed
    2286
    wheels, do thousands of pounds' worth of damage to the roads on hot days?

    STRAYING CATTLE (FINES)
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the resolution passed by the justices of the Essex Quarter Sessions to the effect that, in view of the increase in motor traffic, the maximum fine of 5s. imposed on owners for cattle straying on the highway is inadequate; and whether any action is being taken by his Department?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): My attention has been drawn to this resolution, and I agree that the maximum penalties for this offence are not heavy. I should be prepared to consider their increase in connection with any Bill to amend and consolidate the general law relating to highways, but I do not think that a provision dealing with this subject could be included in the draft Road Traffic Bill, which deals mainly with the amendment of the law relating to vehicles.
    Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if he had any further complaints from other authorities on the subject, and, if so, will he take the necessary action?
    Colonel ASHLEY: What action can I take with the law as it is? I have not had any other representations as far as I know.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds with higher penalties, will he remember that somebody should be allowed to remain out of gaol other than motorists?

  EDUCATION.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS TEACHING.
    Mr.TREVELYANasked the President of the Board of Education whether any Report is available of the proceedings at the Conference of Local Education Authorities on League of Nations teaching in schools; and the main conclusions of the conference and any steps that are being taken or contemplated as a result of those decisions?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I am sending the right hon. Member a copy of the Report of the proceedings of the Conference, which will, I think, supply the information which he desires. This Report has been circulated to local authorities and communicated to the Press.

    SCHOOL, LANGTREE, DEVON.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the President of the Board of Education whether the school at Langtree, in Devonshire, has been condemned by the Board as insanitary; and whether steps are being taken to replace it?
    Lord E. PERCY: This school has been placed on the list of schools with defective premises. The managers have submitted proposals for the improvement of the premises, and according to the latest information in my possession, the question of replacement is under consideration between them and the local authority.

    OPEN-AIR SCHOOLS.
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the President of the Board of Education how many permanent open-air recovery school places are necessary to meet the needs of the children in attendance in public elementary schools who are suffering from latent tuberculosis, malnutrition, and anæmia?
    Lord E.PERCY: I cannot supply the information asked for, since the number of additional places required would depend upon the length of time for which each child would need to attend an open-air school. In this connection I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by me on the 17th February last to the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker), a copy of which I am sending him.

    NECESSITOUS CHILDREN (PROVISION OF MEALS).
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the President of the Board of Education if he can state the amount spent on feeding necessitous schoolchildren in Darlington, Stockton, and Middlesbrough for the last two years, respectively, to the nearest convenient date?
    LORD E. PERCY: As the reply to this Question consists of figures, I will with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:

    Net expenditure, 1925–26.

    Net expenditure, 1926–7.

    £

    £

    Darlington

    …

    244

    283

    Stockton

    …

    —

    —

    Middlesbrough

    …

    1,169

    *

    *Return not yet received.

  HOUSING.

    IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES (COMPENSATION).
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the hardship experienced by owners of small houses in Watergate Street, Deptford, and other parts of Great Britain who have been served with notices under Section 46 of the Housing Act of 1925 that their property is required for reconstruction or other improvement schemes, and that they will only be compensated for the value at the time the valuation is made of the land as the site is cleared of the buildings, he will consider the introduction of amending legislation so that small property owners can be reasonably recompensed for the loss of their property?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I have previously stated in reply to similar questions on this subject, I hope to be able to introduce legislation, but I am unable at present to give any indication of the date of its introduction.
    Colonel DAY: As this involves great hardship to many small owners who will have the whole of their worldly wealth taken away, cannot the right hon. Gentleman facilitate legislation to protect them?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I do not know that I can.

    HULL CORPORATION (SUBSIDY).
    Mr. LUMLEYasked the Minister of Health if he has received an application from the Hull Corporation asking for an extension of the time limit fixed under the Housing Acts (Revision of Contributions) Order, 1926, in respect of

    2289
    certain houses which will not be completed by 1st October, 1927; and if he will grant such a request?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not received the application to which my hon. Friend refers. The Order approved by the House limits the existing subsidy to houses completed before the 1st October, and I have no power to vary this Order.

    RENT RESTRICTION ACTS.
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Minister of Health whether, in connection with the renewal of the Rent Restrictions Act, he will consider the desirability of obtaining from the chief local authorities their views on the policy of gradual decontrol and its effect on the housing problem in their respective areas?
    Sir JOHN POWERasked the Minister of Health whether, in the forthcoming Rent Restrictions Bill, he intends to make it easier for people to obtain possession of their own houses for their own occupation?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:The present proposal of the Government is that the Rent Restriction Acts should be extended for one year by means of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and if this is done no Amendments such as those contemplated by my hon. Friends will be practicable.

    RATING AND VALUATION ACT (OFFICIALS).
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Health if he has any information as to whether the Rating and Valuation Act has caused an increase or a decrease in the number of whole-time officials and an increase or a decrease in the number of part-time officials employed by local authorities; and whether the net result has been an increase or a decrease in expenditure?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:No, Sir. The staffing arrangements of the rating and assessment authorities are within their discretion and not subject to my approval.
    Lieut.- Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries from the local authorities in one or two cases?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it is too early yet to make inquiries. Later on, I hope to get some information.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health if he will explain the cause of the delay in settling claims for widows' pensions under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925; and why in some cases several months elapse before a decision is reached?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware that there is undue delay in settling claims for pensions. In individual cases where delay arises it is generally due to the inability of claimants to furnish the information necessary for a decision. The hon. Member will appreciate that the number of rejections would be materially increased if it were not the practice of the Department, to render the fullest assistance to claimants in obtaining the information necessary to establish title.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are cases current at the present moment, in which applications have been made and the forms filled up and signed at least three months ago; and can he not facilitate the settlement of claims of that kind?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps if the hon. Member has a particular case in mind, he will send to me particulars of it.

  TRADE FACILITIES ACT.

    GUARANTEES.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Act since its inception; the amount outstanding at present; and the amount of loss involved so far through the various transactions under the Act?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The total amount guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Acts was £74,251,780 and the amount outstanding on 30th June, 1927 (including loans not yet completed) was £71,976,150. The total payments made by the Treasury in fulfilment of guarantees amount to date to £41,699, subject to any possible recoveries later.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the amount of the loans not yet completed to which he has just referred?
    Mr. McNEILL: No, I could not do so off-hand.

    NEWFOUNDLAND POWER AND PAPER COMPANY.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated total cost for the completion of the project of the Newfoundland Power and Paper Company's plant at Corner-brook, upon which estimate of Armstrong, Whitworth, and Company, the Trade Facilities Board recommended the Government to guarantee £2,000,000; what was the actual cost of the completed project, including the debentures already issued amounting to £8,394,000; whether the British Government sent out engineers to supervise the work and officials to regulate expenditure in conformity with the estimates; and, if so, whether there was an understanding between the two Governments that the work of these officials also safeguarded the Newfoundland Government as to their guarantee of £2,000,000?
    Mr. McNEILL:The estimated total cost of the Corner Brook scheme, on which the recommendation of the Trade Facilities Committee was based, was, approximately, £4,000,000, which covered the lump sum price for which the contractors agreed to carry out this scheme to a certain specification. The plans were approved and the expenditure of the guaranteed money was supervised and certified in accordance with the construction contract by technical advisers appointed jointly by the British and Newfoundland Governments, and responsible to both Governments. The actual cost of the completed project including additional works not contemplated by the contract is in the neighbourhood of £9,000,000. My Noble Friend will appreciate that while His Majesty's Government have guaranteed £2,000,000 of the securities issued by the company, they are in no way responsible for the conduct of the company's affairs.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there is any truth
    2292
    in the report in the "Times" to-day that this property has been sold to the International Paper Company?
    Mr. McNEILL: I have no information to that effect.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether there is likely to be any loss upon this guarantee, and, if so, how much?
    Mr. McNEILL: No, there has been no loss on it.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I am asking if there is likely to be any loss.
    Mr. McNEILL: That is speculation. I cannot say that.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether officials and engineers were sent out to supervise this transaction, as is asked in the question, and, if so, how many?
    Mr. McNEILL: I could not say without notice.
    Colonel DAY:The notice is in the question. The right hon. Gentleman is asked specifically if any officials or engineers were sent out.
    Mr. McNEILL:I cannot give any further answer than I have already given.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: Seeing that the sale is now nearing completion, cannot the Government say whether they anticipate any loss, and, if so, what that loss would be?
    Mr. McNEILL: No. Sir, because there are negotiations going on in reference to the future of the whole of this enterprise, and nothing can be said as to whether there will be a loss or not. There may be a gain.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In cases where large sums have been advanced under the Trade Facilities Act, do the Government watch the proceedings when any company is likely to dispose of its property?
    Mr. McNEILL: In answer to a previous question, I have already shown that the actual loss over the whole field of the Trade Facilities Act is a very small proportion of the whole.
    Sir F. WISE: May I ask one other Question, and that is whether the Treasury

    2293
    have been consulted about these negotiations now going on with the International Paper Company?
    Mr. McNEILL: I would not like to answer that question offhand.
    Colonel DAY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how it is possible to give him notice apart from the notice given in the body of the main question, which asks whether the British Government sent out engineers or officials to supervise the work? How is it possible to give him further notice than that, if he cannot answer that now?
    Mr. McNEILL: I have said already in the main answer that:
    "The plans were approved and the expenditure of the guaranteed money was supervised and certified in accordance with the construction contract by technical advisers appointed jointly by the British and Newfoundland Governments, and responsible to both Governments."
    Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENN: Will the Government take steps to see, if the sale takes place, that the raw material is not allowed to be exported, but that it shall be manufactured on the spot?
    Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir, I cannot give any pledge of that sort.
    Mr. MACLEAN: When advances or guarantees are made under the Trade Facilities Act, do not the Government consider very carefully the projects that are entered into, and what the money is guaranteed for, and how is that in this case things have been allowed to go so far that there may be a very considerable loss to the Government?
    Mr. McNEILL: Before the Trade Facilities Committee are willing to guarantee a loan of this sort they satisfy themselves that the security is good. They took those steps in the present case, and I have no reason to suppose that they were wrong.
    Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give a list of the debentures, and the total amount of debentures, of the Newfoundland Paper and Power Company; and whether the
    2294
    A debentures guaranteed by the British taxpayer are a first charge on the property?
    Mr.McNEILL: I will circulate the figures as regards the first part of the question. As regards the second the A debentures guaranteed by His Majesty's Government are secured by a charge on all the assets of the company, subject only to a prior lien in respect of £1,000,000 6 per cent. first mortgage debentures. I regret that in a Supplementary Answer on the 6th July I may have misled my hon. Friend on this point, but the priorities are shown in the published accounts and in the ordinary books of reference.
    Following is the information:
    The debentures of the Newfoundland Power and Paper Company, Limited, as shown in the company's balance sheet at 30th June, 1926, are as follows:

    $

    Bank Loan secured by £1,000,000 6 per cent. First Mortgage Debenture Stock, due 1943

    3,240,588.45

    £2,000,000 4½ per cent. "A" Mortgage Debenture Stock, due 1948

    9,733,333.33

    £2,000,000 5½ per cent. "B" Mortgage Debenture Stock, due 1943

    9,733,333.33

    Bank Loan secured by $10,000,000.006 per cent. Debenture, due on demand

    10,000,000.00

    6 per cent. Income Debentures, due 1948

    6,524,500.00

    $39,231,755.11

    GOLD STOCK.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate stocks of gold in Great Britain, France, Germany, United States, Italy, and Russia in 1927?
    Mr. McNEILL: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate a statement; in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    The following are the stocks of gold in the undermentioned countries so far as particulars are made public:—

    —

    Date.

    In Currency of Country.

    In Sterling at Par of Exchange.

    £

    Great Britain (Bank of England, Issue Department).

    6th July, 1927

    …

    £149,494,000

    149,494,000

    France (Bank of France)

    7th July, 1927

    …

    Fcs. 3,682,507,000

    146,015,000

    Germany (Reichsbank)

    22nd June, 1927

    …

    R.M. 1,744,969,000

    85,412,000

    U.S.A. (Treasury, Federal Reserve Banks and Agents, and estimated in circulation).

    1st June, 1927

    …

    $4,548,587,000

    934,661,000

    Italy (Bank of Italy)

    10th June, 1927

    …

    Lire 1,165,283,000

    46,205,000

    Russia (State Bank, Issue Department).

    16th June, 1927

    …

    Rbls. 167,000,000

    17,653,000

    Gold held abroad for the Bank of France, the Reichsbank and the Federal Reserve Banks, is excluded. Particulars are not available of gold held in any of the countries named on behalf of foreign countries.

    NORTHERN IRELAND (IMPERIAL CONTRIBUTION).
    Sir F.WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount credited to the revenue account of Great Britain by Northern Ireland for 1926–27 after all deductions have been made, and the estimate for 1927–28.
    Mr. McNEILL: The final figures for 1926–27 are not yet available. The provisional figures were stated in my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith) on the 4th April last, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. For 1927–28 the Northern Ireland contribution to Imperial expenditure has been provisionally fixed at £1,400,000 and the statutory payments in respect of land purchase annuities, provision of buildings, and equalisation of the burden of unemployment insurance are estimated at £1,486,000.

    DIRECT TAXATION.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the volume of our trade in 1913, the amount of money brought under the review of the Income Tax Commissioners in that year, and the corresponding figures for 1925–26.
    Mr. McNEILL: I would refer the hon. Member to page 281 of the Statistical Abstract of the United Kingdom (Command Paper 2849) and to page 88 of the 67th Report of the Commissioners of
    2296
    Inland Revenue (Command Paper 2227) and to page 79 of their 69th Report (Command Paper 2783).
    Mr. HARDIE: If it was possible, when I last put down a Question of this kind, to get the answer in the proper way why should I be given to-day a reply by reference?
    Mr. McNEILL: If the hon. Member will make use of the reference I have given him, I think he will get the full st information on the subject.
    Mr. HARDIE: But I have seen these pages in the various documents to which I have been referred, and they do not give the answer to my question. If I put down the Question next week, will the right hon. Gentleman try to get me the answer as he did before?
    Mr. McNEILL:I am afraid if these pages do not give the hon. Member the information for which he is seeking I shall not be able to get it. It is the fullest information on the subject.
    Mr. HARDIE: How is it that the last time a Question was put, word for word with this, a proper answer was given? Why has that been departed from? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman give an answer as he did before to this same Question—I mean the same Question in relation to last year?
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amounts brought under the survey of the Income

    2297
    Tax Commissioners for 1919 and 1926; the total amounts collected under the headings Income Tax, Super-tax, Death Duties, and Excess Profits Duty for the same years; and the amounts left in the hands of those subjected to those duties?
    Mr. McNEILL: If the hon. Member will refer to the tables on page 79 of the 69th Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Command Paper No. 2783), he will find particulars of the gross income brought under review and the actual income assessed for the year 1919–20, and estimates of the same for the year 1925–26 (the latest year for which figures are available). Details of the net receipt of Income Tax, Super-tax, Death Duties, and Excess Profits Duty for those years are shown in Table 4 on page 9 of that Report.
    Mr. HARDIE: Yes, and you will get some more questions.

    YUGOSLAVIA (BRITISH DEBT).
    Sir ROBERT GOWERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amounts, if any, have been paid by the Yugoslavian Government on account of war debt owing by it to this country; and what the present indebtedness of that Government to this country in respect of such war debt now is?
    Mr. McNEILL: The Jugo-Slav war debt to this country, after deducting all counter-claims, has been agreed at a net total of £25,317,808 as at 1st January, 1927. My right hon. Friend regrets that no payment has been made by the Jugo-Slav Government in respect of this or its other debts to this country; but negotiations are at present proceeding. His Majesty's Government have offered to fund the war debt on similar terms to those which were agreed upon in regard to the analogous debts of Rumania, Portugal and Greece; and my right hon. Friend trusts that the Jugo-Slav Government will accept this proposal, and thus take a step to re-establish the credit of their country which can only be prejudiced by the long delay in the settlement of this question.

    MEAT (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in consideration of the fact that Argentina and Belgium are both now free from foot-and-mouth disease, and also in view of the formation of a combine which may raise the price of meat, he will, for the benefit of the poorer class of consumers, withdraw the embargo on the importation into this country of fresh meat from Argentine cattle slaughtered at Zeebrugge?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): According to the latest information in my possession, neither Argentina nor Belgium is free from foot-and-mouth disease, and I cannot therefore accede to the hon Baronet's request.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the scientific difference between a carcase of Argentine meat slaughtered at and exported from the abattoir at Zeebrugge and a carcase of Argentine meat slaughtered in and exported from South America?
    Mr. GUINNESS: We have had serious experience of the risk from foot-and-mouth disease breaking out in this country when we bring cargoes of live animals across from the Argentine, and it was because of the serious results of that traffic that we had to put an embargo on live stock being brought from the Argentine many years ago.
    Sir R. THOMAS: But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this chilled meat is coming continually from South America? His answer hardly answers my question.
    Mr. GUINNESS: There is no evidence whatever that infection has been brought in by chilled meat, but we have had evidence of infection being brought in from the Continent, and this Zeebrugge abattoir is close by and not free from the danger of infection from the various outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease which takes place abroad.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that his Department will take every possible step to secure that the country is not infected with foot-and-mouth disease, and run no risks whatever?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Certainly I shall not be inclined to run any kind of risk in this matter for the particular purpose of enabling Argentine meat to come in indistinguishable from our home-killed meat and getting a price which the consumer pays in the expectation of getting home-killed meat.
    Sir R.THOMAS:Will the right hon. Gentleman not admit right away that he is going in for a system of protection?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Protection against disease.

  AGRICULTURE.

    DUTCH FRUIT (IMPORTS).
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the imports of Dutch black currants into this country; and whether, in view of the danger of big bud, which is prevalent in Holland, he will, for the sake of maintaining healthy home-grown crops, consider the advisability of prohibiting the import of these foreign black currants?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am advised that the risk of the conveyance of the black currant mite through the medium of black currants imported from Holland is negligible. The answer to the latter part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is, therefore, in the negative.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the numerous complaints with regard to mildewed Dutch gooseberries being imported into this country and the danger of contaminating the mildew-free bushes of this country, he will prohibit the import of this fruit?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Imported gooseberries are required to be accompanied by an official certificate of freedom from disease. If any unhealthy consignments were found by the Ministry's inspectors their destruction or re-export would be ordered, but in no case has it been necessary to take this action in respect of Dutch gooseberries this season, and no complaints have been made to the Ministry on this subject. In these circumstances I do not see my way to take the action suggested.
    Mr.THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his agricultural friends will be very disappointed if any kind of foreign fruit is allowed to come into this country?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I think there is no foundation for that suggestion.
    Mr.THURTLE: It was cherries first; now it is gooseberries.
    Mr. GUINNESS: The cases are not in any way to be compared, because in this country we are absolutely free from the cherry maggot, whereas, unfortunately, we are not free from gooseberry mildew.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the quality of this fruit, although it may not be mildewed fruit in every case, is infinitely lower than that of British fruit?

    POLICY
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Prime Minister whether he will again consider the possibility of summoning a representative conference of all parties interested in agriculture, with a view to arriving at an agreed policy by which arable acreage may be maintained and regular employment and adequate wages secured to the agricultural worker?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Invitations to a conference were sent to the three parties interested in agriculture, namely, landowners, farmers and farm workers, on the 28th of November,1924. This attempt to secure a representative conference failed, and I do not think that the revival of the proposal would serve any useful purpose at the present time

    PRODUCTION (BONUS).
    Major BRAITHWAITEasked the Minister of Agriculture if, with a view to assisting agriculture, he will consider classifying the land and providing a bonus on output based on increased production?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid that my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion is impracticable.

  SCOTLAND.

    SURVEY (KINCARDINE).
    Commander WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the individual cost of the survey of four parishes in Kincardine which was made in 1926?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): The estimated cost in respect of salary and travelling expenses of the two officers engaged on this service is £530, composed of £340 salaries and £190 travelling expenses. Strictly speaking, however, only the sum of £190 can be regarded as additional cost to the State, as the duties of the seconded officers were performed without the employment of additional staff. I regret that it is not possible to give the cost for each parish separately.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Can the Under-Secretary assure the House that the Government will not proceed to waste any more money in this perfectly inane manner?
    HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Arising out of the original answer, may I ask if the Under-Secretary is aware that all sections of this House regard that expenditure as most valuable?

    DEER FORESTS.
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many acres are at the present time under deer forests in Scotland; what proportion of that area is suitable for afforestation and small holdings, respectively; and whether the Government intends to carry out any of the recommendations and, if so, which recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Deer Forests,1922, and of the Scottish Conference on Agricultural Policy, 1925?
    Major ELLIOT: The total area of deer forests, according to the Returns as obtained by the Board of Agriculture in 1926 under the provisions of the Agricultural Returns Act, 1925, is 3,113,465 acres. I am not in a position to give the proportions asked for in the second part of the question because no recent survey has been made. With regard to the last part of the question, the recommendation with respect
    2302
    to heather burning has been dealt with by the Heather Burning (Scotland) Act, 1926. Effect has been given to another recommendation by a provision in the Agricultural Returns Act, 1925, empowering the Board of Agriculture for Scotland to obtain for the first time Returns of stock carried on deer forests. Other recommendations are receiving consideration but the result of the examination of the Returns of stock will, of course, have an important bearing on any conclusion that may be reached.
    Sir A.SINCLAIR: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman propose to carry out a survey of the deer forest area corresponding to the survey he is now carrying out in the other parts of the Lowlands of Scotland?
    Major ELLIOT: The first thing is to get a Return of the stock carried in these areas, and that is in process of being collected.

    LAND DRAINAGE.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why, seeing that grants amounting to £38,573 were applied for under the Board of Agriculture drainage scheme for the year 1926–27, only £13,551 was granted, whereas funds amounting in the financial year 1926–27 to pound20,625 were stated to be available for this purpose?
    Major ELLIOT: Under the 1926–27 scheme, £20,625, the amount available for the purpose, was offered in grants. At the end of the financial year claims to the value of £13,551 had been paid and a number of claims under the scheme were still outstanding. I may explain that many farmers curtailed, or even abandoned their proposals, and, in spite of the Board's request, failed to intimate the fact in time to allow of the grants being offered elsewhere.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can give any figures similar to those which appeared in the recent Report on Agricultural Output in England and Wales, showing the area of land requiring draining in Scotland; whether he proposes to appoint a committee or commission to inquire into the question on the lines of the recently appointed Royal Commission on Land Drainage in England and Wales:

    2303
    and whether he proposes to introduce legislation, as recommended by the Scottish Conference on Agricultural Policy, 1925, on the lines of the Land Drainage Acts, enabling drainage areas to be delineated and drainage boards to be constituted?
    Major ELLIOT: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. The Secretary of State has under consideration at present proposals for legislation dealing with land drainage in Scotland.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Why cannot we have in Scotland an inquiry into this very important question of land drainage, which the Government's own Committee said was the most important thing to help Scottish agriculture?
    Major ELLIOT: As I say, my right hon. Friend has, at this moment, under his consideration proposals for legislation dealing with Scotland.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of purchases by Russia in this country since the rupture of relations between the two countries, and the corresponding figure for the same period during the preceding two years?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have no figures relating to purchases, but I have already undertaken to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures as to our imports from and exports to Russia during last June, as soon as they are ready.

    RUBBER RESTRICTION SCHEME (SMUGGLING).
    Dr. WATTSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the manner in which the benefits resulting from the Stevenson restriction scheme are being curtailed by the smuggling of native rubber for export; and if he will take steps to stop it?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): As far as can be judged, rubber smuggling is not carried out to such an extent as seriously to affect
    2304
    the working of the restriction scheme, though its complete elimination is, I fear, somewhat difficult, every effort has been and is being made by the Malayan Governments to repress it by vigorous preventive measures.

    PRISONS, JAMAICA (ADMINISTRATION).
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) the number of prisoners who were killed or wounded during the disturbances which took place at the general penitentiary in Jamaica during the three months ending 30th September, 1926, the number of prisoners on whom corporal punishment was inflicted, and the average population of the penitentiary during this period;
    (2) what action has been taken on the Report of the Commission appointed by file Governor of Jamaica to inquire into the administration of prisons in the Colony?
    Mr. AMERY: The number of prisoners killed or subsequently dying of wounds inflicted during these disturbances was 5; of wounded, 14; and of corporal punishments, 152. I have no exact information as to the population of the general penitentiary during these months, but the estimated population for the year was 900. I will send the hon. Member a statement of the action taken or being taken on the Report of the Commission, as it would be too long for oral reply.

    EAST AFRICAN DEPENDENCIES.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to make any statement as to the policy to be adopted regarding the East African Dependencies?
    Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir; as the statement is of some length I am arranging for a White Paper, which will be circulated with to-day's Votes.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is contemplated that the Commission will go out?
    Mr. AMERY: At the end of the present year or the beginning of next year.

    GOLD COAST (HARBOUR, TAKORADI).
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give the estimated cost and the actual cost of the new harbour at Takoradi, Gold Coast, and the changes which have been made in the control of the construction works since the inception of the original scheme?
    Mr. AMERY: The harbour is not yet completed, but the cost was recently estimated at £3,392,000 (including various buildings and works in the harbour area) against an approximate estimate of £2,500,000 furnished three years ago. In 1924, the original engineers having retired, the system of employing the same firm as consulting and constructional engineers was reconsidered and it was decided to complete the work by contract, a consulting engineer being appointed. I may add that this decision has been fully justified by results. The progress of the works has been rapid and they are now approaching completion.
    Colonel DAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to when the new harbour will be thoroughly completed?
    Mr. AMEHY: I think it will be completed early in the year.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    EXCHANGE FACILITIES, BRISTOL.
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Minister of Labour whether he has received representations from the Bristol and District Unemployment Committee begging him to expedite as much as possible the provision of adequate accommodation for the Bristol Employment Exchange, in order to minimise the hardship and inconvenience which is at present caused to the large number of persons unemployed and all others concerned; and what action he proposes to take?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): The need for improved Employment Exchange accommodation for Bristol is recognised. A site for a new building has been acquired and plans are in course of preparation.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that queues of men have to stand outside this Exchange in the main thoroughfare at Bristol in all weathers?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: What we have done ought to reduce the inconvenience to a minimum in any case. As I have already said, the accommodation is not good, and we hope to improve it soon.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the demand for economy by his own supporters has kept this Employment Exchange from being built?

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED, NANTYGLO AND BLAINA.
    Mr. BARKERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that several hundred unemployed miners have been struck off extended benefit on the Nantyglo and Blaina Employment Exchange; that upwards of 400 of these men are ex-service men and that they have been refused Poor Law relief; and will he have benefit restored without delay to these unemployed miners?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am having inquiries made into the matter raised by the hon. Member, and will let him know the result as soon as possible.
    Mr. BARKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that collieries in Monmouthshire are closing almost every day, and that it is almost impossible for these unemployed miners to get employment?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will make inquiries at once.

    DARLINGTON, STOCKTON AND MIDDLESBROUGH.
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed registering at the Darlington, Stockton, and Middlesbrough Employment Exchanges for the last weeks of June, 1926 and 1927, respectively?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number on the registers of these Exchanges at 27th June, 1927, was 12,735, as compared with 27,931 at 28th June, 1926. I am circulating a detailed statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    Employment Exchanges.

    Men.

    Boys.

    Women.

    Girls.

    Total.

    27 th June, 1927.

    Darlington

    …

    2,530

    91

    360

    97

    3,078

    Stockton

    …

    3,734

    84

    123

    126

    4,067

    Middlesbrough

    …

    5,210

    79

    181

    120

    5,590

    Total

    …

    11,474

    254

    664

    343

    12,735

    28 th June, 1926.*

    Darlington

    …

    3,867

    153

    414

    136

    4,570

    Stockton

    …

    6,603

    157

    158

    153

    7,071

    Middlesbrough

    …

    15,512

    310

    319

    149

    16,290

    Total

    …

    25,982

    620

    891

    438

    27,931

    *The figures for 1926 were affected by the coal dispute.

    GLAMORGAN.
    Mr. JOHNasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons that applied for extended benefit in each month of the present year at the Tonypandy, Treorohy, Ferndale, and Porth Exchanges, and the number of cases in which benefit was refused?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Between 14th December, 1926, and 13th June, 1927, the number of applications for extended benefit considered by the local committees for the Employment Exchanges at Tonypandy, Treorchy, Ferndale and Porth

    —

    Tonypandy.

    Treorchy.

    Ferndale and Porth.*

    Considered.

    Allowed.

    Disallowed.

    Considered.

    Allowed.

    Disallowed.

    Considered.

    Allowed.

    Disallowed.

    14th December, 1926 to 10th January 1927.

    837

    809

    28

    416

    407

    9

    1,882

    1,844

    38

    11th January to 14th February.

    2,189

    2,153

    36

    1,140

    1,108

    32

    2,286

    2,220

    66

    15th February to 14th March.

    1,470

    1,442

    28

    874

    842

    32

    2,695

    2,571

    124

    15th March to 11th April.

    1,896

    1,857

    39

    578

    536

    42

    2,162

    2,093

    69

    12th April to 9th May

    1,703

    1,684

    19

    453

    443

    10

    1,999

    1,955

    44

    10th May to 13th June

    2,067

    2,033

    34

    505

    478

    27

    2,334

    2,229

    105

    Total

    10,162

    9,978

    184

    3,966

    3,814

    152

    13,358

    12,912

    446

    *Including Pontyclun and Taffs Well.

    Mr. JOHNasked the Minister of Labour the number of applications for extended benefit dealt with by the local employment committees in the Rhondda
    was 27,486, of which 26,704 were recommended for allowance and 782 for disallowance. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving details.
    Following is the statement:
    Number of applications for extended benefit considered during the period 14th December, 1926 to 13th June, 1927, by the local committees for the Employment Exchanges at Tonypandy, Treorchy, Ferndale and Porth, and the numbers recommended for allowance and for disallowance, respctively:
    Valley from January to the most convenient date?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Between 14th December, 1926, and 13th June, 1927,

    2309
    the number of applications for extended benefit considered by the local committees for Employment Exchanges in the Rhondda Valley was 33,961, of which 32,711 were recommended for allowance and 1,250 for disallowance.
    Mr. JOHNasked the Minister of Labour the number of applications for extended benefit during each month of the present year at the Treorchy and Tonypandy Employment Exchanges in which benefit was recommended by the local committees but subsequently refused?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Between 14th December, 1926, and 13th June, 1927, out of 13,792 applications for extended benefit recommended for allowance by the local committees for the Treorchy and Tonypandy Employment Exchanges, 410 or a little under 3 per cent. were subsequently refused.

    MINERS.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour the number of miners unemployed in each district for the last week of June, 1924, 1925, and 1927
    Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLAND: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate

    NUMBER OF INSURED WORKERS in the Coal Mining Industry recorded as Unemployed in June, 1924, 1925 and 1927, respectively.

    Area.

    23rd June, 1924.

    22nd June, 1925.

    20th June, 1927.

    England and Wales—

    Northumberland

    …

    3,744

    21,572

    12,125

    Durham

    …

    5,884

    60,397

    38,809

    Cumberland and Westmorland

    …

    941

    1,959

    3,519

    Yorkshire

    …

    3,268

    26,415

    17,258

    Lanes, and Cheshire

    …

    5,280

    30,968

    25,263

    Derbyshire

    …

    5,257

    20,723

    14,544

    Notts. and Leicester

    …

    5,240

    18,021

    9,975

    Warwick

    …

    158

    576

    648

    Staffs., Worcester and Salop

    …

    3,417

    22,841

    13,749

    Glos. and Somerset

    …

    2,715

    4,591

    3,508

    Kent

    …

    97

    291

    74

    Wales and Monmouth

    …

    12,813

    61,756

    68,284

    England and Wales

    …

    49,023

    271,389

    208,062

    Scotland

    …

    10,705

    43,250

    25,229

    Great Britain

    …

    59,728

    314,639

    233,291

    a statement in the OFFICIALREPORT.
    Mr. BATEY: Can the Minister tell us the totals for June, 1924, and June, 1927?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The totals for all districts in Great Britain are 59,728 in June, 1924; 314,639 in June, 1925, and 233,000 in June, 1927.
    Mr. BATEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the mining Debate on Tuesday the Secretary for Mines and the President of the Board of Trade gave figures supplied by his Department showing only the numbers employed in 1925 and 1927. Why did the Department not supply the figures for 1924, which showed that only 59,000 were unemployed as against over 200,000?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend can supply reasons for any statement he made.
    Mr. BATEY: Was it not rather misleading the House to give those figures without the figures for 1924?
    Major COLFOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for 1927
    Following is the statement:

  COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

    WAGES.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Secretary for Mines the total amount paid in miners' wages for the last week in March, 1921 and 1927, respectively?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): Particulars of wages paid, which are available only for monthly periods, amounted in March, 1921, when the cost of living figure was 141 and the number of men employed in the industry was appreciably larger than to-day, to £21,250,000. The corresponding figure for March, 1927, when the cost of living figure was 71, was just over £12,000,000, the latter figure being an estimate.
    Mr. BATEY: As the right hon. Gentleman mentions that the number of unemployed was high in 1921, could he give the figure for 1921?
    Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, Sir, if the hon. Member will put down a question.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Do I rightly understand that the difference between the two sets of figures is approximately £9,000,000?
    Colonel LANE FOX: Yes. If the hon. Member will look into other industries, he will find a similar result in the two years.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the reduction in the rate of wages has contributed largely to the unemployment problem?

    COLLIERIES STOPPED.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Secretary for Mines the number of collieries stopped, with the number of miners thrown out of work, since the beginning of January, 1927?
    Colonel LANE FOX: 368 collieries which resumed work after the dispute have since stopped, and on 2nd July the total number of wage-earners on colliery books showed a reduction of 26,600 from the maximum reached since the general resumption of work.
    Mr. BATEY: Are the Government taking any steps to interview the owners in these cases, and see if they can get these collieries re-started?
    Colonel LANE FOX: The Government cannot make a colliery owner re-start his
    2312
    pits, but the hon. Gentleman should remember that every pit that is stopped means a very serious loss to the owner.
    Mr. BATEY: Cannot the Mines Department interview the coalowners, and endeavour to get them to continue working?
    Colonel LANE FOX: If I had any power to influence coalowners not to stop their pits, I would certainly use it, but no colliery owner would willingly stop his pit if were possible for him to carry it on.
    Mr. SUTTON: When these pits are stopped, do the coalowners notify the Mines Department and give the reasons for the stoppage
    Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, Sir; we always get information when a pit is stopped, and we get the reasons.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is it the policy of the right hon. Gentleman to prove that the Mines Department is useless, in order to get his Department closed?
    Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir; no one but the hon. Gentleman would suggest anything so foolish.

    BRITISH ARMY (FOOD CONTRACTS).
    Mr. HURDasked the Secretary of State for War what is the amount of meat and other food contracts awarded so far in the current year for the Army; and in what proportions have they been awarded for British Home, British Overseas Empire, and foreign produce, respectively?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Commodore Douglas King): The total value of all War Office headquarter contracts for foodstuffs and of local contracts for meat at home placed during the current year is about £675,000. The proportions of British Home, British Overseas Empire, and foreign produce are estimated at 18 per cent., 70 per cent., and 12 per cent., respectively. The information required is not available in regard to other purchases under local contracts at home and foreign stations. It will be realised that these figures will not necessarily represent the percentages for the whole year.

    INDIA (MURDER OF MRS. ELLIS).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether anyone has yet been arrested in connection with the murder of Mrs. Ellis, alleged to have been carried out by a Kohat gang, and the abduction a few years ago of Miss Ellis; if so, whether any such arrested person has yet been put on trial; and where and with what result?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): One members of the gang believed to be implicated was arrested in Peshawar on the 9th May last, and tried at Kohat on the 29th May. He was found guilty of complicity in the murder of Mrs. Ellis, and executed. Three of the four remaining members of the gang were deported to Afghan Turkestan by the Afghan Government early in 1924.

    FOREIGN COUNTRIES (TAXATION OF VISITORS).
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs those countries which impose special taxation on foreign tourists or visitors, and the respective amounts of such taxation?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): So far as I am aware, no foreign Government imposes taxes directly on foreign visitors and tourists, but the municipal authorities in certain watering-places and tourist resorts abroad levy small taxes on tourists, which vary in amount. The fees for visas on passports and for identity cards in France may, perhaps, be regarded as a form of taxation. Information in regard to these fees will be found in a booklet issued by the Passport Office, a copy of which shall be happy to send to my hon. Friend.
    Colonel DAY: Cannot representations be made to these different Governments to reduce these fees that they charge?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Representations have been made to certain of these Governments in the past, such as the United States, with very little result.
    Colonel DAY: Is it not time that further representations were made?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    BOYS' TRAINING ESTABLISHMENT, DEVONPORT.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of his Department to give up the boys' training establishment at Devonport?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The reply is in the negative.

    RETIRED PAY.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether retired pay can be assessed in years and quarters of a year or, alternatively, whether the principle of allowing officers to complete a stated period after reaching the ordinary age for retirement can be conceded, particularly seeing that the justice of allowing all time served to count for retired pay was admitted by Order in Council of the 11th February, 1904, and this principle has been departed from in the later schemes of retired allowances?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The Order in Council of the 11th February, 1904, did not, as the hon. Member supposes, allow fractions of a year's service amounting in the aggregate to less than a year to be taken into account in assessing retired pay, but merely provided machinery for taking into account fractions of a year served in different ranks when the aggregate exceeded 365 days. In such cases, the total time allowed to count was always a multiple of a year. This arrangement was necessitated by the rules for calculating retired pay then in force for warrant officers and officers promoted therefrom, under which fractions amounting in the aggregate to several years' service might otherwise have been ignored. Under the present rules, however, the rates of retired pay are based on service on the last rank only, and no necessity for such an arrangement exists. I see no reason for altering the present system, which is similar to that which prevails in all branches of the public service.

    LIEUTENANCIES.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the number of lieutenancies for long and zealous service has been reduced by the compulsory retirement

    2315
    scheme of 1922, thereby making narrower the channels of promotion of the commissioned officers from warrant rank, it can be agreed that 8 per cent. lieutenancies for long and zealous service be given?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Although the actual number of lieutenancies has been reduced since 1922, in consequence of the reduction in the total number of officers in the various branches of warrant officers to which the 1922 retirement scheme applied, the percentage of the number of lieutenants to the total number of officers remains the same, and the scale of promotion is unaffected. No reason, therefore, is seen for an increase in the number of lieutenants, more especially as the effect of the 1922 scheme was, generally speaking, to retire the more senior officers, and thus, for the time being, to accelerate the promotion of those remaining.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "VERNON" (MESSING REGULATIONS).
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the revised messing Regulations contained in paragraph 4 of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, Article 626, Chapter XIV, as amended by King's Regulations 10/27 of February, 1927, have been put into force in His Majesty's Ship "Vernon"; and, if not, when it is anticipated that the alterations will be made?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, local naval authorities are authorised to depart from this Regulation so far as local conditions and the nature of the existing accommodation render other arrangements necessary, and it is understood that this is the case in His Majesty's Ship "Vernon."

    PUBLIC MEETINGS (DISTURBANCES).
    Major COLFOX (for Captain O'CONNOR)asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the disturbance at a recent public meeting at Canning Town which was organised by a local political party; and whether he is prepared to amend the Regulations which prevent the chairman
    2316
    of a lawful meeting at which persons act in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transacting of business within the meaning of the Public Meeting Act, 1908, Section 1, from calling in the police to assist him in maintaining order although no actual breach of the peace is committed or apprehended?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My attention has been called to the organised disturbances which have taken place, not only at Canning Town but elsewhere, and I am considering whether any and, if so, what steps can be taken effectively to deal with this matter.
    Major HARVEY: May we know the nature of the disturbance which occurred?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have here a list of the slogans which were to be repeated at a signal from the marshal, and perhaps the House will be interested in them. No. 1 is
    "Smash that Trade Union Bill."
    No. 3 is
    "Now for a General Strike."
    HON. MEMBERS: What is No. 2?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No. 2 is
    "Down with the Forgers' Government."
    No. 4 is
    "Form Workers' Defence Corps."
    No. 5 is
    "Stand by Soviet Russia."
    Mr. LANSBURY: What about "Shoot and be damned"?

    JUSTICES, ADVISOLY COMMITTEE, WEST RIDING.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Attorney-General when the last sitting was held by the advisory committee in the West Riding of Yorkshire for the purpose of recommending the appointment of justices of the peace; how many recommendations were made; and how many have been approved?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The Lord Chancellor understands that the last meeting of the West Riding Advisory Committee was held last year. Following that meeting, the advisory committee recommended that 76 appointments should be made to the West Riding Commission of the Peace.

    2317
    The Lord Chancellor has not yet approved any of the appointments recommended by the committee. He is of opinion that the number of appointments suggested is too large, and that the list requires reconsideration. He has, therefore, asked the Lord Lieutenant to call another meeting of the committee in order that the list may be reconsidered.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give us any idea when the next meeting is likely to take place; and is he aware that locally it is not felt that the number of magistrates is sufficient to meet the normal needs of the district?
    Mr. ELLIS: Is the learned Solicitor-General aware that that does not apply in a good many parts of the West Riding?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I cannot give any idea when the next meeting of the Advisory Committee will take place, but I will try to find out, and will inform the hon. Member, if it can be ascertained. As to the other part of his supplementary question, I will convey it to the Lord Chancellor.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman impress upon the Lord Chancellor the fact that a very large number of certificates have to be signed, and that many of the new districts in the South Yorkshire area have no justices of the peace?
    Mr. MACKINDER: Is it customary for the Lord Chancellor to get advice from the Advisory Committee?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The advisory committees are intended for the purpose which their name suggests, namely, to advise the Lord Chancellor.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Is it customary in these eases to reject all their advice?

    POOR LAW RELIEF.
    Mr. C. EDWARDSasked the Minister of Health if he can give the total number of persons over 60 years of age who are in receipt of poor relief and the number similarly placed in the mining areas?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that this information is not available.

    DOMINIONS AND COLONIAL OFFICES.
    Mr. ROY WILSONasked the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made for the direction of the Colonial Office and Dominion Office during the period when the Secretary of State will be absent abroad?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the Colonial Office, my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will act as Secretary of State; he will also be responsible for the Chairmanship of the Empire Marketing Board. As regards the Dominions Office, I myself will act as Secretary of State, and during my absence abroad Lord Balfour has undertaken to perform the duties of the post.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. SNOWDENCan the Prime Minister tell us what the business will be next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday and Tuesday, Report stage of the Finance Bill;
Wednesday, Supply, Committee. Scottish Fishery Board and Board of Trade;
Thursday, Supply, Committee. Scottish Estimates;
Friday, Third Beading, Finance Bill.
During the week we hope to make progress with some small Orders on the Paper.
Ordered,
"That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, the Motion relating to the Board of Guardians (Default) Act, 1926, may be taken before Eleven of the Clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

EAST SURREY WATER BILL [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,
Ouse and Cam Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,
Derwent Valley Water Board Bill, with Amendments.

OUSE AND CAM FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Lord Apsley, Captain Bourne, Mr. Duff Cooper, Mr. Ellis, Captain Hacking, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Sir Alfred Hopkinson, Major Kenyon-Slaney, and the Solicitor-General for Scotland; and bad appointed in substitution: Mr. Clarry, Mr. Couper, Lieut.-Colonel Horlick, Mr. Lamb, Mr. Macquisten, Major-General Sir Newton Moore, Major Price, Colonel Woodcock, and Mr. Wragg.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Road Transport Lighting Bill): Colonel Ashley, Captain Brass, Brigadier-General Brooke, Mr. Charleton, Sir Park Goff, Mr. Gosling, Captain D'Arcy Hall, Mr. Lougher, Sir Douglas Newton, and Mr. Sexton.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Nursing Homes (Registration) Bill); Miss Bondfield, Mr. Chamberlain, Dr. Vernon Davies, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, Sir Robert, Gower, Mr. Gerald Hurst, Mrs. Philipson, Dr. Drummond Shiels, Mr. Cecil Wilson, and Sir Fredric Wise.

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Bill): The Lord Advocate, Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart, Mr. Dennison, Sir Robert Gower, Sir James Grant, Mr. Grotrian, Mr. Smillie, Major-General Sir Frederick Sykes, Mr. Luke Thompson, and Mr. Thomas Williams.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSONreported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Ellis Davies to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Road Transport Lighting Bill) and Mr. Morgan Jones (in respect of the Nursing Homes (Registration) Bill); and Major Sir Richard Barnett to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Bill).
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [14TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1927.
  CLASS III.

    HOME OFFICE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £257,647 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, 1928, 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 Contributions towards the Expenses of Probation Committees."—[Note: £178,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I propose this afternoon to devote my attention exclusively to Factory inspection, Workmen's Compensation and the administration of the Aliens Orders. I am sure we should have an exciting time if I dealt with other issues, such as the Police, the Criminal Investigation Department, Prison Administration, Borstal and Reformatory Schools; but I am going to confine myself as I said to the three points I have mentioned. With regard to factory and workshop administration the broad facts are that there are about 6,000,000 workpeople engaged; and their destiny while they are employed in their miscellaneous occupations, so far as safety is concerned, is more or less in the hands of the Home Office. There are every year nearly 1,000 fatal accidents amongst them, and approximately 170,000 non-fatal accidents. Were it not for the arm of the law and the enforcement of certain regulations the figures would be more alarming still. What are the two main safeguards for the welfare and safety of these 6,000,000 people? The law as stated comes to their aid: but the law in itself is not sufficient without its enforcement. The right hon. Gentleman has a factory inspectorate so I understand, of 207 persons. The first point of information I am seeking is whether the inspectoral
    2332
    staff is sufficient to cope with the task; that is to say, whether the number of inspectors is sufficient to warrant that the law is carried out in detail.
    I put that point because, unfortunately, the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents in factories and workshops is not declining at the rate it ought to do. The astonishing thing is this, that although we have nearly 1,000 persons killed every year in the establishments I have referred to and 170,000 non-fatal accidents occur, there is so much apathy, so much lack of interest in what is transpiring in that sphere. If a colliery explosion took place and 200 men were killed in one moment, as it were, the whole of the British people would clamour to know the reason why. But because the 1,000 people I have referred to are killed at the rate of about three a day continuously, day in and day out, and 170,000 are maimed more or less every year, it is taken as a matter of course. I think we on this side of the Committee have a right to protest against the apathy of the public, and, if I may say so, of the Home Office in some respects on this issue. That on broad lines is the point I wish to make in regard to factory inspection.
    Let us see what is being done. I will give the right hon. Gentleman credit at once for one very fine piece of work which has been accomplished by his Department. I have seen the results of what is called the "Safety First" propaganda in factories. I know that there are cases where that propaganda for "Safety First" among employers and workpeople in some factories shows definitely that it has brought about very good results indeed. I am pleased to note that; but what I wanted to ask is, has the right hon. Gentleman sufficient resources at his command to carry that propaganda on throughout all the large and small factories in every part of the country? If it be true, as I understand it is, that many lives have been saved, and the safety of working people ensured by propaganda of this kind, such propaganda ought to be spread abroad so that it percolates through to the smallest factory in the land. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well, and probably better than I do, that factories are divided into two main classes, the large factory owner and the enlightened employer who knows that if he looks after his people well and treats

    2333
    them properly he gets better and more work out of them; and what applies in the matter of welfare and conditions of employment should apply more so in regard to safety. The other class is the careless and indifferent employer. The right hon. Gentleman ought to tell the Committee this afternoon how far he intends to carry this propaganda of safety first.
    Before I pass from this question of factory inspection I should like to emphasise this important fact. I understand that we have a less number of factory inspectors employed by the Home Office to-day than was the case prior to the War. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, not only has there been a growth in the number of factories in this country, but that there is a greater variety and diversity of occupations than ever. Consequently, if there has been a growth, as I understand is the case, of a miscellaneous type of factory, we ought for that reason alone to secure an increase in the number of factory inspectors, instead of an decline as is shown by reports. For example, we have factories manufacturing goods for wireless, for gramophones and many other kinds of luxury trades, which were hardly known prior to the War. It seems to me that as the growth in the manufacture of commodities of that kind continues the inspectorial staff ought to be increased in order that the safety of those engaged in those occupations should be ensured. The human factor, after all, is the most important thing in industry, whatever might be said to the contrary. It is contended, and I presume we shall have the argument stated from the opposite side of the Committee to-day, that this country's laws are better than the laws of any other country. Supposing that were so, should we not be proud of the fact? But that surely does not say that we should not go a step further still. If there are problems confronting us that ought to be solved we ought to apply our minds to a solution so that not a single life should be lost through carelessness in any of our factories or workshops. That I should have thought is taken for granted.
    When the argument is employed from the other side of the House that our laws are better than those of any other country, and that the laws that we have
    2334
    on the Statute Book in relation to industry and social insurance are pursued better than in any other country, I am willing to admit that it is largely true. But I would like to put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. The number of inspectors should, after all, be a fair indication as to how the laws of any country are administered and pursued. If, therefore, it is accepted that the number of inspectors must have some relation to the efficient pursuit of the law I would put these figures to the right hon. Gentleman. In Great Britain the number of inspectors is about 207; and the number of establishments which those inspectors have to visit from time to time is roughly speaking 290,000. Let us get those facts definitely into our minds—207 inspectors to 290,000 establishments. In Germany, the total number of inspectors proportionately is very much higher than in our own country. They number 642 in respect of 335,000 establishments. Consequently, if the test of the pursuit of the law lies in the number of inspectors employed to enforce it, then German laws are better administered than our own. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) shakes his head. I do not know how much better informed he may be on the subject; but I am giving the figures provided by the highest authority in Europe—the International Labour Organisation. They, at any rate, ought to be unbiased on an issue of this kind. Coming to the smaller countries, Czechoslovakia has 85 inspectors for 25,000 odd establishments; and in France, I would admit at once that the industrial legislation of that country is not pursued as well as is the case in Germany or in this country. I cannot see, therefore, that the laws of this country are better administered in relation to factory and workshop employés than is the case in either Germany or Czechoslovakia.
    There is something else in connection with the administration of factories and workshops in this country that must be noted, and it is the growth of welfare work. Hon. Members of all parties will welcome anything that is done by employers to make it more possible to carry on welfare work in the factories. Has the Home Secretary any tabulated information showing how far the most enlightened employers have proceeded with medical service in the factories? I

    2335
    know it would require legislation to compel employers to do it, but the right hon. Gentleman has administrative powers and he ought to use them if possible in this connection. I would like to see a medical staff attached to every large factory in the country. That is not a new idea, because the most enlightened employers already have a medical staff inside their factories. The right hon. Gentleman would do a great deal of service if he conveyed to all employers information regarding what the best employers are doing, in order that those who take no interest in the welfare of their staff might know what is being done elsewhere. I would like to see the laggards brought up to the position of the best.
    The Committee will remember that we had a battle royal on the Floor of the House in relation to lead paint, and the right hon. Gentleman ultimately secured the passage through this House of a Bill regulating the use of white lead in paint. I wish the Standing Orders would admit of something being said on that score; but if I were to enter into combat with the right hon. Gentleman on that issue to-day I should be out of order. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has now issued Regulations under the Act passed last year. It would be interesting to know what is the method employed for enforcing those Regulations. It is very little use issuing Regulations from the Home Office to hundreds of small master painters and to the operatives, numbering about 70,000, without some means of seeing that the Regulations are enforced. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether wet rubbing-down in connection with painting is now carried out, and, if so, to what extent; and whether it is his intention, if he finds that some master painters do not carry out the Regulations, to institute proceedings in order to see that they are enforced? It is very early to put a question of that kind; but possibly the right hon. Gentleman will have some interesting information to give us to-day.
    A further subject with which I should like to deal is the probation of young offenders. In 1925 we passed the Criminal Justice Act, one part of which provided that every Petty Sessional Court should have a probation officer. I took a
    2336
    little interest in the question of probation because it affected my mind considerably when I came to close quarters with it. The position is a little better now, but even now the problem is not solved. You may have a bench of magistrates to-day in one part of the country where the community is not very enlightened, and you may have another bench of masgistrates in another part of the country, a very enlightened bench, with the result that two persons may commit exactly the same offence in different parts of the country, and because of the difference in the attitude of the two benches one offender is put on probation and the other sent to prison. I want to see justice operating in this country so that it will be even and applied equally all over the land; but we cannot get that unless the machinery for the administration of justice is the same in every Court.
    What is the position to-day in regard to probation? The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that we have been closing reformatory and industrial schools, probably by the dozen, during the last few years. It is a very welcome sign that young persons, in particular, should not be confined in institutions if they can be better cared for otherwise. That is admitted by all parties. No person, no young person in particular, should ever be confined in a prison or in an institution of any kind if it can be proved that he can be turned into a good citizen by keeping him outside prison or institutional walls. In order to see that that principle of equal justice is applied throughout the country by all benches of magistrates, there must be probation officers appointed to cover all areas. I do not know what is the exact position at this moment, but the latest information I have is that in the Register of Probation Officers for 1926 it is stated, that
    "out of 1,031 divisions there are 137 for which no probation officer has been appointed, as compared with 147 in 1925."
    That may appear a very simple statement, but, in fact, it is very serious. It means that in one year only 10 districts have been completely equipped by the appointment of probation officers. I understood that when we passed that particular Section of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, the Home Office would

    2337
    proceed at once to see that the whole of the Courts in the country were covered by probation officers; that it was to be compulsory. There are magistrates in this country, whose point of view I fail to understand, who are strongly opposed to probation. When the right hon. Gentleman has secured a Statute whereby he can enforce the appointment of probation officers, it is his duty to see that they are appointed even against the will of benches of local magistrates. I came to the conclusion long ago that some of these benches have ideas of justice and mercy which are almost Victorian; and the right hon. Gentleman, through his staff at the Home Office, should now bring them up to date.
    My next point relates to the administration of workmen's compensation. I was given to understand in 1924 that there was an arrangement between the Home Office, the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation of Great Britain whereby persons suffering from nystagmus could be employed above ground in order that workmen's compensation cases might be dealt with more favourably to the men. All those who have worked in the pits will know the causes of nystagmus. Unfortunately, the number of miners suffering from that dread disease is not on the decline; I think it is on the increase from year to year. I wonder whether the disturbance in the coalfields in 1926 has vitiated in any way the arrangement that was then made. I believe that in Yorkshire there was a very definite understanding, almost amounting to an agreement, between the employers and the workpeople that men suffering from nystagmus should be employed above ground in order, if possible, to help them to recover their normal eyesight.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: They never carried it out.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. DAVIES: That is exactly what I want to know. I am very much afraid, from the information I have here, that the arrangements started in 1924 are not going on very well in some quarters. As I say, the right hon. Gentleman can do a great deal in that direction. Another point with regard to workmen's compensation
    2338
    is the disease known as cataract of the eye suffered by steel-smelters, in the main. The problem was always there, and I think it still continues; and the right hon. Gentleman will do a good turn for the steel-smelters of this country if he will give us some information on the point which I am about to raise. There is no difficulty at all when the furnace worker suffers from this disease, and he continues in the employment of the same employer; but he is in a difficulty at once if he is employed, say, for eight or ten years by one employer and the cataract does not show itself at all until he leaves that employment. He may leave the steel works entirely, and become a roadmender, or follow any other occupation, and when he follows that new occupation the disease from which he suffers is attributable entirely to his previous occupation. What I want to know is whether there are any means at all whereby the Workmen's Compensation Act shall apply to cases of that kind. There are some questions of law that cannot be settled by saying twice one are two. There are points of administration which you are bound to bring to bear in connection with the law; it does not matter how rigid you make the law. Consequently, it would help us very much indeed if the right hon. Gentleman would give us some information on that score.
    Another point I would put to the right hon. Gentleman is with regard to the Liverpool and Birkenhead Tunnel. I have raised this issue one or twice by way of Question and Answer, as to whether the occupation followed by those men is not, in fact, an occupation that conduces to silicosis in a formidable way. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if nothing has yet been done, he would look into the case in order to prevent, as far as possible, the disease getting hold of those men who are following this dangerous occupation. I am told that the disease is likely to cause a great deal of suffering unless some arrangements are made soon to prevent it. Probably the right hon. Gentleman has it in mind; but if he will give us some information on the point, I am sure he will be doing good service.

    2339
    I have dealt with two matters which have not aroused a great deal of excitement, but I will now touch upon one about which I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me. "So far so good," he probably says to himself. I come to the administration of the Aliens Order. The present Home Secretary is a remarkable Gentleman in regard to administering the Aliens Act. He can see red when there is nothing in sight but pink. He always sees an enemy about. I am not quite sure that his strange attitude of mind towards the alien provides fair administration to the alien himself. The number of aliens in this country, proportionately, is the smallest in the world, so that he need not be frightened about them. The alien problem in this country is within certain definite limits. The eyes of the right hon. Gentleman's Department are on every one, as he knows. I understood that the law regarding naturalisation was, that an alien resident in this country for a minimum of 10 years could be naturalised, provided all other qualifications were met. I had something to do with that in 1924, and, if I may say so, we speeded up naturalisation a great deal during that year. I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is continuing the policy we laid down in 1924, which was, by the way, a very enlightened policy. If he will tell us what is happening in that direction now, it will interest me personally very much.
    I read every speech the right hon. Gentleman delivers—I do not know whether he regards that as a credit to himself or not—and I read his speech last night. I thought one paragraph at least of that speech was very sane. I could not say that about all the paragraphs, naturally, but I approve of one thing he said. It interested me immensely to find that the right hon. Gentleman had to confess that, at long last, employers of labour in this country were appealing to him not to send too many of the Russians out of this country. That is an astonishing statement; and it seems to me that even the employers are gradually seeing that the right hon. Gentleman's attitude towards aliens is altogether out of proportion. When employers in this country talk to the right hon. Gentleman in that way, surely he ought. To change his mind
    2340
    and see a little less red about. He seems to see an alien, a red Bolshevist, wherever he turns.
    It would be interesting, too, if we could get to know—it is purely an administrative matter—what is the attitude of the Department towards the naturalisation of aliens. We have only about a quarter of a million in this country. Few aliens have come here to reside permanently since the War. The whole issue, as I said, is within certain limits; and these men, if they behave themselves, ought to secure naturalisation. I understand that the fee of £9 charged for naturalisation is a serious bar. Really, £9 is too much for a workman, and it is grossly unfair to the average alien workman who has behaved himself, who has conducted himself peacefully in this country, who has resided here for 10, 12 or 15 years, that £9 should be charged to him, because it is an undoubted barrier to his becoming a British citizen. Another point with regard to aliens is—if the right hon. Gentleman would inform the Committee, I should be glad—what is now the position with regard to transmigrants? There is a huge building in Southampton, where if I remember aright, hundreds upon hundreds of aliens are housed. I do not know who keeps them; I have the impression that it is the shipping companies. In view of the fact that the War ended nine years ago, is it not possible to tell the shipping companies definitely that they cannot dump these people down in this country for their own convenience? I would like to know, too, whether there is any charge on the State in respect of keeping these transmigrants?
    As I have said, I do not want to dwell unduly upon the points I have raised—factory inspection, workmen's compensation and the administration of the Aliens Order: but, after all. I think the Committee is entitled to know what is transpiring behind the doors of the Home Office. The Home Office always gives the impression of a great secret establishment. It is the oldest office in the State; it is the first office in the State. It is presided over at the moment by a gentleman who seems to have managed to keep the Government going very well up to the present. Usually it is the Home Secretary who brings every Government down. It is the Home Secretary that

    2341
    brings about the fall of every Government—except of course the one in 1924. He always either arrests the wrong woman or hangs the wrong man. It seems to me the present Home Secretary, metaphorically speaking, does that excellently every day.
    The Home Secretary has, undoubtedly, a great task to perform towards the 6,000,000 people employed in our workshops and factories and, as I said at the commencement, I hope and trust the right hon. Gentleman will look into the important points I have raised. We shall be, indeed, happy if he is able to tell us that something more is being done in the way of medical service and welfare work in our workshops and factories, that the restrictions on the naturalisation of aliens have been relaxed, and that all aliens who behave themselves properly in this country shall be treated not merely as foreigners, but as human beings.
    Mr. CADOGAN: Although there is only one subject on which I wish to follow the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), the few points which I wish to press on the Home Secretary arise out of the recommendations of the Committee, on which the hon. Member sat, dealing with youthful offenders. If he will allow me to say so, I think the hon. Member and his colleagues who sat on that Committee rendered invaluable service. In the introductory paragraphs of that Report, it was stated that the primary obligation of the Committee was to discover the best means of helping youthful members of the community who, starting life with the handicap of moral weakness or unhappy influences, specially need the protection of the State. The very fact that the Committee was concerned with the question of affording the protection of the State to these young offenders proves that their investigations were inspired with a sympathy and discernment which were lamentably lacking in the administration of the old days. In unenlightened times, we were more concerned to protect the State from the young offender than to afford the young offender the protection of the State. One of the greatest discoveries of recent times has been that nine-tenths of youthful delinquency is to be traced to what is described in the Report as "unhappy influences," in other words, evil environment
    2342
    and physical causes of various kinds, rather than to any inherent depravity, and this conclusion naturally has resulted in the employment of revolutionary expedients to deal with youthful offenders.
    It is obvious that when you have established the contention that the majority of offences are due to external rather than to internal causes, we should concentrate our efforts on prevention, but the problem, then, is resolved into one rather of housing, health and education. It would not be in order to deal with those, and I am well aware that, as some of the recommendations of the Committee involve legislation, I should not be in order in discussing them now. But there was a number of recommendations dealing with administrative questions with which this Committee can deal. I will allude to one or more of the urgent problems. The first is with regard to remand homes and observation centres, particularly in the London area, which call for consideration. Those who have studied the question may be aware that the Prison Commissioners concentrated in Wandsworth Prison the lads on remand, and also those who were sentenced to Borstal treatment for preliminary investigation and observation. I have made it my business to visit Wandsworth Prison in order to make myself familiar with the system of observation and investigation administered by the voluntary workers who discharge this invaluable function. Wandsworth Prison is hardly an appropriate receptacle for lads, the majority of whom are of no more criminal disposition—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now dealing with prisons. That is not in order on this Vote. This Vote includes the Secretary of State's salary and he is responsible for prisons, but there is a separate Vote for prisons and, therefore, prisons can only be discussed on that separate Vote, that is, Vote 4.
    Mr. CADOGAN: I do not know whether I should be in order in pressing on the Home Secretary the consideration that remand homes and observation centres should not be centred in prisons? That is the point of my argument.
    Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand from your ruling that general prison questions are not to be considered on this Vote?

    2343
    This is the only opportunity we shall have, I imagine, this Session of discussing Home Office matters.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The special Vote dealing with prisons is down for to-day. That is Vote 4. The Vote we are discussing now is Vote 1, and the time to discuss the administration of prisons will be when we reach Vote 4. That is the next Vote.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is it not usual on these occasions for some arrangement to be made whereby we can have a general discussion ranging over various topics. I want to take part in the Debate at a later stage, and raise two or three matters affecting different Votes, including prisons. Now I understand you are ruling that we cannot discuss prisons unless we dispose of the earlier Votes. I should have thought some arrangement would have been made whereby we could agree to range over the various Votes.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I do not know if anything I can do will facilitate matters. I am responsible for looking after prisons, and paid a salary as head of the Department, and if it convenient to you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, I should raise no objection at all for any of my actions to be brought under review.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It has been the invariable custom in Committee of Supply to confine the discussion to the actual Vote under discussion, and I should be loth to set a precedent and make a change in that direction. Far the best way would be to dispose of this Vote, and get on to the next Vote, Vote 4.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask what this particular Vote is?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is Vote 1, and it deals with the salary of the Secretary of State and the expenses of the Home Department. The subjects of prisons and police come under separate Votes, and I should not be in order in allowing a discussion on these subjects on this particular Vote.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I gave notice to the right hon. Gentleman that I intended to raise these issues. In that case do
    2344
    I understand that when they are disposed of it will be competent for my hon. Friend to raise the question of prisons?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Most certainly. That is my suggestion. I suggest that we should dispose of this particular Vote, and go on to the next Vote.
    Mr. CADOGAN: I suppose under the head of "prisons" would be included all other institutions, such as reformatories?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Reformatories are under a separate Vote, Vote 5.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is it quite impossible for us to discuss these three Votes together? The Home Secretary is responsible for the administration of all of them, and it is a little difficult if we have to take them in sections. I have one or two questions to put to the Home Secretary, which he will have to answer, and they deal with all the different Votes.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The easiest way to get over the difficulty is for hon. Members to make their speeches and dispose of one Vote, and then get on to another. That is much the best plan. I do not think it is possible to vary the custom which has obtained in Committee of Supply.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: In a discussion of this kind, as time is so limited, would it be possible, on the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State, for you to allow a general discussion to take place, and then in regard to the individual Votes either that there should be no discussion at all, or else a very short one?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That has never been done. It has never been the custom to allow a general discussion on those subjects for which there is separate Vote.
    Mr. LANSBURY: This is rather an exceptional occasion as we are only given until 8 o'clock this evening, by arrangement, to discuss these Votes, and those of us who want to raise separate questions do not want to have to speak two or three times.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That may be, but I do not think I can vary the custom which has invariably been followed for so many years.
    Mr. MAXTON: May I put to you my own personal difficulty? I wish to make a short speech of about five minutes and raise questions concerning aliens, the prisons, and the police; that is the secret police. Is it your ruling that as the programme of business is arranged, I shall have to make three speeches, and not one?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that is so.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: The Home Secretary appears to be kindly disposed towards our desires. I have been trying for 18 months to bring forward the question of the reformatory industrial schools, and I should like an opportunity of discussing it.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That Vote is not down for discussion to-day.
    Mr. CADOGAN: The question I wanted to raise is in regard to the Borstal Institution, and, therefore, I had better wait until the present. Vote has been disposed of.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In the circumstances, may I appeal to hon. Members to make short speeches on the points they want to raise in connection with this Vote, and I will endeavour to answer them as fully as I can. In that way you can dispose of this Vote.
    Mr. TINKER: I want to raise a point in reference to a question which I put to the Home Secretary on Thursday last relating to the Order which comes into operation on 1st July in regard to the Workmen's Compensation Act. My criticism is that the Order does not go quite far enough. Let me read the Order:
    "Subcutaneous cellulitis over the patella (miners' beat knee) and acute bursitis over the elbow (miners' beat elbow) is revoked, except as regards cases arising before the commencement of this Order."
    The Home Secretary has extended the Order to include bursitis of the knee, but it does not go far enough. I have one particular case in mind where the man was certified by a doctor to be suffering from bursitis of the knee, but the health society refused to grant him pay because they said it was a case under the Compensation Act. They took him to the certifying surgeon, who agreed. They could not give him a certificate. The matter was brought to the notice of
    2346
    the Home Secretary, and about two years has been spent on this matter. After full inquiries the Home Secretary has issued this new Order. I give him credit for that, but I put it to him that the inclusion of the word "acute" is putting something on a workman which might very well be removed. Anyone acquainted with mining knows that a miner is on his knees most part of his time when he is at work, and that bursitis is likely to arise. But, it has to be acute before the man can get a certificate. There will be a lot of suffering and extended compensation. A man may have bursitis of the knee, but he has to continue at his job until it becomes acute. Hon. Members will realise that if a man has only a slightly damaged knee he will go on working when it is a case of having to get his living, and the man's knees gradually get into a very badly damaged condition. A knee in that state will take much longer to get round than if it had been taken in its first stages.
    The House always tries to treat disease and illness in its first stages, yet here we have a miner who must carry on until he is totally incapacitated, and only then has the surgeon the power to grant a certificate. I appeal to the Home Secretary, seeing that he has gone so far in this Order, that he should extend it a little more and drop out the word "acute," because it will have to be extended in this direction at some time or other. I should like the Home Secretary, although he is a Conservative, to have the credit for taking out this word, and, if he does, I can assure him that the miners will greatly appreciate his action. In reply to my question last Thursday, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had had no further complaint from the Miners' Federation. The Miners' Federation have had this matter under consideration, and most of the districts have sent in resolutions to the head office protesting against the Order. I do not know whether the Home Secretary means that he has had no further complaint from any other society. If he means that, I can understand it, because out of the total number affected by this Order, according to the last returns for 1925, the total number scheduled and receiving compensation was 2,603. Of that total, 2,593 came from the miners,

    2347
    so that only 10 are left belonging to other trades. Of beat elbow, there were 302 cases scheduled or got certificates, and out of that number 299 belonged to the miners, so that the Home Secretary will realise that this matter belongs chiefly to the miners and does not largely affect any other industry.
    There are 99 per cent. of these cases belonging to the mining industry, and when I make this appeal and quote the Miners' Federation, I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to think that the Miners' Federation are taking something on that, belongs to other industries. This particular thing belongs chiefly to the miners, and that is why we are lodging a protest and why I do not want the Home Secretary to think that, because other people have not complained, there are no complaints coming along. They are coming along largely from the industry chiefly affected, and if the right hon. Gentleman will view it in the light that I have put before him—that it will be a saving to the men and to the employers and to the country generally in preventing the disease getting too great a hold on the men and in getting them back to work much earlier than they go back now—I think he will agree to rescind the particular part of the Order to which I am referring. If the right hon. Gentleman were to go into a mining district and to see the men hopping and crawling about because of damaged knee, and the fear that they have when they return to work because of the suffering through which they have gone, I think he would agree that something ought to be done on the lines that I have indicated. I have no other point to raise, and I have only put down a Motion to reduce the Vote in order to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman a genuine complaint, which I hope he will see in the light in which I see it, and agree to take out of the Schedule the word
    "acute."
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I want to deal with compensation from the financial point of view and also from the very costly administrative point of view. I submitted to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary a few months ago one or two questions drawing his attention
    2348
    to the fact that, notwithstanding the arrangement that had been made between his Department and insurance companies, even in 1925, the latest year for which figures are available, the cost of administration, commission, and the amount set aside for profits on all premiums paid for compensation amounted to no less than 47·14 per cent. That seems to me to be an outrageous proportion when compared with various other departments, where we have proved that gigantic undertakings are dealt with in a fairly methodical and efficient manner, and where the costs of administration are somewhere in the region of one-third the amount required in the case of injured workpeople. It seems to me that the arrangement that was apparently entered into either has not been fully carried out or, if carried out, is certainly not adequate to meet the needs of the case.
    Here are millions of men performing their daily tasks. Under various Acts of Parliament, in cases of either partial or fatal injury the men or their dependants are entitled to receive a certain remuneration during the term of their incapacity from following their normal work, and in a fairly large number of cases insurance is effected by the employers, so that when the claims are made for compensation, compensation is well nigh a certainty from the various insurance companies; but when we find that these companies and employers' liability insurance people are taking nearly 50 per cent. of the whole of the premiums in commission, working expenses and profits, it is, I think, an outrage of the worst conceivable kind. I know the right hon. Gentleman, replying to the supplementary questions that I put to him, said that if he followed the line that I indicated it would savour too much of Socialism and that he was not prepared to move in that direction. That was when I, along with other hon. Members, suggested that, instead of workmen's compensation being, as it were, in the hands of private companies, who were in business insuring against accidents for the purpose of the profit they made out of the business and not for the service which they rendered to the employers or their employés, he would consider the advisability of a national insurance system which would be worked

    2349
    on the basis, for instance, on which it is worked to-day in Canada and on which it has been worked in a good part of Australia for a very long time. We could not only increase the benefits obtained by working people by more than 25 to 50 per cent., but we could—
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): Would not this require legislation?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I am not quite sure whether legislation would be required to give effect to that suggestion, but I think it might be possible, by Regulation or otherwise, to change this system from what it is to what I think it ought to be. Still, I have no desire to transgress your ruling, and I am merely bringing to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the cost of administration in this country, and indicating where a tremendous leakage takes place and where injured work-people are certainly not sufficiently remunerated for the period during which they are unable to follow their normal employment. Take the last year for which figures are available, namely, 1925. It appears, from provisional tables of returns furnished by the companies to the Board of Trade in respect of employers' liability insurance business, that for 1925 the income of the companies from premiums, after making the necessary adjustments in respect of unexpired risks, was £5,663,895, and from interest and dividends on reserves £160,621, making a total of £5,824,516. Of this sum, £3,078,813, or 52·86 per cent., was allocated to payment of compensation.
    That is to say, that injured workmen or widows and children whose husbands or parents have been killed, received only a little more than half the amount of money paid in premiums as insurance against these accidents, and this included legal and medical expenses incurred in connection with the settlement of claims. The balance, £1,893,080, or 32·5 per cent., was spent in payments for commission and expenses of management, while £940,692, representing 16·15 per cent. of income, was set aside for profits. Excluding the sums paid for commission and expenses of management, 16·15 per cent. of the total premiums are taken away by the insurance companies for profits made out of the insurance, which ostensibly should be a service—
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not see what
    2350
    the responsibility of the Home Office is in regard to this matter. They may come in on the question of medical referees, and they have, no doubt, other duties on workmen's compensation, but I do not see how the hon. Member can attach any responsibility to the Home Office in regard to this question of insurance. It may be that he can.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I think the connection is pretty well known to the Home Secretary, who is responsible for seeing some arrangement between his Department and the insurance companies, with regard to workmen's compensation, carried out. As to whether that has been or is being carried out, or whether, when carried out, it meets the case, that is quite another matter. However, I repeat that I do not want to transgress your ruling. But having indicated to the right hon. Gentleman that the agreement, if it exists and if it has been carried out, certainly does not meet the case, and cannot, while crippled people, widows, and children of those killed, combined, receive only a little over 50 per cent. of the total premium paid, I hope that the profits taken away and these very large payments for commission and expenses will be examined by the Home Secretary, and something done with a view, not only to improving the compensation, but to seeing that injured people shall receive far more than they have been receiving up to the present.
    Now I want to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to another item, again an item about which I questioned him some time ago. I refer to Section 16 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. This Act, as administered, has been proved over and over again to have wholly failed to meet the needs of the men and the desires and, I believe, the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman who initiated the 1923 Act. Section 16 enables a workman who meets with an accident, but partially recovers and becomes fit for some work, though not for his ordinary work, to appeal to the Courts in case his employers refuse to find work suitable to his then capacity, and, having travelled all over the area and genuinely endeavoured to find work, but failed, it enables the man to go to title Courts to prove that his particular pre-accident employers, and, indeed,

    2351
    all other employers, have refused to find him work, so that he can be reinstated on full compensation. On paper, Section 16 may have appeared to work admirably so far as injured workpeople are concerned, but in practice we find that it totally misses its mark, and to-day we have examples all over the country, and particularly so far as the mining community is concerned, where men meet with an injury in a colliery and have so far recovered as to be capable of doing work on the surface, but the colliery company refuses to find them light work, and not only do they lose their work, but it is found in practice to be almost impossible for them to go to the Courts and get the compensation which Section 16 awards to them.
    Therefore, I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman how many complaints have been received over a period against employers, and I would like to ask how frequently employés or trade union organisations have requested him to look into Section 16 with a view to its amendment in such a way as to give effect to the real intention of the present First Lord of the Admiralty when he passed this Bill in 1923 through the House. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman, from private, personal experience, that those men who, unfortunately, are affected by that terrible disease known as miners' nystagmus cease work because of the disease, and then, when they partially recover, their employers refuse to reinstate them at work and they go to Court and have their compensation stopped. So the men are landed like orphans in the middle of a desert with no work, no wages, no compensation, and no hope of a job. I do not think for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman would countenance this if he were given suitable opportunities of putting the thing right, and I hope my observations will lead him to examine the question and to cooperate with the large trade unions who know the effect of it. If he can do so, I hope that on some future occasion he will deal with what is a real need and will help thousands of poor, injured work-people up and down the country.
    Mr. HILTON: I want to say a few words relative to the remarks which fell
    2352
    from the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). The hon. Member took three points. He spoke about factory legislation, and he is certainly an idealist. He spoke of the welfare of the workers, but he has not quite got down to the facts, He made a statement that a larger number of inspectors would lessen accidents. Could any hon. Member, who has had any experience of machinery, try to square that statement with the facts? The hon. Member went into international figures, and gave the number of inspectors in Czechoslovakia and other countries compared with those in this country. This is a very important point, and, if I thought there was anything in it, I would say, "Double the number of inspectors"; but, if you appointed an inspector for every workman, you would not lessen the number of accidents. I have had considerable experience in mills in Lancashire, and most of the accidents which I have come across have been due to carelessness. I am not going to fix the blame on anyone. I have seen some very serious accidents, when arms and fingers have been taken off in the works, but in most cases they have been due to carelessness on the part of someone. We have laws designed to prevent accidents; all our machinery is supposed to be fenced off, but, in many cases, the so-called fence is now perhaps more dangerous on than it would be off. We are getting to the pitch when the more fencing we put round the machinery the more likely we are to have accidents. I am speaking more especially with regard to fast revolving machinery, where the chief accidents from which the workers suffer are burning and friction. One of their arms gets between the rollers and the skin is scorched away.
    I am not referring to cases where weights tumble down, or things like that. The accidents to which I refer are sometimes due to the enthusiasm of the worker, when he has been trying to get out 10 minutes before his time at the end of the week, or when he or she has done his or her cleaning while the machinery is running. All the Regulations which this House has passed in the last 50 years provide that the machinery must not be cleansed in those conditions, but these and other rules and regulations have been broken—[An HON. MEMBER:

    2353
    "Through over-anxiety."]—through overanxiety to get the work done. The hon. Member for Westhoughton says that we ought to preach a safety-first policy everywhere. In every well-conducted mill in Lancashire we have printed leaflets which give advice as to what should be done and how it should be done. I am not speaking of accidents over which we have no control, such as the shaft breaking or something like that.
    The hon. Member also suggested that every big mill should have a medical staff. I do not think he was serious or that he could have given the matter very careful consideration. In every large town in England we have a most up-to-date medical staff in the local infirmary, which is more or less in the centre of the industrial area. Cases can be taken right away to the infirmary and treated with the most up-to-date scientific knowledge. The hon. Member should consider very carefully what the expense would be if we had a miniature infirmary in every mill. He gave us figures this afternoon which certainly do not work out at one accident a week for a large mill. Are you going to get a staff of nurses and of trained men for one accident a week?
    Mr. PALING: No.
    Mr. HILTON: The hon. Member said he would like a medical man attached to the staff of every mill. If so, the expense would be unwarrantable. At present, we have our infirmary collections every week, and we raise the largest part of the funds for the maintenance of the local infirmaries and hospitals in our towns by contributions of a penny or so each week. If we had mills situated like some of those in America the case would be different. In the State of Massachusetts the factory laws are more stringent than ours. There is a State law there providing that large mills must have these medical facilities provided, but those mills in many cases are 30 miles from each other, and 30 or 40 miles from civilisation and from a proper infirmary. If you had a mill situated 30 miles from an infirmary, it would not be fair that an injured person should have to be carried for 1½ hours or more to that infirmary, but, when you have a centralised industry, with a couple of hundred mills within an area of a very few miles, such as you have in Lancashire,
    2354
    with a well-equipped infirmary in the midst, I submit that any fresh expense which would ultimately have to be borne by the employer would be a waste of money and time and would not carry out the object in view. We provide first-aid in every mill and, by Regulation, it is essential that we should do so in case of accident. We have a fully-trained man to render first-aid at all the mills. It is easy enough for hon. Members to say that we treat our workpeople like beasts of burden and house our cattle better than the workpeople. That sort of talk is increasing, but we must get down to the main facts.
    When the Compensation Act first came in, about 20 years ago, I was interested in it, and I have been interested in it ever since. I sat for many years on the Insurance Committee, because we had our own workmen's compensation scheme in our own trade, which is that of the Lancashire cotton operatives and the Lancashire cotton spinners and manufacturers. They insure their own workmen and we have our own insurance committee, which has been in existence since 1st July, 1897, when it was first introduced, down to the present. When the Act was new, it was incumbent on the doctor when an accident took place to go to see the accident or the place where it occurred, and the machinery had to be stopped until the doctor had seen the same and had given his report. The accident might be due to a defective machine, and the doctor had to give that report through the head inspector. That rule does not operate now. It was withdrawn several years ago on the score of expense. The point I am trying to make is that if there has been an accident, if it has been neglected and there has been delay, and if the patient is suffering, the whole case can be inquired into and reported on. If those circumstances were to arise I should be the last person in the world to deny the necessity of a medical man being on the spot; but, as long as we can take these cases straight into the infirmary, we need say nothing more nor go to an unnecessary expense. The medical men in the infirmaries take a greater interest in these mechanical accidents, because the doctors in the cotton districts or the potteries are more or less localised in their experience of accidents and as to how they happen. We cannot have too much knowledge of

    2355
    the patient and too clever a method of treatment. These are things which the Home Office would do well to consider before they make any promise to put us to fresh expense.
    Mr. ROBINSON: I listened to what the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Hilton) said with regard to accidents. If you take some of the mills, you will find that there are no accidents at all, because the manufacturers are up-to-date. Their machinery is well looked after and well fenced in, and there is a great deal of inquiry and watching on the part of the manager.
    Mr. HILTON: I submit to the hon. Member that all the fencing Regulations apply equally to every mill.
    Mr. ROBINSON: They are not always kept in full operation. I know all about fencing. I have worked in these places too long. The illustration which the hon. Member for Bolton has given is not of accidents that happen unavoidably, but of a matter connected with the driving system, which has become very serious, in the weaving industry especially. I want to ask the Home Secretary three questions. There is a Committee sitting to-day with regard to accidents. I should like to know what progress is being made. There is also a Committee inquiring into dust and fibre. What are they doing? The injury from accidents is nothing compared with that from dust, where you simply take the life away from a man at the early age of anything between 30 and 40.
    5.0 p.m.
    I would like to know, further, if it is possible to have better inspection. I am thinking more particularly of the heating of the rooms; it is abominable to see any employer do it. In the spinning mills, they do not do it, because the workmen cannot do the work if it is very hot; but in the other places they can do it, and the workmen work at a great disadvantage. That does not matter, as long as there is nothing to pay for it, but when they have to pay for the fixing of the fine yarns they are very careful to have heat. With better inspection we should have less complaints with regard to heat. Inspectors do their best, but when a man goes into a cold room he has a big top coat on and is in a different state from the man or woman who is working there. He is not feeling
    2356
    the cold iron. I want the Home Secretary to see that inspectors give more attention during the coming winter to the cold rooms than they have done up to the present. I do not want to say anything more with regard to accidents, but I should like to know what progress is being made by the Committee which is sitting. If we had better arrangements in regard to fencing we should have fewer accidents. There are many accidents caused simply through the driving system, and that is largely the reason so many accidents in the textile industry occur. I appeal to the Home Secretary and his staff. I know the staff and their present leaders, and they give us great help. They know that what I am saying is true, that if the inspection were better and more regularly done we should have fewer complaints. I hope the Home Secretary will give his attention to the matter.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES: As the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) laid particular stress on the suggestion that the number of accidents had been very largely increased, I should like to point out that, if you are going to treat every employer and every organisation as ready to break the law, you will require many more inspectors, because it is the easiest thing to break the law. The number of inspectors could be increased, but you have to depend largely on the honesty and good will of the employers, and their desire to do their best for their workpeople and to recognise the law of the land. There are many who regarded it as a retrograde step when the inspection of accidents was taken away from the certifying surgeons. That was done by decree of the Privy Council for the saving of £7,000 per annum, a comparatively small amount. What happened before that time was that accidents were reported to the certifying surgeon, who had to proceed to the mill and see the actual machine, and he could at once see whether it was due to the negligence of the employer or the carelessness of the employé, and he could make suggestions on the spot.
    Now a report is made to the inspector, and from that report the inspector decides

    2357
    whether to visit the place or not. He can say on reading the report: "That is quite straightforward, and there is no necessity to go there," and he does not go. But there is a possibility that some accidents may not be accurately reported. I have seen in my own experience an accident caused in a certain way, and I have made further inquiries and found that part of the machine was unguarded. An inspector could not possibly find that out from the factory report. There is another thing. Now all that the certifying surgeon has to do is to go to the office and certify, and he practically never goes into the works or the mill. In the old days I was in the mill every working day, and I had full knowledge of every accident, and, when I saw that something was not quite right, I immediately drew attention to it. The result was that every certifying surgeon was helping the factory inspector and helping the Secretary of State. I would like to ask the Home Secretary what his present opinion of the certifying surgeon is. I ask this, because in a question a few months ago in this House the Secretary for Mines said that children could work in the mines without being examined by a certifying surgeon. He was asked whether he could do nothing, and he replied that he understood the Home Secretary had certain measures in view. He had been given the information or had obtained the impression that the certifying factory surgeons in the past had not been a satisfactory institution.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I never said that.
    Dr. DAVIES: I said that he had obtained the impression that the certifying surgeon up to the present had not been a success, and possibly certain alterations would be carried out. That was the gist of his answer. What I would like the Home Secretary to do is to inquire through the Department into the work of the certifying surgeon in the last few years and compare it with the work they did formerly and see whether one of the most efficient services that the State had, and also one of the cheapest, was not the certifying surgeon. Any alteration in the status of the certifying
    2358
    surgeon is probably a retrograde step. He is at present a trained medical man with a very good knowledge of industrial processes. Every accident is reported to him, he is frequently in the mill, and constantly on the look-out for errors, and he could be of the greatest use to the Home Secretary and his Department. Accidents are not always the fault of the staff or even the fault of the workmen. They are sometimes the fault of the guard that is put on the machine, the guard suggested by the inspectorate. I remember in a particular case there was a certain part of a spinning wheel where people were constantly getting hurt between the rope and the pulley, and it usually resulted in a slight abrasion. A guard was put on, but, as a result of it, every accident became a serious accident. The injury became very much more serious, such as the loss of a finger-tip. What happened then was that the operatives started taking the guards off. I went into a certain mill on a certain day and we went round and every single guard in that room was taken off, because the people had found that it was a failure. The medical man is of use at a time like that. The medical man's knowledge, in co-operation with the factory inspector, can be a very great help. I should be very glad if the hon. Gentleman would pay particular attention to the possibility of securing co-operation between the work of the surgeon and the factory inspector, and of entrusting the inspection of accidents again to the certifying surgeon.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not reply to this Vote yet, because there are one or two other Members on this side of the Committee who want to express the hope that—I think the right way of putting it is to say through the usual channels—when the Home Office Vote comes up next year it may be possible to have a more comprehensive discussion on the subject than we are able to have to-night. The Home Office is a Department that deals with such a multitude of questions that if we had to take them all in succession it would take several nights to deal with it. I want to say a word about accidents and the prevention of accidents. All my experience both on the railways and other works is contrary to that of the hon.

    2359
    Member for Bolton (Mr. Hilton). Without inspectors and without the Factory Acts, accidents would be multiplied many times over. The provisions of the Factory Acts and the appointment of inspectors have not only saved limb but life as well to a very large extent. I have no knowledge of Lancashire cotton machinery, but I have knowledge of other very dangerous machinery connected with saw mills, and I say without any hesitation that, not only is there not too much supervision, but I am doubtful whether we have done as much as we ought to do in the way of safeguarding the work-people who use the machinery. I should not have taken up the time of the Committee to say that had it not been for the speech of the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies). When it comes to doctors and inspectors, I have never known a doctor in London who visits the factories except when there may be an accident or when he goes to certify young people. It is only the inspectors that come round to inspect the machinery and get a knowledge of how the factories are being run.
    Dr. DAVIES: The hon. Member misunderstood me. I said that sometime up to the beginning of the War accidents were reported to the medical men, and they had to go to the place of accident and see the actual spot. During the War that was stopped, and, since then, the medical men have not gone to make these inspections.
    Mr. LANSBURY: The point is that they went where there had been an accident. Will the Home Secretary tell us how often an inspector can visit a very large factory in the course of a year? I think he will find a multitude of factories that are not visited at all. The whole point of the hon. Member for Bolton was that we do not want more inspectors. I think we want the number very largely increased, because, whatever the control over the mill and factory owners may be generally, very few of them—again I speak only for London—are so over anxious or take so much care or trouble to find out what is needed to safeguard machinery as an inspector who goes in almost solely to do that particular piece of work. The inspector's job is to see that the machinery is properly safeguarded for the persons who are working it.
    2360
    The fewer of these men are engaged in visiting the factories the worse it is. I strongly support the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) for an increase, in the inspectorate. It is not true to say that he was arguing for a kind of infirmary in each factory. He expressly safeguarded himself by saying the large factories. I wish all Members of the Committee were able to visit the big factories in Germany and to see the provision which is made in them for the treatment, not merely of accidents, but of all kinds of diseases. I remember during the Armistice period being in factories in Cologne where I found every conceivable appliance and organisation for dealing with every sort of disease to which man is heir. It might be said that in those days before the War Germany was only thinking of building a fine fighting machine, but nowadays they are taking care in exactly the same degree because they believe that efficiency is one of the best aids to production.
    I have made these references to factory inspection in reply to remarks which have been made on the other side of that question; but my main object in rising is to refer to the naturalisation laws and to the treatment of aliens generally. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will not mind if I say that when it comes to dealing with aliens I look on him, as I expect he would look on me, if I were in a position to sit in judgment occasionally on people who held his point of view, or if I were a strong Anglo-Catholic set up to judge people of his evangelical tendencies. It seems to me that, the right hon. Gentleman, in connection with these matters, "sees red" and that his otherwise good judgment is blurred when dealing with a certain type of foreigner. The right hon. Gentleman takes it upon himself to make extraordinary statements as to his duty. The other day he laid it down that, as Home Secretary, he had been asked to clear out all the Communists and, generally speaking, to "get rid of the Reds." He proceeded to say that it was a rather tough job, but that there might come a day when this country with other countries—led by him I suppose—would engage in a sort of crusade against Communism the world over. That attitude of mind towards a philosophy of life with

    2361
    which one happens to disagree, especially when it is international, is dangerous. Is that what the country pays the Home Secretary for? The fact is that the Home Secretary does not conduct the foreign affairs of the country and has no right to make speeches of that kind in regard to a nation with whom we are not at war, even though we have no diplomatic relations with that nation. I do not see that it is any part of the Home Secretary's business to seek to outlaw a certain Government, because he, personally, disagrees with their view as to how their own country should be managed. The right hon. Gentleman has a perfect right to his own opinions, but when he is speaking as Home Secretary and as the representative of this country I deny his right to talk about the Communist Government of Russia in particular and Communism in general as if he were referring to some sort of leprosy or plague and to say that all Governments should be united in trying to stamp it out. That is what the right hon. Gentleman said.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I accept it.
    Mr. LANSBURY: In that case, I desire to say that in my judgment the right hon. Gentleman is totally unfit to occupy a position in which he can grant or refuse to people who hold those views certain privileges as to staying in this country. There ought to be in that position a person more judicially-minded than the right hon. Gentleman on his own confession has shown himself to be. I do not think he can properly judge whether a person is good enough and respectable enough to be allowed to remain in this country. He has told me, in answer to questions, that the advocacy of Communism—this leprosy or plague, as he might describe it—is not illegal in this country. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about forming combinations of the nations of the world to put down Communism, that proves he has not the judicial mind which a Home Secretary ought to possess. That brings me to the other point on which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me something. I asked about it at Question Time, but Mr. Speaker ruled that it was rather a matter for Debate. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to state some particulars as to the large number of Russians who have been
    2362
    naturalised during his period of office. I think the House of Commons, which is very jealous about giving naturalisation to aliens, would like to know more about these persons who were formerly Russian citizens and who have become naturalised British subjects. We should get particulars, at any rate about a sample of them, because I am told the number runs into hundreds. How long have they been in this country and what occupations do they follow? It is certain they are not Communists and therefore the assumption is that they are what are known as Russian Whites. Why are they entitled to receive naturalisation in this wholesale fashion at the hands of the Home Secretary? I think if the right hon. Gentleman gives us the figures, we shall find that the number of Russians naturalised during one year exceeded the number of all other nationalities. We should be informed as to the reasons for this step.
    I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us whether the Government have yet found the document in search of which they went to Arcos and I would also raise the question, quite briefly, of that gentleman, Mr. Miller—the human document—who was, as the right hon. Gentleman told us, "discovered" at Arcos. I do not understand to this day how it came about that this gentleman who has been, according to the right hon. Gentleman, in the country for six or seven years, who has been reporting himself regularly as an alien and who was altogether under the supervision of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, should have been "discovered" in such a surprising way. It seems to me there was a screw loose somewhere in the machinery of espionage if it was so surprising to find this gentleman working where he was found working on this particular occasion. We were told by the right hon. Gentleman this man was known as the centre of the whole spy system of Soviet Russia. Yet he was allowed a free run for seven years in this country and no attempt was made to deal with him. The right hon. Gentleman, when he answered my Supplementary Question, led me to infer that the reason this man was let loose in this fashion—although according to the right hon. Gentleman he was known to be the most dangerous and villainous of the Russian spies in this country—was in order that the Department

    2363
    might get to know those who associated with him and discover his accomplices. But six or seven years is a long time during which to allow such a dangerous person to go loose. During that period, however, there was only one big prosecution of Communists.
    If this man was as dangerous as the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe, I think we paid a big price for that prosecution. We got practically nothing by allowing this man to run loose in this fashion. It may be that I am ignorant of the ways of secret police and of espionage generally, but it seems extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman should stand up and say in his most dramatic manner: "No, we did not find the letter but we did find a human document." I am certain very few people in the House of Commons at the time thought that the right hon. Gentleman had previously known of this man's existence or that the man had been under supervision for nearly seven years. We all imagined that it was a sudden discovery of some miscreant who had been hidden away. I cannot understand if the man was so dangerous, why he was allowed to go for such a period. I am sorry we have not time to pursue this subject further, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to tell us more about Mr. Miller.
    Commander WILLIAMS: I do not want to find myself in too acute disagreement with the last speaker, but before I say anything else about the Home Secretary which may not be quite so flattering, I think I should say that I am very glad he has acted with rather more severity in these matters during the last two or three months than he did previously. I believe that in that way he has gained enormous support amongst every section of the community, including the moderate section of the Socialist party. I know there are extreme sections in that party who do not like him and his actions, but I believe if we could have a vote to-day the moderate Socialist leaders would say, "Here is a very fair and a very just Minister whom we would not mind see acting a litle more strongly in future than in the past." But my object in rising was to deal with another matter which has occupied a considerable part of the afternoon's Debate, and that is,
    2364
    the administration of the Factory Act. I should be the last person in this House to criticise that administration except to say—as far as I personally am concerned, and I can only speak for myself—that I would like to see it absolutely and thoroughly efficient in every way. If the Home Secretary said it was necessary to spend more money on inspectors I should certainly not oppose him.
    Seeing that we have taken some time in discussing those two matters, I think it would be fair to the general body of the taxpayers if for two or three minutes I drew attention to what is revealed on page 10 of the Estimates, where one finds a total expenditure of more than £149,000 this year for the staff of the Home Office itself. That sum is about £1,600 higher than it was last year. Probably that is due to the natural rise in the salaries of the various members of the staff, but, still, I think the figure is too high. Not only has the expenditure on the central staff increased, but the staff itself has increased. I would like to know how it is that suddenly, apparently, in one year, he has established a new class, or what would seem to be a new class, of civil servants called paper-keepers. He has set up 16 of them this year, a very considerable number of men. Of course, they may have been transferred and renominated, as other people are transferred in other branches, but if it had not been for these 16 paper-keepers his administration of his central office would have been very much more praiseworthy from an economical point of view. I draw attention to that, because I think it is part of our duty when we are in Committee discussing Estimates to go into the details of the headquarters' expenditure as well as the main body of the expenditure.
    On page 18 will be found some information with reference to the fees charged to aliens who change their names. The amount raised in fees last year was lower than in the year before. May I ask what is the actual fee charged to an alien who, presumably, flatters the British nation by wishing to take a British name, and why it is that the amount derived from these fees is less? If the Home Secretary is making it more difficult for aliens to disguise themselves as good Englishmen or Scotsmen or Welshmen—though I do not think they generally try

    2365
    to become Welshmen; at least there is not the same competition as to become Englishmen—will he not consider the question of raising the fees? There is a strong feeling in the country not merely against aliens coming here. Whether they are whites or reds, and no matter from what country they come, there is a feeling that we should limit the influx of aliens so long as we have a considerable amount of unemployment in the country, and also that we should charge them whatever fees we possibly can get from them, up to a reasonable figure. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) apparently does not like our charging them fees.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I was saying that if you charge them a fee and they pay it, you get them in anyhow. I say the proper thing to do is to keep them out if they are taking work from workmen in any industry who are wanting a job.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Keep them out anyhow.
    Mr. LANSBURY: No, not anyhow.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Keep them out anyhow, and if they do come in charge them as big a fee as you possibly can. If you do let any come in, charge them as much as ever you can before they are admitted. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what is the position as regards admitting aliens. I do not think the Aliens Act is sufficiently severe. Too many aliens come in. The right hon. Gentleman has certainly administered the aliens' legislation far better than it was administered by his predecessor, and far better than it was administered by the Liberal party, who are so conspicuous by their absence to-day, as always when it is a question of economy. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do everything to limit the number of aliens coming into this country.
    Mr. TAYLOR: On page 11 there is an item of £2,500 for, amongst other things, the expenses of Departmental Committees appointed by the right hon. Gentleman. I take it that figure includes the provision for the Departmental Committee which is now considering the Shop Acts legislation. But before I come to that, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what the Arcos raid cost,
    2366
    and if he knew that the particular individual who has been referred to was on the premises why he did not use the ordinary powers which are open to him to expel any undesirable person, without undertaking this very melodramatic raid? The right hon. Gentleman has been melodramatic before. He was melodramatic in connection with the Irish controversy before the War, and possibly his recent action may be just as disastrous a contribution to peace as was that expedition. When the right hon. Gentleman announced the appointment of the Departmental Committee on the subject of Shop Acts legislation, he was asked from this side of the House whether he would extend the terms of reference in order that the problem might be dealt with in a comprehensive way, so as to settle it, at any rate, for some time. The right hon. Gentleman said the terms of reference provided for the consideration of whether the existing 1920 and 1921 Acts should be continued, and, if so, whether with or without modifications. He was asked whether he would extend the terms to include the consideration of the 1912 Act and the legal limiation of the hours of labour for shop workers. He declined to do so then, although representations were made to him by the Leader of the Opposition and other influential people. As the proceedings of the Committee have developed, it has become quite obvious that it is impossible to deal with the question intelligently without considering also the position created by the 1912 Act and the position with regard to hours of labour.
    In view of the evidence which has been presented to the Departmental Committee, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the distinguished civil servant who is the Chairman of it with a view to securing an extension of the Committee's activities, or, at any rate, such an orientation of their activities that they may be able to consider seriously the legal limitation of the hours of labour? If the right hon. Gentleman would spare a little more time to deal with the evil conditions, injustices and inequalities which exist in this country, instead of chasing so many Reds out of Britain, he would be doing far more to secure his country against a real menace, for instance, the menace created by the effect of excessively long hours on the health and well-being of

    2367
    hundreds of thousands of young women and young persons in the distributive trades. I will give him an extract from the evidence placed before the Committee a few days ago, being the report of an inquiry undertaken for the Scottish Council for Women's Trades by students of the Economic Department of the School of Social Study in the Glasgow University. They give a number of instances, of which I am going to quote two. They say that in a fruiterer's shop a girl of 18 was found to be working—
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: On a point of Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member is asking me to introduce legislation, and without it I do not think I have any power to deal with hours of labour. I think any proposal for legislation would be out of Order on this Vote.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would not be in Order in dealing with the question of hours of labour on this Vote.
    Mr. TAYLOR: On that point of Order. I wish to point out that this Vote provides for the expenses of a Departmental Committee, and I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to see that the work of that Committee is properly carried out by extending the terms of reference in the way suggested to him when first it was set up. To prove the necessity for such a course, I was proceeding to read from the evidence submitted to that Committee in order that the Home Secretary might have some knowledge of the actual conditions.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor) was appointed by me as a member of that Departmental Committee. That Committee has taken evidence, but it has not yet reported, and its report has not been published. Therefore, I think it is a great breach of privilege for the hon. Member to quote from that evidence at the present moment.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: To raise the question of the hours of labour would not be in order on this Vote.
    Mr. TAYLOR: With regard to the point raised by the Home Secretary, I should like to ask your guidance, Captain Fitz-Roy, as to whether I am not in order
    2368
    in referring to evidence given before a Committee, which has been published in the public Press, which was taken in public, where any person can attend the Committee and hear the evidence? Of course, if it is a breach of privilege for a Member of this House to repeat what may be repeated in a dozen newspapers or by anybody who attends the Committee, then I confess that I have misunderstood the custom and traditions of this House.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to refer to evidence given before a Committee until the Report of that Committee has been laid before the House.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Not even if it has been published in a newspaper?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The newspapers must take their own responsibility.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Should I be in order if I quoted the same material from a newspaper report instead of the actual words used before the Committee? If I am not in order, then I am sorry if I have committed any breach of privilege, and I apologise for having exceeded what is the usual custom in this connection. While I do not propose to proceed any further with that point, I want to raise another matter. In view of the interests of hundreds and thousands of young persons who are working very excessive hours, I want to ask, while this question is under review, if the Home Secretary will see that that side of the problem is fully considered before the Committee terminates its proceedings. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give my points favourable consideration.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I want to raise the question of probation officers. We all know that these officers perform very important duties, and they deserve payment if they want it, but there are cases, especially in country districts, where the work is very light, in which suitable people are willing to do this work without payment. They are anxious to continue to do this work in order to help their fellow-men, and with no wish for reward. I understand that the Home Secretary has now made a rule by which he will not allow probation officers to be employed unless they are paid, and we are

    2369
    likely to lose the valuable services of a number of people who, in the past, have been very useful and are very suitable for that particular work. I hope it is not going to be part of the policy of the Home Secretary to do away with voluntary efforts of this kind. A large part of our public work is done by voluntary efforts, and this work is undertaken not because those people want any reward, but because they consider it their duty. A case has arisen in my county where the probation officers have been doing their work voluntarily to the complete satisfaction of everybody concerned. The Home Secretary has refused to allow the magistrates to reappoint them. The County Council has sent a resolution, which was passed unanimously at the last quarterly meeting, protesting against this action. I do not believe the Home Secretary has the legal power under Clause 1, Subsection 2, of the Criminal Justice Act to do this. I should like to know Whether he has taken legal opinion about this, and what action he is going to take in the matter.
    Mr. COMPTON: I wish to raise one or two points in regard to the Workmen's Compensation Act. On the industrial side we are very much indebted to the Home Secretary for the concessions he has made during the last 12 months, and we wish he could have extended them further in one or two other directions which I will indicate. Orders have been made in connection with certain trades during the last year or two, and I wish particularly to refer to the order issued by the right hon. Gentleman in connection with lead paint spraying in the vehicle trade 18 months ago. I understand that Order is not to be given full effect in various parts of the country. In connection with the Regulations issued in the case of metal-polishing, we know that the Home Secretary has instituted quite a number of prosecutions during the past 12 months. On the industrial side we are indebted to him for tightening up things in this direction, and we hope the Department will use the same methods in dealing with defaulters in connection with the spraying of lead paint.
    I want to ask why, during the past year, the disease known as cattle-ringworm has not been scheduled. No justifiable reason has been given for not
    2370
    scheduling this disease. It is contracted inside a certain industry in connection with cattle. It is hardly possible for it to be contracted outside that industry, and the fact that it is not a scheduled disease may have a far-reaching effect, because those people who may be affected will not be entitled to compensation. The men who are employed in dealing with these cattle, through not being able to receive compensation in case of contracting the disease, are forced to go back to the farmyard to attend to other cattle, and in this way they tend to spread the disease of cattle-ringworm. This alone may cause the disease to be spread to alarming dimensions, whereas if the disease were scheduled, these men would receive medical attention and compensation up to such time as they are entirely free from the disease. For these reasons, I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to schedule this disease.
    In the next place I desire to draw attention to a disease that has lately been scheduled, known as dermatitis, which affects a particular industry. Not long ago we had a Press campaign with regard to bakers' rash or a bakers' disease known as dermatitis. This disease affects French polishers, and it is asserted that the paints in which certain chemicals are used are liable to produce this particular disease. Then there is the case of lithographic printers, and those workers who are known as transferers in connection with lithographic printing are very much liable to contract this particular disease. Our difficulty is that in so far as the industrial disease of dermatitis is concerned the workmen and the workwomen who have once suffered from this disease cannot with any degree of certainty return to their employment without running the risk of recontracting the disease.
    I do not know what the Home Secretary will say in reply, but there are cases on record where a workman, having once been certified as suffering from dermatitis, and having received benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act to which he is entitled, when once he is free from the disease and offers himself for re-employment he is told that the insurance companies who carried out the industrial insurance had given notice to the employer that he was not to be employed again at that particular trade. I have here the Home Secretary's letter

    2371
    written to the Secretary of a trade union on the 6th September last, and I will refer to one statement in that letter. The Home Secretary says:
    "The Secretary of State has made inquiry into this case and understands that in the Autumn of 1925 Mr. A was twice attacked by dermatitis while employed in transferring at Messrs. B's works. It appears that the insurance company were advised by their doctor that the disease would be certain to recur if Mr. A returned to transferring work. In these circumstances the Secretary of State considers their action in refusing to insure the employers unless other work not involving contact with chemicals was found for Mr. A was not unreasonable, and it seems to be clearly in the man's own interest that he should not return to this or similar work which would expose him to the risk of dermatitis."
    Here we have a position in relation to the Workmen's Compensation Act that we cannot afford to leave as the Home Secretary has left it. To state that the action of the insurance company is not unreasonable in connection with this particular transferring lithographic work is a very serious matter. To say that men who have served seven years apprenticeship to this trade and who have reached the age of 50 or 65 with no other employment to which to look forward, and who are practically condemned to starvation for the remainder of their days is something to which I think the right hon. Gentleman on reconsideration will not be a party, and I hope he will find out some way of getting over that difficulty. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to impress upon the particular department concerned that there are still chemicals being imported and used in connection with lithographic printing and transfer work which are put into turpentine and oils for toning-down purposes and for the manufacture of polish which are very dangerous, and the disease of dermatitis can be traced to the use of these chemicals. It ought to be the duty of the Home Office to see that the employers purchase only pure chemicals for these processes in order to protect the lives of their workers.
    6.0 p.m.
    I wish to refer to another aspect of the Home Secretary's Department, and that is the question of capital punishment. I am not going to deal with the question whether capita punishment is right or wrong, but with another phase of the subject
    2372
    which was raised in this House a week or two ago. In answering a question, the right hon. Gentleman stated that prison doctors were not entitled to go outside the scope of the coroners inquiry when giving evidence at the inquest on an individual who had been executed. Further, not very long ago the right hon. Gentleman prosecuted an ex-prison governor for making certain statements in the Press concerning an execution. I wish to raise a phase of this matter that has occurred in connection with a certain Sunday newspaper in the North, in which an ex-hangman was giving, for several Sundays in succession, an account of his experiences in most harrowing terms. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can exercise any powers over a man who has served in this capacity and then retired, but I do suggest that, if he can bring any pressure to bear, he might do so, even to the extent of banning a newspaper which publishes such harrowing details, with which 95 per cent. of the people of this country were disgusted. Details were given of an unfortunate criminal who, it was feared prior to his execution, would not be able to stand upon his own legs, and it was stated that a wooden contraption had been made for the purpose, and that the man, not being able to speak the language of our country, cried, almost on the eve of his execution, "No, no, me be brave," which was probably all the English he could understand. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he, if would go to the extent of banning the reproduction of such harrowing details, 99 per cent. of those not directly interested in the production of such a so-called newspaper would welcome it. I hope he will consider taking steps in the direction I have indicated, so that, for the benefit especially of working people who read this kind of Sunday newspaper, and their children and families, such stuff may not be put on the market. I believe that, if he will do that, he will have the best thanks of the people of this country.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: So many questions have been put to the Home Secretary that I am afraid he will forget some of them when he comes to reply. I want to emphasise one point that has already been put before him, and that is in regard to the number of inspectors

    2373
    employed. I want to advocate a very large increase in the inspectorate. I have been reading to-day the account of the inquiry into the cause of the recent explosion at, the Marine Colliery, Cwm, and anyone who reads that account will see that someone should have been there who was independent of both employers and workmen. If that had been so, this accident could not have happened. The place never ought to have been worked, and never would have been worked, if an independent responsible man had been there. We have tried on several occasions to get the firemen or deputies made Government men. This would not entail any cost, because the cost would be secured from the industry as it is to-day. The reply has always been that the manager is the responsible man, and that there could not be anyone over him. The manager is certainly the responsible man, but he is not an independent man. If managers were idealists as to safety, they would not be wanted. Output is the first thing, and the appointment of the manager, and every official under him, is considered from that standpoint only. If they cannot comply with that, and produce output, they are not wanted. That is the first consideration, and it will always remain so until some independent person is appointed to look after this matter.
    Even if firemen and men of that class were not made Government men, why should not one such man be employed, say, for every 1,000 men? Where the number of men employed was smaller, they might be linked together and an inspector put over them. The inspectors we have in the mines to-day do not count, and it seems to me exactly the same in the factories. Their numbers are so very few, and their inspections are so few and far between, that they count for nothing. From what I know of the inspectors, their time seems to be almost entirely taken up by going to places where fatal accidents have occurred, and then attending the inquest and writing a long report. Therefore, real inspection of collieries, and also, I think, of factories, by men independent of both parties, counts for very little, because it is so very rarely done. I have not looked at the Estimates, but I dare say the amount of money spent on inspection would look pretty large. It is, however, far smaller
    2374
    than it ought to be. The first consideration ought to be safety, and there never will be safety until these men are made independent. This does not apply only to employers. Men break the rules as well as employers, especially men on piecework. When wages are low and times are bad, they take risks that they never ought to take, and never would take under a day wage system. Men get more money by working piecework, but the very considerable and, indeed, alarming number of accidents would be reduced if a day wage system were instituted instead of the piecework system. We have Regulations to-day, but many of the Regulations that are posted up are merely a protection for employers when accidents occur.
    In the case of the railways, for instance, Regulations are posted up, but if these Regulations were kept there is not a single railway in this country that could go on for 24 hours. We have heard before now about working to rule. They cannot work to rule; there would be no work if they worked to rule; and yet these Regulations are posted up, and, when an accident occurs, they say, "Well, it is his own fault; the Regulations were there." We have heard it said also, when compensation has been claimed, that no compensation would be granted because the man had broken the rules. The Regulations are there, but they are Regulations which it is well known cannot be carried out if the work is to proceed. I say that, if the Regulations are posted up, they ought to be adhered to to the letter, or they ought to be withdrawn and practical Regulations substituted. My main plea, however, is for a larger inspectorate. "Safety First" is a phrase that we hear in this House sometimes. It is a very good phrase, but it is merely humbug. It is all right in crossing the street, but when you get back into the very heart of industry "Safety First" does not count. If the men responsible at the very heart of industry made "Safety First" count, output would suffer, and they would not be wanted. I say again, therefore, that it is mere humbug when you get back to the real heart of industry. It is a fine phrase to use here, and it ought to be the first consideration everywhere, but it is not the first consideration, and never will be until men independent of both employers and

    2375
    workmen are appointed to see to these things.
    Mr. PALING: I want very shortly to raise three points, with which I hope the Home Secretary will deal in his reply. The first is in regard to Section 16 of the Act, which has already been referred to this afternoon. I want the Home Secretary to assure us that this provision, which was discussed at great length, and which there was some difficulty in getting into the Bill in 1923, is going to be made workable. It was the intention, I believe, when the Clause was put in, that it should work. The arguments upon it were fully discussed, and I believe it was the general opinion of all parties in the House that the Clause was absolutely necessary. While I am not going to bring forward any specific cases, I say that the Clause, generally speaking, is not being worked, that employers, particularly in the mining industry, are evading it. I am not making any complaint against the Judges, because they have no chance of getting the case fully in front of them. It was intended, where people were partly incapacitated, and could not get work suitable to their disability, or their ability to work at that time, having regard to their incapacity, that, if they had made all reasonable attempts to get work, and if the colliery company concerned could not find them a light job, they should be put on full compensation. I want the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary to make some inquiry into this matter, when I think they will find that the Section is being honoured in the breach. The Home Secretary has stated that he would prosecute with the utmost vigour the question of getting the Reds out of the country. I would ask him whether he will prosecute this case just as vigorously. I am sure that, if he does, he will find room for his abilities in that direction, and that people who have been badly treated, as they are at present, will have some reason to thank the Home Secretary if he can make the Clause work as it was intended to work when it was put in in 1923.
    The next subject on which I want to ask a question is silicosis. This has been discussed now for years, and attempt after attempt has been made by the Miners' Federation to get silicosis scheduled, but they have failed up to this
    2376
    moment. I believe that during recent months it has been scheduled in regard to a very limited number of industries, possibly those producing some kind of silica, but in regard to coal-pits, where there is a tremendous lot of stone, attempts to get the disease scheduled have not been successful. I hope the Home Secretary will prosecute his inquiries in that direction also. I had brought to my notice in my own Division a few months ago the case of a man working in a coal pit, who had worked for most of his life in stone. Of late years, as the Home Secretary knows, there has been a tendency to get machines to do all the boring in stone that is necessary. These machines revolve very rapidly, and a great deal of very fine dust is given off. A man doing this kind of work for a number of years is in my opinion, and in the opinion of the doctors who have to deal with these cases, just as liable to contract this disease as a man working, say, in a silica mine. Cases of that description have been brought to me before, and, in view of the medical evidence that has been collected on this subject, and of the numerous cases that have been brought to the notice of the Home Secretary, I would ask him to see if it is not possible to get this disease scheduled. The poor fellow whose case I have mentioned got no compensation, and, if my memory serves me, he is now dead. The doctors who dealt with his case—doctors who were supposed to be impartial—were absolutely agreed that it was a case of silicosis caused by his work in the coal-pit, but it was impossible to get any compensation because the disease had not been scheduled as an industrial disease with regard to coal-pits.
    My last point is in regard to the question of nystagmus. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has already mentioned this, and has referred to the fact that the number of nystagmus cases is growing. I am not quite sure what the arrangement is between the Home Office and the Mines Department, which both deal with this question to some extent, but I think the Home Secretary has the power in these-cases to set up inquiries, medical and scientific, for the purpose of getting to know everything there is to be known about these diseases. I would ask whether he does not think, in view of the

    2377
    alarming increase of this disease, that it is not time that something else was done. After all, we, as representatives of the workers, are not so much concerned with getting compensation for the victims of a scheduled disease as with taking steps to prevent the disease, and it is from that point of view that I would ask the Home Secretary whether he thinks sufficient evidence has been accumulated to warrant a further inquiry into this matter.
    It used to be said that the disease was due to the faint light in which the men had to work, involving constant strain on the eyesight, and consequent irritation of the eyes, but I want to point out to the Home Secretary that since that time there has been a very considerable improvement in the lighting of mines. The number of electric lamps has grown in the proportion of two electric lamps to one oil lamp, and the lighting of the mines has consequently been very much improved. But in spite of that it is still going on, so that that does not seem to be the be-all and the end-all of the causes of the disease. A medical man in my neighbourhood says it is not a question of light at all but of the tendency of a man to contract the disease under the conditions of work in the pit. It is a question of examining your boys to see whether the tendency exists, and excluding them if it does. Medical evidence is at variance, but in spite of that, there has been a tremendous amount of evidence accumulating since the last, inquiry which might lead, if the whole thing was co-ordinated by a Committee of Inquiry, to some further knowledge than we have at present. If the Home Secretary will use his powers in the direction of preventing this rapidly spreading disease we shall have reason to bless the time when he was Home Secretary.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: A very large number of points have been raised and I shall have to bore the Committee for a little time if I am to answer them all to the satisfaction of those who put the questions. Perhaps I had better clear up one or two of the smaller points first. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) raised a question in regard to voluntary probation workers. The position there is that I have not decided that no voluntary workers should
    2378
    be permitted. I have spoken in the House many times in support of the wonderful efforts of the voluntary workers, and I want to avail myself of the work that is offered to the administration of the Home Office in these probation cases. At the same time it was the decision of the House of Commons—and it is, of course, my duty to carry out that decision—that there should be definitely a probation officer in every Court, and I must be satisfied beyond all possibility of error that voluntary workers will be there when they are wanted—because there can be no definite claim upon a day to day and hour to hour attendance of voluntary workers as there is in the case of paid workers. I have to see that there is a worker either paid or voluntary in every police court.
    My hon. and gallant Friend told the Committee that there was something in the nature of a vote of censure passed upon me by the Devon County Council, but I am sure he did not mean to be too hard on me, as he was told only yesterday by the Under-Secretary that the letter had just been received, that it was being considered, and that I would reply in the course of a few days. It was really unnecessary for him to have brought it up again to-day. However, perhaps it will do me good and keep me from forgetting the point. Then a question was raised in regard to a worker engaged on steel work which was likely to cause cataract, who left it after 10 years and took to other work, and then in the course of the other work cataract came on, assumed to have been the result of the steel work. The position there is that a claim for compensation must be made within 12 months of the termination of the employment which produced the disease. I do not know whether it is necessary to extend the period, but at present it would not be possible to meet that point without an alteration of the Act of Parliament.
    The most important questions which have been raised are Factory Act administration, the position in regard to different industrial diseases, and the administration of the Aliens Act. I shall try to deal with those three questions as they were dealt with by the hon. Gentleman who preceded me at the Home Office, and of whose work as Under-Secretary I have no cause to complain. I have followed in

    2379
    his footsteps in the endeavour to carry out a great many suggestions he made but I am not going to allow him to say that I have gone back, and that the administration of the Home Office would be better if he were here instead of me. That I will not have for a moment. I can show that that is not the case. I have been asked about factory inspection both by the hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards), who quite definitely asked me to increase the number of factory inspectors. The hon. Member for 'West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) dealt with the number of factory inspectors in Germany. The figures for our staff are as follow: In 1913 there were 222 inspectors and last year there were 205. I agree they have slightly gone down. The number of visits paid to factories and workshops has dropped from 406,000 in 1913 to 300,000 in 1926. That is very largely accounted for by the reduction in the number of visits to workshops. The number of visits to factories last year was 188,000, as compared with 176,000 in 1913, so that the actual inspections of factories have gone up since 1913 by 12,000, though the number of inspectors has slightly gone down.
    We cannot quite compare the work in Germany with the work here. Germany is nearly twice as large as this country, the inspectors, of course, have to travel a great deal more than they do here, and I find also, that though the number of inspectors in 'Germany is larger than here they include more deputies and assistants than we have. I do not deny that the number of inspectors is greater than here, but I do not think the comparison is sufficiently definite to enable us to say that Germany is better inspected than we are. I am prepared to admit, however, that I think there is a distinct claim for more factory inspectors, and I will quote from a speech I made on the Home Office Vote last year in reply to the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck). I said:
    "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
    2380
    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 and the Committee would like the administration of all these great and humanising laws that come under the control of the Home Office to be as effective as they possibly can be. There is no doubt there are many thousands of works which do not get inspected in the course of every year. If we had more inspectors there would be more inspections made. At the same time, I have to balance, as the Home Secretary in the Labour Government had to balance, on one side the claims of the Treasury and on the other the claims of perfection in administration. The nearer we get to perfection in the carrying out of the work allocated to the Home Office the more expensive it is bound to be and the more difficult the demands I shall have to make on the Treasury will be. I, therefore, repeat to-day what I said last year, and what the Labour Government said. We should both like to increase the number of factory inspectors, but we are limited at the moment by the very strenuous efforts the Government are making in the cause of economy, and at present I am bound to ask, and I am asking—and they are responding to it gallantly—the departmental staff of factory inspectors to work harder and harder in order to cope with the increased work without having to apply to the Treasury for an increase in the number of inspectors. When we have got through our difficulties, and when perhaps the Factory Bill of next year has passed into law, that will be the time to approach the Treasury.
    The most difficult points that have been raised, apart from factory inspection, are those relating to industrial diseases, nystagmus, cattle ringworm, silicosis and acute bursitis of the knee or elbow, and it is only right that I should deal a little fully with those diseases and the action of the Department in regard to them. A scheduled disease is one that is scheduled under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, which give a right of compensation, and in accordance with the Report of the Departmental Committee on Industrial Diseases, no disease is scheduled by me

    2381
    unless it complies with certain conditions. First of all, it must be a disease and not an accident within the meaning of the Act. Secondly, it must be a disease such as will disable the workman for the minimum period, not less than four days, necessary for compensation. Thirdly, it must be a disease specific to the employment, so that its causation by the employment can be determined in individual cases. The question of cattle ringworm was first raised six or seven years ago by the National Agricultural Workers' Union.
    I want to show the Committee the difficulties the Department has in coming to a conclusion on these diseases. They were asked to furnish particulars of the number and the nature of the cases on which the application was based, but no reply was received to that request. The question was raised again in April of last year, when the Trade Union Congress submitted a summary of cases to me, and I received a deputation in order to discuss the whole question. The evidence that was put before me, as to whether cattle ringworm was a disease which definitely came within those conditions, was considered very carefully, not only by me but by my medical advisers, and it was certainly sufficiently clear to me that without further investigation I should not be satisfied that this disease came within the three conditions I have mentioned. There seemed really to be some doubt as to the extent to which this disease, commonplace though it may be, really prevented a man from going to work. It is in a different category from ordinary ringworm, which boys and girls, and sometimes men, have, and one knows that work can be carried on with the ordinary ringworm. There has been no evidence put before me to prove conclusively that cattle ringworm in mankind is such a disease as would normally prevent a man carrying out his work.
    Miss WILKINSON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that ringworm is so very infectious that any child suffering from it is excluded from the schools, and in that case a man who remained at work would be seriously endangering the health of everyone who worked with him?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is quite a different point. I have to deal with the Act of Parliament and I have to be satisfied that a particular disease, whether infectious or not, will really prevent a man carrying out the work he has been doing. I have been in consultation with the Ministry of Health on this point, and they have agreed to institute a special investigation into this disease. I have not enough information, and I was not able to get it from the deputation which came to see me in April last year. I tried hard to satisfy myself, but the data were not sufficient. The Minister of Health, however, is undertaking a special investigation into this disease, with a view to determine how far it could properly be included in the list of industrial diseases. I hope the investigation will be completed very shortly, in another month or two, and then the matter will come up for final decision. I do not want to say definitely to-day either that the disease will be scheduled or will not be scheduled. I must wait until I have the report of the investigation.
    I admit the disease mentioned by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling), who last spoke, namely, miners' nystagmus, is a very terrible disease indeed. It is a disease which causes my Department the very greatest anxiety. It has always been scheduled. It is perfectly true that the disease has increased. In 1908 there were only 386 new cases and 74 old cases. In 1925 there were 3,445 new cases and 7,890 old cases. I admit that this is a very serious matter. One might have said 40 or 50 years ago that this was not a matter for the Government to consider, but that is a position which no Government could take up at the present time. We regard the disease as of very serious moment, not only to individual workmen, but to the well-being of the community as a whole and to the efficiency of the workers. As has been said, the effect is to reduce the output of the industry in which the disease occurred. After very full investigation a committee of the Medical Research Council, which, as the Committee knows, is one of the most eminent bodies in this country, in 1923 made a number of recommendations

    2383
    for improving the position in regard to this disease, including a recommendation for the alteration of the terms under which the disease was to be scheduled. We at once at the Home Office—I am not quite sure whether it was the hon. Gentleman opposite or his predecessor who considered this report—drew up a scheme to give effect to those recommendations. The scheme which was then considered by my right hon. Friend in the Mines Department was agreed to by them and was referred by the Home Office to the Mining Association and to the Miners' Federation for their consideration. I do not want to blame anybody, but blame cannot be apportioned to my Department. It is not their fault that the matter has not been pressed forward. We received the report from the Medical Research Council and we drew up a new and improved scheme to deal with miners' nystagmus. We sent that scheme to two great organisations concerned with the conduct of the industry. The Mining Association has furnished me with their views on this scheme but the Miners' Federation have not yet done so. I know that the Miners' Federation was very busy last year, but, at the same time, I am not to blame for the complaint that has been made. It is not my fault nor the fault of the Home Office that this matter has been delayed. I have been consulting with the employers' association, and I have consulted with the great trade union which has in hand the interest of the miners and I am now waiting for their views on this scheme. If they are such as commend themselves to me, I hope to have a better scheme before very long for dealing with this terrible disease.
    The next disease in reference to which I was questioned this afternoon is the disease known as miners' beat knee and beat elbow. The diseases known as miners' beat knee and beat elbow are ascribed respectively to constant kneeling and to the position assumed for under holing. With beat hand—due to constant use of the pick—they form a formidable group of diseases. Each of these diseases consists of a localised inflammation of the deep layer of the skin and subcutaneous tissues, or in the case of the knee or elbow, there may be acute inflammation of the bursa over the knee cap or elbow.
    2384
    The point I have to consider, and it is a very difficult one, is how far bursitis without inflammation is a disease which incapacitates a man. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) who put a very fair question to me regarding this disease, is trying to get removed from the definition of this particular disease the word "acute." I do not know whether the hon. Member will be interested in the fact, but I have suffered from bursitis for a good many years. For many years now I have had slight bursitis, but it is not acute and it does not disable me.
    Mr. TINKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not working in a pit, where you have to go down on your knees every day.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, that is quite true. If I were doing a particular form of work which caused me to kneel, quite likely my bursitis would become acute. Then the disease would come under the provisions of the Clause and the description I have laid down. The Miners' Federation were informed of my decision in advance and they asked—but without producing any evidence in support—that the word "acute" should be omitted. As already explained, there is a chronic bursitis which is not a disabling condition, and this would be covered if the word "acute" were omitted. The Medical Research Council have dealt with the point and this is what they say:
    "A chronic enlargement of the bursa in front of the knee or elbow should not be certified as an industrial disease unless the chronic condition becomes acutely inflamed as the result of work. Chronic enlargement of these bursæ does not cause any incapacity. The certifying surgeon must always satisfy himself that the condition is an acute inflammation arising out of the workmen's employment and of sufficient severity to cause loss of earning power."
    The Miners' Federation was, therefore, informed that I did not feel justified in including bursitis in the Schedule, except in the acute form, and the order was made accordingly, beat knee being described as "subcutaneous cellulitis or acute bursitis arising at or about the knee," and beat elbow being described as "subcutaneous cellulitis or acute bursitis over the elbow." If hon. Members or the Miners' Federation will bring me any medical evidence to prove that there is a bursitis which is not associated with acute inflammation

    2385
    but which nevertheless disables the worker, I am quite prepared to reconsider the position.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: Is it clear that the word "acute" is the word that should govern the point? I am not quite sure what is meant in this connection by "acute." If "acute" means that the disease is such that it causes pain, then I follow him, but is the qualification of "acute" something other than that?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No. The right hon. and learned Gentleman belongs to a learned profession and—
    Sir J. SIMON: I daresay the right hon. Gentleman has constituents as I have, who are really interested as to the point at which you regard these particular diseases as being disqualified. That is the point.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. and learned Gentlemen and the Committee must realise that I cannot put into the list of industrial disease a particular disease until I am satisfied that in the form in which it is desired to be put it would incapacitate men from work. The view of the Medical Research Council, which, of course, is a body of the very highest repute in the medical world, is that until it becomes acutely inflammatory, it is not such as would prevent a man from working. Any hon. Member may have bursitis of a non-acute character which does not prevent him from working. That is the view of the Medical Research Council, and it is the view I am bound to uphold, until I get information to the contrary. I tell hon. Members now, and I am prepared to tell the Miners' Federation also, that I will very gladly consider any medical information establishing the case that bursitis in itself, even before it is acute or inflammatory, is such a disease as would prevent a man from going down the mine to do his work.
    Dr. DAVIES: Does my right hon. Friend think it possible to define the word "acute," because "acute," medically, is something very serious? If acute bursitis means a swelling, pain or redness, it would be quite sufficient to define "acute." Otherwise, it is such a specific term that a man might have bursitis causing a certain kind of pain
    2386
    which would not come under your definition. It requires a definition of the word "acute."
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is no doubt very difficult for the layman to define. I did not read the whole of the Report of the Medical Research Council, but there is a further Clause which may deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend.
    "The certifying surgeon must always satisfy himself that the condition is an acute inflammation arising out of the workman's employment and of sufficient severity to cause loss of earning power."
    That is the position I have been bound to take up, and, unless hon. Members can produce medical evidence that bursitis in itself can cause, not merely pain, but loss of earning power without it becoming acute and even before it becomes acute or inflammatory, I must be bound by the Medical Report placed before me.
    Dr. DAVIES: Upon that definition, a case would have to be distinctly acute before it could come under the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and the man would have to be unable to work for many days before he satisfied the conditions enabling the certifying surgeon to give a certificate.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I know my hon. Friend has had great experience, and I shall be glad to consider any evidence of a medical character which he can give. I have made this offer to hon. Members and the Federation, and I shall be prepared to make any further inquiry necessary to satisfy them on this question.
    The last disease with which I will deal, and it is a very troublesome one and has worried the Under-Secretary and myself, is silicosis. That is fibrosis of the lungs due to the inhalation of silica dust. This disease has not been scheduled, but I can provide compensation for it under special powers conferred by the Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Acts, now Section 47 of the Consolidated Compensation Act, 1925, if I am of opinion that in any industry or group of industries there ought to be a scheme under which compensation can be provided. I have made two such schemes. One scheme is for the Refractories industries, chiefly in the Yorkshire

    2387
    district (ganister mining, and Banister and silica brick-works and quarries). I have also made a scheme for the metal grinding industry which is centred largely round Sheffield and is concerned with the grinding of cutlery and edged tools, machinery, etc. These industries are now proceeding under the schemes which I have established since I have been at the Home Office, and I believe that the former scheme at any rate is working satisfactorily. It is not possible to make a full report on the latter scheme as it has only just come into force and is not altogether popular. I should, however, like to bear testimony to the fact that the employers have entered whole-heartedly and perfectly fairly into the working of the schemes and I believe we shall find that as far as these two industries are concerned a satisfactory solution has been found.
    I have been asked to deal with silicosis in coal mining, where it is suggested that silica enters the lungs of the worker and induces this horrible form of fibroid tuberculosis in consequence of the silica entering the lungs. Before I impose a scheme upon an industry, I have to be satisfied that the disease really exists and that it results from the employment. A medical inquiry ha st been conducted by the Home Office and the Mines Department, and we have had examined a considerable number of men by radiograph. Tests have been made and information has been obtained that in some cases there is distinct evidence of silicosis in the lungs of these men. There were 13 men in a particular mine or group of mines and undoubtedly in two or three cases very serious fibroid conditions were discovered by radiograph examination. When I pursued my inquiries further, the owners of that mine said, "We do not know where they got their fibrosis; they could not have got it in our mine, because there is no silica of any kind in this mine." I had a long interview lasting an hour and a quarter the day before yesterday with some of the owners of that particular mine—
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: Is it a coal mine?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, a coal mine. The fact remains that out of the men examined by the experts selected by the Mines Department, two at least were certainly suffering from a form of
    2388
    silicosis, but the employer, the owner of this particular mine, said that it is quite impossible that the disease could have taken place in his mine. Hon. Members will see the difficulty in which I am placed. I am satisfied that there is this disease, that there is the disease of silicosis, which can be contracted by miners who are engaged in working in stone drifts where there is rock of a siliceous character. What I have done so far is that I have supplied the information to the Mining Association, and I have arranged with them that they shall come and have an interview with the medical advisers of the Mines Department who arranged for the examination of these men by doctors of the highest eminence, that they shall see the radiographs, and then consult as to whether they are or are not convinced that it is fair, under all the circumstances, that I should make a scheme. If they are not convinced, then the only thing will be for me to direct an inquiry to be held in order to establish which side is right or wrong. I cannot take upon myself, and I do not think hon. Members opposite would ask me, to decide a very important point of this kind until I am fully satisfied in my own mind, and when I am satisfied, then I shall make an Order in regard to this industry, as I have done in regard to the two industries which I have mentioned.
    Mr. PALING: I suppose the statement of the mine owner that there is no silica in the mine will be examined and tested?
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: Can the Home Secretary say what is the occupation of these men?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: They were miners.
    Mr. EDWARDS: There are very many different grades of miners.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is so. I have the particulars of the men tabulated and I will gladly show my hon. Friend the names and the particular class of work that the men were doing. I have not the information here now. I may say in reply to the hon. Member for Don-caster that I have had a large number of mines examined by an independent medical man, who is not an interested party at all, a mining expert from South Africa, who is over here. As the deputation

    2389
    from the Miners' Federation, at which I met Mr. Cook, we talked about industrial diseases and not political problems. I hope the Committee will realise that the Home Office is doing its utmost to cope with this very difficult question. I can assure the Committee that if I am satisfied, and the House will not ask me to do it until I am satisfied, I shall make a scheme.
    The hon. Member for Westhoughton said that there had been a battle royal about lead paint last year—I should hardly call it a battle royal, it was a skirmish—between the hon. Member and myself, and he was carried off the field leaving me the victor, temporarily, at all events. I am going to ask him not to press me too hard upon the question of lead paint at the moment. I cannot give full information to-day. There has not been time for the regulations to be put into force, in order to find out how far the wet process is really being carried out. If the hon. Member wishes, I could give a long report of what has been taking place, but I do not want to weary the Committee. In a few months time, when there has been full opportunity for the proposals to work, if he would like to see me or put down a question, I will endeavour to give him a full and complete answer.
    The next question which the hon. Member raised related to the Liverpool and Birkenhead Tunnel. I do not carry the Liverpool and Birkenhead Tunnel in my pocket; but I have made inquiries since the hon. Member spoke and I am informed that the work is being carried out with the greatest care. The hon. Member was good enough to ask a question two years ago. We have had the matter under very careful consideration, and we are assured that the work is being carried out with every modern device and every modern appliance that can be suggested. Water sprays are used where there is boring through rock in order to prevent the possibility of silicosis, as far as it can possibly be prevented. The work will be inspected from time to time, and if we discover anything further that can be done to protect the workmen from any possibility of injury, I am quite sure that the contractors will be only too glad to carry out our suggestions.
    2390
    I now come to the question of aliens, which has been raised by several of my hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) referred to different Home Secretaries. I do not think he regards me as being quite as good as I might be. It must be remembered that every alien is not in every sense an undesirable alien. An enormous number of aliens come into this country every year. Some 367,000 aliens were admitted into this country last year. There is an enormous influx and efflux of aliens. Most of these aliens come here for the benefit of this country. For instance, last year there were 53,000 alien residents in this country who went back to other countries on visits, and returned here; people who have lived here for years, people who are carrying on industries in this country and who are valuable citizens. It would be ridiculous if I were to say to each one of these aliens on his return: "You may have lived in England for many years; you may have your roots in England, but I do not want you back." Nearly 31,000 aliens passed through this country in transit to other countries. The shipping industry is very valuable to this country and the shipping of the alien populations from the South and East of Europe to Canada, the United States of America, and South America is a very valuable thing indeed, and I must not in the administration of the Regulations with regard to aliens which are entrusted to me by this House, do anything to hinder our shipping industry. Moreover, 172,000 visitors came here for holidays. The Secretary for the Overseas Trade Department has been devoting a great deal of time and energy to popularising English health resorts, and—
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Scottish.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I did not see the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) enter the House, otherwise I should have known that he would not allow me to get away with the term "English." I hope to visit Scotland myself next month.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Come and see us.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There were 172,000 tourists who came here last year.
    Captain FRASER: The right hon. Gentleman said that a third of a million aliens came into this country. Can he

    2391
    say how many went out in the same period?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: About the same number. Last year the number of aliens who came in totalled 367,000, and slightly more went out than came in.
    Captain FRASER: Hear, hear!
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: We must allow them in, that is, those who come here for the benefit of this country must be permitted to come here. These tourists spend money upon our railways, in our hotels and so forth, and they are a valuable asset to the country. We must not prevent them from coming. There were business people who came here. Some 82,000 business visitors are included in the 367,000. These people are advantageous to this country. I have here a Report which has been published, Command Paper 2865, in which hon. Members will find details of every type of alien who came into the country last year, classified, giving the objects of their coming, and the particular country from which they came. Among those classified are 6,019 aliens of no particular class. They are not diplomats, tourists or commercial men, but they will be found tabulated on page 5 of the Report, and if my hon. Friends will do me the kindness to read that Report they will find that practically every single alien who comes into this country is ticketed, labelled, docketed and accounted for. We know when he comes in and when he goes out, and we take particular care to see that when the period for which he is allowed in expires, he goes out.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: I am sure that hon. Members will read the Return with interest. Does the Return include or can the right hon. Gentleman give us a return which will include the complementary figures of British subjects who go abroad, live abroad, or work abroad? That would complete the story.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Report does not give that return, and I do not quite know how it could give it.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: It could give the total number out and in.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I could get the total number who go out and come in and those who go to live abroad,
    2392
    but it would be very difficult, because we have to take into account the efflux of people from this country who go to live not only abroad but in our own Dominions and Colonies. If my hon. Friend presses for the information I will see if I can supply it.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: Over a period of years it would make a very interesting study and it would be of value in discussions on the question of aliens.
    Captain A. EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the cost of such a return?
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps hon. Members will allow the Home Secretary to continue his speech.
    7.0 p.m.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can only say I have not got the information at the present time. I did not have notice that this was going to be asked for, but if the hon. Member presses for it, I will try to get it. I was asked a question about naturalisation. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton will be sorry he asked that question, because as far as naturalisation is concerned my figures are better than his from his own point of view. In 1924, there were 935 naturalisations in this country. In my first year, 1925, there were 1,074, and last year I naturalised 1,345 people—not a bad return for a Conservative Home Secretary as compared with his predecessor, a Labour Home Secretary. I think those figures distinctly show—and I want to be quite clear on this point—that there is no bias in my mind against naturalising a man who, in my view, is fit for naturalisation. We have speeded up the work at the Home Office very considerably, but I am not going to say that I am making naturalisation easier. I am not. The hon. Member seemed to think that if a man had lived 10 years in this country and had behaved himself decently he should be entitled as a right to naturalisation. I do not take that view at all. A man may live here for 10 or 20 years without becoming in his heart and mind an Englishman. He may want naturalisation for various purposes—because he wants to travel with the facilities of an English passport, or to have the help of the English Diplomatic Service rather than that of his own country.

    2393
    No, I have said this before in this House, and I am not ashamed of it and I repeat it. I do not want hon. Members opposite to go away with any idea that I am weakening in the views which this House has approved, not once but in successive years, in regard to my administration of the powers granted to me under the Aliens Act. Unless I am satisfied that a man, however long he has lived in this country, has become a real Englishman, desiring to put his roots deep down here and desirous of having his children educated as English boys and girls and, in fact, desirous of making England his home for the rest of his life, and with no thought of returning to a foreign country, wherever it may be, in my view he is not entitled to the proud privilege of being made a British citizen. While I have increased the number of naturalisations, it is simply because we have speeded up the operation of the Act. I did find rather an accumulation of cases which the hon. Gentleman opposite had left over when I became Home Secretary, and I got the Department to speed up the work, and now I am very glad to say there is no more delay than is necessary in making proper inquiries or than can possibly be avoided in granting naturalisation in proper cases.
    Another question was asked me about the barracks at Eastleigh and the number of aliens there. I think the House knows of the arrangement which was come to in connection with several hundred aliens who were brought here from the East of Europe in transit for America. Just as they arrived at Southampton, and were being transhipped to a Cunard or other vessel going across the Atlantic, America closed her doors and put on a quota. There was a difficulty as to what was to be done with them. They did not want to go back to their own country, their own country did not want to have them, and America would not take them. I declined to allow them to be let loose on this country. The liability is by law with the shipping companies, and quite rightly so, and the shipping companies behaved exceedingly well and established this camp at Eastleigh where every kind of arrangement was made for these unfortunate people. They have lived there for nearly two years, and from time to time, as America opened her doors, numbers of them were shipped off to America.
    2394
    In the winter of last year the Jewish Board of Guardians, who are very largely responsible, as far as religion is concerned, for most of these emigrants, came to me and said: "We have got rid of nearly all these people, but there are about 120 remaining. Most of them are young girls and they are certainly not improving by being kept here. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may smile, but I do not think any of them would be improved by being kept locked up. Then they said, "Is it not time that this matter should be reconsidered?" "Certainly," I replied, "but on condition that you, as a board, will be responsible, if I let these people come out, for seeing that they are properly looked after and arrangements are made, as soon as America can take them, to ship them to America, and that in the meantime they shall not come on to the English labour market to compete with English labour."
    A very full undertaking in regard to that matter was given to me by the board of guardians. That undertaking has been carried out to my entire satisfaction, and the very difficult question of the retention of these people in this camp at Eastleigh and the expense to the shipping company has come to an end, having been admirably accomplished by the Jewish board. In due course, the whole of these unfortunate people will be able to proceed to their destinations in America. That shows the advantage of dealing personally and directly in these matters. You could not administer an Aliens Act of this kind with cast-iron rules and regulations. There must be a power of decision left to somebody, and at present the House of Commons has left it with the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It is not an enviable responsibility which has been placed on my shoulders, and if the House chooses to take it away, and give it to a Committee or some other body, I, for one, would not mind. But, as long as that responsibility for dealing with the Aliens Act is cast on the shoulders of the Home Secretary, so long shall I endeavour to carry out those duties in the primary interests—as I have stated on more than one occasion in this House—of this country. This country's interest must come first in regard to this question of aliens.

    2395
    I do not want to be, and I am not, harsh, and I think the way in which we have dealt with those unfortunate people proves that the administration of my Department is very far from being harsh. We seek to do all we can to mitigate the difficulties and unpleasantness which must necessarily arise in the case of aliens travelling through this country. In the administration of the Act, in regard to the naturalisation of aliens and all the other powers given to me, I shall endeavour in future, so long as I am Home Secretary, to continue to carry them out fairly, reasonably and with kindness to these people, but always with regard to the interest of this country as a whole. I have endeavoured to answer most of the questions which have been put to me this afternoon, and I do not like taking up more of the time of the House.
    Mr. W. C. ROBINSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the question regarding the Textile Committee?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: A question was asked me about the Textile Committee. It is a voluntary committee of the employers and the employed, with two of my factory inspectors on it. That committee has been sitting for some long time, and I hope it will report very shortly. As soon as it does, and as soon as an arrangement is come to between employers and employed as to what is to be done, I shall be only too glad to give their decision the effect of law by making the necessary Order. I hope it will not be very long before I am able to deal with it.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: I trust that I am now in Order in referring to industrial reformatories.
    The CHAIRMAN: That matter does not arise on this Vote.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Could the right hon. Gentleman reply to the question about the Shop Hours Committee?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member did ask me a question about that, and whether I would extend the reference of the Shop Hours Committee and make it wider to deal with hours. I replied to him on a former occasion that I did not intend to do so, and I can only make the same reply to-day.
    2396
    I have received no request from the Committee as a whole. The Committee is taking evidence, and I believe it will report very shortly. In the circumstances, if the hon. Member presses me, I can only say "No!"
    Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. Some of us are in a little difficulty as to the procedure which is being adopted. At an earlier stage we raised, Mr. Hope, with your predecessor in the Chair the question of what subjects could be discussed, and we understood we could not discuss the police question or prison question on the Vote which we are now discussing, and we want to get on with those questions. Are we to understand that we are now departing from the first Vote on the Order Paper, which includes the Minister's salary, and are now to be allowed to discuss the police and prison questions?
    The CHAIRMAN: That entirely depends as to whether more Members wish to discuss the Home Office Vote proper. As long as other Members rise, unless a Motion for the Closure is moved, I am bound to call on those Members.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: May I make one observation? It was understood that we were to dispose of the subject we have already dealt with after the Home Secretary had replied to the three points which I had raised with him, and that hon. Members would then be able to deal with prisons. I am not sure as to whether prisons include reformatory schools, and perhaps that is a point upon which there is a difficulty, but I do want to say that I understood that we should not move to report Progress until eight o'clock.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am entirely in the hands of the Committee. I shall be quite willing for the Committee to finish this Vote now and go on to the Prison Vote, in accordance with the arrangement to report Progress at eight o'clock.
    Mr. GROVES: There was a question which I submitted to the Home Secretary yesterday, and he sent me some acknowledgment, and I should like to know whether there is a possibility of getting a reply before the Vote is disposed of. I should like to raise the matter, if the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to give me a reply.
    Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. The Votes that are put down for to-day are separate Votes, and we are now discussing Vote I. The next is a Vote 4, which relates to prisons, and then there is Vote 3, which relates to police. The subject I wish to raise is connected with the police. Is there any reason why Vote 4 should be taken before Vote 3? Is this by arrangement or accident?
    The CHAIRMAN: No. They are put down in this order. I shall have to call the next Vote, but if no one wishes to discuss it it can be withdrawn by general consent.
    Mr. MAXTON: By the next Vote, I take it you mean Vote 4.
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Vote is for prisons, which will include Borstal institutions but not reformatories. That comes on next, as soon as we have disposed of this Vote, but the Home Secretary can withdraw it by consent and then we should be able to get on to the Vote for Police.
    Mr. GROVES: I should like to get a reply from the Home Secretary to my question, because I shall not be able to deal with it on the next Vote.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member an answer. I have a mass of papers here relating to the case, but he only gave me notice last night and all the morning I have been engaged in a Committee upstairs, and during the afternoon I have been keeping my ears open to the speeches made by hon. Members. However, I will try and read the papers and let him have an answer to-morrow, if that will satisfy him.
    Mr. GROVES: That will satisfy me.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    PRISONS, ENGLAND AND WALES.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £503,901, 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, 1928, for the Expenses of the Prisons in England and Wales."—[Note: £500,000 has been voted on account.]

    POLICE, ENGLAND AND WALES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £3,596,102, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the
    2398
    sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, Bonus to Metropolitan Police Magistrates, the Contribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary, and other Grants in respect of Police Expenditure, including Places of Detention, and a Grant-in-Aid of the Police Federation."—[Note: £3,500,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. MAXTON: I should like to enter my mild protest against the procedure we have been adopting to-day in taking these Votes. I do not know who is responsible for the arrangement. I have some matters of importance to raise on this Police Vote. I regard the Home Secretary as being primarily and solely responsible in this House for the administration of the police services throughout the country, and if I am able to make out a case showing that these services have not been well administered during the last year, then he is the person who must take the responsibility. The time-honoured way in which a Minister's responsibility is driven severely home into his heart and head is by moving a reduction of his salary.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think I ought to say that it is an old Rule of this House that where there is a separate Vote any questions regarding the subject-matter of that Vote have to be raised on the Vote and not on the salary of the Minister who is in charge of those, and other matters.
    Mr. MAXTON: That was made very clear to me by your predecessor in the Chair, and I am making the point now that I wish the Minister's salary was open to attack on this particular issue, because he can now sit and smile at the criticisms against his Department knowing that his salary is securely in his pocket.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the contribution made by the Government to the Metropolitan Police were refused, the position of the Home Secretary would be somewhat embarrassing.
    Mr. MAXTON: I desire to refer to some of the operations of the Secret Service Department, which operates under the control of the Home Office.

    2399
    I hold strongly the view that the whole system by which the Government has a series of paid spies working at home or abroad is a disgraceful institution. It is wrong and improper that a nation, which has any self-respect, should employ spies of one kind or another to burrow into secret places, present themselves as one thing in one place and as another thing in another place, and use the information so gathered for the purpose of incriminating people who may be completely innocent. I do not know to what extent the Home Secretary has his Secret Service agents planted in other political organisations. I do not know whether any Secret Service agents are inside the Conservative party, or the Liberal party, or the Labour party, or whether they are inside the Independent Labour party, of which I happen to be a responsible official at the moment. I do not know to what extent he thinks it necessary to spy on these organisations, some of which I regard as being inimical to the national welfare. But there is strong evidence indeed to show that inside the Communist party, which the Home Secretary has described on more than one occasion as a perfectly legal organisation, which has a right to exist and carry on its work, so far as that work does not come in conflict, with the ordinary law of the country, he has planted his agents and Secret Service—
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: On a point of Order. I understand we are now discussing the Police Vote. The Secret Service does not come under the Police Vote at all. There is a separate Vote for that, and any observations with regard to the Secret Service agents are not, I submit, in order on the ordinary Police Vote.
    The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members can only raise questions in which the Metropolitan Police, including the Criminal Investigation Department at Scotland Yard, are included. The general question of the Secret Service comes under another Vote.
    Mr. MAXTON: The question I wish to bring specially to the attention of the Home Secretary has formed the subject of correspondence between Sir Wyndham Childs, whom presumably the right hon. Gentleman will not disown as a responsible
    2400
    official of his staff, and a solicitor. Does he persist in trying to deny me the right to debate the operations of a responsible official of his Department?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member is debating the operations of Sir Wyndham Childs, who is head of the Criminal Investigation Department dealing with crime in this country, that is in order, but if he is trying to debate the operations of Sir Wyndham Childs or myself as being responsible for secret service agents in various parts of the country then, I submit, that does not come under this Vote but under the Secret Service Vote, and cannot be discussed on this Vote.
    Mr. MAXTON: I do not think we need boggle about that, and I should have presumed that an orator like the right hon. Gentleman would not have grudged me an exordium. I now come to the marrow of the question. The first question I want to raise is the connection between New Scotland Yard and a person called H. R. Johnstone, who was acting as an agent for this department inside the National Unemployed Workers' Committee. I have strong evidence, what seems to me undeniable evidence, to show that this man was definitely receiving money payments from the right hon. Gentleman's Department for services rendered in the way of giving information about the internal operations of that particular movement. But this man was driven from one side to another until finally the position in which he was placed became quite insupportable and he committed suicide at Southend-on-Sea. This is one of the employés of the right hon. Gentleman; he ends his life at Southend-on-Sea, commits suicide on a certain Tuesday. The coroner's inquest takes place the next day, very rapidly, before any time is possible to make investigations into the case, and pressure was brought to bear in order to prevent the coroner's inquest following its natural course so that questions as to the man's mode of life, the work he was carrying on, the activities he was pursuing, could be brought out in Court. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman for some explanation as to the exact connection between this man and his Department, and whether his Department brought pressure

    2401
    to bear on the coroner to prevent, the ordinary operations of the law of this land to take their proper and due course. it is a thing which is very startling and alarming if it is the case that a man can be hounded to his death in this country, can be found dead, and that all the operations of the law of the country relating to inquiries into sudden deaths are not allowed to take their course because the Government has a seamy side which it wishes to hide from the general public. The name of the man was H. R. Johnstone, but presumably he had another name in his operations with Scotland Yard. His connection was with the Lewisham Committee of the National Unemployed Workers' Committee, and I shall be prepared to place all the information I have in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.
    The other case is this. Some time ago there was arrested a woman who passed under the names of Ethel Chiles and Kate Gussfeldt. She was charged with being in wrongful possession of a passport. The chief witness against her was Sir Wyndham Childs, who stated in the course of his evidence that this woman was a spy. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee why his responsible Department, who were investigating these things, and who knew that the woman was a spy, employed by a foreign country to worm out information in this country, did not proceed against her as a spy instead of merely charging her with being wrongfully in possession of a passport. In the course of his evidence Sir William Childs stated that this woman was a friend of Mrs. Helen Crawfurd, a well-known Communist, and that in Glasgow she had stopped with a brother-in-law of Mrs. Helen Crawfurd, who had presumably assisted her to evade the operations of the law of this country by changing clothes with her in the train. This was an absolutely untrue statement in so far as Mrs. Crawfurd's relations with this woman are concerned. I know Mrs. Crawfurd, I have met her, and discussed this case with her. She is a native of the same city as myself, the City of Glasgow.
    To begin with, she has no brother. A responsible official of his Department went into Court and swore one thing, and, when challenged about it by correspondence, denied that that was a fact,
    2402
    although the shorthand report of the proceedings bore out that it was a fact. This Mrs. Helen Crawfurd did not change clothes or aid this woman in any way to escape from the normal operations of the law, and the whole proceedings are a tremendous mass of contradictions. I want the right hon. Gentleman, first, to tell me why, if this woman is a spy and a known spy, she was not proceeded against as a spy. Is it because there is an international understanding that the spies of various countries must be respected by the various Governments of those countries? If she was a spy, why was she not prosecuted as a spy and not on the very minor charge of running a false passport? If he had anything like secure evidence against Mrs. Crawfurd for having aided this woman in evading the law, why has he not proceeded against Mrs. Crawfurd for so doing; and, if he has no such evidence, why does he not get his responsible officials to make, or why does he not himself make, a public contradiction of a statement which was a slander on a lady for whom I have as high regard as the Home Secretary has for any lady in his particular social circle? Why should she be slandered groundlessly by an official of his, however responsible that official may be, or however responsible a position that official may hold, and protected by the privileges that are always accorded to these people, and the additional privileges that he has through the secret nature of his work? It seems to me grossly unfair that, to put it no higher, an ungentlemanly thing like that should be allowed to pass against a woman, and that she should have no opportunity of making her character right either in the Courts or in any other way.
    The other point that I want to raise is another one of the same kind, where there was evidence of very great grave carelessness in the presentation of a fact. I know the Home Secretary's desire to cast mud on the Communists of this country; I know that practically all the Members of this House, in all parties in this House, gloat over any fact which they can get against the Communists, but I, personally, believe that the Communist has as much right to carry on his propaganda as has the right hon. Gentleman to carry on his propaganda; and I will say this, that while the Communist propaganda is not my propaganda, it is less offensive to me

    2403
    than is the right hon. Gentleman's propaganda.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member spoke just now of exordiums and perorations, but not of parentheses.
    Mr. MAXTON: I admit that that is one to you, Sir. But I think we both ought to agree that, if political opponents' doctrines are very obnoxious to us, we ought to be scrupulously careful, when we are bringing prosecutions against them, that we have something like sound evidence and are exact in the matter of bringing it forward. I find, harking back a bit to the prosecution of the 12 Communist leaders in 1925, that a certain detective-sergeant swore, on a certain occasion in that trial, that a certain document, which was a crucial document in their conviction, was said to have been found at a certain address, namely, 16, King Street. But a packet of Communist papers, Command Paper No. 2682, was issued as an official document of this House and, therefore, was presumably prepared by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, in which it was said that this document was found at 38, Great Ormond Street. It is most unfair, in dealing with political opponents, that police witnesses should be allowed to go into Court, carrying all the weight that a police witness has at any time against an ordinary citizen whose political views are not suspect—he can go into Court, if I may use a sporting term, with odds on him as against an ordinary civilian witness, and he goes in with long odds on him if the person in the dock happens to be a Communist and to have got political views that are objectionable to the Government of the day.
    Therefore, it is grossly unfair that the Government officials, carrying out the Government's wishes and commands, should use one document at one time to prove a case against a certain man and should use the same document at another time, found in a different place, and make another person or set of persons responsible for the having of that document. To use the same bit of evidence, one document, that only existed once, to find it in two places, and use it twice, is even worse than the operations of the right hon. Gentleman when he went to find one document in Arcos
    2404
    and found none at all. It is the same type of mind—I am not saying that it is the right hon. Gentleman's mind, because I believe he would like to be an honest man—
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am trying hard!
    Mr. MAXTON: The exigencies of his public position, employing, as he does, a collection of men who are paid to be dishonest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] If I am going to be out of order on this subject, what can I say without being out of order? [An HON. MEMBER: "You said dishonest!"] I used the word "dishonest" in a very limited sense. I do not wish to get across the traditions of this House, however stupid I may personally regard them as being, but it is of the essence of the thing that if a man is doing Secret Service work, he is in a dishonest relationship with the community. He is worming himself into rooms by making men believe he is one thing, while he is being paid by a Government Department for being something entirely different. Is not that essential dishonesty, and is not the word "dishonest" the appropriate word to use in this connection? The fact that the Home Secretary employs these people and depends, in deciding upon his actions, to a large extent on the reports that they send in, makes it very difficult for him to do his responsible public duty in a truly straightforward way. I said at the outset that I would gladly see the whole of this service abolished, as not being creditable to a great nation, but if it is to go on, I want the right hon. Gentleman to answer me on the points I have raised, and to disabuse my mind that in this particular phase of the activities of his Secret Service there is not deliberately unscrupulous treatment of people who happen to hold different political views from those which are prevailing in this country just now.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has, quite unwittingly, I am sure, placed me in a very great difficulty. It is usual to give me notice of points which are going to be raised in regard to the administration of the Home Office.

    2405
    Here is an enormous Vote put down, which deals with factories, workshops, prisons, aliens, reformatories, and many other things which affect the well-being of this land. I cannot hope to know every point and to have in my mind at any one moment every point which has occurred during the year.
    Mr. MAXTON: I make full apologies for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not been made aware, but I believed I had made the necessary intimation through other channels. Perhaps I ought to have spoken to him direct.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have here the intimations that did come to me, sent to me by the Chief Whip, and they are: "Factory inspectors, aliens, and London Police." I suppose that is the heading to which the hon. Member refers, but when the heading "London Police" is made to include a particular prosecution at the Old Bailey, a particular document found in a police raid, not during the last year but 18 months ago, and the suicide of a man of whom I have never heard in my life, it really is quite impossible. I have never in my life heard of this man Johnstone. I do not know who or what he was. He may or may not have been a police agent, but, unless the hon. Member gives me notice, it is impossible to give him an adequate answer.
    Mr. MAXTON: In the circumstances, I would never dream of expecting an answer from the right hon. Gentleman now, but perhaps a subsequent opportunity may be given on the Adjournment, when he will have had an opportunity of looking up the facts. But I did believe that he had been made aware of the points.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member is always so courteous. I thank him, and, of course, I will look up every point that he has made against my Department. I will have them looked up, and I will let him know—
    Captain O'CONNOR: On a point of Order. Do I understand that there is no chance of raising matters connected with the Metropolitan Police except in the limited time between now and Eight o' Clock?
    The CHAIRMAN: The time is not limited to Eight o' Clock, except by arrangement.
    Captain O'CONNOR: I understood that the Home Secretary admitted that this was a perfectly enormous Vote, and I agree with him, and it seems disconcerting to hear that between now and Eight o' Clock is the only time which we shall have for discussing the many matters which we may have desired to raise in connection with the Metropolitan Police. There are several matters that, I should very much like to raise at some time, and I should be very disconcerted if I had no opportunity of doing so. We have just concluded a trial, in which some members of the Metropolitan Police were sent to prison—I think to penal servitude—for a matter which occurred at Goodwood, and which seems to have exposed a fairly well organised system of corruption in the Metropolitan Police. It would be extraordinary if matters of that kind were not to have any further opportunity of being raised during this Debate, and before making any remarks at all I should like to know whether or not there will be another opportunity.
    The CHAIRMAN: Either the hon. and gallant Member must make his remarks, which would be in order on the Vote, or else he must move to report Progress in order to call attention to the inadequacy of the time allowed. I do not think he can make his remarks or give a description of the police under the guise of a protest against the shortness of the time at his disposal.
    Captain O'CONNOR: With deference, I have no desire to do that at all, but the matters that, I desired to raise would not be matters which could be disposed of in a few moments, and I wanted to know whether this was the only opportunity.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member should move formally to report Progress.
    Captain O'CONNOR: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    I do so for the purpose of finding out from the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to put down this large Vote for discussion on a future occasion in order that the matter of the administration of

    2407
    the Metropolitan Police may be reviewed somewhat more fully than is possible in the time at our disposal to-night.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid that I must give the hon. Member the same answer which I gave to the hon. Member opposite. At the moment it is quite impossible for me to give him any reply. Undoubtedly there has been an arrangement made through the usual channels in order to give the party opposite an opportunity of raising these questions in Committee of Supply. As those who know the House are aware, it is always usual in Supply to give the Opposition an opportunity of criticising the Government upon details of administration, and they have the right to put down from time to time any particular Vote on a Supply day. This Vote has been put down for to-day. May I suggest, therefore, to my hon. Friend that if he will give me notice of the subjects which he wishes to raise, and will raise them on the Second or Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, the week after next, as far as I and the Chief Whip are concerned, we will endeavour to arrange for an opportunity to raise these matters, and I will be prepared to give my hon. Friend an answer.
    Captain O'CONNOR: May I understand the position? Several very important things in connection with police administration have happened during the last three months. There is, for example, the Arcos raid, which the right hon. Gentleman will recognise was a very important police operation, one which we might wish to criticise or approve. Is it quite clear that any matter affecting police administration can be raised on the Appropriation Bill?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Appropriation Bill is a Bill which appropriates money voted by this House for Government services, and included in that Bill will be money devoted to the activities under the control of the Home Office. There will be so many shillings or thousands of pounds for the Metropolitan Police.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Are we to assume that a Member who makes a point in this Debate is to get a promise from a Front Bench Minister that he will get
    2408
    a place in the Debate on the Appropriation Bill? That is what it amounts to. The Home Secretary says that the hon. and learned Gentleman can raise his point on that Bill. The Home Secretary has no right to abrogate the functions of this House, and the hon. Member has no right to a prior claim over other Members.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member raises that as a point of Order, the position is that on the Appropriation Bill the Chair decides what subjects are to come before the Committee. What I understood the Home Secretary to mean was that he would use his influence through the usual channels in order that time might be found for this particular discussion.
    Captain O'CONNOR: In view of the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    I think, Mr. Hope, that the Committee might report Progress, and get on to the other matter, which, I understand is likely to occupy three or four hours.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is rather unusual for a Motion of that kind to be moved, after a previous Motion has been withdrawn, but I think, in the circumstances, to take that view would be rather pedantic.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: On a point of explanation. I have been sitting here all day long in order to talk about something.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman's point is relevant to the Motion to report Progress, he will have an opportunity of raising it. As I said, I think it would be rather pedantic to take the view that it could not be moved, and I will therefore accept the Motion.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Can you tell me whether it is possible to talk about the reform of industrial schools? I have been 18 months now wanting to talk about these things.
    The CHAIRMAN: I can answer that question at once. On the last Vote which was agreed to in silence, the hon. Gentleman

    2409
    could have talked about Borstal institutions. As to reformatory and industrial schools, they are under a separate Vote. I believe they are included under Vote 5, which does not appear on the Order Paper to-day. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about that subject, I suggest that he should convey his wishes through the usual channels which are open to him.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (DEFAULT) ACT, 1926.
    Mr. BARNES: I beg to move
    "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Order, dated the 17th day of June, 1927, made by the Minister of Health under the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, 1926, and entitled the West Ham Union Default Order (Continuation) Order, 1927, be annulled."
    We desire to submit this Address to the Crown to enable the House to review the situation which has prevailed in the West Ham Union area for a period of 12 months since the Guardians (Default) Act was passed; and we trust that this will provide an opportunity for the Minister of Health to state his future policy in regard to the Union of West Ham. When this Bill was introduced in July of last year, the Minister had proposals before the country, if not before this House, which involved the reorganisation of the Poor Law, and I believe that it is no exaggeration to say that the House discussed the Guardians (Default) Act with the idea in its mind that it was a purely temporary Measure, and that probably it would be followed very shortly by a comprehensive review, and possibly by an enactment, in regard to our Poor Law administration. Now political circumstances appear to be making the re-organisation of the Poor Law as far as a new Act of Parliament is concerned somewhat remote. Therefore, I feel that, inasmuch as when this Default Act was passed, it was described by the Minister himself as a temporary Measure, those of us who represent this particular district are entitled before another six months' period of administration and power are given to the appointed
    2410
    guardians, to have a full statement of the Minister's policy and his views.
    I feel that we can claim that we are not making an unfair request, because if the Minister's remarks, which are reported on column 1639 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, Volume 197, are referred to, I believe it will be clearly seen that he looked upon this as a purely temporary proposal. As a matter of fact, the thing which concerns those who represent this union area is the fact that for a period of 12 months we have lost a part of our civil administration. The Minister has claimed with a good deal of gratification, and I think the Conservative party supports his policy, which has been blazoned forth in the Press as being a very admirable action on the part of the House of Commons. But those of us who live in the area take an entirely different view. Therefore, I propose to ask the Minister this evening to state the position as he sees it, and to tell us how long the injustice of this policy is going to prevail in this area.
    May I also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can give us any indication as to the possibilities of a new Poor Law Bill being introduced in the near future, such as he indicated last year? If so, can he tell us what effect it will have on the position in West Ham, because it does appear to those who are concerned intimately with this subject that if any radical reform of the Poor Law administration is to take place in this country, that might provide an opportunity for the appointed guardians in West Ham to be superseded, and we might then revert to the normal state of administration in that area. If it is not the Minister's intention to proceed along those lines, I think we are entitled to ask him whether he intends to carry on this system indefinitely in West Ham? As representatives of the public of that area, I think we may claim to be more representative than even the Minister himself, and we are entitled to ask that that question should receive a definite answer.
    When the Bill was before the House in July of last year, other Labour representatives from the district and I pressed upon the Minister that before the Bill was passed, and the new method was put into operation, a full inquiry and investigation should take place into the

    2411
    facts. I wish to repeat that again. I do not think that any Member of the House can argue that the representatives of the Labour party in that area, either Members of Parliament or those who represent the Labour party on the local council, or even the members of the late board of guardians themselves, have ever refused to collaborate or co-operate in a full inquiry into the facts. As a matter of fact, we would welcome such an inquiry, because we believe that the more the facts as they prevail in the Union of West Ham are brought to light, the more this impression that at present prevails and which has been fostered by the Press, and which we claim to be a gross inaccuracy, is likely to disappear, and the real problem that confronts the Minister of Health will emerge.
    I should like to submit that again to the Minister, and to ask him whether, instead of this Order to continue the board of appointed guardians in this particular district for a further six months, it would not be better to have a full and impartial inquiry into the whole of the circumstances? I think we are in an even stronger position in urging that to-day, because the circumstances of 12 months ago were more or less one-sided. We had not then had any opportunity of contrasting the new system with other administrations, but to-day the administration of the present guardians and the effect of their policy can be contrasted with the effect of the policy of the old guardians. As a result of two or three years of controversy which has surrounded this district, it is quite obvious to those of us who know the facts that the public can be easily misled.
    8.0 p.m.
    It is always a difficult matter to get even residents interested in material facts involved in a problem of this nature, and when we realise the mass of people who are outside the area, who do not reside in it, and do not know the state of the population, the condition of unemployment, the amount of poverty, and the trading and commercial conditions which prevail, obviously it is impossible for the public at large to form any competent or well-informed opinion. You have the Press grossly misrepresenting the whole situation in a way which we claim is a deliberate policy, and not only the Press of London, but I have also come across
    2412
    references in provincial papers to the situation in West Ham, and it is very difficult to prevent oneself from becoming increasingly embittered by a situation which faces one from day to day, and when you see the vehicles of public opinion, upon which democracy depends, distorting the facts in the way they have. As a matter of fact poor districts in regard to social problems are very much like poor persons; it is very difficult for them to find friends. Naturally for the richer areas there arises the issue of the equalisation of rates. I do not think the Minister in charge of the Department surveying the whole basis of our public and social life should lend himself to any policy which is opposed to the rights of the poorer areas. As a matter of fact, an area like West Ham challenges the conscience of capitalists and of the well-to-do people of this country. No one can give any attention to the massed poverty in the East End of London without realising that its magnitude is such as to call for serious consideration from Parliament. We have seen in the case of West Ham a few cases of abuse trumped up by the Minister of Health, the Government, and the Press to excuse them from applying a real remedy. I have no hesitation in saying that, when it comes to the question of unemployment in West Ham and the problem of their relief, the standard of morality in that district will compare very favourably with the standard of morality in the West End or Mayfair or anywhere else.
    When this Bill was introduced, if I understand the Minister correctly, he based his case on three main points. First financial, that the late guardians were in debt to the tune of £2,000,000 and were still proceeding to borrow heavily to meet other purposes. A second accusation was that their administration was extravagant, and that they did not exercise the necessary care to discriminate between various individual cases to which they gave relief. His third point was based on moral grounds. He stated that in some quarters there was open and unabashed corruption of the electorate, but I venture to suggest no one can read the Debate and the arguments of the Minister himself without admitting that he failed entirely to

    2413
    justify his charge. He never attempted to explain to this House why the guardians were in debt to the tune of £2,000,000, and why they were prepared to borrow further. He quoted one or two cases of extravagance, but he could not prove that the main part of the administration was extravagant. As far as moral grounds are concerned, I submit there is no administration in which you cannot detect weaknesses. If it is a business or an organisation, we have to evolve machinery to check abuse. But I have no instances where cases of abuse have been used as an excuse to take away the honest character of a whole district.
    Let me try to put our view broadly on these issues which the Minister has raised. West Ham is £2,000,000 in debt, but surely nobody would say it arises from administrative reasons. It arises because within the area the bulk of labour is very lowly paid and the employment of the district is mainly of a casual nature. When you have seven winters of abnormal unemployment as we have had in recent years and you get the workers of a good town massed together as you have them in the West Ham area, it follows that the burden of unemployment and destitution falls heavily on that district. West Ham is not peculiar in that way. Sheffield and Middlesbrough and other areas are classified as necessitous areas and all of them have been pressing upon the Government since 1920 the necessity of something in the way of equalisation of rating to enable them to carry their continuous burdens arising from unemployment. I have attended many conferences of necessitous areas in recent years. I have been with deputations to various Government Departments, and what has emerged from all these conferences and discussions? It is that, bad as many areas up and down the country may be, in all the statistics and comparisons made, West Ham is the poorest and most difficult of all the necessitous areas throughout the country. Therefore, knowing all these facts, it was not open to the right hon. Gentleman to come forward and try to argue that the debt had arisen in West Ham as the result of financial muddle, extravagant administration, and bad morals. The game he is playing is low indeed. It is part of the Conservative party's policy to save the taxpayer at the expense of
    2414
    the ratepayer and that has been a problem of the necessitous areas. The taxpayer, the well-to-do member of the community, ought to bear a fair proportion of the national burdens, and, if all this burden of the necessitous areas were imposed on the Treasury, it would operate in the form of an equalisation of rates, and the well-to-do people would be compelled to contribute their share. But by keeping this burden on the rates the poor people in these necessitous areas have to carry their own charges. It is the old policy of segregating the classes. If capitalists so arrange their business that people get an insufficient wage to enable them to live away from the factories, at least they might have the decency to tackle the problem and help to carry the burden when it arises.
    We come now to the point of extravagant administration. I wish to submit that hon. Members have never had the facts before them to enable them to decide whether or not there has been extravagant administration in West Ham. As a, public representative, I have never had the facts submitted to me in this House in an impartial way, properly investigated and tested in every way by proper inquiry. As I live in the area, I can grasp in a broad and general way that there has been extravagant administration, but as far as I can see the whole of this trouble commences from the fact that the maximum of 55s. a week for a family of eight was considered too much. I can say quite definitely, whether an area is poor or rich, that I do not intend to subscribe to the doctrine that the sum of 55s. a week is extravagant for a family of eight persons. Far from extravagant, it is a miserable amount for any family to exist on to-day. You cannot always give people what they are entitled to, but it does not destroy the fact that the Minister has merely made statements, and has never been able to submit to the House the facts on which he bases his charges. Let us take, first, the question of extravagant administration and the charge of open and unabashed corruption. I suggest there is no political party in which there is such a high standard of public life as among the Members of the Labour party generally. I do not claim that every individual Member does not make mistakes like everybody else, but, taking the Labour administration

    2415
    as a whole, it compares favourably with the Conservative party as far as we can judge, and the charge of open, unabashed corruption does not come very well from them. I can cast my mind back to a very recent incident that occurred on the Finance Bill.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain. FitzRoy): The hon. Member is now discussing the reasons why the appointed guardians were set up, but the Prayer is that the Order should be annulled.
    Mr. BARNES: What I would like to submit to you is this. The Order, as we understand it now, will re-appoint the guardians for a further period of six months. That still involves the late guardians, and our intention is to ascertain whether the right hon. Gentleman still levels the same charge against the people and their representatives in West Ham. To deal with that argument, you must submit the whole case and give all the circumstances as presented last year.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That point might be taken, but, if the hon. Member will cast his mind back to the previous Debate, he will find that the Question then before the House was whether or not the appointed guardians should be appointed or not. The Question now before us is whether the appointed guardians should be continued or not, whether the Order should be annulled or not.
    Miss LAWRENCE: I submit that the whole question is now open for discussion by the House. The House passed a temporary Rule. It would be better for the district if the old members were put back, and I submit that the whole matter has come to an end with the expiry of the Rule.
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): On that point of Order. I have no desire to limit discussion, but it does make a difference as to the line the discussion is going to take if we knew what is in order or not, and I would like to submit to you that the question to be decided is whether any new facts have arisen which would make the continuance in office of the guardians appointed under the original Order undesirable. If we are only to have a repetition of the arguments which were
    2416
    used against the original appointment of these guardians, then we are going back to a point which has already been decided by the House.
    Miss LAWRENCE: The House has decided nothing whatever except that these guardians shall continue in office until the day fixed. The whole matter, I submit, is now open for discussion. We start afresh. The question is whether we shall have the new or old guardians. Nothing whatever has been decided by the House after the date of expiry.
    Mr. GROVES: In view of the fact that the present position results from an Order by the Minister and not from the discussion of an Estimate, I submit the time is opportune to have the discussion. The complaint we have against the work of the present guardians is directed, of course, towards the point that they should not be given a further six months' leave.
    Mr. BARNES: Before you give a final ruling, Sir, may I submit that if the House does not approve of this Order the present term of office of the appointed guardians will come to an end. If it is necessary that this Order should be passed so as to continue the appointed guardians in office, surely that demonstrates that the previous Order was purely temporary in character and that we are now considering a new situation.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I draw your attention, Sir, to the provisions of the Act of Parliament? It provides first that an Order may be made appointing guardians for a period not exceeding 12 months. It then goes on to say:
    "The Minister may, at any time … by order extend for a period not exceeding six months, the term of office of such guardians."
    That shows quite clearly that the possibility of the extension of the Order was contemplated. There is a sort of proviso to the effect that if either House within 21 days after the supplementary Order has been made presents an Address to His Majesty, praying that the Order may be annulled, then the Order is to be annulled. I suggest that the original discussion on the Bill covered the point of the original appointment and the extension of the appointment of the guardians, subject to any new facts which might be brought out showing that the guardians ought not now to be reappointed.
    Mr. WEBB: The right hon. Gentleman's argument destroys itself. He has said that Parliament gave the Minister discretion to extend the Order within certain limits, but it is exactly in reference to that discretion that complaint has been made. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Ham (Mr. Barnes) is attempting to show that the Minister ought not to have exercised the discretion, and that question the House has never yet decided. This is the first, and I submit, the right opportunity for deciding whether, in the opinion of the House, the Minister has properly exercised the discretion which the Act of Parliament has given him. In order to discuss that question it is, I submit, in order to consider whether the action of the late guardians was such that they should continue to be exiled and deposed. Consequently it is fair to consider whether their offence—if it be an offence—has not been sufficiently met by the punishment of deposition for one year, or whether the Minister, in his discretion, is justified in continuing that punishment. In that connection, not only the action of the Minister's own guardians, comes into question, but also the gravity of the offence of the original guardians which we have now to consider.
    Mr. W. THORNE: I understand one of the reasons why the Minister proposes to give these gentlemen another period of office is the fact that he claims they have saved some thousands of pounds. It seems to me we are entitled to examine the question of whether they have, or have not, saved this money.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear!
    Mr. THORNE: And we are also entitled to examine the question of the treatment which they have meted out to the poor people.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear!
    Miss LAWRENCE: We want to show that the old guardians were, on the whole, better than the new guardians. How can we do so, if we may not refer to the conduct of the old guardians in order to make a comparison with the conduct of the new guardians.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the different points of view which have been
    2418
    placed before me by various hon. Members do not affect the ruling I have given. I never suggested that the conduct of the appointed guardians should not be reviewed. That seems to be a very reasonable subject of Debate on a Motion like this. The only ruling which I gave was that a discussion of the conduct of the late guardians as the reason for the original appointment of the appointed guardians and for the Order of the Minister was not in order upon this occasion, because that question has already been settled by the House. This Motion only deals with whether the Order should be annulled or not. I understand that is the subject of the Prayer and that is the only subject we are discussing.
    Mr. WEBB: I understand from your ruling, Sir, that you consider it would not be in order to discuss whether the conduct of the original guardians was such as to justify the making of the original Order, but the point now is whether the conduct of the guardians was such as to justify a continuance of the Order for a period longer than the original Order.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has, in better words than I could have expressed it, stated the ruling which I have just given.
    Mr. BARNES: It was not my intention to occupy time on the point with which I was dealing. What I was trying to impress upon the Minister and the House was the fact that the present policy is based on charges of corruption against the late board of guardians—among other charges. I had not intended to discuss whether those charges were well-founded or not. I was going to point to an incident of a few days ago, since we are on the question of political corruption. Hon. Members opposite a few days ago were pressing the Chancellor very effectively on the question of five-men companies disgorging amounts which ought to have been paid into the Treasury in taxation. We might very well argue that a form of political corruption was involved in that matter. It was my intention to quote certain words of the Minister of Health and to apply them to that position, in order to show the dangers which arise in connection with matters of this description. When the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act was being considered

    2419
    last year the Minister used these words:
    "Those who are made the recipients of relief and who are unable to support themselves are no longer disfranchised, and they have a voice, and sometimes it may be the deciding voice, in the election of those whose duty it is to distribute relief. Put those two facts together, and I do not think anybody can deny that, human nature being what it is, you have there a very serious danger of political corruption."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1926; col. 1641, Vol. 197.]
    I should like to turn those words round a little and apply them to the case which I have just mentioned. They would then read:
    "Those who benefit from gaps in the administration of the Inland Revenue have a voice, and sometimes it may be the deciding voice, in the policy of the Government, whose duty it is to impose these taxes. Put those two facts together and I do not think anybody can deny that, human nature being what it is, you have there a very serious danger of political corruption."
    I do not think anyone on this side of the House would feel justified in upsetting a Conservative administration in another field because of an incident of that sort. We claim with equal force that a Conservative Government and a Conservative Minister, having obtained power in Parliament by special circumstances which had no relation to the administration of the West Ham guardians, have no right to complain of the morality of that local administration, purely from motives of political partisanship. The Minister in appointing these guardians was supposed to be acting in the interests of the ratepayers of West Ham. The appointed guardians have been in office for 12 months and there has been no reduction in the rates. In their recent report the appointed guardians bemoan the fact that West Ham, East Ham, Leyton and Waltham-stow have not passed on to their ratepayers the reduction of 2d. which has been made. It is all very well for these appointed guardians to claim that they have enabled a reduction to be made in the call on the ratepayers. The hon. Member for Stratford who is to follow me will prove why that reduction in the call has not been passed on. All that has happened is that the burdens and the responsibilities which the appointed guardians should have met have been passed on by them, and they have raised
    2420
    new burdens in other administrative fields which the local councils in that area have had to bear.
    Our information from West Ham is that there is only one way of producing the reduction of rates which the residents are entitled to, and that is either by bringing West Ham into a common poor fund system such as prevails in the London County Council area, by some equalisation of rating over a larger area than a union or by some grant from the Exchequer. During the Second Reading of the Bill I ventured the opinion that if it reduced the cost of Poor Law administration in West Ham it would only do so by cutting down relief over the whole range of applicants and in every direction. One has only to look at the two reports submitted by the appointed guardians to see that that prediction has been justified by subsequent events. In the first place they reduced the expenditure for which they were liable by an all-over cut of 25 per cent. I want hon. Members opposite to realise what a drastic reduction that 25 per cent. represents. It is true that the Minister may say that the actual decision to make the cut was come to by the late board of guardians. As I understand it, it was made by the clerk in the last two or three weeks of their administration because funds had been stopped, but they never actually sanctioned it and I think we can say legitimately that that cut was the first act under the Minister's, policy. It has not brought anything like the relief alleged, but nevertheless it appears to point to the fact that the only way of economising was not by dealing with the instances of extravagant administration which had been alleged but by undertaking an allover cut. We are told in the second report that even that has not been sufficient, and a further 10 per cent. cut is to be made in certain categories.
    The policy of the guardians has been particularly brutal not only as regards these all-over cuts but in their methods of forcing payment from people who can ill-afford to repay. We are not trying to prove to-night individual cases of hardship. Our real case is that the policy of the appointed guardians has resulted in universal hardship—that is, with hardly any exceptions. I want now to give a case to show the methods adopted by the appointed guardians in their efforts to

    2421
    secure repayment of assistance given. This is a case of a minister—not that the minister himself was subjected to a cut in relief. I will give the name of this clergyman if necessary, for he does not ask me to withhold it, but it is not desirable to mention names unless it is absolutely essential to do so. In the course of his work this clergyman discovered a woman suffering from an ulcerated leg—a running leg. She required hospital treatment, and he was able to secure her admission to a hospital. The father of the family was a ne'er-do-well and did not attempt to support his family while the mother was in hospital, and the clergyman secured the admission of the four children of the family to the guardians' home on the undertaking that he would meet the charges. The children were there for a month, and when they came out the guardians sent to this clergyman a bill for 18 guineas, with an intimation that if he did not pay they would take action against him.
    This is the policy they have adopted towards those who by their training and education are not able to protect themselves against brutal treatment of this sort. The clergyman was made of different stuff. He was not going to submit to such treatment, and flatly refused to pay the 18 guineas, and eventually they let him off for £5. It is by methods of this description, applied to a number of poor people, that the guardians are able to claim they have secured so much repayment. The point I wish to make is this: The guardians' scale of relief at that time for a man and wife living together was 14s. 6d. a week and for a man and a wife with four children 29s. 6d., the allowance for four children being 15s. a week, or 3s. 9d. for each child; but when it came to charging this clergyman for the maintenance of these children they charged him £1 3s. 7d. a week for each child. When they are distributing relief they give 3s. 9d. a week for a child—and now 10 per cent. is to come off those children's allowances, if they are the children of men able to work—that is 4½d. off the allowance for each of these impoverished children. I congratulate hon. Members opposite and their Government on their business methods.
    2422
    Regarding the attitude taken up by the Press, I have here an edition of "The Children's Newspaper," published on 22nd January. This is a paper which is supposed to be circulated amongst children, intended for children's minds. This is how they treat the case of West Ham. I am mentioning this in connection with the action of the guardians in regard to the charge they make for children in their institution and the allowance they make to working people who have to maintain them in their own homes. The paper says:
    "Something like a miracle has been worked by three men in West Ham. They are the three Poor Law guardians whom the Government sent to take the place of the elected guardians who had brought the town to the brink of ruin by their extravagance. The miracle has not been worked by magic, but merely by common sense, care and industry. An examination of the cases which were receiving relief showed that one person in every four did not need relief at all, and it was found that the rest could be given the relief they required for little more than half what had been spent before. With winter coming on and with 10,000 able-bodied men requiring relief instead of work the new guardians had to consider whether there was anything they could do to provide more employment."
    I would like the Minister to tell us how many men the guardians have put into work as the result of their policy. It is all very well for stuff of that description to be put into the papers in support of this policy, but what can any of those children who are getting 3s. 9d. per week be expected to think when they read about miracles worked at their expense? Then hon. Members opposite wonder why there are Bolshevists and revolutionaries in these areas. How can children who have passed through these experiences have any respect when they become grown up men and women for a system which has taken it out of their bodies and souls in that way? We are told that the number of persons has been cut down by one-half, and the number of cases reduced by one-half. I would like the Minister to submit evidence that the old guardians were giving extravagant relief in those 50 per cent, of cases which it is said have not been justified. That is the kind of evidence we should have. It is all very well for the guardians to say that they have cut down the cases by one-half, and that they have cut down the amount of money distributed by one-half. Where is the evidence by which

    2423
    that policy can be justified? The people whose allowances have been cut off are people who were entitled to those allowances, and they come to us and complain of their treatment. It is no use Members on this side conveying those complaints to the Minister of Health or taking them to the board of guardians. I ask, what right has the Minister of Health or anyone else to impose an administration in West Ham which neglects the representative side of our institutions? The Minister of Health cannot claim that he has the support of the people in West Ham for the policy which he has adopted. He may have the support of a misguided public outside those areas, but the ratepayers of West Ham do not support his policy, and no one can claim that they do.
    Mr. E. ALEXANDER: Yes, I can.
    Mr. BARNES: At any rate, there is a much larger representation of Labour in West Ham than there is of the Conservative party. I do not deny that at first this policy was supported by the Conservative party in West Ham, but even Conservative supporters are now a dwindling quantity. I am not making statements which I cannot prove. The results of the municipal elections in West Ham last November showed that practically the bulk of the candidates in that area who were returned were opposed to the policy adopted by the appointed guardians, and I challenge any hon. Member to produce evidence to prove that that policy has been approved by the people of West Ham. As a matter of fact, it has not been approved by the ratepayers. The appointed guardians, in the concluding paragraph of their Report, referred to the fact that, despite the 25 per cent, cut and the further 10 per cent. cut in the expenditure, there is no hope of any immediate relief in the rates of any substantial character.
    The appointed guardians say that they cannot commence to repay the principal in regard to those scheduled amounts, and that are aiming to get back the West Ham Union area to the expenditure which was in vogue in 1920. The appointed guardians believe that it is possible by administration to get the charge for the Poor Law purposes in the West Ham Union back to what it was in 1920, and what does that mean? We
    2424
    do not expect hon. Members opposite to support us in every direction, but I should like to ask what this proposal means looked at as a business proposition? Take the figures for unemployment. I will take the official figures in order to show that I do not exaggerate. Taking the national unemployment fund in 1920, the benefits paid out amounted to £1,009,000. That was just before the slump commenced in 1921, when the amount jumped from £1,000,000 to £34,000,000, which was the amount paid out in that year. That shows conclusively that in 1920 we had practically a period of no unemployment. We know that that represented the end of the post-War boom period, and in May and June, 1920, things were at their best. From that time the figures went up with increasing rapidity, and in 1921 the figure jumped from £1,000,000 to £34,000,000; in 1922 it was £52,000,000; in 1923, £41,000,000; in 1924, £36,000,000; in 1925, £44,000,000; and in 1926, £43,000,000.
    Is any hon. Member going to say that in July of this year, taking a period including 1927, there has been any material change in that figure? If there has been no material change in the volume of unemployment, surely hon. Members will admit that the cumulative effect of seven winters of phenomenal unemployment in an area like West Ham has been most disastrous and exhaustive. No wonder that under these circumstances hon. Members opposite, who are investigating every avenue of economy, are finding it more difficult to apply their methods. Can anyone visualise the situation in an area like West Ham, where there were no reserves to commence with, and where the people who happened to be out of work for only a few weeks found themselves on the rocks immediately. In the face of these facts the appointed guardians submit a report in which they say that by careful administrative methods they believe they can get the blackest spot in the country back to the situation in which it stood in 1920. That is a preposterous suggestion. In 1920 the unemployment figures were under 2 per cent.; in April, 1926, just before this Bill was passed, the percentage was 9·1 for insured persons; and in April, 1927, the percentage was 9·4 per cent. The percentage of unemployment for the five weeks ending April, 1926, was 27 per

    2425
    cent., and in April, 1927, it was 25 per cent. Surely in the face of these circumstances the Minister cannot stand here and endorse the paragraph I have quoted from the report of the appointed guardians.
    I wish also to refer to the action of the appointed guardians in reference to traders. I have had placed before me one or two cases of peculiar hardship arising out of the system of registration of traders adopted by the guardians. They are instances of small traders owning small shops, and they now find themselves cut out from the register of traders because they failed to see the notice published in the local Press. When I made representations to the guardians on this question it had no effect, and this suggests to me that their whole policy is to look after the well-to-do and ignore those who find it difficult to make both ends meet. In reply to my representations on behalf of these small traders I was told that the amounts were very small indeed. The guardians told me that in the case of Mr. A the amount of trade was only £1 10s. per week, and that in the case of Mr. B it was only £2 10s. per week. Those amounts may not seem very large, but in the case of tradesmen supplying small quantities of goods to a large number of people over along period, it is an essential thing for those traders to retain the business of their customers, and if that trade over a period of six months is going to be broken down and these poor people take their relief tickets elsewhere, then these small traders lose their trade. Questions of this kind should be at once taken up by the Minister of Health.
    In conclusion, I wish to summarise my views. I assert that the administration of the Appointed Guardians in West Ham and the policy adopted by the Minister of Health represents, if you like, in West Ham one of the backwaters of our capitalistic system of society. Areas like West Ham have to suffer all the disadvantages of the competitive system, fluctuations in employment, and matters of that description which fall with an increasing intensity upon the people who reside in areas like West Ham. Their battle with life, under the best of conditions, is a difficult one. The fact that they are in and out of employment does not equip them to hold their end up in all respects under our modern administrative
    2426
    methods. But the Conservative party and the Minister of Health, taking advantage of a situation of that description, supersede the elected representatives of the people, who have been born amongst them, who have lived amongst them, who understand their difficulties and can meet cases of hardship with some sympathy—hon. Members say with generosity, but whether there is generosity or extravagance does not matter very much, because the limit was well within the requisite needs. When you supersede that kind of person, and get a well equipped, trained civil servant, the professional type of person in this country, taking something like £30 a week, and you put that well equipped, trained official down to administer a policy where all the time he is using his better equipment to take it out of people with 30s. and £2 a week, I cannot conceive of anything more brutal and despicable than using trained intelligence to defraud of their rights and opportunities the untrained element in our midst.
    Mr. GROVES: I beg to second the Motion.
    I want, if I can, to give the Minister one or two illustrations of the reasons why these guardians should not have any renewal of their office. My first indictment would be that they are not guardians. Guardians, in my estimation, are for the purpose of preventing destitution administratively, and, in reviewing one of the reports of the new guardians, I was struck with their statement that their efforts were directed to making able-bodied men seek work or obtain their own maintenance, and only go to the guardians as a last resort. I do not raise any special objection to that particular point, provided that the point itself comes within the ambit of some sort of definition. Therefore, I wish to submit to the Minister that, if he is prepared to accept the definition of "last resort" as laid down by an ex-legal adviser of the Local Government Board, Mr. Adrian, I am sure we should be able to proceed with this Debate, not only upon an equal footing, but upon terms which will be respectively understood by both sides. Mr. Adrian, in giving evidence before the Government Commission, said:
    "The last resort can be quite well defined as a person without material resources

    2427
    directly available, or material resources appropriate for satisfying his physical needs, or in order to maintain life, or to obviate, mitigate or remove causes endangering life, or likely to impair health or bodily fitness."
    I am prepared to accept that in this argument, and to address my remarks to a criticism and, I hope, denunciation of both the reports issued by the new guardians, and to submit to the Minister of Health certain definite acts and facts which I feel, if he has any tenderness of heart at all to-night, must cause him to make up his mind that his three nominees cannot continue their particular class of work.
    I quite appreciate that, owing to certain Acts of this House covering the past 30 years, the Poor Law as such has been narrowed. West Ham has participated, I quite appreciate, in old age pensions and social services generally. The feeding of school children, unemployment insurance, and health insurance, all tend to keep people off the Poor Law. But, of course, we must be prepared to appreciate the fact that the Poor Law system of this country is still the oldest and greatest social service, and it exists exclusively in order to meet the point. I have just submitted, namely, the prevention of destitution. I submit to the Minister of Health that the actual work during the past 12 months of these West Ham Guardians has been quite contrary to the actual Acts of Parliament, which lay obligations upon the Ministers of the Crown and also upon local administrative authorities called guardians. Therefore, I am going to ask the House first of all to walk with me through their first Report.
    I am very sorry that it is out of order to comment in any way upon the work of the old guardians, relatively, because there have been many degrees of criticism with regard to the old guardians, on the ground that they were, presumably, over-generous or extravagant in some of the measures with which they met the general poverty and apparent destitution of the area. But I want to say, in a word or two, that it appeared to me that the attitude of the old guardians was that it was cheaper to prevent poverty than to cure it, that, if it was possible to prevent destitution, it was cheaper to prevent it than to incur the necessary expenditure
    2428
    on social services to meet the dire facts of poverty that exist. I am going to criticise these two Reports in the presence of the Minister of Health, because he himself is so specially interested in the work of the new guardians. He himself came down to West Ham three weeks ago. I do not say anything unduly hard against him for going to the infirmary and speaking to the nurses. I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Health would visit any ordinary Poor Law institution. But it appears to me that the Minister of Health only visited West Ham because, as he admits, he is specially interested in the work of these particular guardians. I am going to quote an extract from his own speech. He said:
    "This particular union was said in some quarters to belong to the Ministry of Health. It did not. He assured them that it was not correct that Sir Alfred Wood-gate and Mr. Beal were in his pocket. It was true that he was responsible for persuading them to undertake their present duties, and, therefore, it was natural that he should watch with special interest the work which they were doing with so much credit to themselves and so much benefit to the community."
    Mr. E. ALEXANDER: Hear, hear!
    Mr. J. JONES: That is a lie. We will deal with you later.
    Mr. GROVES: I trust that the few facts which I am going to put before the House with regard to the first Report of the guardians will be carefully listened to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Leyton (Mr. E. Alexander), and we will see if he will cheer those passages as I proceed. The Minister of Health speaks with regard to the credit of the guardians and the benefit of the community. Listen to what they say on the first page of their own Report. The House will understand that they came into office on the 20th July, and this is their first Report, which takes them up till the 30th October. They admit, on the first page, that, following their six months' work, there are 51 fewer people in the sick home, 62 fewer people in the infirmary, 26 fewer children sent to the convalescent home at Margate, but 80 more people in the workhouse, and 25 more people went mad during their first six months of office.
    Mr. E. ALEXANDER: Is that cause and effect?
    Mr. GROVES: That is their Report. They state that 19,006 fewer people were on relief. Then, on page 8, they deal, under the heading of institutions, with the nurses and their general conditions, that is to say, the nurses to whom the Minister of Health presented these medals. They call attention to the work of the old guardians when they reduced the working hours of the nurses from 55 to 48. I say that 48 hours' work per week is sufficient for ordinary nurses in any hospital or institution. These people boast that they have increased the working hours from 48 to 56 per week. At the end of their first Report they admit that they reduced the relief by 48 per cent. That may sound all right in ordinary propaganda, but I am going to point out quite dispassionately exactly how this relief has been reduced and the exact effect of it upon the community, because I am going to approach the subject on the assumption and in the full belief that the Minister, in the few hours we are going to give to the discussion of this appeal by us, is going to approach the results in a perfectly open way, otherwise the Debate would not be worth having. I am going to prove that the work of these guardians has been not the work of real guardians of the poor but of oppressors of the poor, that where bread existed previously in the homes of the poor, it is now not there, that where men, under the old guardians, did receive perhaps 15s. a week to live on, now they are driven down to live on 1s. a day. They cannot live on 1s. a day. West Ham has a great history. It produced such men as Thomas Hood, who wrote:
    "Oh God that bread should be so dear,
    And flesh and blood so cheap."
    We are going to prove to-night the vivid application of those words, because it is reasonable to assume that the reduction in relief has meant malnutrition in mothers, it is a singular fact that our fever hospital is full, it is a fact that the waiting list of women to enter our sanatorium is very much greater at this moment than before, and I am authorised to state by Dr. and Mrs. Watkins and the matron of the Plaistow Maternity Home—these are their Own words—that
    "since the reduction of relief in West Ham the constitutional and physical appearance of the mothers and children attending the Plaistow Maternity Clinic is obviously a process of deterioration."
    2430
    I will repeat those names—Dr. and Mrs. Watkins in charge, and the matron, Miss Davis. With regard to infantile mortality, up to 1919 West Ham was among the highest of the industrial towns in the country. There is no getting away from that fact. Between 1919 and 1926, in the era of this assumed extravagant Poor Law relief, it is an evident fact that the infantile mortality of West Ham was among the lowest of the industrial towns, and since 1926 the rate is steadily moving in the wrong direction.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Since January 1926?
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. GROVES: I do not know the month. The figures are available. They will be presented by someone else. The guardians have presented Report No. 2, in which they indicate that they have reduced the amount of relief per person from 8s. 5½d. to 5s. 6½d. per week per head. I think that report will bring us to grips with the actual position. I want to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to one or two humorous passages in the report. The hon. Member for Layton, who is to reply to our case will have a nice task when he hears this, on page 4 of Report No. 2, covering the period from 1st November, 1926, to 31st May this year:
    "Under the late guardians' administration it was the custom to give a coal allowance in practically every case, without discrimination as to whether the recipient was living with relatives and sharing a fire with them or whether such person had access to a heated living room, as obtains in most lodging houses. During the consideration of the hard cases alluded to in the preceding paragraph the guardians became aware that one of the factors advanced during the summer months by many of the applicants was that coal had to be bought for cooking and other purposes. After careful consideration the guardians decided that the proper course to pursue was not to make a coal allowance as such, but to give instead an allowance to cover the increased cost of living in winter."
    Can the Minister tell me what an additional allowance of 1s. 6d. in winter has to do with answering the position of these poor people needing some coal in summer for cooking? Many of them have not got a gas stove. What allowance have they given? This is not humorous; it is tragic. I am going to take the lowest number of cases the new guardians advertise, that is giving them the full benefit of the

    2431
    doubt. For the week ending 28th May this year they state there are 14,722 cases. That is not persons, but families. The number of persons works out at 35,040. They have given in coal allowances £350 a week. If you divide the number of families into the amount you arrive at the sum the new guardians in this Christian country have allocated for warming these people, of 5¾d. per family per week. There are many things we say across the floor of the House, perhaps hard things. The right hon. Gentleman has a reputation for local government that he ought to be proud of, but he ought to be ashamed that 5¾d. per week per family should be allocated to the poor people of West Ham for coal in a borough that is administered by his own nominees. I see hon. Members at the Bar outside the House grinning. They would not grin if they lived in my area and they would not come to our area and show such countenances among the people who have to live in the conditions I am trying to enumerate with decency and courtesy.
    I presume the right hon. Gentleman will be very pleased to know, and I hope the House will take cognisance of the fact, that the new guardians are buoyant with hope that, having done the things I have indicated to the Minister, having brought starvation into our borough, having allowed 5¾d. per family for coal allowance—they tell us on page 6—the children in the Scattered Homes have been encouraged to join the Boy Scout and Girl Guide troops in their vicinity. So we may rest assured all will be well. I come to page 8, the last page in the Second Report issued by the guardians. It says:
    "Possibly the most important part of the policy of the present Board has been to get the unemployed to work."
    Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us where, when and how the Board have indicated their policy to get the unemployed to work? Why, the Government cannot do it. The new guardians have placed 150 men in employment. That is from their own Report. Thus their claim of putting a new policy into operation in West Ham is not true.
    I want to amplify the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) with regard to the
    2432
    attempt of the new guardians to bring West Ham back to the position of 1920. The "Labour Gazette" stated that the amount of unemployment in 1920 was 2 per cent. Now it is 8·8 per cent. If the Minister's nominees are going to attempt to bring West Ham down to the 1920 position, they are either very ignorant or very callous, because the amount of unemployment has been multiplied by four. Take the position in our docks. West Ham has grown up with the development of the docks. Before the War boats from the Baltic and other places came to the East India or Royal Albert Docks, and our men were engaged in their thousands unloading and reloading them. As a result of the War and the loss of certain international markets, West Ham has a very large number of dock labourers still looking for work. It is no fault of West Ham. I want to submit to the right hon. Gentleman that the percentage of unemployment at the docks is 25 per cent., and that for 1926 it was 27 per cent. In the first report of the guardians they honestly and distinctly state that there are 1,237 dockers who are married men receiving poor relief. I only use that illustration to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there does not appear, even from the point of view of national or international trade, to be any reason to assume that trade in the vicinity of West Ham is in the future going to be very largely increased. The right hon. Gentleman's own nominees have boasted that their effort is to bring the Poor Law position of West Ham down to the level of 1920, and if they do that with his help and guidance they will be doing it in face of all industrial and economic facts, and attempting a thing which is against the common interests of humanity.
    Under the heading of Old Age Pensions, these people boast of the cases which are being taken off the list. I think they have taken off 941 old age pensions. Under the old board of guardians each pensioner used to receive, in addition to his pension of 10s., the sum of 5s. I suggest that that 5s. was generally to be applied for the payment of the rent of their rooms. I have always said that I thought the country was rich and generous enough to see to it that men or women who had given of their best to industry

    2433
    from early manhood or womanhood until the end of their working life should not spend the remaining years of their lives within the four walls of the workhouse. This additional 5s. helped the old age pensioners to keep outside the workhouse. What has happened? I objected, and I had the support of the right hon. Gentleman when I submitted my objection to him some time ago, to the guardians having a man to collect the 10s. pension belonging to the pensioners who were compelled to go into the infirmary. I think that is a very bad practice. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will call the attention of the guardians to this practice, which, I think, ought to be made illegal. My opinion is that it is illegal to appropriate the 10s. a pensioner receives while in the infirmary and apply it towards his maintenance.
    I desire to submit to the Minister something which, I think, is very interesting, because the guardians claim that they have reduced the expenditure of the union. We in this House must not get mixed up, because there is a difference between the Poor Law Unions and the boroughs. The union comprises various parishes, including West Ham, East Ham, Leyton, Walthamstow and Wanstead. For my purpose, I am only going to deal with the county borough of West Ham, but that which I am going to bring forward will affect, in principle, all the parishes within the Poor Law Union. What I want to submit to the Minister of Health is, that the policy of the West Ham Guardians in reducing the expenditure of the union is effecting an increase in the expenditure upon social services in the borough. I am going to prove it by figures. Under the old scale of relief, mothers received an amount of money which allowed them to provide meals for their children in their own homes. I, myself, have been a member of the Special Schools Committee of the Education Department of West Ham, and proud we were to put into operation the adoptive Acts connected with the Education Act to enable us to feed necessitous children. I know that mothers who are poor love to have their children take their meals in the home with the rest of the family. Under the new regime, when the relief was so drastically reduced, it meant that the ordinary mother in our locality receiving relief had not sufficient money
    2434
    coming into the home to enable her to supply meals at home for the children.
    What result has it had on the County Borough of West Ham? I have here the official figures issued by the education department of my borough. In order that I shall not unduly prolong my speech, I am going to summarise these details. The House must understand that I am now dealing only with the school children who come within the category of appearing to suffer as the result of lack of food. The procedure adopted is for the teacher in needy cases to give a child a provisional ticket for the feeding centre, but the parents ultimately have to fill in two separate forms. I will not trouble the House by reading the details, but I want to assure hon. and right hon. Members that there is no possibility of meals being given indiscriminately. The parents must prove that there is actual need. The parents or the father have to fill up a particular form, issued according to the Acts of Parliament, 1900–1921, under the Board of Education, and we send an inspector in a perfectly decent way to make certain inquiries. The inspector has to indicate to the superintendent of visitors: How long the applicant has resided in the district; the state and general condition of the home; whether the children attend school regularly; whether they have been summoned for non-attendance, and, if so, to give particulars. He is also asked: Can you recommend them as a deserving family, and what is the total number of the family to be supported? When these particulars have been supplied the children are put upon the regular feeding list.
    In the first 26 weeks of 1927, that is, from the week ending 8th January to the first week of July, and multiplying that to get a fair average for the year—I want the Minister of Health specially to note this point because it is one which concerns a vital principle—the County Borough of West Ham have supplied 439,556 additional meals; nearly half a million extra meals as compared with the number supplied under the old administration, which was assumed to be generous and even extravagant. I have taken the trouble to go to the head offices of our borough to arrive at the average cost of a meal, and, taking all in, including supervision, so far as the

    2435
    Borough Treasurer's Department of the County Borough of West Ham can assess it, the cost works out at 6d. per meal per head, which is a fairly reasonable amount: certainly not extravagant. The additional cost thrown upon the exchequer of the County Borough of West Ham and taken off the shoulders of the union, as such, is £10,988 18s. We have to allow for the fact that we get on approved expenditure a grant through the Board of Education. If we get 50 per cent. of the £10,000, it means that as a result of the drastic reduction in relief in West Ham, at the end of the year the increased expenditure will represent a rate of 1d. I can visualise that at the end of the year we shall be accused of extravagance. That is a point of vital consideration in view of the claim of the present guardians that they have reduced the expenditure.
    I will read the actual increase in the figures, and will hand them over to the Minister if he desires them. They are official figures, printed by the borough. This year, as compared with 1926, for the week ending 19th March, 1,007 school children were attending for meals. Over 1,000 school children who previously were fed in their own homes, their parents being in receipt of Poor Law relief, and being proud to be able to have their children with their feet under their father's table at mealtimes, now attend our dining centres connected with our schools, because their parents have had their relief drastically reduced by the new board of guardians. Connected with the County Borough of West Ham, we have, and we are very proud of it, a department associated with our clinic and maternity centres where we supply dried milk, a commodity which is accepted by the Ministry of Health and medical people generally as being a very nutritious form of food. To the very poor people we give away free packets of the dried milk. In these cases, the parents have to fill in a good many particulars and they have to have their homes examined by inspectors in order to prove that they are actually destitute and in need of this help. When we are satisfied that they are in need, we give weekly a one pound packet of dried milk, which costs the borough one shilling.
    Mr. J. JONES: And it costs 2s. to find out whether the claim is true or not.
    Mr. GROVES: When the applicants are not destitute, we sell the milk at half price, and in many other instances where they can afford to pay we sell it to them at cost price, namely, ls. per pound packet. In this department also, I should like to point out what has been the effect on the finances of the County Borough of West Ham as a result of the reduction of expenditure in the union. Some 8,402 persons who used to pay the full amount now cannot do so and come to us to obtain the dried milk at half price. To put it in another way, under the old scale, people received just that amount of money that would allow the mother who was bringing up a young family to go to our centre and purchase at full price one pound of dried milk, or to purchase at half price dried milk, which we all believe has proved medically to be very beneficial. There have been 12,150 extra packets of free milk supplied, which works out at a cost of £607 10s., and 388 additional packets of milk at half price, at a cost of £9 14s. As a result of the reduction in the amount of Poor Law relief, people have been forced to demand this social service from the County Borough of West Ham, and we have incurred, in addition to the £10,988 18s. on extra meals supplied, an additional expenditure of £617 4s. in supplying dried milk.
    Another reason why I want the Minister of Health to agree to our Prayer to-night to annul this Order giving the guardians another six months, is because statements of officers of the Government generally show that poverty and lack of nutrition are contributory factors to tuberculosis. Sir George Newman made a special plea in the Board of Education Report that every local authority should
    "seriously consider what its policy and practice is going to be and pursue its course with knowledge, thoroughness and persistence."
    Dr. Lee, Tuberculosis Officer of Sunderland, in calling attention to the increase in tuberculosis, said:
    "The unparalleled poverty and distress due to unemployment is the chief explanation."
    I do not think the Minister will dispute the general statements of Medical Officers

    2437
    of Health in the country, that it seems almost impossible to arrest the progress of tuberculosis while unemployment and destitution prevail in this land. I think I can prove to him by giving figures that the policy of the preent guardians is a policy of hardship, in addition to the general reduction of relief. It is my object this evening to do what the Minister asked us to do when he said that any cases of extra hardship which we could submit to him would be considered. I want to submit to him—I will not delay the House by trotting out hundreds of cases—about 20 cases, and I want to show him how the nominees of this Government in West Ham have oppressed the poor. A learned Judge once said that too often the guardians, instead of being guardians of the poor, were oppressors of the poor. I think that was connected with West Ham. I want now to bring to the notice of the Minister of Health, what we have often stated, that we have at our disposal glaring cases which ought to be sufficient to make this House infuriated with the work of these guardians and make the Minister say to us, "Well, you have brought to my knowledge facts which are new, and in view of them I am going to alter my course." After all, there is nothing ignominious in a Minister of the Crown being prepared to weigh in the balance evidence of real hardship, and to recognise that all these are typical instances. It appears to me that the new guardians are going to make men live on 1s. a day. I trust when the Minister replies he will either approve or denounce, one or the other, this situation in which men are put in the position of living on 1s. a day. I will give names and addresses, because I have nothing to be ashamed of and nothing to hide.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member is not aware how many of his colleagues wish to continue the Debate, or he would have some consideration for them.
    Mr. GROVES: You will not think me immodest if I say it is generally agreed that I should have some degree of latitude of time in putting the details for West Ham.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I was thinking of the hon. Member's colleagues.
    Mr. GROVES: I would not have taken the liberty if I had not known that that
    2438
    was so. I will hand the whole of these cases over to the Minister. The first is the case of a man named Augustus Evans, of 21, Leabourn Street, a single man, suffering from hip joint disease for 40 years. It is impossible for him to work. He used to get 15s. a week under the old regime, and now he gets 5s. in money and 5s. in tickets. His rent is 4s., and he has not moved suddenly into a new house, but has lived in his room for 10 years. He has got to live on 6s. a week. The second is the case of Mr. R. Williamson, of 9, Queen Street, Stratford, age 77. He and his wife are old age pensioners. He used to get 4s., i.e., in addition to the 10s. old age pension. Now they are reduced to 1s. 6d. The daughter works for the guardians, and she is called upon to contribute the 1s. 6d. which is given to her parents. The third is the case of Mr. A. Curry, 38, Blyth Road, a man who has worked very hard, and who is now an old age pensioner. He gets 5s. parish relief in tickets. His rent is 5s. 6d. a week. He has a daughter, and the guardians have suddenly discovered that she is a domestic servant and have called upon her to contribute 2s. 6d. a week. She wrote back to the guardians, and said she could not afford to pay that. She wrote a very nice letter, and I will read it to the House. This is her letter to the collector of the guardians.
    "Sir,—I am in receipt of your letter of the 16th instant about my father to the effect that the guardians have decided to make no alteration in the 2s. 6d. weekly but I see no reason why I should pay the sum demanded of me. Where do you think my father gets his clothes on a total income of 15s. a week, including 5s. worth of food tickets you give him? I have quite enough to do with my own money and cannot pay anything, as stated at first.—Yours truly."
    I do not look on that as a simple detail. I think it is very hard if a man, aged 78, who has been for years a good industrial worker, merely because he has grown old, is to be thrown on to parish relief because of the economic circumstances of this country. His daughter is an ordinary domestic servant, getting £26 a year, and I think the guardians are very mean indeed to call upon her to contribute 2s. 6d. weekly. Then there is the case of Mr. F. Butcher, 46, Chapel Street, a single man suffering from tuberculosis. I know that is so, because in our ordinary West Ham clinic

    2439
    I have been in touch with him. The doctor has stated that the man is not fit for heavy work. He gets relief of 8s. in kind and no money at all. His rent is 4s. How does the Minister expect this man to pay rent when he gets no money whatever from the guardians and when all their relief is given in tickets which are taken to the local shops in order to get meat or groceries, whichever is thought best? I will not weary the House with many other details except to mention a case which I consider to be a vital one. What is the attitude of the new guardians to the blind population? I know very well that the speeches from Members of this House, not all connected with this party, have been directed to getting assistance for the blind population. It is always said that this country ought to be great enough to see that the blind are maintained, so that they do not have to go to the workhouse. There is the case of Mr. F. Ellingford, 24, Beaconsfield Road. He went blind under distressing circumstances. He has six children under 14 years of age, and no wife. He used to get relief under the old guardians, but the new guardians have discovered that he has a son at work. That young man is likely to get married and wants to build up a home, but the guardians have decided that the blind man can have no relief at all. He has six children under 14 and yet is to have no relief whatever. His son, who earns £3 15s. a week, has to keep that household.
    Those are actual facts which I know. I put them to the Minister of Health, and I am willing to go into these cases with him and to give what evidence and help I can at any inquiry or committee to see that justice is done. I am willing to help—and I am willing to recall any harsh words I may have used in a heated moment—in order to see that cases like these shall be dealt with by this great State Department and that the Minister's nominees who have wilfully perpetrated these injustices to the poor population of this country may be stopped by the only person capable of stopping them, and that is the Minister himself. Here is another and a very serious case—Alfred Garland, of 31, Stephens Road, West Ham, has a wife in the central home suffering from bronchitis. He works at a local varnishing company; salary £2 10s.
    2440
    a week, rent 8s. 4d.; that is £2 1s. 8d. in hard cash to live on. What do the new board of guardians do in a case like this? Here is a note from the guardians, headed No. 65. What do you think the guardians demand? It is £1 3s. 4d. per week, out of his £2 1s. 8d., leaving 18s. 4d. per week for an able-bodied man to live on.
    If the Minister does not feel that such cases as these are sufficient to warrant his intervention, his kindly intervention, then something ought to be said. Another case: Mr. J. W. Allen, 84, Major Road, a fitter and turner, age 68; rent 5s. per week. The Guardians used to allow 11s. but it is now stopped, because his son works in the Great Eastern Railway. Is it the policy of the Poor Law administration of this country that sons should be compelled to keep their parents when they are incapable of sustaining themselves? Another case: Mrs. Hamilton, of 14, Wingfield Road, husband in a central home, paralysed; rent 3s. 6d. per week, panel money 10s.; she has to live on 5s. 6d. a week. Another case: J. Reeves, 25, Beer Road, wife and one child, income l0s. 6d., rent 3s. 3d., and they have 7s. 3d. on which to keep three people. I know this is somewhat boring to hon. Members opposite, but they are facts that should be stated. C. Chapman, 141, Maryland Road, He and his wife are old age pensioners. They get £1 a week; pay 3s. in rent, and they have 17s. on which to live. The guardians refuse any help whatever. Mr. C. Hand, 99, Rosher Road, wife and one child, 24s. per week in relief, rent. 8s. In this case the guardians have decided that three people must live on 16s. a week. W. Cox, 33, Albert Lane, a single man. He has no income and the guardians refuse any relief at all because he is an able-bodied man. The next case is one in my own street, Mrs. Mynett, a widow, of 44, Henneker Road, Stratford, with one child. She gets 15s. a week pension and 5s. in relief, making her income £1. She has not been a widow very long and the rent of the house remains as it was when her husband was alive. The landlord refuses to allow her to sub-let and, therefore, it still stands at the top rent of 12s. ld. Her actual income, therefore, is 7s. 2d. She has a son at work who earns £1 a week, and a daughter of 15 who gets 5s. a week. That is £1 5s. between them.

    2441
    I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he would do if he were sitting in the board room of the guardians and had to decide this case. Would he not say that £1 5s. is not too much for these people, that 12s. 6. per week for a growing man, who has to keep himself respectable, is not an extravagant amount to allow, and that 12s. 6d. is not too much to allow any girl to live on and keep herself clean and respectable? He must admit that the income of the son and daughter ought not be taken as a contribution towards the maintenance of the mother. The guardians have decided, let us have it plain and straight, that 7s. 2d. per week is sufficient for that woman to live on, that is, a shilling a day. Another case—Mr. McNeal, with a wife and two children. In this case the guardians have decided that they must live on £1 per week between them. Another case, J. H. Marguss, of 64, Mark Street, with a wife and two children, relief, £1 2s., rent, 6s. Therefore the guardians have decided that four people must live on 14s. per week. I have a lot more of these cases, but I think I have given sufficient to illustrate the policy against which I protest. It has apparently been decided that the very poor people in West Ham must live on one shilling a day. I should like to pause there and ask hon. Members who have just come in whether they think it right that this country, that this Parliament, should acquiesce in a board of guardians laying it down as a general condition that the citizens of this country must live on one shilling a day.
    We feel that we have a right to protest most strongly against the Minister supporting the actions of the West Ham Guardians in this House. If it was a case of propaganda outside we should not care at all, but we want the Minister to say whether he approves or deplores the action of the new West Ham Guardians in laying it down as a condition that a British citizen should live on one shilling a day and keep himself or herself decent, clean, upright, moral and respectable. I say that it cannot be done, and I believe the Minister of Health realises that it is impossible. Another case, T. Hartley, of 13, Vine Road, single. Gets 8s. relief, and pays 6s. a week in rent. In this case the guardians have actually decided that this single man is to live on 2s. a week. Another case, J. Austin, 59. Goodall Road, Leyton, with wife and three children:
    2442
    relief, one guinea per week; rent, 5s. 6d. In this case the guardians have decided that five human beings are to live on 15s. a week between them. Is that possible? And if it is not, what defence can the Minister make on behalf of these new guardians? If we are to have a saving of money I say that it should not be a saving at the expense of human lives. That is a most indefensible basis, and I do not think any Minister of Health in any British Parliament ought to stand up in support of such a policy. Another case, J. Martin, 10, Cross Street, a single man: gets 10s. a week relief; rent. 5s.—
    Mr. CASSELS: How old is he?
    Mr. GROVES: I have not got his birth certificate, but I can get all the information and send it on to the hon. and learned Member for Leyton (Mr. Cassels). He is a single man, and whether young or old he has to eat and drink and to be decently maintained, and he has got, according to the West Ham Guardians, to do it on 5s. a week. This is the last case I will quote in detail. Mr. Bevis, of 47, Major Road, has a wife and four children under 14. One child is in the infirmary suffering from rheumatics, and the man himself is a chronic invalid, with the same complaint. The guardians give him 15s. 6d. a week in money and 17s. in tickets, making a total of £1 12s. 6d. The rent is 11s. 8d., leaving £1 0s. 10d. for five people to live on, which works out at 4s. 2d. each for a week. I submit to the Minister that these cases of hardship merit his consideration, because the present guardians are quite aware that illness in a home involves certain hardships. I received a letter on 9th February from the present chairman of the new guardians, in which he says to me, in reference to a case to which I called his attention:
    "In view of the fact that illness must necessarily bring a certain amount of hardship in the house, the board are not prepared to vary the order made."
    I do not mind as long as the Minister will either accept or denounce this position. I have only selected about 50 cases of hardship, but I could place before the right hon. Gentleman 500 at any meeting that he cared to indicate. Let me read this very humorous letter, sent as the result of an appeal made by a particular branch of the National Union of Railwaymen, to the present board of

    2443
    guardians on behalf of a woman who is a widow and has to maintain her son, aged 22. The guardians gave this son some relief and this is the reply I received from the clerk of the Board, because I made some overtures on behalf of this woman, who is a widow, living at 25, Norfolk Street, Forest Gate:
    "Referring to your further letter, this case has been fully inquired into and reconsidered. The woman herself is not in receipt of outdoor relief, but the allowance made is in respect of her son, Henry, single, age 21 years of age, mentally deficient from birth. Inquiries show, and are corroborated, that the son enjoys very good health."
    Here is a man who is mentally deficient from birth, and anybody who is acquainted with this particular class of case knows that these people eat a lot and that 8s. a week relief for a man like that is in no measure equal to the needs of the case.
    I want to clinch my argument with a case that I think merits the right hon. Gentleman's immediate attention. Last week the guardians took to task a man who wilfully threw himself on the parish. The guardians felt that this man, who was a single man, aged 32, and who had been out of work since 1922, should be dealt with somehow, and I want the Minister of Health to see that I am bringing this to his notice because it is evident to me that the new guardians are guilty of conducting their work without fair discrimination and without proper previous inquiry. Here, in my opinion, is a case that should make him put his foot down at once. It is that of a man whom the guardians have accused of wilfully neglecting to find work, and I have in my hand, and am prepared to hand them over to the Minister, replies from firms to which this man has made application for jobs. He heard of a job at the Great Eastern Railway in 1926 and applied for it. He did not refuse the job, but the medical man connected with the Great Eastern Railway who tests people before they start work turned him down. I have a certificate that this man, Edward Harland, first went to the London Hospital on 18th October, 1922. The diagnosis was mitral stenosis, and I understand from medical men that this is some affection of the heart, and it was decided by medical men that this man was not physically fit to carry on
    2444
    a laborious job. He was offered a job in a public house as a barman at 22s. a week, seven days a week, 11 hours a day. He would have midday off, I admit. He told the guardians that he was not fit medically, and I have evidence in my hand, which I am prepared to give to the right hon. Gentleman, in support of that statement. It says:
    "Out-patient Department, London Hospital. This man suffers from a heart complaint."
    It will be evident to any medical man here that that would render him quite outside the possibility of taking a job as a barman in a public-house. This was a case of prosecution, and so I am not in this House in a position to criticise the decision of a magistrate or Judge, but that is the question about which I asked the Home Secretary in the previous Debate whether he was prepared to give a decision. This man was sentenced to a month's hard labour for wilfully refusing to maintain himself, for refusing work—a man with a heart complaint, of which the guardians had full knowledge; and very insulting things were said in the Court, with which I will deal with the Home Secretary. This man got a month's hard labour, and that is just an illustration. The Minister will say that I am the sort of man who makes statements without inquiry, but I would like to know under what circumstances the guardians prosecuted that man and determined that he was fit to do a barman's job for 11 hours a day in face of the medical evidence that this man suffered from a heart complaint.
    I say that the policy of the present guardians is a policy of persecution of the poor. Their administration is enough to make us laugh in West Ham. I will give two instances which the right hon. Gentleman can investigate. On 27th October last year a man called at my house, and I said, "What is your trouble?" He replied, "I have a wife and two children, and they are all down with bronchitis. I have been to the parish doctor, and he has given me a prescription. I have been to the dispenser to get my medicine, but I could not get it." I said "Why?" He said, "Because they have no bottles." The dispenser had no bottles to give the medicine to this poor man. Then I telephoned to the Clerk of the Guardians

    2445
    and told him that that would not suit me, and asked him what he was going to do. I said that I should have taken the prescription to the local chemist, had it made up, and sent the bill in to the guardians. I will give credit to the clerk because he did exactly what I would have done. I have here a letter from him, in which he says he has taken the matter up with the dispenser, and he trusts that as a result there will be no recurrence of this sort of thing.
    I want to give one other instance. The other day, a poor destitute woman appeared at a local relief station to get her relief in the ordinary way. She said to the relieving officer that she felt unwell, and he replied, "You had better go to see the doctor." The woman, who had been waiting about for a long time, went to see the doctor, who decided that her illness was a case of diphtheria. These are the new guardians, who are going to administer affairs in West Ham in a much better way than did the old ones! The old ones are accused by the Minister of Health of unabashed corruption. I do not know what accusation will be made against the new guardians in this instance. It will be said that the chairman did not know that this case was one of diphtheria. Hon. Members opposite will naturally assume that the guardians at once sent for the ambulance and despatched the woman to the Fever Hospital. They did nothing of the sort. They sent her in a public vehicle, a tram. Talk about public health! I will give the Minister of Health the name and address of the woman, and the date on which this happened. I interrogated the relieving officer about it and protested. If this had been the old Socialist guardians, the statement would have been heralded abroad that they cared nothing about sanitation, and that all they cared about was getting their friends returned at the election.
    10.0 p.m.
    I do not often intervene in these Debates, but when I do I like to give evidence in the shape of concrete facts. I am prepared to hand these facts over to the Minister and to prove them at any inquiry or commission; and to help. This is a matter of Debate and not of hate, and I am prepared to bring this information in order to help him. In a previous speech I used a phrase which I think
    2446
    the Minister of Health, in his reply on the following day, rather hoped I would, withdraw. I am really slow to move and always ready to forgive. Having read of things connected with the matter, and having taken up the position that the Minister has certain information which he thinks is absolutely reliable, I thought I should have the same. As he knows, I approached the chairman of the board of guardians in a perfectly courteous way—I thought that was the proper place to begin. I asked whether it would be possible to have—not some sort of examination—but whether, as a citizen, a councillor, and an elected Member of Parliament, I could look at certain papers which I wanted to see. The Minister knows that the chairman of the board of guardians declined to grant me that right, and told me that he had sent a letter. That puts me in this position that I know what I want to get and I know where to get it. Of course, if I sat on the other side of the House, I should do what the Home Secretary would do, I should go down with acetylene gas, hammers, and the like. But I can only get down as a result of an appeal to the Minister. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will use his best endeavours to persuade the chairman to allow me to go down—with him, if he likes—to look at certain documents which I want to see. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I would be the first, if I discovered that my information was in any degree inaccurate, to withdraw it and to apologise for making use of it. I have asked in a courteous manner whether I, as a public man, a ratepayer and a citizen, can see public documents—they are not the personal. property of these new guardians—and if they have nothing to fear, why should they not put all their cards on the table. What is it that they are afraid of our seeing? I know what I want. My point is in sight, and, if the right hon. Gentleman will afford me reasonable facilities for seeing a certain case of papers, then I think I shall be able to bring this particular issue to a satisfactory conclusion. I want to do that. I hate casting reflections on anybody in this House, and I am not the man to do it; but I know what I am at, and I trust that the Minister will use his influence

    2447
    with the chairman to allow me to enter the doors and see the documents.
    I have dealt mainly with the general indictment which we put up against the guardians. I only want to add that the humour of the position is in regard to the question of "on loan." I will deal with the case of Mr. T. Dean, of 60, Ranelagh Road. I told the House, in March, that the guardians had sent Mr. Dean a claim for 17 guineas which, they said, had been given to his family on loan. Strangely enough, since there have been general complaints in the locality about the assumption on the part of the guardians that all this money given during the general strike was given on loan, the guardians have taken up a new position. They have sent the man a new order—I have it here—and they have deleted the statement that the money was on loan. The order says:
    "I am directed by the guardians to ask for payment of the sum of 17 guineas, due for the maintenance of your family."
    There are many other details that will be submitted to the House by other hon. Members. I shall be pleased to submit many more details on a future occasion, if the Minister of Health can allow this question to be discussed again. As the elected Member for the area, I say that the Minister has no mandate from the area for imposing these guardians on the West Ham Union, and I trust that the House will support our protest against such an imposition. I think I have proved that, far from preventing destitution, a board of guardians which is prepared to assume that able-bodied people can live on 1s. a day are spreading destitution, with the trail of hunger, want, misery, ill-health, and everything which this nation and this Parliament ought to assume to be wrong, immoral and un-British.
    Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: I want to deal, in the few minutes in which I propose to speak, rather more generally with the question than the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) has done. I am sure he will not think me discourteous if I say that perhaps the large number of cases which he gave rather lost their point when they were given in the House as he gave them, because we only heard one side. I expect that the
    2448
    hon. Member, like all of us, gets numbers of such cases in connection with all sorts of Departments; that is particularly the case with me in regard to the Ministry of Labour, where someone says that his unemployed benefit is cut off. When you go into the case, however, with the Minister, you always find that there is another side. Perhaps, a case which at first appears to be a very wrong one, and over which you wax very indignant, turns out to be not half as bad as it seemed. I hope that the Minister of Health will not grant this Prayer to annul the Order for the continuation of the West Ham Guardians. I am one of those people who believe that the whole matter is bound up with the question of how the people who administer this relief should be elected.
    I put a Motion down—unfortunately it was not reached owing to the fact that the Guillotine was in operation—to discuss the whole question. That matter is entirely bound up with the question of whether the appointed guardians should go on, or whether the elected guardians should be put back in their places. It seems to me an excellent opportunity, now, for us to see, after a period of time—we have had about 12 months, now—whether we were right in saying that the administration should be carried on by those who have only a simple object in view, namely that of carrying on the administration as best they can for all sections of the community. Now the elected guardians, whom the hon. Member opposite wishes to see back again, were elected very largely by those people to whom they gave relief, and the relief which they administered—I say badly administered—was got from the ratepayers of the district. The hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) who opened this Debate said that the majority of the ratepayers did not support the policy of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, but the majority of the ratepayers in West Ham have no votes attached to them at all. They are the limited companies who pay on the rateable value. It is a thing which could be altered, and I hope when the new Franchise Bill comes in something will be done.
    We on this side have been told that because we do not like the policy of these guardians we are heartless people. I

    2449
    think that is an entirely fallacious argument. You might as well say that a man who does not respond to every charitable appeal is an unkind man. He might not be an unkind man, but a prudent man. The present guardians are not unkind; they are merely prudent, and look into every case before they spend money. Like any other Member of this House, who does not reside or is not connected with West Ham, I have to get my information from the newspapers which, the hon. Member said, were putting such a bad case against them. I think we can get a good idea of what is going on if we read the newspapers of all shades of opinion, including the "Daily Herald," and, having read reports from various papers on the subject, I think the appointed guardians are making a very good show of the administration of a very difficult problem indeed. Some of us were brought up on that excellent motto, "God helps those who help themselves." I think that the present guardians are acting on that motto, which is such a good one that it should be framed at the expense of the Ministry and hung in the board room of every board of guardians. They said in their last report that they want everybody in the district to go last of all to the board of guardians for relief. Let them help themselves, and let their last thing be to come to the board of guardians. I think that is a system which is a very good one. I think the State should never give public assistance to anybody, unless absolutely bound to do so. That is the way the Unemployment Insurance Act works. If a man proves that he is helping himself for all he is worth, he will get his unemployment insurance.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is the hon. Member aware that the prisons at the present time are full of people who try to help themselves?
    Captain HUDSON: I am aware of that. I do not mean help themselves to what belongs to somebody else. That is a different thing entirely. It is Socialism in some ways. Under the Unemployment Insurance Act, if a man has not done his utmost to get a job and help himself, he is struck off. We have had many cases where men are struck off. That system was not in operation at West Ham at the
    2450
    time of the election of the guardians. Insufficient inquiries were made, and practically everybody who wanted it could get relief from these guardians. I think the guardians are working well. They are showing what can be done by a body which is not influenced by vote-catching, but is merely trying to do its best in the ordinary way, irrespective of party. I remember the late Minister of Health, the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), asked whether we expected Socialist boards of guardians to carry on in a Conservative spirit. They would carry on as Socialists. We say they should not carry on as Socialists or Conservatives or Liberals, but be businesslike, and non-party, and do their work both for the ratepayers and the poor people of the district on a strictly non-party basis.
    Miss LAWRENCE: I had not intended to speak, because I know the patience of this House is much shorter than the patience of the poor, and I can see that the boredom of the recital of these stories regarding the poor one by one is more than hon. Members can bear. I am conscious it is very difficult to get their attention to such stories. I want to speak from another angle. We have had two reports of the guardians. There is nothing in either of them—not one word as to how they have done their duty, which they were sent to do, to relieve the poor. There is practically nothing about health, nothing about vital statistics, and nothing about the result of their policy on the lives of the persons with whom they have been entrusted. Nor do we get from the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary any details of these matters. I think we ought to have an inquiry by the Minister, and a report from him as to the merits of restrictive and liberal relief. There is material enough in London. Over a very long period the West Ham Board of Guardians have given liberally; over a long period other boards of guardians have given restrictively, and now the Minister is carrying out a series of experiments, which might be called laboratory experiments or control experiments. He has suddenly, in three districts, stopped liberal relief and instituted, through his nominees, restrictive relief.

    2451
    I have collected a few figures which I desire to give the House. I am going to make a comparison in vital statistics between West and East Ham, London, Kensington and Paddington. West Ham is a notoriously poor area. East Ham, my own borough, is not rich, but it is rather better off than West Ham. North and South East Ham taken together, in social conditions and poverty, are well below the London level, though there are many pleasant places in East Ham. My own partiality is for East Ham, North. But West Ham is poorer than East Ham. We contribute to the West Ham Union more than we receive in Poor Law relief. When the Minister's proposals came out our borough treasurer did a sum which showed that on a comparison of the two boroughs in regard to Poor Law, East Ham would gain considerably. You would expect, therefore, that in vital statistics East Ham would be well below the London level and West Ham a great deal below the London level. It is not so however, and I will run through the general death rates for a period of eight years. The figures are as follow:

    —

    London.

    West Ham.

    East Ham.

    1919

    …

    13·6

    13·3

    9·9

    1920

    …

    12·8

    12·9

    10·3

    1921

    …

    12·5

    12·1

    10·2

    1922

    …

    13·5

    13·3

    11

    1923

    …

    11·4

    10·6

    9

    1924

    …

    12·2

    11·5

    9·8

    1925

    …

    11·9

    10·8

    10·2

    1926

    …

    11·4

    10·6

    9·4

    All through these eight years West Ham with its desperate poverty is only once above the London general death rate per 1,000, and East Ham has always been below it. I will take a much more sensitive figure, the rate of infantile mortality over the eight years. As Members know, there was a sudden and beneficent change in the general infantile mortality rate after the year 1918, and London dropped from 108 to 85. Each succeeding year it has gone down, with some oscillations, until it has reached a figure of 64. During those years West Ham was only three times worse than London. East Ham was only once worse than the London level,
    2452
    and that was last year. Here are the figures:

    —

    London.

    West Ham.

    East Ham.

    1919

    …

    85

    86

    69

    1920

    …

    76

    74

    60

    1921

    …

    81

    75

    63

    1922

    …

    75

    81

    62

    1923

    …

    61

    60

    51

    1924

    …

    69

    78

    54

    1925

    …

    68

    66

    53

    1926

    …

    64

    56

    68

    It will be seen that 1926 was the first year in which East Ham was above the London figure, and that was due, as I read the figures, to an extraordinary first quarter, when the infantile mortality touched the unprecedented figure of 97. Compare that with London. Considering the richness of London, it is a miraculous thing that West Ham should be so often a little below the London average. Now I will take the Royal Borough of Kensington, and ask hon. Members to note how the West Ham mortality figures under their guardians and their town council compare with those of Kensington.

    —

    West Ham.

    Kensington.

    1919

    …

    …

    86

    102

    1920

    …

    …

    74

    83

    1921

    …

    …

    75

    107

    1923

    …

    …

    81

    84

    1923

    …

    …

    60

    70

    1924

    …

    …

    78

    75

    That is the only year in which Kensington has been better than West Ham as regards infantile mortality.

    —

    West Ham.

    Kensington.

    1925

    …

    …

    66

    79

    1926

    …

    …

    56

    61

    Kensington is composed of North Kensington and South Kensington. Consider the solid comfort, the luxury and even the splendour of South Kensington.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: An explanation of that is quite simple. The working class woman nurses her child and the well-to-do woman leaves it to somebody else.
    Miss LAWRENCE: I am afraid that will not do. That remark shows an

    2453
    extraordinary ignorance. If you want a really good infantile death-rate, go to Harrow, where there is a well-to-do middle-class population. There you will find the lowest death rate in the country. It is not the working men's children who live, it is the children of people like the Harrow school masters, who have large families and know how to look after them.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: They nurse them.
    Miss LAWRENCE: After that excursion I would ask hon. Members to compare the death rate of West Ham and North Kensington. I have read the first three years, showing that West Ham was well below North and South Kensington. For the following years I have not got the Registrar-General's figures, which I have been quoting up to now, but the figures of the Medical Officer of Kensington. The total in one case varies as much as two points. For the other years the figures are equal. Look at West Ham and North Kensington. In 1922 in North Kensington the figure was 91; in 1923 in West Ham it was 60, and in North Kensington 86; in 1924 the figure for West Ham was 78 and in North Kensington 87. In 1925 in West Ham the figure was 66 and in North Kensington 88.
    Mr. GATES: Is the hon. Member giving the particulars of the population per acre.
    Miss LAWRENCE: I shall have to ask the hon. Member to give me notice of that question. In 1926 the figure for West Ham was 56 and for North Kensington 79. North Kensington, as everybody knows, is a district containing well-to-do residents, and in no way constitutes a fair parallel with West Ham. West Ham is a district which borders on the river and some of it has been reclaimed from the river, and even now it is flooded at certain times, whilst North Kensington is situated in a healthy district. In many respects West Ham has had liberal relief. North Kensington gives very little relief and hardly give any outdoor relief at all. The only thing in which you can say that West Ham is better off than North Kensington is that it used to have guardians who did look after the poor, and the only difference is in the scale of relief which has been adopted. If I take the figures I could show that West
    2454
    Ham and Paddington compare very favourably indeed. I know these guardians have been blamed for wasting money, but suppose they did waste the money. Suppose that every word which Mr. Killip has said on this question is true, I say it is better to waste money than to save money at the expense of the poor people.
    I will now give the figures showing the mortality in West Ham County Borough, in which the greater part of the poverty of West Ham is concentrated. I am going to take the Registrar-General's figures, quarter by quarter. I have shown that the rate of infantile mortality in West Ham over a long period has been very satisfactory. The figures for the last two quarters of 1926 do not show any very great change, the West Ham figures following the London figures at a rather increasing distance. If I take the quarter ending in September, 1925, in London the infantile mortality was 55, and in the quarter ended in September, 1926, it was 53. In West Ham it dropped, with London, from 59 in September, 1925, to 55 in September, 1926. In the following quarter, the last quarter of 1925, the figure in London was 88, and in the last quarter of 1926 it was 74. In West Ham it was 72 in the last quarter of 1925, and 69 in the last quarter of 1926. The West Ham figure has dropped with that of London, though not so quickly. It has dropped at a slower rate for the last half of the exceptionally good year, 1926. Now I come to the Registrar-General's figures for the spring quarter. The Registrar-General's figures show a rise of five points in the infantile mortality, over the whole of London, as compared with the corresponding quarter ending on the 31st March, 1926. The figure was 71 in March, 1926, and 76 in April, 1927.
    The West Ham figures, however, according to the Registrar-General, show a jump of 33 points, the infantile mortality in West Ham, in the quarter ending on the 31st March, 1926, being 56, while in the quarter ending on the 31st March, 1927, it was 89. That is a terrific jump. In my own borough of East Ham, the course is different. As I have said, we had a phenomenal first quarter in 1926, with a mortality of 97. A year before it was only 58 in the corresponding quarter, and this year it is 90, that is to say, almost

    2455
    up to the peak of an absolutely exceptional quarter. These are the Registrar-General's figures as far as they go. I have taken out the unweighted figures, for the next quarter, which I am not going to give to the House, because, naturally, the unweighted figures and the broken weeks at the beginning and the end of the quarter are strictly comparable with any quarter, but I will just say this, that they do not seem to me to offer much ground for encouragement. That enormous jump is a very disquieting thing. I know perfectly well how difficult it is to deal with infantile mortality figures over a short period, and that one ought to be extremely cautious in drawing any conclusion. There does not seem to be any general disturbing cause, such as weather, or the London figures would have shown it, and, as I have shown, they have only risen by five points. I have looked through the causes of death as given in the weekly returns, and I cannot see—I only say I cannot see—any evidence of infantile epidemics enough to account for it. There is, of course, the restriction of relief, and I say that it seems to me highly probable that the restriction of relief has made the mothers in much worse case to face confinement and birth than they were a year ago. I think that that is so, and it is somewhat confirmed by the opinion given by the officers of the infirmary; but what I am asking now, and this is my reason for bringing these matters forward, is that the Minister should give us an inquiry.
    Of course, the figures I have given are the figures of an amateur statistician, but I do not think that anything in the world can disprove the peculiar effect of the long course of infantile mortality figures and of general death-rate figures that I have given over eight years, for eight years is a very long period; but what I want to have is an expert investigation by people accustomed to do it, by people accustomed to manage statistics, by experienced medical officers who can give an independent report. And I want much more delicate figures than those given by the Registrar-General. For instance, I have given the gross infantile mortality figures. The real index, however, is not the deaths under one year, but the deaths under
    2456
    one month and under one week. If you could have those, and if you could add to those the figures for stillbirths and miscarriages for the period, you would get what is the most sensitive index of all namely, the condition of the mothers at the time, when they come to bring forth children, because these statistics are really more maternity statistics than any statistics of deaths over a week or a month. I want a comparison over a long period of time of Kensington and West Ham, and Paddington and West Ham. I want to have in statistical figures the effect of liberal relief and restricted relief. I want an examination of the height and weight of school children and the death-rate by selected groups of ages. I want, in short, to have this matter gone into in a proper and scientific way. Whenever I have brought hard cases to the Minister he has contented himself with a sort of stock statement that he has no reason to suppose hardship is being inflicted. He has no right to suppose. It is his duty to know. That is what we have a Minister of Health for. That is what we have Registrars-General for, in order that experiments like this, affecting the life and health of the population, should not be entered into in the perfectly lighthearted way the Minister of Health has entered into the West Ham, the Chester-le-Street and the Bedwellty experiments. We of the Labour party have always said we gave the relief in order to save life. If we are wrong, tell us so, and prove it. We do not spend money for nothing at all. And if we are right, if restricted relief means high infantile mortality, let the well-meaning ladies and gentlemen in Kensington mend their ways and give enough relief to make the homes happy and prosperous.
    I am going to address one question on one particular case to the Minister which I addressed to the Under-Secretary and to which I got no answer at all. I gave the House last time two instances of soldiers' orphans whose incomes have been used to support their stepfathers and stepbrothers. Those cases were vouched for by the Under-Secretary who, when I spoke to him, wrote me a letter to say the facts were substantially correct. I have a case of three children, aged 15 and 12, who were soldier's orphans, receiving a pension of 7s. 6d.,

    2457
    and one working earning 10s. Their mother married again. There are, besides the stepfather, the war widow and the child. For the stepfather, the war widow and child they get 4s. in kind and 4s. in cash, the family living on the war pension and the 10s. earnings of the soldier's orphans. With regard to those cases, the old guardians acted on a letter they received from the Ministry of Pensions in which they say:
    "I am to point out that the allowances amounting to 7s. 6d. weekly payable to your wife as the guardian of the two children of the late Gunner William George Crowe, Royal Field Artillery, should be expended for their sole use and benefit."
    That is a letter the guardians received with regard to a case in 1922, and since then they acted upon an instruction from another Minister so as to give separate support to the relations of the fatherless children of soldiers. The new guardians have instituted a plan of making the fatherless children of soldiers keep the step-father and the mother and the rest of the family. The Minister of Pensions is here. It was his Conservative predecessor who wrote the letter the guardians had. I see in the papers that the War Pensions Committee of West Ham, which is by no means only Labour, which includes military representatives and so forth, are writing to protest against the pensions of the fatherless children of soldiers being used to support the family. When I pressed the Under-Secretary he only said it was the law that all sources of income should be taken into account. It is not the law that you should support your step-father. It is not the law that you should support your own brother and sister, let alone your step-brother and sister. It is Wood-gate's illegality. I want to press the Minister on these two points, the audit of vital statistics, and whether he approves of this use of the pensions of the fatherless children of soldiers.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes), who opened the Debate, began by asking me to give him answers to some large questions of policy. What, for instance, was the present intention of the Government in regard to a general Measure of Poor Law reform? I think that the ruling of the Deputy-Speaker which followed shortly afterwards would really preclude me from going into any large questions
    2458
    of that kind. I would only, therefore, make this allusion to that part of the hon. Member's speech, that when he said I had spoken of the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act as a temporary Act I think he misunderstood the observations I made on the Second Reading. What I said was not that the Act itself was temporary, but that it provided a temporary means of getting over certain difficulties. Of course, it is quite clear that the arrangement under which the elected board of guardians are swept away and their places taken by an appointed board of guardians is not intended to be a permanent arrangement. Apart from the measure we are discussing to-day, the necessity of making fresh Orders from time to time for boards of guardians to be retained in office shows that the thing is temporary.
    What we really are concerned with is, whether the present guardians, the Order for whose appointment was dated the 19th July last year, and whose term of office, therefore, expires on the 18th of this month, should be continued in their present office for another period of six months. It seems to me that the case for the Motion that that Order which I have made continuing them in office for another six months should be annulled must rest on evidence that they have not carried out their duties properly and that they could, therefore, be replaced with advantage by an elected board of guardians. I do not complain of the fact that hon. Members have tried to find a number of cases on which to argue that the present guardians have behaved with injustice or unfairness or even with illegality, but it is not the first occasion on which this matter has been discussed.
    We had a Debate on the Estimates of the Ministry of Health on the 27th June, and some of the hon. Members who have been speaking to-night also spoke on that occasion. Among them, and in particular, was the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves), who, I regret to say, is not now in his place. He made on that occasion certain statements, the effect of which was that the books of the new guardians had been falsified either with their authority, or, at any rate, by some person employed by them, and, on a subsequent occasion, I read to the House a letter I had received from the new guardians explaining what the real

    2459
    facts were, and saying there was no foundation whatever for the hon. Member's statement. I then called upon the hon. Member to withdraw his statement. He sent a message to the House, through my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, that he wished to make some further investigation and that he would deal with the matter on the first convenient opportunity. He has told the House what has happened. He had no evidence, but he hoped that if he could get access to the books of the guardians he might find some evidence. Accordingly, he wrote to the chairman asking that he might have access to the books. He had not time to read the letter from the chairman which he has received in reply, because he spoke for an hour and a quarter. As I do not intend to speak for so long, I should like the House to hear the letter, of which I have received a copy:
    "Sir,—I have received your letter of the 4th instant this morning, and have refreshed my memory by looking at Hansard's Parliamentary Report of the Debate on the Ministry of Health Vote on the 27th June last. The charge you made in the Debate against the present West Ham Guardians was that they had a staff engaged in writing the words 'on loan' against the names of persons who received relief in May, 1926, and whose records at that date did not have the words 'on loan' placed against the relief given to them. You stated in the Debate that the present Guardians had a staff 'up to two weeks ago,' that is, the 13th June, engaged in writing in the words 'on loan,' as above. You also stated in the Debate that you had proof of this. If you have proof, it is up to you to produce the proof. If you are not in a position to do this, then you should publicly withdraw the charge made against the present guardians. The Board decline to allow you to inspect their records in search of evidence as requested in your letter under reply."
    I think the hon. Member has behaved shabbily. He made a statement for which he had no evidence; he stated that he was prepared to prove the charges; he has not proved them, and he has not withdrawn them. That is not the way in which a matter of that kind should be treated.
    Mr. GROVES: When the right hon. Gentleman asks me to provide my evidence, of course, the evidence is where it is and where I want to see it. I can only bring the evidence in support of my allegations when I can have access to the
    2460
    case papers, which are not in my possession but in the possession of the guardians. I am speaking specifically of the case papers. I made courteous overtures in order to obtain the case papers; I know where they are; I know which they are and how to get them. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to help me to get them, and then I will bring the evidence he requires.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member must have forgotten what he said in the House. He began by making a statement. Then he went on:
    "I wish to repeat that statement, in case I am required to prove it."
    He then went on to say:
    "If the Minister of Health will give me a reasonable assurance that the person engaged to fill up the books in the way I have described will not suffer loss of employment, I will produce him at the Bar of the House."
    Mr. GROVES: Have you given me the assurance?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman proceeded to say:
    "In my view it is something which no decent-minded man can defend."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1927; cols. 124–25, Vol. 208.]
    I think no decent-minded man would have made a statement of that kind and then decline to withdraw it when he was unable to produce evidence in support of it.
    Mr. GROVES: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he has thoroughly read my speech, whether he has taken any step to face up to the question that he should give me the assurance for which I asked. I cannot expect the assurance to be given by the local guardians, but I do expect it from the right hon. Gentleman's Department. If he is prepared and he has the power to assure me that the person concerned will not be dismissed by the guardians—he has not taken that step—and if he will put it into writing I will face up to the facts and do what I said.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know who is the person of whom the hon. Member speaks. How can I say that, if he makes statements which I know must be untrue, if they are as stated by the hon. Member? I now come to examine one or two other statements made by that hon. Member.
    Mr. DUNNICO: On a point of Order. In the event of this person being produced and the statement found to be correct, will the right hon. Gentleman give the guarantee then?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not in a position to guarantee that somebody whose name I do not know and of whose existence I am entirely unaware shall receive no injury in circumstances which have not yet arisen. What I have asked the hon. Member to do is to produce the proof which he said he had.
    Mr. GROVES: The right hon. Gentleman does me an injustice, which I am sure he would not desire. He stated that I had said I had it in my hands. I said nothing of the sort. If he refers to my speech he will see that I asked him to give me an opportunity to get the proof.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not proof to produce somebody here to make a statement of that kind. I have the letter of the chairman of the board of guardians, and it is stated where the books were, and that they were not and could not have been falsified. That is a fact which can be obviously easily verified. The chairman states that the books were not in the hands of the staff. They were with the auditors, and therefore they could not possibly have had entries made in them by the staff up to within two weeks of the hon. Member's speech. I pass from that point, which I leave to the House, which can see exactly where it stands.
    I come to the next statement made by the hon. Member. He read out a vast number of cases in the House this evening as bringing forward evidence that the new guardians were not carrying out their duties properly. Of course, these cases had not been sent to me beforehand. If the hon. Member had sent to me, not 20, but four or five cases and had asked me to look into them, how much more weight would his arguments have produced in the House if I had not been able to meet them or to give a satisfactory explanation. Cases of that kind cannot possibly produce any effect when they are obviously one-sided. The reason, therefore, that I am going to examine further statements made by the hon. Member on the last occasion is to show
    2462
    the House whether, when it comes down to the evidence he quotes, the hon. Member has made that careful examination into the correctness of the statements that anybody ought to make before they produce them in this House.
    The next statement was that I had had the effrontery to present medals to the nurses at Whipps Cross Hospital after their hours had been increased. He said he had been there to the hospital. If so, he ought to know that the hours of the Whipps Cross Hospital nurses have not been increased and that they were working under the old guardians the same number of hours as they are now.
    Mr. J. JONES: Wrong again.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member must forgive me, but I think he is misinformed.
    Mr. JONES: I can tell you that instead of having 56 hours weekly they had time off to make it 48 hours on the average week, and the right hon. Gentleman knows all about the Central Institution.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is how hon. Members go off. They always do.
    Mr. JONES: Give me a few minutes and I will answer you.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I said the Whipps Cross Hospital—not the Central Institution. The reason I gave that was because that was what the hon. Member for Stratford said.
    Mr. GROVES: No.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have the hon. Member's words here.
    Mr. GROVES: That would not be so. If I said that I should have corrected it. I distinctly said the Central Home and gave the letter of the ward. I made it quite clear that it was the Central Home in Union Road. I do not go to the Whipps Cross Hospital.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is what the hon. Member said:
    "I think it is the greatest piece of effrontery for the Minister of Health to go to Whipps Cross Hospital and present medals to nurses after the newly-appointed guardians, who are his own nominees, had deliberately increased the working hours of those nurses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1927; col. 116, Vol. 208.]
    Mr. J. JONES: Certainly you did.
    HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That shows how much reliance can be placed on the hon. Member's statements. The first case the hon. Member gave was that of a man called Mason, who attended the London Hospital, where he had been ordered three pints of milk a day, and he said that the relieving officer had refused any help except the workhouse. I have made inquiries about that case, and I find that there is no truth in the statement that the relieving officer had refused any help except the workhouse. As a matter of fact, he is now receiving 10s. a week in cash, 12s. in kind, and is at the same time in receipt of National Health Insurance benefit of another 10s.
    Mr. GROVES: I think the right hon. Gentleman is unfair to me. That relief is given afterwards.
    Mr. W. THORNE: What is the date of that? [Interruption.]
    Mr. GROVES: I went to see the relieving officer myself about it.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The next case is one of a man called Clawson. [Interruption.]
    Mr. JONES: Let us settle the other case first.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members have taken two hours to present their case, and they must listen to the reply.
    Mr. THORNE: Socialists can rule as well as donkeys. [Interruption.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! Hon. Members must listen to the reply.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: On a point of Order. The question submitted by the right hon. Gentleman is that certain statements were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) which on investigation proved to be inaccurate, according to the right hon. Gentleman. The supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Stratford was that the facts as now disclosed did not prove that his statement was inaccurate, but that changed circumstances arose after his investigation.
    Mr. SPEAKER: No such question can be put if there is continual interruption and noise.
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A definite statement was made to me by the chairman of the board of guardians, that there was no truth in the statement made by the hon. Member that in this particular case the relieving officer had refused any help except the workhouse. He then went on to state what the relief given to the man was. I cannot lay my hand on the case at the moment, and I cannot therefore check the fresh statement made that this relief has been given since. At any rate, even if it were true that the relief had been given since the hon. Member called attention to the case, I still have the statement that his original statement was not true. Then I come to the next case of Clawson, who, the hon. Member said, attended Guy's Hospital, and was allowed only 7s. a week. I am informed that this man has never produced any evidence of attendance at any hospital, that he has never complained, and no one has complained on his behalf, that his case has been hardly treated by the guardians, that, as a matter of fact, he lives with four other people, one of whom is in receipt of relief, and that they have an income going into the household of 45s. 6d. a week after the payment of rent. There was one other case mentioned, of a certain man named Charles Gillham, who had fainted with hunger at Queen Mary's Hospital, and who had been refused any relief by the guardians whatsoever. I can only say that inquiries have been made at my request about this man, and that the guardians can find no trace of any person of that name ever having applied to them for relief on any occasion.
    Mr. GROVES: I interviewed the relieving officer myself!
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is another class of statement, and one which I think is really deserving of a little more serious consideration, at any rate as put in the form in which it was put by the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence), who has argued that, owing to the administration of the present board of guardians, the general health of the community is suffering and that that may be measured in the death-rate and in the infant mortality rate.
    Miss LAWRENCE: I said I thought I could prove that the administration of

    2465
    the old guardians was beneficial and that the jump to 89 this year was alarming. I was extremely cautious.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member need not be afraid. I am not going to convict her of any inaccuracy of statement, because I know she is careful with her facts. But that is not the case with the hon. Member behind her, and here again I must correct him, because, although the hon. Member for the Stratford Division was careful to say that the figures which he quoted of the infant mortality in West Ham, compared with the rate of infant mortality in other great towns in the country, were not necessarily the result of the administration of the new board of guardians, yet the insinuation was perfectly clear, and I was not surprised to find in the "Daily Herald" the next day that the t's were crossed and the i's dotted.
    "What are the methods by which the Commissioners have reduced the cost of Poor Law relief in West Ham?"
    asked that paper.
    "Infant mortality figures supply half the answer. In 1924 the infant mortality rate was 78·3, less than the average for 105 great towns. The rate in March and April"—
    This is what the hon. Member said, and the "Daily Herald" quotes it:
    "this year is 104, as compared with 90 in the great towns."
    According to that statement, the rate, which for a long time had been less in West Ham than it was in the 105 great towns, when the new guardians came in, immediately reversed the position and was greater in West Ham than elsewhere. Just let us see what evidence there is for these cases. I have some figures quoted by the hon. Member for Stratford, and let me say here that you must not confuse the county borough of West Ham with the union of West Ham. There is no use in quoting the figures for the county borough against the West Ham Board of Guardians. Therefore to illustrate by figures which might flow from the guardians' administration you must take figures for the whole of the union. These are the figures for the cases quoted by the hon. Member for Stratford. I begin by saying that it is quite true that West Ham in the past has had a very good record in the matter of vital statistics, and I am disposed to take the infantile mortality rate as a very fair measure of
    2466
    the general condition, not merely of the infant population, but of the population as a whole. It is a. good general guide, and it is quite true that for some considerable time the infantile mortality! rate in the West Ham Union has been well below 105 of the big towns in the whole of Great Britain. In January of this year the hon. Member said, speaking generally, the rate in the great towns was 98·2 and that in West Ham it was 100·4.
    He is wrong altogether. The rate in the great towns was 100 and in West Ham it was 91. In February he said the rate in the great towns was 100 and in West Ham it was 104. As a matter of fact, the correct figure was 114 in the great towns and only 94 in West Ham. In March he gave the figure quoted in the "Daily Herald" for the great towns as 90, and in West Ham 104, still much higher. The real figures were 87 in the great towns and 84 in West Ham. Only in one month—in the month of April—were the figures in West Ham actually higher than in the great towns. I think they were 74 for the great towns and 82 for West Ham. These figures compare with the hon. Member's figures of 104 for West Ham and 90 for the great towns. Not a single one of the hon. Member's figures was correct. Every one was wrong, and the significant thing is this, that not only were the figures wrong, they were all wrong in the same direction. It was a wrongness which made a case for his argument. When we find that as a matter of fact the real relation of the figures was exactly opposite from that which he stated, we see how much value is to be attached to his argument.
    The hon. Member for East Ham North is much more careful about her figures. She has noted a rather stiff rise in the infantile mortality for the first quarter of this year. The hon. Member has put an increase in mortality for West Ham for the first quarter of this year which, she says, shows a disproportionate jump as compared with last year. That is only the first quarter. Why has she stopped there? Why has she not gone further? Because it is quite true that the figures in West Ham were 82 in April, which was higher, but at that time all these figures were higher than they are later. In May the figure goes down to 44, and in June to 38. Against

    2467
    those two figures in West Ham I find that in the great towns there were 55 and 52. So that the latest figures we have—those for the last two months—so far from showing that the infantile mortality in West Ham has gone up, show that it is lower than in any of the figures of the old guardians. As far as the need for an inquiry is concerned, an inquiry could not be held into all the things hon. Members wanted to hold an inquiry into in connection with a Motion of this kind. It would have to be an inquiry undertaken not in West Ham but over the whole country, and that is not a matter we can discuss at this moment.
    Miss LAWRENCE: The point is this: The Registrar-General only issued the figures for the quarters. Has the right hon. Gentleman the figures down to 26th June?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not the figures for the quarter. I have the figures for the two months.
    Miss LAWRENCE: Could you give them to us?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already given them.
    Miss LAWRENCE: The Registrar-General gives them by quarters. Nobody can get them by months. If the figures were as stated in April, they must have been much worse.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member must realise that in these figures of infantile mortality it is not sufficient to take separate months. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is what you have been doing!"] Hon. Members are very unreasonable. First they quote particular months and they are incorrect, and when the correct figures are given with exactly the opposite result, they accuse me. In the enormous number of cases which are dealt with by a board of guardians it is obvious it must be extremely difficult for the most efficient, the most careful and the most conscientious guardians not sometimes to make a mistake. The extraordinary thing to my mind is that hon. Members have evidently done really hard labour to try to find some cases which will throw discredit on the guardians in all these months. Yet they have been extraordinarily unsuccessful.
    Let me turn now to the other side of the question. The charges which have
    2468
    been made against the guardians have not been substantiated. They have fallen to the ground. What have the guardians done? What is the extent of the change they have made in the affairs of West Ham? The old guardians were done away with because they were no longer able to perform their functions for financial reasons. They had already to cut their scale of relief and they were going rapidly into bankruptcy. We have had these two Reports issued by the present board. They cover eight months only, and in the Reports you can get some sort of idea as to the change in the financial situation since they took charge. The old guardians were borrowing at the rate of £700,000 a year.
    Mr. W. THORNE: That is not true, and you know it is not true.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I say the old guardians were borrowing at the rate of £700,000 a year. When the new guardians came into office they borrowed £300,000 at once in order to meet urgent calls upon them and since then they have not borrowed one penny. They have not only ceased borrowing, but we find that the number of cases dealt with weekly has been reduced from 28,000 to 14,000, the number of persons from 68,000 to 35,000, the weekly cost from £28,000 to £9,000 and the annual expenditure of the guardians from. £2,345,000 to £1,387,000, a reduction of nearly £1,000,000. That seems to be the most complete answer lo the argument that the state to which the Union had been brought was due, not to any extravagance on the part of the old guardians, but to circumstances absolutely beyond their control. When you get a saving at the rate of nearly £1,000,000 a year, without inflicting any serious hardship or injury on any deserving person then, it seems to me, you have shown to demonstration and beyond the possibility of contradiction that the condition of this union was due, not to the circumstances, bad as they might be, in which it found itself through exceptional unemployment and the want of any large section of well-to-do people, but to methods which were quite unnecessary and which had gradually led to general demoralisation. In addition to the figures which I have given, the guardians have been able to reduce the precept upon the rates by an amount

    2469
    equivalent to fourpence in the £, and although an hon. Member has given us a lot of figures to show that the borough of West Ham in consequence of the saving had an increased expenditure upon children's meals and in other ways, even his figures, as far as I could make them out, could not amount to more than a little over £15,000, whereas the amount which has been saved on the precept upon rates by the present guardians is at the rate of £112,000 a year.
    Mr. THORNE: How do you make it out that a penny rate brings in £14,000 and a fourpenny rate is £112,000? Calculate it.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has expressed criticism on more than one occasion because the present guardians were excused for a time from making repayments of principal which were due. That remission was made to avoid further borrowing. When reductions of expenditure were being made at the pace I have indicated, it would have been useless to ask the guardians to borrow money to repay interest, and in this particular case we are only repeating what we have done in other cases, notably in the case of Poplar. It is no new thing. In the present half-year at any rate the new guardians will repay about £80,000 principal.
    Mr. J. JONES: £150,000 less than they ought to pay.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Although they are no longer borrowing, they will be asked to pay back principal at a higher rate than was repaid by the old guardians. That seems to me; considering the short time in which these results have been achieved, to be quite properly described as it was described in the newspaper which an hon. Member quoted; and not only West Ham but the whole country is under a great obligation to these gentlemen who have undertaken this work and have shown what it is possible to do by sound and careful administration.
    Nobody can read the report which they have issued without seeing that there is not only a restrictive side to their policy but that there is also a positive side. The examination of individual cases is done with a care which is entirely new to West Ham and the relief which is given is adapted to the needs of the individual
    2470
    instead of being given indiscriminately. Improved accommodation has been provided for the hospital staff, workshops have been provided for the training of mental defectives, and consideration is now being given to the treatment and the nursing of the sick poor in their own homes. An even more important side of the new guardians' work is what they are trying to do to re-educate the employable people of West Ham into a sense of their responsibilities to the community. There are many there who had been on relief for years and had practically become content to go on doing nothing. Much as I condemn them I blame more those who had made it possible to receive more for doing nothing than for doing a hard day's work, and I do not think there is anything more satisfactory in the Report of the new guardians than the fact that in eight months they have been able to bring down the numbers of the able-bodied unemployed—
    HON. MEMBERS: Where?
    Mr. A. GREENWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman got any proof that these people who have been denied relief are now working?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; but I think we may take it that a large number of them have found work.
    HON. MEMBERS: No!
    Mr. PALING: If you could prove that you would have proved it from the Ministry of Labour before now.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is the belief of the guardians themselves that a considerable majority have for the first time for a long while really taken some active steps to obtain work, and have succeeded. Hon. Members opposite want to stop this beneficent work. It is quite clear that if now the present guardians were to be removed from office and we were to return to the system of election we should return again to that chaos and demoralisation which existed before. To take such a reactionary step as that would be a disaster for West Ham, and I believe that West Ham would be the first to denounce it, and I am certain that this House will not agree to it.
    Mr. THOMAS: I only desire to call attention to two things. The first is the last statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, who said that the action of

    2471
    the West Ham Guardians has resulted in a further employment of certain individuals. There is no evidence of that. The figures of the Ministry of Labour do not bear the statement out, and the Minister of Health has given no figures to substantiate it. If there be any substance in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, then he should be logical and wipe out all the Boards of Guardians, because he has proved conclusively from tariff reform figures, that the mortality is much less. I desire to bring the House back to the original claim made from this side of the House. There is a dispute as to the accuracy of the figures. It is admitted that there has been a saving in money, and, we do not dispute it. If hon. Members opposite are content to judge money on the one hand and human life on the other, that is the simple conflict between us. There is a dispute as to the accuracy of the figures. All we ask is that the figures should be investigated. I remember a demand being made when I was speaking from the Treasury Bench on a question of the criminal law affecting some Russian subjects, and the hon. Members opposite said "Let us have an investigation." When it is a question of the House of Lords, hon. Members opposite say, "Let us inquire into it," but when it is a question of human life the answer is "No." The one thing we are demanding is that an investigation should take place. If the right hon. Gentleman's figures are correct, they can be proved by a real test. We want that test to be made. We ask for an investigation, and, if the Government are not content to have an investigation, it only shows that they are afraid of the facts.
    Mr. J. JONES: I think I can say in ten minutes all I want to say, and all that probably some hon. Members will care to hear. In addition to my other crimes, I happen to have been a member of the West Ham Board of Guardians. While I was a member of that Board I looked at every case from the standpoint of human sympathy, because I have been through the mill myself. I know many cases where people put their hands in their pockets very deeply in dealing with hard cases, but we can never get them to look at the question either nationally or internationally. We have got now some new guardians, and the claim made
    2472
    for them by the Minister of Health is that they have saved fourpence in the pound in the rates in West Ham. What does 4d. in the pound mean in West Ham? I am putting it at the outside when I say that in that Poor Law area it means £60,000 per annum saved to the ratepayers. But I would ask the right hon. Gentleman why he forgot to mention the fact that, when his puppets were appointed—men who are paid salaries, when they would not even pay the tramway fares of the working men and women who went miles out of their way to administer the Poor Law—when these men, with £1,500 a year salary and £800 a year pension, were brought in to administer the Poor Law, they were given instructions, but when we approached the Minister in cases of hardship he told us he could not give us a hearing, that it was all in the hands of the appointed guardians. Appointed by whom? By a miniature Mussolini. Just as the great man is coming down, so will these other imitators of his come down eventually. I am not arguing about the figures that have been produced here to-night—figures in money; the only figures I understand are the figures in the streets, the people amongst whom I live, better men than most of you are.
    The basis of the policy is this: Force them down to starvation level, so that they will take any wage the boss likes to offer them. That is the basis of the policy of the new board of guardians. They are drawing their thirty quid a week, but the ordinary man who applies for relief has to be forced by sheer starvation to accept any price the employers care to offer. And what has happened? Where relief has been refused, overcrowding has taken place, and the infantile mortality is increasing. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is going down!"] From your point of view it is going down. Perhaps you have had letters from Dr. Stopes. There is no trouble in that respect. Remember that, so far as you are concerned, we in West Ham claim the same right as the people in Birmingham, the right to elect our own representatives. When these guardians were appointed, they were given a blank of £300,000 on loan to begin with. Only a fortnight before, the same Ministry refused a loan of £300,000 to the old guardians. [Interruption.] It is the

    2473
    fact, and I challenge the Minister to deny it, that the old guardians paid up on the nail the interest and the capital amount according to agreement. Have the new guardians done so?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They borrowed to do it.
    Mr. JONES: Oh, they borrowed to pay their debts! What a marvellous piece of business! The old guardians levied a rate to pay the interest and the capital back, in proportion to the amount of money they agreed to pay back. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I challenge anyone to deny it. I know what you will say. We understand you. Take the two years—the 12 months preceding the new guardians and the 12 months since—and I challenge any Member of this House to prove that the old board of guardians did not fulfil their responsibilities, and make the rates of West Ham and the district surrounding it. I am very sorry that West Ham is always used in this connection, because the rates of districts outside West Ham are involved. West Ham is a county borough, and one of the biggest parts of the union area, but there is East Ham—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why are you sorry?"] I am only sorry that West Ham seems to be picked out by some of you as a horrible example. I am prepared to go down to any of your constituencies and, given a free platform—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is rather forgetting himself. His remarks should be addressed to me in the Chair.
    Mr. JONES: I am very sorry their remarks are not addressed to you also. I am only trying to address remarks back to the people who address them to me.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is the reason why I prefer the old rule of the House. The other way leads to altercation and does not help debate. If hon. Members would always address me they would be saved that trouble.
    Mr. JONES: If I cannot see them I shall not hear them. West Ham is not afraid of any investigation. Our public representation is as clean as that of any other part of the country. We are prepared to face any kind of investigation you like to put forward. Surely the Minister, before he condemns a public
    2474
    body in the way he has done in this case, should be prepared to agree voluntarily that a Committee of this House, selected by himself, should make a full investigation into the administration of the poor law affairs of West Ham. That is not an unfair offer. We know before we start that there will be a majority of Members prejudiced against us because of the campaign that has been carried on in the Press and on the platform against the local representation in West Ham. You have disqualified the Board of Guardians.
    The next thing will be that you will disqualify our Town Council, and then the four Members for West Ham will be disqualified. Why not? You have as much right to disqualify us from sitting in this House as you have to disqualify Members of the Board of Guardians, because we stand with them. We have fought the battle they are fighting. We are here to do what we can to give the workers of the country a better chance. We are demanding work or maintenance. That has been the basis of our policy all the time, either work under reasonable conditions or decent maintenance. What is your policy? To starve them into work. You are teaching the people of West Ham to learn how to begin to work. Marvellous—the people from Kensington telling the people of West Ham how to work! Imagine the Lord Tom-noddies and the MacGregors who never did a day's work in their life, and the workers of West Ham, who have forgotten more about work than you have ever learnt.—[Interruption]. I can understand interruption coming from the hon. Member for Leyton because as soon as he left off work and began to forget it he became rich. When he was an ordinary workman he was poor. When he got other mugs to work for him he began to get rich. It is the only way you can get rich, to get other people to work for you.—[An HON. MEMBER: "How much have you got"?]— Our old friends have come back. They have never listened to the debate. For about two hours the House was practically empty. These people who have spent more on a meal to-night than they are prepared to give a working man to keep his family for a, week have come back to insult some of us.
    We have done our best to put the case for the class to which we belong. All

    2475
    we ask is fair play. These guardians are going to have their life prolonged for six months. They ought to have their necks prolonged six inches. We in West Ham are not ashamed of any enquiry you may hold. We ask for it. The biggest criminal in the country can get a trial in a court of justice. Our offence is that we belong to the working class. We have done our best to get over the trouble but we have not had much assistance from you.
    As far as poor law administration is concerned, we have to bear more than our fair share of trouble. I know very well that as far as some hon. Members of this House are concerned—[Interruption].
    Mr. DUNNICO: On a point of Order. Very insolent remarks are being uttered from these benches accusing the hon. Gentleman of having had too much beer—[Interruption]—I wish to ask your ruling. Are these hon. Members entitled to indulge in insolent and offensive remarks of that character?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly not. I will not allow any remarks of that kind to be made. As long as hon. Members keep interrupting, it is impossible for me to hear what is going on below the gangway. I can only conduct the proceedings of the House if hon. Members assist me.
    Mr. JONES: I will assist you, Sir. I will finish by congratulating my hon. Friend, the gentleman who does not drink. As far as I am concerned, what I say, I say perfectly soberly. I am a better man drunk than he is when he is sober.
    Mr. W. THORNE: I understand I shall have to cut my remarks short, because this Debate will possibly terminate not later than Twelve o'clock. I can assure You, Mr. Speaker, that during the last ten minutes it has been very difficult for me to restrain myself in consequence of dirty observations from hon. Members on my left—[Interruption].
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask hon. Members below the Gangway kindly to keep quiet. Will the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne) be careful to address the Chair and not to look the other way?
    Mr. THORNE: Yes, Sir. I will endeavour during the few minutes at my disposal to look at you. I do not wish to look in that direction, because if I do something may happen. I want to dispute some of the statements of the Minister of Health with regard to the loans and with regard to the £112,000 which he mentioned. As I said in one of my interjections, according to a first report made by the present board of guardians a penny rate will bring in £14,100 odd, and a 4d. rate £56,000 odd.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member seems to be under a misapprehension as to the product of a penny rate. A penny rate brings in, not £14,000, but £28,000. His figures are for six months, not for a year.
    Mr. THORNE: Well, I want to draw attention to the fact that if you look at Command Paper No. 2786, you will find that the guardians themselves state that a penny rate will produce £14,199.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is for the half-year.
    Mr. THORNE: They make the rate for the year—two half-years, I admit—but a penny rate does not bring in £28,000.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, it does.
    Mr. THORNE: That remains to be proved later on. The guardians go on to say that these reductions represent £112,000. I say that they do nothing of the kind; all that they have saved is £56,000. Then the Minister said that the old guardians were borrowing money at the rate of £700,000 per annum, but is that correct? We will see. On 31st March, 1922, they borrowed £300,000; on 31st March, 1923, £200,000; on 31st March, 1924, £500,000; on 31st March, 1925, £750,000; on 31st March, 1926, £650,000; and on 31st March, 1927, £300,000; or a total of £2,700,000, making an average of £355,000, and in only one year have they borrowed more than £700,000. Therefore, when my right hon. Friend charges us with being inaccurate, as a matter of fact, he is incorrect, because they have—
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say that the late guardians had borrowed at the rate of £700,000 a year during all the years of their existence.
    Mr. THORNE: But you led the Committee to believe that.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I said that when the new guardians came into existence they found that the old guardians were borrowing at the rate of £700,000 a year. They did borrow at the rate of £700,000 a year for the last two years.
    Mr. THORNE: That is not true.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: You have just read out the figures.
    Mr. THORNE: If you take the two years, of course, it is true. I have read out the figures, but the last year was £300,000, and it was handed over to the present guardians, and all this talk about saving these millions of pounds is not true. If they have saved all these hundreds of thousands of pounds, how is it that they have only reduced the rates by 4d. in the pound? If the present guardians can, by legitimate means, save a few thousand pounds, well and good, but not at the expense of the poor. Anybody, by cutting down the relief by 45 per cent., by cutting away a very large number of poor people who are entitled to relief, could save money, but, as the Minister knows, if they had been called upon to pay their way in the same way as the late Board were called upon to do, they could not have saved a 4d. rate at all. The old board of guardians were called upon to pay, in 1924, £1,316,000; in 1925, £223,000; and in 1926, £248,000. As a matter of fact, if the old board of guardians had been operating, they would have been called upon to pay in round figures about £350,000. That is what you would have called upon the old board of guardians to pay. Why do you not call upon the present board of guardians to carry out their obligations in exactly the same way as you would have called upon the old board of guardians? You have done it for the deliberate purpose of trying to make people believe that they are saving money when they are not, because they are not paying their way.
    You are not calling upon the present board of guardians to pay their way because it is evident, according to your own statement, that you are going to bring in a law which is going to make the present position very different. You
    2478
    are going to make every local authority deal with Poor Law, and the result will be that people in the areas where they should be called upon to pay heavier rates will get out of their obligations. Therefore, I contend that the present board of guardians are not carrying out their business in a humane manner. I have had any number of cases brought to my attention; I have hundreds of letters which I have never attempted to deal with, because it is no good. I have sent in many letters to the present board of guardians, and they have said that, after careful investigation, they do not see any reason to alter their policy. We know perfectly well that hundreds of these persons are suffering very seriously in consequence of the attitude taken up by the present board of guardians. Anyone can save money in the same direction as the board of guardians.
    The right hon. Gentleman has said that if this petition were granted and the old Board were restored—I take it, he means by election—one would have the same methods operating as one had prior to the Board of Guardians being superseded. By that statement I take it that the right hon. Gentleman means that, if this question were submitted to the electorate, the electors would disagree with his policy, because if he were quite sure that if he had an election of the Board of Guardians and that the electors would uphold his policy, then he would have a majority of people of his own way of thinking sitting on the Board of Guardians. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in 1920, when the Socialists were not in power, on the scale of relief granted by the old Board of Guardians, there was a maximum of £3. Therefore, you cannot accuse the old Board of Guardians of being extravagant, when, as a matter of fact, they were only operating the scale of relief which operated in December, 1920. Personally, I think they were a little bit generous. I have never been on a Board of Guardians, and if I were I think I should err on the human side. But, with all the talk of extravagance and mal-administration, you have not proved one single case yet. You have had time, you have had Government auditors who have had time to examine the books, and you have not made out a case where there has been mal-administration or corruption in any shape or form.

    2479
    I am quite convinced that, if the present Board of Guardians could have found that there was any corruption or mal-adminstration, they would have brought it to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. I hope this petition will be granted and that we can have the democratic principle operating again, so that the Poor Law electors will have an opportunity of showing whether they believe in
    the policy of the right hon. Gentleman or not.
    Question put.
    "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Order, dated the 17th day of June, 1927, made by the Minister of Health under the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, 1926, and entitled the West Ham Union Default Order (Continuation) Order, 1927, be annulled."
    The House divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 170.

    Division No. 263.]

    AYES.

    [11.55 p.m.

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

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Scurr, John

    Ammon, Charles George

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Batey, Joseph

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Snell, Harry

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Broad, F. A.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Buchanan, G.

    Kennedy, T.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Thurtie, Ernest

    Compton, Joseph

    Lansbury, George

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lawrence, Susan

    Townend, A. E.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Viant, S. P.

    Duncan, C.

    March, S.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Dunnico, H.

    Maxton, James

    Westwood, J.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Montague, Frederick

    Whiteley, W.

    Gillett, George M.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Paling, W.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Groves, T.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Windsor, Walter

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Potts, John S.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hayes, John Henry

    Riley, Ben

    Mr. Barnes and Mr. Benjamin Smith.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

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

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Crockshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey,Gainsbro)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Balniel, Lord

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Dawson, sir Philip

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Bennett, A. J.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Hilton, Cecil

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Bethel, A.

    Ellis, R. G.

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

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W

    Forrest, W.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Gates, Percy

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Buchan, John

    Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Long, Major Eric

    Burman, J. B.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Lumley, L. R.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I, of W.)

    Cassels, J. D.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    McLean, Major A.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Colfox, Major William Phillips

    Hanbury, C.

    Margesson. Captain D.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Harland, A.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Cope, Major William

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Meller, R. J.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

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

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Waddington, R.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur clive

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Wells. S. R.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Sandon, Lord

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

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

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Savery, S. S.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Skelton, A. N.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    O'Connor, T, J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl

    Oakley, T.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Womersley, W. J

    Penny Frederick George

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

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

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Wood, sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nalrn)

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Plicher, G.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Preston, William

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Major Sir George Hennessy and

    Remer, J. R.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Mr. Frederick Thomson.

    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr.
    2482
    SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question, put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Four Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

  WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
  WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
  SUPER-TAX.
  SUPER-TAX.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  TYPISTS.
  TYPISTS.
  WRITING ASSISTANTS.
  WRITING ASSISTANTS.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE (RUSSIA, ETC.).
  TRADE AND COMMERCE (RUSSIA, ETC.).
SCOTLAND.
  WESTERN ISLES (TRANSPORT FACILITIES).
  WESTERN ISLES (TRANSPORT FACILITIES).
  HOUSING (NON-BURGHAL AREAS).
  HOUSING (NON-BURGHAL AREAS).
ROYAL NAVY.
  HARD-LYING MONEY (SURVEYING SHIPS).
  HARD-LYING MONEY (SURVEYING SHIPS).
  OFFICERS WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  OFFICERS WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
EDUCATION.
  MAINTENANCE COSTS.
  MAINTENANCE COSTS.
  BUILDINGS (CAPITAL VALUE).
  BUILDINGS (CAPITAL VALUE).
  BUILDING COSTS.
  BUILDING COSTS.
  SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
  SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
  NERVOUS DISEASES (VACCINE LYMPH).
  NERVOUS DISEASES (VACCINE LYMPH).
  SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.
  SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.
HOUSING.
  CLOSING ORDERS, COWES.
  CLOSING ORDERS, COWES.
  RENTS, CHESTER.
  RENTS, CHESTER.
  AGRICULTURAL CREDITS.
  AGRICULTURAL CREDITS.
Preamble
The House met, at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
DERWENT VALLEY WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

KILMARNOCK GAS AND WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, with reference to this Order which is not yet presented to your Lordships but will, I believe, shortly be presented, I think I ought to say that it is twenty-three years since we dispensed with Standing Order No. 87A, which forbids a Bill of this kind being introduced after Whitsuntide. I have been in communication with the Government Department concerned and I am satisfied there is a public reason why this very exceptional course should be pursued. On the other hand, I think if it was not pursued there would be a certain public disadvantage. I would like to mention that I am assured there is a strong hope that this Order will be unopposed and that is another consideration which encourages me to ask your Lordships to dispense with the Standing Order in this case.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 87A be considered in order to its being dispensed with.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and leave for the Bill to be read 1a given accordingly.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND): My Lords, I beg to present a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, relating to Kilmarnock gas and water; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VIVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMA- TION (No. 10) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committees made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SUTTON COLDFIELD EXTEN SION) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
OUSE AND CAM FISHERIES PRO- VISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNIONS BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order):
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 6 [Provisions as to persons employed by local and other public authorities]:
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved, at the end of the clause, to insert:—
"Whenever any dispute exists between a person to whom the said provision would in the circumstances therein set forth apply and the local or other public authority by whom he is employed with reference to the remuneration or conditions of employment of such person, either of the parties to the dispute may make application to the Minister of Health for the reference of such dispute to a board of conciliation and investigation for their consideration and report, and the said Minister may thereupon refer the dispute to such board. The said Minister may make such rules as may be necessary relative to the constitution and procedure of such board for the purposes of this subsection."
The noble Earl said: I am much obliged to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House for giving me the opportunity to move this Amendment this afternoon. The noble and learned Viscount will see that it is in no sense contrary to the spirit of the Bill. It is
556
thoroughly consonant with Clause 6, but it does suggest that, in the event of difficulty between the employees of one of these local authorities and the local authority itself, there should be methods of conciliation in order to prevent a strike taking place. This does seem to me to be the best way of securing conciliation, and I am quite sure noble Lords on the opposite side of the House are no less anxious than I am that there should be methods of conciliation available in the event of a dispute of this kind. Whether the actual method which I propose is the best or not, I do not quite know, nor, frankly, do I quite care. If the noble Viscount is able to suggest some other means of conciliation I would very heartily agree with any other method which he thinks would be better than my own proposal. The proposal is a simple one, and I think it is unnecessary to detain your Lordships by further words.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 14, at end insert the said words.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): I recognise entirely the spirit in which this Amendment is moved, and if I could make any suggestion that might assist the noble Earl to make the proposal practicable I would willingly do so, but I see so many difficulties in the matter. In the first place, I do not see how you can suggest conciliation, or arbitration, about what is going to be a criminal charge. This subsection creates a criminal offence. It would be the duty of the prosecution to prove their case, to prove the breach of contract and to prove the other things which are in the subsection, and I cannot see how you could treat it as a mere dispute between a local authority and the persons employed by that authority, or how you could refer any dispute of that kind to anybody at all. Apart from that, I gather that the noble Earl is only proposing conciliation and not arbitration. That is, he only proposes that the dispute, if there be a dispute, should be referred to some board for their consideration and report. If that is what he means there is already ample machinery for that purpose. I have discussed the matter with my right hon.

557
friend the Minister of Health, and he agrees with the view which I have formed that for that purpose the Industrial Courts Act of 1919 provides ample machinery for dealing with that type of ease, by means of industrial courts to which, with the consent of both sides, the Minister of Labour is enabled to refer a dispute. Where there is a disposition on both sides to refer such a dispute, it could be so referred under that Act.
But if the idea is that it should be referred at the wish of one party and without the consent of the other, then, of course, the proposal is directly opposed to the view which is taken in so many quarters—I think perhaps rather unfortunately—against any form of compulsory arbitration. If you seek to make it compulsory you would at once come across very strenuous opposition from members of the Party opposite in another place. So it appears to me that even if you could arbitrate about this hypothetical offence against the law which leads to prosecution—and I do not think you could—it would be undesirable to put in this Amendment, because either it is adequately provided for by existing legislation or the matter had better not be dealt with in this particular way. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl, on reflection, will not press his Amendment.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Of course, in view of what the noble and learned Viscount has said, I do not press my Amendment, and I will ask leave to withdraw it. I will certainly refer those who called my attention to the matter to the means of conciliation which apparently do exist, and if there are any difficulties I hope they will avail themselves of the facilities to which the noble Viscount has alluded.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL moved to leave out Clause 6. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the discussion which took place upon the clause last night I desire only to say a very few words this afternoon upon my Amendment. The clause seems to me to do, in the main, two things. In the first place, it enacts that any public authority, local or other, that is to say every public authority of
558
any size or description and of any kind, shall be deprived of the liberty which every private employer possesses and without the exercise of which many employers have declared that it would be impossible satisfactorily to carry on their business. Secondly, in its fourth subsection, it enacts that any employee of any authority who breaks his contract may be liable to be sent to prison.
In view of the promise which was given by the noble and learned Viscount, all that I wish to do this afternoon is to direct his attention, in the reconsideration which he has courteously promised to give to this clause, to one form which may come under it—namely, an authority with which I myself have most to do, a local education authority. It would seem under this clause that a local education authority would no longer be able, even if it so desired, to use with regard to the teachers in its employ the well recognised machinery of working through such an organisation, for example, as the National Union of Teachers. Further, if any member of the teaching staff of that local education authority went out on strike and broke his contract, that member would be liable to be sent to prison. The teaching profession has a singularly honourable place in industrial disputes. I think I can say from my knowledge of them that in no circumstances, however much they were aggrieved, would they as a body come out on strike. They have too deep a sense of obligation to the children under their charge.
But there may be cases where individual teachers will do so, and I think it is quite obvious that any one who does will to that extent be interfering with the exercise of the functions of the authority and will therefore be liable to penalties under this clause. From the words that have fallen from the noble and learned Viscount it is perfectly evident that this clause is not intended to apply to such persons, and it is an illustration of the fact that this clause, while being designed to catch a sprat, is in fact drawn so widely that it will rope in all other classes. I have ventured specially to call the attention of the noble and learned Viscount to that illustration, and I hope that he will bear it in mind in the reconsideration of the clause that he has courteously promised to give.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 6.—(Lord Gorell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has been so moderate in the length of his speech that I am resolved to follow his example. We have argued the merits of this clause upon an earlier Amendment to the clause, and I will not repeat myself. It is true, of course, that this clause will deprive public authorities of the full liberty which a private employer has to refuse to employ men not belonging to a particular union. That is because they are public authorities and are subject to special responsibilities. As regards the position of persons employed by an education authority, I have taken careful note of what the noble Lord has said and I will consider his observations in connection with the other observations that have been made.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I am glad that the noble and learned Viscount has made that observation, because the definition of a trade union in earlier Acts is, I think, rather wide and it may be that the National Union of Teachers comes within it. At any rate the point wants very carefully looking into.
LORD GORELL: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.
On Question, Amendment negatived, and Clause 6 agreed to accordingly.
Clause 7:
Restraint of application of funds of trade unions, &c., in contravention of s. 1 of Act.
7. Without prejudice to the right of any person having a sufficient interest in the relief sought to sue or apply for an injunction to restrain any application of the funds of a trade union in contravention of the provisions of this Act, an injunction restraining any application of the funds of a trade union in contravention of the provisions of Section one of this Act may be granted at the suit or upon the application of the Attorney-General.
In the application of this section to Scotland there shall be substituted therein for references to an injunction references to an interdict, and for the reference to the Attorney-General a reference to the Lord Advocate.
LORD ARNOLDhad given Notice to move, after "Act" when that word first appears to insert "a declaration or". The noble Lord said: In moving this
560
Amendment I should like to say a word or two at the outset on what is really a point of order. In my view an Amendment like this is the appropriate opportunity for a discussion on the clause as a whole. It is a matter of indifference to me whether I say what I wish to say on this Amendment or on the Amendment to omit the clause.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): It would be much more regular, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, to discuss the whole clause on the question that the clause stand part of the Bill. Of course your Lordships are not bound very tightly by rules of order, but since the noble Lord actually appeals to a point of order, I think it is better that we should be to some extent bound by the rules of order.
LORD ARNOLD: It is really a matter of indifference to me, because I can move the Amendment to leave out Clause 7, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Muir Mackenzie, who is not present this afternoon. But, if I may say so with great respect to the noble Marquess, as having had some considerable experience in another place, it is there a very frequent arrangement to have a general discussion on the first Amendment to a clause. It happens again and again, and I think it is a great convenience in many ways. If, however, the view of the noble Marquess is not in accord with that practice, I will not actually move my own Amendment, though I hope I may bring in what I should like to say about it on the Amendment to leave out the whole clause. This clause deals largely, though not entirely, with legal points, and therefore I speak upon it with much diffidence, but there are points of substance which seem to me to arise. There was only one debate on this clause in another place, owing to the "guillotine," and I think I am right in saying that it did not come up on Report. There are certain points as to which we should very much like to have some enlightenment.
If in what I have to say, owing to my lack of knowledge of legal technicalities, I give the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, some legal opening hope that he will not divert the issue—I do not think that he will—because we want to discuss this point seriously and

561
we want to know what it means. If our fears are groundless, none will be more pleased than ourselves, I am endeavouring to put the position fairly, and I am relying to some extent upon arguments which have been used and views that are held, not only by laymen but by some members, at any rate, of the legal profession. In our view this clause is a threat against the right to strike. The idea of an injunction in connection with trade disputes originated, I think I am right in saying, in the United States. The conditions here are not, of course, necessarily analogous to those which obtain there, nor is the Clayton Act in America quite the same as this clause, but looking at the matter as a whole, the analogy is not wholly inapplicable, and it has been found that in the United States this power to get an injunction in connection with trade disputes has proved a more effective weapon for breaking strikes than anything else that has yet been devised. I have extracts here from an article on this matter in The Times by their special correspondent, but I do not propose to read them though they are very interesting and illustrate, as it seems to me, the harsh working of the Act in America. With that evidence before us the trade unions of this country are naturally very apprehensive about anything of the kind being employed here.
Clause 7 has to be related all the time to Clause 1—I think that this is obvious—because it really deals with conditions under Clause 1, and the position is, in our view, all the more disturbing because Clause 1 will, as we now know, make illegal not only what is called a General Strike but nearly all sympathetic strikes and a large number of strikes in single industries. Accordingly the position is very different from what I think the country was led to expect when this Bill was first mooted, and, I would submit, very different also from what it was when the Attorney-General made his spech on the Second Reading and from the general understanding of the position at that time. On the Second Reading the Attorney-General spoke as if Clause 7 could be used only to get an injunction against what is called a General Strike—a great strike that was threatening the whole life of the community. That was the impression that he gave, but the position has been very much altered since
562
then, and Clause 7 will apply to all strikes which, in the view of the Government, come within the ambit of Clause 1. Accordingly we have to be very careful about Clause 7, because, in view of what we have been told and of what the noble and learned Viscount has said, it will apply to various strikes which might be, and would be, held to be illegal under Clause 1, and we now know that this injunction process might be used in connection with a large number of sympathetic strikes and of strikes in a single industry.
This is travelling a very long way from what was understood a short time ago. Let us look at the position as I see it. If I am wrong, perhaps the noble and learned Viscount when he comes to reply will explain precisely what the position is. A strike is threatened which appears to come, or may come, within the now very wide ambit of Clause 1. As I have said that includes a very large number of strikes. The Attorney-General goes to the Court and gets an injunction. This raises the point of the Amendment that I do not at present move, but I will say something about it. He could not do this before the strike has started. He could not get a declaration. That could only be done after the strike started. Obviously the chances are enormously in favour—I do not think there will be any dispute about this—of a man in the position of the Attorney-General when he goes to get an injunction, getting that injunction. I do not say that the Courts will be biased in favour of the Attorney-General. I am not saying that, although if I did suggest that it would be difficult for Judges in such matters to be wholly removed from bias, I could quote to support a view of that kind the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and also a well-known passage from the speech of the Attorney-General in the Government of 1906. No doubt those two speeches on the point are well known to your Lordships, and I will not read them, although I have them here. However, it will not be disputed, I think, that in the vast majority of cases the Attorney-General will get the injunction.
It might, however, be some time before the final decision on the legality or illegality of a threatened strike, or even of an actual strike, is given. Nevertheless,

563
once an injunction is granted the strike is really for practical purposes illegal, and in most cases its back would be broken from that moment. That is the point I want to put. I think that is so in spite of the fact that the final decision might in some cases be in favour of the strike. When all the evidence has been put before the Court, and the facts are known, it might be decided that the strike was legal. Surely, nothing could be more unsatisfactory than a position like that, if I am putting it correctly. I think I am correct in saying that costs never are given against the Crown and therefore, whether the union wins or loses, in the end it is put to heavy expense and it has no redress. I am pleased to see that the noble and learned Viscount is shaking his head, because I should be glad to have an assurance on that point.
By the time the final decision is given the whole strike weapon has been destroyed, but that, I think, is really putting the matter rather too favourably, because as I see it the Attorney-General goes to the Court in most cases in advance, before the strike has broken out. It was considered in another place whether the Bill gave the Attorney-General power to do that, and I gather that he assumed that it does give him that power. Supposing, to take a specific case, that the miners had been for some time threatening a strike for, say, a minimum wage. The Attorney-General may take a serious view of that, and he goes to the Court and he gets an injunction in advance. Say, for the sake of argument, he gets an injunction on Thursday. The Courts say: "You have made out a case in our view. You saw it is for a minimum wage, and in order to get legislation on the point of a minimum wage, and, that being so, under the words of the Bill we will give you the injunction." Suppose the strike had been timed to start on the following Monday. If this injunction has been granted in this way, and then no union funds can be used, it seems to me that the strike cannot proceed.
Its back is broken from the very start almost. The strike is stopped from going on. And yet the Attorney-General may have been wrong. Nobody can say for certain how the strike would have worked out if it had taken place. No one can say for certain at the outset that the real
564
object was to get legislation on the minimum wage question. It might have been, after the strike occurred and if the injunction had not come in to stop it, that the miners, although some of them might have spoken of legislation, really might not have pressed for legislation, and they might conceivably in theory have come to an agreement with the owners to get a minimum wage without legislation. In that case they would not have been coercing the Government, the strike would have been legal, and the miners would have got a minimum wage. Owing to the injunction having been obtained before the strike started, however, the strike in most cases would have been stopped and could not take place.
That is a point which does want very careful consideration, and it is one of the points in connection with this matter which make the unions and Labour people very apprehensive. I should be sorry to think it was intended that the clause should have that effect. When the Attorney-General spoke about the matter in another place, on the Second Reading, he put it on a very broad basis. He envisaged a great General Strike which threatened the whole life of the community, but on the words of this Bill, and in view of the cases which have been given, which we are told come within the ambit of Clause 1, it is clear that the Attorney-General could use this clause for purposes very different from that, and could use this power to stop not only sympathetic strikes but a large number of strikes in single industries, which, if they had taken place, might in the end have proved to be entirely legal, and might have been of benefit to the workers in getting them better conditions. If that view, which I am putting forward, is the correct one, I should be very glad to hear what the Lord Chancellor has to say upon the matter.
May I now put another point to the Lord Chancellor? The Attorney-General, in another place, seemed to agree that after an injunction had been granted, but before it had been determined whether a strike was legal or not, the strike could go on, because the question was asked as to whether, when proceedings were pending, there could, in the interval, be a discussion in Parliament of this question. The next question is perhaps equally important, if not even more important,

565
and it is whether in the interim, before a final decision was given, there could be discussions and so forth in the Press about a pending strike, or would the matter be sub judice. What I want to clear up is this: How, if the Attorney-General gets, and can get in advance, an injunction to stop a threatened strike, can the strike go on at all after that? In the first place you would be running great risk, and secondly, if the union's funds have an embargo placed upon them, what are the men to do? I do not quite understand why, when that question was asked in another place, the reply was not: "Oh that would not arise because after an injunction had been granted there would, and could, be no strike." That is a point which I think is very important and requires clearing up. I now come to a word or two about the Amendment of which I gave notice.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD ARNOLD: I do not quite understand the reason for those interjections; I think I have been putting this matter very moderately.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: You have not touched the Amendment.
LORD ARNOLD: No, because I was told I could not move the Amendment. I am speaking on the clause as a whole.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very sorry. It was I who was obscure in that case. The noble Lord was called on to move his Amendment. He asked if he could discuss the clause as a whole, and we suggested to him being the guardians of order—the whole body of the House—that it was not in order to discuss the whole clause on an Amendment to the clause, but that the noble Lord should confine himself to the Amendment, and we were waiting till he came to the Amendment.
LORD ARNOLD: There has been a misunderstanding. I shall be surprised if the OFFICIAL REPORT does not show tomorrow that I distinctly said, in view of what had been said, that I would not move the Amendment, but would speak on the Motion to leave out the clause as a whole. And I think I said I would let my Amendment go by the board. I said that Lord Muir Mackenzie was not here and therefore could not move his Amendment, and I would take his place.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord is not moving his Amendment?
LORD ARNOLD: No. But I can speak about it on the clause as a whole, and, if I get any sympathy, I can raise the matter on Report. The Amendment was to put in the words "a declaration or".
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I am sorry now to interrupt the noble Lord. I understand that he is speaking to the Question that Clause 7 stand part. It is my duty first to put that Question.
LORD ARNOLD: Surely I am at liberty to suggest changes which might have been made in the clause. I am not moving the Amendment, and, speaking with not small Parliamentary experience, the procedure. I am adopting is a very usual one. The point I want to put is that in our view there would be some advantages in having, the clause amended so that a declaration could be given by the Courts, as well as an injunction. It is an alternative—a declaration or an injunction. We think, for reasons which are tolerably clear, that that would be an advantage. Of course, a declaration, as I understand, could not be made until after the strike had actually started. I do not think it could be made in advance. I may be wrong there, but that is my information—that you could not have a declaraton unless the strike were in progress, and if the strike were in progress and the Court was virtually satisfied that it was illegal, and gave a declaration, then the declaration—if it was a right thing to give—would settle the matter finally, without waiting for an interim period until further evidence and so forth had come along. That, it seems to me, is one of the advantages.
It may be said that it is not necessary to put those words in, that the Court can do that now, whether the words are in the clause or not. Whether that is so or not I am not competent to say. In fact, I notice that the Attorney-General suggested that even this clause was not necessary, that he could act without this clause. He was asked: "Does the clause add to your powers?" He said: "Well, it makes them clear; it defines them," which I understood to mean that he thought he could apply for an injunction even if the clause had not

567
been in the Bill. Personally I should think that is a matter for very great argument. As regards the declaration, I think it would be very difficult for the Court to make a declaration if the words are not in the clause because the Court might say, "Well, we cannot do that. It is not in the clause. The clause only says that we may give an injunction." I ask the noble and learned Viscount what harm would there be if these words were put in? Even if they were never availed of, it would do no harm. On the other hand, I can conceive circumstances where it might be a considerable advantage to have these words in the clause, therefore I think there is a strong case for putting them in.
I think I have largely covered the ground now. We are apprehensive about these matters. I will not go again into the question of the Astbury Judgment, which was referred to by my noble and learned Leader. That certainly made many people in the unions and among the workers very apprehensive as to what might happen if application were made to the Court during an industrial dispute. We also had last year a speech from the Solicitor-General, in which he said:
"I believe strikes are obsolete, and ought to be made illegal. It ought to be taken out of the workers' hands by the State. They ought to be deprived of it in their own interests."
That is a very strong statement to make. And if that is the view of the Solicitor-General, who may be the next Attorney-General, it is not a very encouraging outlook for the workers.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Where did he say that?
LORD ARNOLD: It is taken from the OFFICIAL REPORT on the Third Reading debate in another place, quoted by Mr. Philip Snowden.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What page?
LORD ARNOLD: Well, I have read it word for word from the Report. The date is June 23. Mr. Snowden said that was spoken last year during the industrial dispute.
My final point is that surely this clause, if it is to be in the Bill at all, whether the application be for an injunction or a declaration, ought to be confined to the case of a big General Strike, a
568
strike of the whole country. That appeared to be the original intention. It ought not to be possible to hold up and break, as we fear may be done under it, sympathetic strikes, or strikes in a single industry. That really does not seem to have been the intention of the Attorney-General when he first outlined this proposal, and in my view it would be going very much beyond the original intention to make it possible for any Attorney-General to have this power in the case of a sympathetic strike, or a strike in a single industry. If the Lord Chancellor says these things are difficult to define, of course one of the vices of the whole Bill is that so much in it is difficult to define. I think, at any rate for this purpose, whatever difficulty there might be about a sympathetic strike, it would be possible to put words in the Bill confining this power in Clause 7 to strikes other than those in a single industry. At any rate, I think that ought to come out. And it would be quite feasible to put in words to do that. If it is contended that the clause only defines and makes clear the powers of the Attorney-General I, of course, do not agree, and I feel certain that no kind of case of that sort could be made out to show that he has power now in the case of a strike in a single industry, whatever the object of that strike might be. In those circumstances I submit very strongly that if the clause is going to be kept in words should be introduced to confine its operations to strikes other than those in a single industry. I beg to move to leave out Clause 7.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 7.—(Lord Arnold.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not in the least complain of the course taken by the noble Lord in discussing this clause generally. I certainly misunderstood the noble Lord at the beginning. When his attention was called to the point of order, he gave a reply that conveyed to me that he would now move his Amendment, and postpone his general observations until later. That plainly was a misunderstanding, and I shall say no more about it. I shall deal first with the general observations of the noble Lord before referring to the Amendment which he may move at a later stage. He began by saying that this clause was a threat against the right to strike. I

569
assure him it is nothing of the kind. It is simply a provision for preventing funds being illegally applied, for preventing funds which belong to other people, the whole body of members of a union, being applied by the executive to illegal purposes and to purposes inimical to the State.
I am not going to re-discuss Clause 1 of the Bill, but I agree that the effect of this clause is that the Attorney-General may apply for an injunction to restrain the application of union funds to any purpose declared illegal by Clause 1 of the Bill. The noble Lord says that the effect of such an injunction would be to hamper the strike. Of course it would, but, if it is an illegal strike, it is surely right to prevent funds being applied in furtherance of it. The answer to the injunction would be simply that the anion in question would comply with the law, and there would probably be an end to the matter. He says that the chances in such an application would be in favour of the Attorney-General. I wholly dispute that. My experience is that our Judges enjoy nothing so much as to make reflections upon a Government Department, and, if they can, to decide against them, and in most cases with costs. I am sure that the Attorney-General would have to make out his case to the hilt before he could hope to obtain from any Court an injunction on so serious a matter as this.
The noble Lord referred to some observations, and he appeared to be quoting from my hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General. I thought from what he said that these words had been used in debate in another place. That is not so. I have now a report of the debate in another place on June 23. I find that what happened was that Mr. Snowden in his speech attributed to the Solicitor-General the words which the noble Lord has just quoted. He did not verify the quotation. I do not know where they came from. I am told—although I cannot speak positively at a few minutes' notice—that the Solicitor-General does not admit having used any such words. If I may conjecture, in the speech in question he may have been arguing in favour of a view, which many people hold, that, before a strike, or at all events before a strike in some essential industry, is allowed, there should
570
be an inquiry by some independent authority. In other words, the system of the Lemieux Act in Canada should be introduced in this country. I expect, although I am only guessing in the absence of a full report of the speech, that he may have been speaking of a proposal of that kind. I am certain that my learned friend never implied in anything he said that strikes ought to be illegal. He has often said the contrary, and has said it in another place during recent debates. I have just received confirmation of the view I have formed that the Solicitor-General made no such observation about strikes in general, and that the speech to which reference is made referred to a General Strike which is treated as an illegal strike, and not to strikes of any other character. Perhaps I may leave that question there.
All that is purely observation of a general character, and does not in the least interfere with the view which I ventured to express on Second Reading that where you have an illegal strike, a General Strike, or some other form of strike illegal by law, which may affect the funds of a large body of men and may be injurious to the State, that is exactly the kind of case where in other instances the Attorney-General as representing the State can and should be allowed to take proceedings to restrain them. As to the Amendment, I need not delay upon it very long. I do not quite understand what it means. Perhaps we shall hear, if and when it is moved. Does the noble Lord mean that, after the strike has begun, the Attorney-General may apply to the Court for a declaration that the strike is illegal?
LORD ARNOLD: Yes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If that is so, that would not only be most unusual, but most ineffectual. The cases in which the Court has the right to make declaratory judgments are very rare. The general rule is that Courts only decide questions on which they are asked to take action, and they do not make general declarations upon matters about which there may be a discussion. They are generally asked to do something, and not simply to say something. But, apart from that, there are great objections to any such declaration. One is that it

571
would probably be absolutely ineffective. The declaration might be made, but there would be no Order of the Court restraining the application of the funds. They might be dissipated next day in face of the declaration of the Court, and the declaration would be wholly ineffective. Surely an injunction is the only remedy, because it stops the misapplication of the funds from the very moment it is pronounced. It may be an interlocutory injunction given at the beginning of the strike, or it might be a final judgment, given perhaps after a short time, but still in time to save the dissipation of the funds. That is the proper legal remedy if any application about funds is proposed. I will wait and hear what the noble Lord has to say about this point. In the meantime, it seems to me that to insert in this clause any provision for a declaratory judgment would not be an improvement, and that the right order to make when an illegal act is committed or threatened, especially if concerned with funds belonging to a great mass of men, is an order for an injunction. I do not propose to make any further observations, because I dealt with the matter on the Second Reading, and I have no doubt the House will adopt the provisions of this clause.
LORD PARMOOR: I would like to say a word or two in answer to the Lord Chancellor. This clause is entirely un necessary at the present time in the case of ultra vires acts, which is the only case of which he speaks, and there the Attorney-General has the right. Therefore this would really be a clause which is not required and would not give any further power to the persons whose private rights are affected, nor would it give any greater right than the Attorney-General now has in a case of ultra vires. There is a case in point—that of the Attorney-General versus the London County Council, which raised the question of the running of omnibuses between certain points. But that brings me to this conclusion. If it is quite unnecessary, having regard to the statement of the law made by the Lord Chancellor—and I think that probably is the true view—it is very dangerous to have a clause of this kind in a Bill of this sort. If there is one matter which the Courts are very
572
anxious about it is that no clause should be what is called otiose. You should really give effect to the words the Legislature has used. If any additional effect were given to this clause beyond the law as it exists at the present time then I agree fully with my noble friend Lord Arnold that these difficulties—difficulties of a very threatening kind—would certainly occur. Why is this clause wanted? A clause of this kind is certainly not wanted as the law now stands. Moreover, I think it is an extremely dangerous clause in itself, and I am sure my noble friend Lord Arnold was quite right when he expressed the view that it is capable of being used in a very dangerous way. I have suggested the danger of it, and I do not want to say any more as my noble friend, Lord Arnold, has travelled over the other side of the case. It certainly is extremely wrong to put in a clause of this kind if it is only in accordance with the law as it stands.
LORD GORELL: I rise to put one point to the noble and learned Viscount, because it seemed to me that he did not fully apprehend the fear that was in the mind of my noble friend. The noble and learned Viscount said that, an injunction would be given in order to restrain the use of these funds for purposes which have been declared illegal. But is not the whole apprehension in the mind of my noble friend Lord Arnold that an injunction might be given when it was still uncertain whether the purposes for which the funds would be used were legal or illegal?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I interrupt the noble Lord? That would never be done. No Court would grant an injunction, final or interlocutory, without being satisfied that it must in law be granted.
LORD GORELL: I think the noble and learned Viscount said the injunction might be given before the strike began, or at an early stage, or after the strike had continued for some time. Would not the result, if an injunction was granted before the strike began, in fact be a declaratory injunction that the strike was to be an illegal strike? That is the apprehension. I think, in the mind of my noble friend Lord Arnold. Therefore, in a sense, this would be prejudging the very issues that would be in dispute.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Court would have to be satisfied that an illegal strike was threatened. They would have to know exactly what was threatened and intended to be done, and to be sure that it was an illegal thing before they could grant an injunction, either before or during the strike.
LORD ARNOLD: The clause has now been discussed, and I will not go over the points again, but I once more call attention, if it is necessary, to my lack of legal knowledge. I therefore do not comment on the legal part, but I am bound to say I am not satisfied in regard to the point about the threatened strike. When this matter was discussed at considerable length in another place I think I am right in saying that the statement which has now been made was not then made in defence of the clause. However, I cannot say more about it now, and I do not propose to move my Amendment, for obviously it would not be accepted. I would like to say one word in regard to the quotation from the speech of the Solicitor-General. I am very careful about quotations as a rule, and I took the quotation word for word from the OFFICIAL REPORT in another place, and, as far as I know, there was no correction or disclaimer there during the debate. But I accept what has been said.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord did not take it from the OFFICIAL REPORT of anything said by the Solicitor-General himself.
LORD ARNOLD: I took it from the OFFICIAL REPORT of Parliament, and there was no disclaimer.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR-: The Solicitor-General was not there.
LORD ARNOLD: I accept what the noble and learned Viscount has said, but I think I exercised quite sufficient care in bringing the quotation forward.
On Question, Amendment negatived and Clause 7 agreed to accordingly.
Clause 8:
Short title, construction, interpretation, extent and repeal.
8.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927, and shall be construed as one with the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1917, and this Act and the Trade Union Acts, 1871
574
to 1917, may be cited together as the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1927.
(2) For the purposes of this Act—

(a) the expression "strike" means the cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any trade or industry acting in combination, or a concerted refusal, or a refusal under a common understanding of any number of persons who are, or have been so employed, to continue to work or to accept employment;

(b) the expression "lock-out" means the closing of a place of employment or the suspension of work, or the refusal by an employer to continue to employ any number of persons employed by him in consequence of a dispute, done with a view to compelling those persons, or to aid another employer in compelling persons employed by him, to accept, terms or conditions of or affecting employment; and

(c) a strike or lock-out shall not be deemed to be calculated to coerce the Government unless such coercion ought reasonably to be expected as a consequence thereof.

LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved, in subsection (2) (a), to leave out "or to accept employment." The noble Lord said: I need not detain your Lordships long in moving this Amendment, although I think it is one of very great importance, because it introduces words into the definition of a strike which I think are entirely new. This definition does set up a new provision in English law. Hitherto, as I understand it, a strike has meant the refusal to work at a particular employment, but according to these words a strike nay occur if a man will not take new work, if he will not "accept employment." Those are the words here. That seems to me to be the literal meaning of the definition as it now stands. Consider what that means. There is no stipulation whatever about what the terms of the employment are to be; in fact, looking at it literally, as this clause stands if men in a certain industry refuse to accept half of their previous wages it is a strike, because they are refusing to accept employment. Surely the Government does not intend that? I should very much like to know why the words have been put in, and unless there is some reason, which it not apparent to me, or to any of my friends so far as I know, I would strongly urge the Lord Chancellor to consider before the Report stage taking out these words.
One effect of the words is this. Many stoppages which are really lock-outs

575
would, if these words remain in the clause, become strikes. If the Lord Chancellor will look at the words he will, I think, admit that under this Bill a large number of disputes which are really lockouts would become strikes liable to be declared illegal, and the employers would be removed from all responsibility. I have a long list of disputes which were regarded as lock-outs, but with these words remaining in the Bill they would become strikes. I do not think that is the intention of the Government. As far as I know—but I would not like to be certain—this point was not discussed in another place, and I think it is one which requires very careful consideration. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will be good enough to say that he will look into it before the Report stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 41, leave out ("or to accept employment").—(Lord Arnold.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has asked me whether I would consider this point before the next stage. I was proposing to go further than that. I do not quite agree with his comment upon the clause, because it only refers to a case where there is a concerted refusal to accept employment or to return to work. I think it is that which the framers of the Bill have in view, but I quite feel—and I have felt from the time when I first read the Bill in this House—that there was something to be said on the point. As the noble Lord has said, I do not think these words were objected to in another place, although I am not quite sure of that; but, on thinking them over. I am disposed, if the House agrees, to accept this Amendment at once, only reserving this right, that if in another place a different view should be taken the Government must not be taken to be finally bound by what I have said to-day. I am very pleased to take this course, because at last I have an Amendment which I can accept, and which will give the House an opportunity of having a Report stage on the Bill. I have already said I think it desirable that in the case of a Bill of this great importance there should be a Report stage in this House. That gives me, I had almost said pleasure, in accepting this Amendment.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: We are not only pleased, but we are gratified by the fact that at last the noble and learned
576
Viscount has accepted an Amendment out of hand. The words as they stand are very awkward words. They are: "refusal under a common understanding of any number of persons who are, or have been so employed." They might have been employed a year before, and if they will not accept employment there is a strike. If that is so it is a great innovation in the Common Law of this land, and I am quite sure it was not intended. I am very glad that the matter is now in the hands of the Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved to omit from paragraph (b) of subsection (2) the words "done with a view to compelling those persons, or to aid another employer in compelling persons employed by him, to accept terms or conditions of or affecting employment." The noble Lord said: I am so much encouraged by the kind reception of my last Amendment that I am most hopeful that this one also may be accepted, because I think that an equally strong case can be made out for it. I honestly believe that there is something here which has escaped attention in this very difficult and complicated Bill. The definition of lock-out is given in paragraph (b). After stating what a lock-out is the paragraph says that it should be done "with a view to compelling those persons," and so forth. It is quite evident, I think, that if those words remain in the definition then a lock-out cannot be held under this Bill under any circumstances to be coercing the Government, because a lock-out must be done with this object, which is not coercing the Government. If you look at the definition of a strike on the previous page it finishes, or did finish, with the words "accept employment." Now it finishes at the word "work." There is no qualification as to what the object is there.
It is quite true, if you turn back to Clause 1, that a case could no doubt be made out that the position is set forth there, and that a lock-out is referred to as "designed or calculated to coerce the Government." It is also true, curiously enough, that in paragraph (c) there appears to be a suggestion that a lockout can coerce the Government. But in the definition of lock-out those words do not appear. On the contrary, the meaning

577
appears to rue to be limited in the way I have indicated. I think that is so, and I hope that the Lord Chancellor will be kind enough between now and the Report stage to undertake at any rate to consider the matter, because we do feel that there is a real disparity which wants looking into. He has been good enough to promise to look into several points, and this is one more. I think it is a matter which requires very careful consideration, because really on the literal reading of the definition in paragraph (b) it seems that no lock-out in any circumstances could be held to be coercing the Government, because the object is there stated to be "with a view to compelling those persons" and so on.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, leave out from the beginning of line 6 to ("and") in line 9.—(Lord Arnold.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Your Lordships know that on the introduction of this Bill the Government took the view that it was useless to include lock-outs in the Bill because no such thing as a general lock-out has even been heard of in our history. But, on consideration, and in view of the fact that a certain amount of—I hardly like to call it misrepresentation, but something of that, kind occurred, they did decide to include lock-outs in the Bill. In doing so they took the definition of the word lock-out from the Labour Party in the House of Commons. The Labour Party proposed a definition of lock-out, and the Government accepted that definition from Mr. Clynes. The definition was in the words which now appear in the Bill, and I think that we were entitled to assume that when the Labour Party asked for the inclusion of lock-outs they had accurately defined what they had in their minds. It is therefore a definition which comes from the Party of the noble Lords opposite, and we do not feel at all inclined to depart from it. I should add that this is not a definition as the noble Lord seems to think, of an illegal lockout. It is a general definition of lock-outs. Therefore his observations do not really apply. If you look into it you will see that without these words the definition would be much too wide, for it would apply to any case in which, in consequence of a dispute, works had been shut down. It might well be that because
578
of a dispute there was a dissolution of partnership and a cessation of business, and then these words would apply although there was nothing in the nature of a lock-out in the ordinary sense. These words, or something very like them, are, I am confident, necessary, and unless something much better is proposed at a later stage we should not propose to alter the Bill here.
LORD ARNOLD: On the point that these words were taken from the suggestion of the Labour Party, that no doubt is true. I do not know precisely the circumstances in which the suggestion was made. It may have been made for some different purpose. But in any case the Labour Party, with all its great virtues, does not profess to be infallible. It may be that on second thoughts it would decide that it would be better to have further words put in the definition. With great respect, to the noble and learned Viscount, the matter presents itself to me in this way. He says it would be awkward to leave out these words, and suggests that that really is the whole problem. If he desires to keep these words in, what I think might be done would be to put in other words as well to cover this point. As I ventured to observe yesterday, it is a very common dilemma in Parliamentary procedure that these extremely difficult points can scarcely he dealt with properly without the aid of highly skilled draftsmen. It is not very often that ordinary members, either of this House or of the other House, can get over a difficulty of this extreme complexity. I do not think, if I may say so, that, the noble and learned Viscount would be giving anything away if he said he would consider it. Perhaps he did imply that he would consider it when he said that other words might be brought forward. But it is a very difficult matter, and I think it would be helpful in the endeavour to find words to meet a point which I think is a real point if the Government draftsman could be called in to the problem.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Before the House is resumed I think it would be for the convenience of your

579
Lordships that I should say that we propose to take the Report stage of the Bill this day week. We propose that so that there may be sufficient time for my noble friend the Lord Chancellor to consider the points which he has undertaken to consider, and also to give noble Lords time to make any proposals they think fit. If the Government were fortunate enough to persuade your Lordships to agree to accept the Report on Thursday, we should propose to have the Third Reading on the following Monday. I ought to add, in case there should be some difficulty on Monday owing to the rules of your Lordships' House, that I think I should be entitled to ask the House to give the Third Reading of this Bill priority on Monday over other Orders, if such appear upon the Paper, and I shall be ready to make that suggestion when the time comes.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I think that suggestion is quite reasonable. Until we have seen whether there are any changes in the Bill, we cannot commit ourselves to a day being sufficient for the Report stage, but it may well be that it will prove to be so. We shall see.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Quite so. I hope that we shall have no difficulty in disposing of the Report stage on Thursday before our usual hour for rising, but no doubt, if necessary, your Lordships will be ready to sit late.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before six o'clock.

BOGNOR GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
HASTINGS TRAMWAYS COMPANY (TROLLEY VEHICLES) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

LITTLEHAMPTON HARBOUR AND ARUN DRAINAGE OUTFALLBILL. [H.L.] MAIDSTONE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the able the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Gravesend, Rosherville and Northfleet Tramways (Amendment) Provisional Order.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

EAST ANGLIAN ELECTRICITY BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
TORQUAY CORPORATION BILL.
Consent of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.