I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words

"this House cannot assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which, for gratuity and pension purposes, fails to give adequate recognition of the services rendered by those officers whose connection with the police service was severed in consequence of the police strike of 1919, and who, as stated by the committee of inquiry, were, while in the force, men of good character and efficient officers."

In the first place, I wish to make reference to the fact that, when the Bill was before the House a short time ago, a misunderstanding arose in regard to the absence of certain members during the Debate. That was not, however, due in any way to myself. I feel that I ought to mention that fact, because no one has greater respect for the demands on the time of the House, and I would do nothing that would interfere with the ordinary process of business. In regard to the speech of the Home Secretary, I have carried out his request—that I should read his speech, in order that he might not have to deliver it a second time.

The rules of Order prevent my doing so.

Having read the speech, I would point out that the Bill provides for two purposes. The first is one that is not associated with the Amendment I am now moving. The second purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the recommendation of the Mackenzie Report of making legal any desire that the local authorities may have in order to refund to the men who were involved in the police strike of 1919 the financial contributions which they made from their pay to the pensions fund. The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech on the 14th May, said that many of these men had served a considerable time in the police forces to which they were attached and that they had earned a certain right or expectation of pension or gratuity. Later on, he referred to the provisions of the Bill, which he said will enable local authorities, or those who are responsible for the administration of the Bill when it becomes an Act, to decide whether or not the gratuity shall be given to these men out of the police fund.

I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the difference between the rateable deductions and the gratuity. Rateable deductions under the various Police Acts are distinctly those financial contributions which the officer makes towards the pensions fund, while the gratuity or the pension right is something totally different. The gratuity is laid down by existing Acts of Parliament as representing a measure of pay for a certain period. The gratuity, in certain circumstances, is held to be a month's pay for every completed year of service. Pension right is calculated on the basis of so many sixtieths of the pay in relationship to the number of years that the man has served. This Bill does not propose to give either gratuity rights or pension rights. It merely proposes to refund in certain circumstances the financial contributions which the officers themselves made. Therefore, there cannot be any question of the payment of a gratuity. It is proposed to return only those moneys or a portion of those moneys which the men paid into the fund. It cannot be representative of the pension rights which they had earned, and to which they had contributed, not only in a financial manner, but by their services. Their services were of a very good and faithful kind. I do not ask the House to accept my estimate only of their services. I need only refer to the Report of the Mackenzie Committee, who very thoroughly examined the evidence for and against the claims of the police strikers. It is recorded in paragraph 73 that: 14th May, they had earned certain right or expectation of pension or gratuity at the conclusion of their service with the police. I submit that this Bill does in no way meet the just and legitimate claims of these men. Clause 2 has reference to the police strikers. This Bill seeks to extend existing legislation and to make it retrospective to the 30th June, 1919, in order that regard can be had to the refund of contributions. In Clause 2 ( b ) it is provided that:

It depends on the mentality of the people in the local authorities, or in the London Metropolitan Police area, as to what constitutes distress and as to whether the individual case under review is one which can be regarded as suitable for the repayment of these moneys. Is it appreciated that if a police striker who may be in distress and in receipt of relief from a board of guardians, as some of them are, the payment of these contributions constitute no payment whatsoever to him, for under the Poor Law the guardians are entitled to claim any payments that may be made out of the police fund to these men in respect of the relief they may have obtained from the guardians. In itself the whole proposal is one which puts these men in the undignified position of having to leave themselves at the mercy of people who have indicated their opinion of them in no uncertain way and in no friendly way. These men themselves do not regard the discharge of their contributions as being in any way a recognition of the services they gave during the time they were police officers.

They struck.

Yes.

And were dismissed.

That comment is hardly necessary in view of the fact that I have referred to them as strikers. These men struck, but according to the witnesses before the Mackenzie Committee on behalf of local authorities, their service during the time they were in the police force was good and faithful service.

Striking is not being faithful.

That is a matter on which the hon. Member opposite can express an opinion later. I am speaking of the services they gave while they were in the police force, and when it becomes a question of loyalty, will the hon. Member please refresh his memory and remember that he and his people had the loyal service of these men under conditions that were far more trying and lees honourable than the conditions that exist to-day in the police force. You are getting loyalty now because you are giving them fair conditions of service. The majority of these men served under conditions which approximated to starvation conditions, and whatever you may say with regard to their action in striking, the conditions to-day, which we have arrived at consequent upon the strikes, prove more than ever that the measure of their loyalty was greater than the measure of loyalty given under good conditions only. As one who was brought up in a police man's family, one of a family of seven—

May I ease the hon. Member's mind? This proposal which I am making and asking the House to grant is in the nature of a gift to dismissed strikers. If the hon. Gentleman objects to receive that gift, I will withdraw the Bill here and now.

The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps allow me to proceed with what I have to say. He may do what he likes with his Bill. The point of view of the party behind me in this matter is clearly and definitely expressed in the Amendment, and whatever the right hon. Gentleman does, I am sure he would not ask me to accept any responsibility for anything upon which he decides. Therefore, I am not going to suggest anything he may do. He can please himself exactly in regard to that. The Mackenzie Committee was appointed to inquire into the claims of the police strikers—the claims of the strikers were for reinstatement in the service. Of five members on the Committee, three of them were against reinstatement and two in favour; but the Committee unanimously decided, after hearing all the evidence, and despite the diversity of views and opinions held, that the matter ought not to be left where it was. It took six years of persistent agitation to persuade the Government that there was indeed some cause for action and that some injustice had been done in this matter. This opinion impressed those who have been endeavouring to prove the case for these men and that they have a right to their services being recognised for pension or gratuity purposes.

Their only crime was that they withdrew their services; but they withdrew their services because the conditions that were to be imposed upon them were, in their view, contrary to the conditions previously agreed upon. There was a contractual obligation on the police authorities just as much as upon the policemen themselves, and I cannot do better than refer to the evidence given before the Committee as to who should carry the responsibility, or at any rate some of the responsibility, for the strike of 1919. I am going to refer to something which may concern the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and I regret that I have not fulfilled what is generally re- garded as an obligation in this House—I have not sent him notice that I proposed to mention this. But as there will be other opportunities in the future, I will see that it is not overlooked. In the course of the inquiry General Sir Nevil Macready in giving evidence indicated that whatever blame there may be it was no part of his business to be concerned with finding out who was to blame, but he indicated that the blame did not rest on the police strikers only. In cross-examination I put this question o him: The Chairman then asked Sir Nevil Macready: Interruption. ] I repeat it. Amazement has often been expressed that these men were so loyal under the horrible conditions that existed. They were loyal, but because they dared to take part in a movement of protest, they were to have all their livelihood thrown away and all that which they had earned disposed of. At any rate, their crime, if crime it be, was one purely in defence of the principle of the right to express their opinions freely under conditions that they understood had been agreed to. There are people who have been, and still are, in the police service who were thought fit by the authorities not only to have their services retained but who have been allowed on many occasions to go away and receive the pensions which their services have earned. I do not complain of that. What I do say is, that these men, for whom I am speaking, have not committed any serious crime that should deprive them of the benefits that they have earned. When I come to think of some of the people, the conditions under which they are considered to be fit to receive their pay and pensions, as compared with the action that these men took—an action which did not make them unfit to be policemen—I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman should feel that this is the worst crime that could possibly be committed by any police officer.

Hear, hear! No worse.

The right hon. Gentleman knows no worse crime. Does he not appreciate that it required a man of courage and conviction to have taken the action which these men took in 1919, that if you want men of character in the police force, they have to be men of conscience and men of conviction? If it be the worst possible crime that the right hon. Gentleman can conceive, does he consider that it would be better to keep in the force men who have crimes on their sheets such as associating improperly with bookmakers—as there are people—and men who have been committed and have been found guilty of offences and to-day are still receiving their pensions? At any rate, the men for whom I am speaking have a clean record, apart from their action in connection with the strike. I know of people who have been in the service and who have been sheltered while they have been in the service for offences which, I am very glad indeed, none of these men has ever been guilty of. But, no! It happened to be that they opposed the action of the authorities in endeavouring to impose new conditions of service upon them. We claim that they should have the full benefits of the services that they have rendered up to the time that it was desired to impose the new conditions. The right hon. Gentleman will probably feel that we are asking for the ratepayers' money. What we are now asking for has been earned by the men.

I notice that the Home Secretary has now been joined by the First Lord of the Admiralty. The Government did not hesitate to bring in a Bill to indemnify the right hon. Gentleman when he made a mistake. Apparently the Home Secretary can make a mistake and do something contrary to the law and be indemnified by the House of Commons. When we come to the ordinary common or garden police officer, there are no second chances for him, none at all.

You did not vote for the indemnification.

I did not vote for the right hon. Gentleman's indemnification. One good turn deserves another. In any case, I want to make this protest to the House. Whatever proposal the right hon. Gentleman cares to make arising out of the Mackenzie Report, our claim has been, and will continue to be, that the services which these men gave shall be requited by a recognition of the gratuity or pension rights which they have earned, and, what is more, we persist also in asking either now or later for the recognition of the services of those who were involved in the strike, as recommended by the Mackenzie Report, but not, in fact, included in this Bill. I am referring to the officers of the prison department, the warders. The right hon. Gentleman has not indicated how far he is prepared to recognise the case of those particular men. The claims of both police and prison officers are bracketed. The minimum which they expect is payment of gratuities or pensions according to the services that they have given.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I wish to address myself to another aspect of this matter which I think the Home Secretary will find not quite so controversial as some of the other points which have been raised, and in regard to which I hope he will be willing to give me a sympathetic hearing. Our object in raising this matter, apart from the acute differences of opinion which have been expressed, is, of course, to improve as far as possible the conditions of those to whom this Bill refers. Clause 1 refers to the question of the deductions which have been agreed to on the basis of the Report of the Lee Committee, and I ask the Home Secretary if it would not be possible for him to give some assurance that an injustice which was done in the past will be remedied on the present occasion. The House may remember that when the Police Pensions Bill of 1921 was in Committee of the Whole House, police widows were included in the benefits of the Measure. The Bill passed its Second Reading, Committee stage, and Third Reading and went to another place, where the provisions dealing with widows were cut out. They were then re-inserted by the House of Commons with the exception of the provision relating to widows who became widows before 1918. I suggest that the Home Secretary might give us some assurance that the pensions provisions will be extended to those women whose husbands died or retired from the force before 1918. It would do a great deal to put right an injustice and it will cost very little. In the Lee Report of last year one of the paragraphs on page 5 states:

The House is discussing a matter affecting the police, at a moment when gratitude for the services recently rendered by this force is uppermost in the public mind. I feel that if the House and the Home Secretary can be generous in this matter, they will be meeting public opinion in a very peculiar sense. A voluntary fund has recently been raised to remunerate the police force. Whatever may be the merits of that particular fund, it is unfortunate in one sense that voluntary subscriptions should have to be raised to reward a force on which we all depend for safety and for public order. It is possible to reward the police, if not to recognise their services fully, by treating them a little more generously in this Bill. I am not going to follow the Mover of the Amendment. There is no man in this House who speaks with greater authority than he on behalf of the police force, in which he himself has served, and it is right and proper that every point of view should find expression in this democratic assembly. I think it would be difficult to justify a strike in the police force, but there is at any rate this strength in the argument used by my hon. Friend. It is regrettable that, only as a result of that strike, was it recognised that the police were paid very badly indeed, and that their widows had been absolutely neglected by Parliament. I think it a pity that, as a result of having a pistol held at its head, the Government of the day gave way, and said, "We cannot condone this strike, but we recognise that you have good grounds for grievance, and we will therefore in the future increase police pay, and give pensions to police widows."

I do not want the hon. Member to fall into a mistake—the same mistake as that made by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes). I will deal with him later, but I would like at this stage to point out to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) that the new scale of pay came into operation three months before the strike, and that the strike had nothing to do with it.

I was dealing with the remarks of the hon. Member for Edge Hill, and accepting his statement.

In order that the hon. Member may not be misled, may I point out that I referred to the new conditions imposed by Act of Parliament, and I said that men had given loyal service under very different and bad conditions. That statement was perfectly true, and it was only after the 1918 strike that the improved conditions were actually, and, in fact, brought about in respect of pay.

I naturally accept what my hon. Friend says, and I was basing my argument upon it. May I ask the Home Secretary, in order that I may not be under any misapprehension, did the widows benefit after the strike or before it?

Before. [ Laughter. ]

I do not know that the question of giving consideration to these widows is a subject for humour. Before 1918 the right hon. Gentleman knows that the widows of the police were completely ignored in so far as any provision was concerned. It was after the 1918 strike that provision was made for them.

I am very sorry to have to intervene again, to point out that the 1918 strike is not being discussed here at all. These men have nothing to do with the 1918 strike. The hon. Member knows it, and he is trying to mislead the House of Commons. These men were dismissed in consequence of their action in the 1919 strike—when they had got their widows' pensions and their present scales of pay.

The right hon. Gentleman knows I do not want to introduce any heat into this controversy, particularly because this is a moment when we all want to do what we can for the police and their widows. I cannot differ either from the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) or from the right hon. Gentleman, but the fact remains that policemen, whether they go on strike or not, do in certain cases leave widows behind them. In so far as those widows are in an unfortunate position, I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider it. Admittedly, for many years the police were inadequately paid, and whether as a result of the strike or out of spontaneous magnanimity Parliament suddenly decided to place them on a better scale of pay and to give some kind of pension to widows. Unfortunately, in another place the provisions in respect of widows who became such before 1918 were struck out of the Measure. Their case is even more serious to-day, because there has since been a Contributory Pensions Act to provide for the widows of the country as a whole, and yet these women are excluded entirely from both Acts of Parliament, and seeing that this Bill is the result of an agreement between the men and the authorities, and that, in agreeing to it, the men imagined, as the Lee Report shows, that their widows were going to be placed on a better scale of pensions.

I very much hope the right hon. Gentleman can hold out some promise that, if we pass this Bill to-day, those widows will not be forgotten. After all, they stood by their husbands in the police force when their husbands were so badly paid, and they bore the whole brunt of the very severe conditions which then prevailed. They are really in a most unfortunate situation, as anybody who has been in correspondence or communication with them knows, and I do not think it is right that the widows of the men of a great force like this should not realise the benefits either of the Contributory Pensions Act or of this scheme. The right hon. Gentleman has expressed his sympathy, I think, with these widows when the matter has been raised in this House previously, and I know from what he has said on previous occasions that it would be his desire to do something for them. They are living in some cases in absolute and entire distress, and if now, when we are so well disposed and so grateful towards the police force, the right hon. Gentleman could hold out some indication that their case will be taken into consideration, I think it would perhaps be the best reward that we could give for the services-of the police during the recent strike.

If the right hon. Gentleman would also indicate that those pre-War policemen, who also, I understood, were to benefit as the result of the agreement, who, because they retired one day before the higher scale of pension came into operation, are now considerably worse off than those who retired afterwards, and who have given service of equal value to the State, should benefit, I think he would be offering some recognition of those who served us so well during the recent crisis. I have not followed the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill, and who put forward his plea on behalf of the police strikers, but I do plead with the right hon. Gentleman to offer some indication, if he can, that he will not neglect the widows of the police who are in such dire necessity, and those pre-War pensioners whose pensions are so low as compared with those who retire to-day, and who cannot get the benefits of the Pensions Increase Act if they are under 60 years of age or if they have any money which puts them over the means limit.

I hope the House will not consent, as the Home Secretary threatened, to the withdrawal of this Bill, because undoubtedly it does something towards remedying a grievance, and it is a step in the direction of allaying some of the unrest in the force. As regards the Amendment, I have already spoken in the past in this House in reference to the sufferings of the strikers, and appealing to the Home Secretary that the matter should be gone into by an independent Committee. The late Home Secretary set up that Committee, and, after going carefully into all the facts of the case, they gave a decision, to which I must submit, though my sympathy remains where it started. Hon. Members are too apt to imagine that this force is a military force. It is quite true that distinguished officers outside the force are selected for the chief posts in if, but that is a principle into which we are not allowed to go on the present occasion. The question having once been submitted to a Committee, and the Committee having decided on it, it is very difficult for anybody to oppose its findings, however much they may disagree with them.

One hears comments on the present Bill which, I think, are wrong, in that they seem to indicate the belief that, by the passing of this Bill, the grievances which undoubtedly exist in the Force will be remedied, and that the Police Force as a whole is satisfied with this Bill as it stands. I think that is a wrong impression, and if one wants any confirmation of that statement, one has only to refer, as has already been stated by the hon. Member opposite, to the Lee Report, on page 5, in reference to two points submitted to that Committee, one dealing with the pay of new entrants, which did not come within the scope of the inquiry, and the other dealing with the scale of pensions, allowances, and gratuities to widows and children. Under that latter heading of the Report upon which this Bill is based, I hope I may be allowed to submit one or two points, which, I believe, could be met without much expense, which certainly, if carried, would create a very good impression in the Force and with which, I believe, the Home Secretary is himself in sympathy. Among those old age pensioners are the old pre-1918 pensioners' widows. The Desborough Committee Report recommended, in Part 2, that although that question was not included in their reference—I think it was, but it was ruled out—still it was a subject which should demand immediate attention Their words were "without delay," and they referred specially to the pensions of these old widows.

The facts of the case are that, whether we like it or not, those who negotiated the settlement of the strike in 1918 did insert a condition in those terms under which the widows of pensioners were to get a pension. They introduced the words "serving policemen," which were construed—and I do not criticise the decision—as applying only to those who were actually serving on the 1st September, 1918, and there is no doubt that when the Government negotiated with the men, if that subject had been brought up then, they would undoubtedly have agreed to it. These people cannot have a stone thrown at them for having been disloyal. I know I have the sympathy of the Home Secretary, who has shown it all the way through, and I hope he will forgive me asking him whether something cannot be done to carry out that recommendation of the Desborough Committee. These people never struck, and their widows were precluded by the Regulations from earning money or engaging in trade, and some of these poor old souls, who to-day cannot number a great many, are in the workhouses, people who are richly deserving of a pension, 'but who are excluded under the settlement of the 1918 strike.

In 1921, when the Police Pensions Bill was introduced in this House, the House itself passed unanimously a Clause which was inserted for the sole purpose of including these old people. The Bill with that Clause in it passed all its stages in this House, and went to the other place. Then the Government came along and gave their instructions to the other place that the Clause was to be rejected and that the Bill was to be sent back without it. We know the power of the Government in Parliament. We know there are some people who blindly follow every command issued from the Front Bench. But I think it was a very unwarrantable interference with the decision of the House of Com- mons, which, after all, is responsible for the finances of the country. The proposal was deliberately urged in this House in many quarters—there is no party question in this matter—and it went out to these poor old souls that, at last, justice was to be done to them, and, consequently, the injustice felt when the Clause was rejected by the House of Lords was very great indeed. I believe it was rejected on the ground of economy.

I have made very careful inquiries into the figures. At the very outside, in 1921, we put the figure at 5,000, which, at £30 a year per head, would not have been a very large sum to give to people who had done good service to the State and richly deserved this recognition. Of course, the Government went one better, and while admitting they had not got any information on which to base their figures, stated the number could not be less than 10,000. It is preposterous to say as they said that it would be 30 years before these old people would be wiped out. I say—and I challenge the Government to refute it—that there are not more than 2,000 of these poor old souls all over the country, and at £30, the cost would only be £60,000.

The number is probably less.

12 N.

Yes, it is probably less. I am trying to put a fair figure. The chief constables, in 1922 from whom evidence was collected, represent one-third, and, taking into account the other two-thirds, I think after this lapse of time you may take it that the outside total figure now is something like 2,000 of these old widows who deserve to be treated well by the State. I am going to appeal to the Home Secretary. I ask him whether he will do something this Session to remedy the undoubted grievance that these old souls have, remembering also that a great many of the present serving men are keeping these old women sooner than see them go into the workhouse. Hon. Members who think that the members of the police force are overpaid should examine for themselves some of the little household budgets presented to the Committee, and they will agree with the Committee when they recommended, not exceptional terms, but an ordinary standard of pay which they considered suitable and proper for men carrying out the work they do. If hon. Members saw some of these small household budgets they would realise that the men who struck had a real grievance in the conditions under which they were living. They should realise that the force is not a military force, but that it is a special force. The Government admitted, in 1918, that the men were living under conditions which they ought not to be living under.

If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to introduce a Bill to remedy the defect to which I have referred, can he promise, on behalf of the Government, that if we introduce a Bill putting that right, he will not put any obstacle in the way, but will do his best to see that it is carried through? If he will give me that promise, I will sit down here and now. This Bill, as I say, is treated as asking nothing very much on the part of the police force. It is said that they are only giving 5 per cent. out of their rich pay. It was never intended that the scale of pay fixed upon for the police should be departed from to the extent of an additional 2½ per cent., in addition to other amounts they have to pay towards their pension fund. There is one compensating factor in the agreement to extend the amount from 2½ to 5 per cent., in that the force desires very much, as far as I understand, that they should feel that their pay is at last fixed as far as it is humanly possible to do so, and that they appreciate very much what the Home Secretary said in this House, that, as far as he could see and help, the deductions were at an end, and that the scale would remain as at present.

That is a great step forward, but there are many other subjects which the police would like remedied, and I believe could be remedied without taxing the resources of the Government to any extent. When the Labour party was in, the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced what we had been trying to get for some time, that, when a pension is given, there should be no petty inquiries, and no attempts to belittle it in any way by subjecting the recipients to any unfair and improper inquiries. One of the greatest annoyances, I think, in regard to the pension increase is the fact that serving men of lower ranks call on retired-superior officers and others in receipt of pensions and ask to be shown, not only their private affairs in the shape of income, but even their banking accounts. I have got one case in which, on the instructions of the Chief Constable, banking accounts of ex-superintendants were actually examined and checked by a sergeant. A man has earned the pre-war pension, and he has earned, I think, very properly, the increase. Why, therefore, should these inquisitorial proceedings be adopted, and a man practically told that what he is receiving is charity, instead of what we all believe it to be, namely, deferred pay for very good work done on behalf of the country.

There is another important point affecting these men. If a man had been thrifty in his lifetime he often invested some of his money in the purchase of his house—which we should like to see them all do. I have instances—I do not want to weary the House with them—where the assessment of a man's house has been increased. In one or two cases the increase in the assessment of the house, although it is of no particular benefit to him was treated as if it was an increase in his income with the result that his pension increase was correspondingly reduced—a most improper proceeding.

There is another point, and perhaps the House will allow me to put it. It is the case of men who retired—who were asked, or required to retire—which is the same thing—actually on the 31st March, 1919, in order to make way for their fellows who had been demobilised and for whom their places were wanted. These men in some cases actually did not retire till the 1st April, although told on the 31st March to hand in their uniforms the next day as in the case of the men at Cambridge. It would take a very long stretch of the imagination to say that these men were aware the date for the commencement of the new scale of pay was to be the 1st April. Certain hon. Members in this House—over 400 are pledged to it—times out of number have expressed their readiness to promote the interests of the police force. No one likes the idea that men who have served far beyond the period to which they were entitled to a pension, by a mere twisting of words, should be done out of the improved scale of pay which, after all, ought to have been brought in, and would have been brought in much earlier, if there had been any idea that the men would be treated in this shabby way.

There are also the cases in Cardiff. I think I am right in saying there were two cases there in which men were retired. The men, who had done real good service, were asked to retire actually on 31st May. When the report of the Committee which gave the Government scale came out, the local authorities were so impressed with the excellent work that these men had done that they reinstated them, and carried them on till the 1st or 2nd April so that they should get the benefit of the later date. I believe the Home Office, when asked for their assent to this arrangement, refused it. Little things like that cost very little to the Government, but they mean a tremendous lot to the men. I hope that the Home Secretary will show his sympathy and will endeavour now to remedy these small points, which, after all, may seem small to us but are very large and mean a great deal to the men, who will not be slow to show their gratitude to every Member of the House in respect to this matter.

There is the question of the pensions of the widows of young serving Policemen who die with less than 5 years service. I believe the Minister of Health himself undertook to introduce special legislation this Session. Again, I would put it to the Home Secretary that he should take steps to see that these various points I have mentioned are remedied at the earliest opportunity. I am sure there can be no better occasion than the present in relation to the attitude of the taxpayers. We have seen the splendid contributions that have been given by rich and poor to the special fund for the police promoted by the "Times" newspaper. It would appear everyone has been anxious to contribute something as their tribute of appreciation for: what the police, that grand force, did during the recent period of stress.

I rise only to express the hope that the Home Secretary may be able in Committee to allow some extension of the scope of this Bill. From my own constituency I have received several appeals against apparent injustices to members of the police force and their widows. On every occasion whenever there has been correspondence with the Home Department and the cases have been put before the Home Secretary, the greatest sympathy has been shown and answers have been prompt and full and in strict adherence to laws and Regulations. Nevertheless, sympathy and promptitude are not sufficient to create and maintain that Reeling of just treatment which it is advisable to instil and to maintain with all those connected with the maintenance of law and order. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) has pointed out that the present is an occasion on which all of us feel only too glad to do all we can to show our appreciation of the recent good work done by the police. The appearance of even justice is difficult to achieve, because there are various police forces, some of whom are employed by the local authorities and some by the central authority. The conditions of pension differ very markedly one from the other, and Acts of Parliament are numerous and divergent. There are variations not only in Acts of Parliament but also in Regulations; and anomalies are somewhat difficult of adjustment. It cannot be denied that there are these grievances which I trust the right hon. Gentleman would wish to remedy. I trust he may, therefore, express his willingness to extend the scope of the Police Pensions Bill as far as is allowable by allowing Amendments in Committee, not connected with grievances due to the strike of the past referred to by the hon. Member who has just sat down.

Some of the points put forward by hon. Members are entirely outside the Financial Resolution on which this Bill is founded. It is, therefore, impossible for me to comply with the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. It would require a new Financial Resolution. As I have said before, I have great sympathy with pre-war pensioners, but the matter is one not entirely for any particular Department of the Government; it is a matter which affects all pre-War pensioners. Hon. Members may know that the pay of the police force, of the Army, the Navy, and individual workers, was less in pre-War days than it is today. Consequently the rates of pension were lower than to-day and there is bound to be a great difference in their operation. The House is aware that there have been two Acts of Parliament passed since the War for the purpose of increasing pre-War pensions. I agree that neither of those Acts has quite satisfied the old pre-War pensioners.

There are people who retired, say, on 31st March, and got a pension on the old scale, whereas if they had stayed on to 1st April they would have had a pension on the new scale. But whatever date is fixed there will always be cases which, from the point of view of the pensioners, are on the wrong side of the line. If the date of 1st May or 1st June had been selected, there would still be cases of pensioners retiring on the 29th April or the 31st May. There will always be such hard cases, and they cannot be dealt with except by the House as a whole; and the House has already passed two Acts increasing pensions, though not, I admit, to the full extent that people would desire to see them increased. I am sure I shall have the support of my colleagues who represent naval and military centres when I say that the Government of the day—it was not my Government, but the Govverment of the day—have done something to improve the position of these pre-War pensioners. It is quite impossible for me, as Home Secretary, and speaking on a Bill of this limited character, to make any statement binding the Government, and I ought to say, in fairness to the House, that in the present condition of the finances of the country he would be a very bold man who would go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask him in private to increase these pre-War pensions. Now I come to the Bill itself.

May I intervene for a moment? As regards the old pre-September, 1918 pensions, there is no question of increasing pensions, the people have not got any pensions at all, and all that is desired is to bring them on to a level with the others by giving them pensions.

We cannot go back in 1926 to alter the whole system of pensions which was adopted in 1918. I have gone into the question very fully, and if I could find any fund out of which I could personally help those old people I should be very glad to use any influence I may possess to enable that to be done. I believe the improvement of the position of those old pre-1918 widows would give very great satisfaction to the existing police forces.

With regard to the Bill itself, the first part relates to pension deductions. That represents, as has been said, an agreement made between the police, the local authorities, and the Secretary of State, and I have paid my testimony on a previous occasion, and should like to do so again, to the admirable way in which representatives of all the police forces throughout the country met the Secretary of State and agreed with me as to what was fair and right in regard to those deductions. I got rid, on the one hand, of a very unpleasant deduction from their wages in regard to rent, which they disliked very much, and they agreed, on the other hand, to increased deductions from their pay towards their pensions. We shook hands all round, and everybody was satisfied. I would also like to refer to the very great help that both sides received from Lord Lee of Fareham's Committee, who devoted much time and attention to helping us out of our difficulty. It has been agreed on all hands that this Bill is to carry out that agreed settlement.

But there is a more controversial question in relation to the Clause which I have inserted in the Bill enabling payments to be made to, or for the benefit of, the strikers of 1919. Let me explain the exact position. Before the year 1921, if a man was dismissed from a police force, there was no power to return him anything in respect of the payments he had made towards a pension. In 1921, however, an Act was passed which not only entitled a policeman who retired from the police force to the return of his rateable deductions but went further and provided that where a member of the police force is dismissed, the police authority may, if they so desire, apply the whole or any part of such rateable deductions in such manner as they think fit for the benefit of the wife and children of the policeman so dismissed. That is the first time that principle has been admitted in respect of men who are dismissed. Therefore, I find myself in this position. In 1921 an Act of Parliament was passed giving local authorities certain powers to pay back to a policeman who is dismissed, or rather to his wife and children, the whole or part of the rateable deductions he has paid. Then come people who say, "That is very hard indeed on the strikers who were dismissed in 1919. If they had been dismissed in 1922, after this Act had been passed, the local authorities would have had power to give back to them, or to apply for the benefit of their wives and children, all or some part of their contributions." The whole question was gone into by a Committee, which reported that it was desirable to give local authorities these powers in order to heal the wounds of the 1919 strike. Since the 1919 strike this open sore has been constantly running. The dismissed strikers have constantly claimed both reinstatement and the return of their contributions. No previous Government, until the Conservative Government of 1926, has brought in the very generous provisions which are contained in this Bill. I want to make that quite clear. Other Governments have been in office since 1919, but it was left to the Conservative Government, and to a Home Secretary who is sometimes abused for being hard-hearted, and so forth, to bring in this very generous Measure to give local authorities powers to make these contributions.

Is it not a fact, however, that the Labour Government of 1924 appointed the Committee upon whose recommendations this Bill is based?

I said earlier in the Debate that the Labour Government appointed the Committee. They got out of their difficulty by appointing a Committee. Fortunately for the country, and, perhaps, fortunately for the police forces, the Committee reported when we were in office, and we are carrying out the general recommendations of the Committee. I am astonished at the reception which has been given to this proposal this afternoon. It is a sheer piece of generosity on the part of the country to these strikers. They have no possible claim in the world on this money.

The money it is proposed to refund to the men is money which the men themselves paid.

Under certain conditions. The hon. Member knows as well as I do that there was no claim of any kind for the return of this money before the Act of 1921. He was secretary of the Police Union, and he ought to know what he was talking about.

So he does.

There was no claim of any kind, legal or moral, for the return of any of those contributions until 1921, when the Pensions Act was passed. The Pensions Act was not retrospective and it is only the Conservative Government of the day who are proposing to make it retrospective in regard to these particular strikers. Suggestions have been made that the strike in respect of which these men were dismissed was brought about by the abominable conditions under which they were serving, and that in consequence of that strike their conditions were improved and their pay was increased. I do not say the hon. Member for one moment meant to mislead the House, but he seems to have misled the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha). There were two strikes. The strike in 1918, which was on the question of pay, was remedied by Lord Desborough's Committee in 1919. The pay was increased. I am not going to say the pay is too high. I do not say that at all. I should like to see them more highly paid if possible but the Desborough Committee scale of pay was put into operation two months before the 1919 strike took place. That was not on the question of pay at all but on the question of the power of the trade union over the police.

As a matter of fact it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the trade union, of which the hon. Member opposite was the leader, to control the police force, and the Government quite definitely came to the conclusion that if there was one force in the country which should not be controlled by a trade union it was the police force. In 1919, in the month of March, the police union rules were altered to enable them to strike, and co coerce the Government if they so desired. On the 4th May, in Trafalgar Square, there was a demonstration of this disciplined force to which London looked to maintain law and order, where they paraded with banners and strongly pro- tested against what they called the vicious punishments inflicted upon members of the force, and they decided that all punishments must be given in acordance with the nature of the offences committed, which meant, I suppose, according to their own views. The hon. Member for Edge Hill, when he was general secretary of the Police Union, made a speech in which he said:

I did not say "shoot and be damned."

That speech was made to members of the police force. The real truth in regard to the speech which has been made by the hon. Member is that he is now trying to get back into the confidence of the police force, which, thank God, he has lost. The hon. Member led these unfortunate policemen into the strike of 1919, the inevitable consequence of which was that 2,400 of those policemen who struck were dismissed. Government after Government has been appealed to to reinstate these men, and Government after Government, including the Labour Government, said that there could be no possible reinstatement of men who had committed action of this kind, and when the proposition was made to me I had no doubt whatever that it would not be in accordance with my public duty or in the interests of the police force to reinstate those men, and they have not been reinstated. When they came backed by the opinion of this Committee and asked me whether I would do the act of generosity which is contained in this Bill, giving them back what they were not legally entitled to, or rather allowing the local authorities to give them back what they were not legally entitled to, I discussed the matter with the local authorities. They were good enough to send me their considered opinion, and I think I am right in saying that the whole of those local authorities except two were in favour of these proposals. Accordingly I have deemed it to be my duty to bring this question before the House, although they had no claim whatever to what has been proposed, because they had behaved abominably—

What about the Ulster Volunteers?

Did the officers of the Curragh lose their pensions?

Now, when I bring forward these generous proposals, which I thought would have been received with open arms and gratitude, I am met by the hon. Gentleman opposite with an Amendment by which, if it be carried, these men will lose everything. I want the police force and I want the strikers to realise that, if this Amendment be carried, it means the rejection of this Bill altogether, because, in those circumstances, the Bill could not go forward, and the Government would be beaten. The consequence would be that these generous proposals would be thrown out by the adoption of this Amendment. I have brought in what I considered a generous Bill, and I am asking the House of Commons to pass it. I believe hon. Members will pass it. If the hon. Member opposite can get enough Members to go into the Lobby with him, I presume that, by putting down an Amendment of this kind, he knows it will wreck the Bill. I assume that he is doing this honestly and means to wreck the Bill. If so, then let him be fair and tell his friends in the police force that he is doing all he can to prevent the Government carrying out the act of generosity which I am now proposing.

I desire to support the Amendment which has been so ably moved. I wish to say that I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant) has said, although his remarks deal with a subject which is not part and parcel of this Bill. The hon. Member for Holborn has given instances of pinpricks which no doubt upset the men in the force before they did strike. When they had the strike in 1918 there is not the least doubt that they were right in their action. With regard to the strike in 1919, we have heard from the Home Secretary this morning that their main reason for striking then was not because of the rules of the union but the fact that they had joined a union. As a matter of fact, unless they had it laid down in their rules that they had a right to strike they could not be a trade union, because that is the only weapon that a combination of men in any organisation of this kind are able to use. They would not have been a union if they had not had that Clause. We, understand that there is something in the nature of a police federation now, which is supported and backed up by the Government, as it was by the previous Government; but it is not a trade union—it is only a mothers' meeting organisation, such as hon. Members opposite like to patronise. Where men join in an organisation for the purpose of upholding their rights, and having the opportunity of speaking for their rights, they are not appreciated by hon. Members on the other side.

I have been connected with the trade union movement for about 48 years, and I have always found employers who are ready to take advantage of men from time to time. I have known employers to give certain men in their employ a reduced wage as compared with others, because they did not like the idea of those men belonging to a union, and most hon. Members on the other side who represent the employing class will agree with an employer doing that kind of thing; but when it comes to a question of a trade organisation, of a body of men having the courage to stick to their union, and, through their union, being able to press upon their employers the right to reasonable consideration all round for the work which they perform, they are not liked by hon. Members on the other side, and we naturally expect that. All that we hope is that the police, and other workers generally, will realise that those hon. Members who belong to the Government, or who support the Government, are averse to men being combined, being in organisations, and having proper conditions for the labour which they give to their employers. This ought to be a lesson to all of them outside, and for my part, so long as workmen and workwomen care to support people whom they know to be prejudiced against their right to have good conditions, I say they deserve to have to put up with whatever is imposed upon them. That is my view of the matter.

I hope the Government will, as has been said by an hon. Member below the Gangway, be prepared to receive some kind of Amendment in Committee, if this Bill goes through, whereby better consideration will be given to these men than is proposed in this Bill. The Government are coming forward and claiming that, out of pure generosity, they are going to allow the local authorities to pay back to the wives of the men who came out on strike the money they paid in during the time they were in the Service. There is no recognition of the service that they gave, there is no recognition of the bad wages which they were getting all the time they were in the Service. It is gnerally recognised that superannuation is deferred pay, and the deferred pay has been going on for many years in the case of many of these men. I know some of them, in the district which I have the honour to represent, who came out on strike, and who had served 16, 17, or 18 years. They are going to get no consideration for the services they rendered, and probably, indeed, very possibly, not all of the money that they paid in will be returned to them. It is to be at the discretion of the local authorities. I do not think that that is a fair way of treating these men, and I do not see that there is a great deal of generosity about it, except that, if one may draw an analogy regarding the generosity of the Government, when we had the Economy Bill before us a little while ago their generosity went the other way. Then they were taking away from people who had had the pleasure of saving up, but in this instance they are proposing that these men shall get a return to them through the local authorities, or to their wives and families, of some of the contributions which they paid. I do not think that that is good enough. I think they ought to be entitled to the whole of the contributions which they paid, without any question at all, and without any investigation or inquiry. It should be quite possible to know what has been paid by each individual, and it should be returned to them in full. That is my desire.

I rise to make only one comment upon the Home Secretary's speech. In his concluding passage he said that, if this Amendment were carried by the House it would have the effect of wrecking the Bill; and he said that we should be charged with the responsibility of depriving the police force of the benefits proposed to be conferred by the Bill. May I point out that if the Amendment be carried the Bill, undoubtedly, will be defeated, but the expression of opinion given by that vote will mean that the House is dissatisfied with the Bill, and will expect the Government to introduce a Measure containing more generous provisions than are contained in this Bill. I, therefore, regret that the Home Secretary should have made the suggestion that an Amendment moved from these

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

benches was moved with the purpose of defeating a measure of justice to the police forces of this country, when, in fact, we are endeavouring to secure greater consideration for those forces.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 42.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This is a small Bill, which I hope will not raise much controversy, dealing with the injury which is occasioned to men who use lead paint in the course of their work. There is no doubt whatever that lead paint is a serious cause of poisoning; I do not dispute that for a moment. A conference was held at Geneva some two or three years ago, which resulted in one of those conventions which I have frequently challenged in this House. Actually two proposals were made for dealing with the matter. One was that lead paint should be prohibited, and that no one should be allowed to use it. The other was that every effort should be made by the League of Nations to minimise the dangers of lead paint, and see whether the object which we all, on both sides of the House, have in view, namely, the prevention of lead paint poisoning, could be carried out without a total prohibition of the use of lead paint.

I think it will be agreed that I have stated the two sides of the case fairly. In considering the matter we came to the conclusion that the total prohibition of lead paint would be the most complete means of preventing any possibility of lead poisoning. On the other hand there is a very great demand for the use of lead paint, and the employers who use it said quite definitely that the substitutes we have suggested are not in all cases satisfactory, and while the use of substitutes is increasing, at the same time I am advised very strongly not altogether to prohibit the use of lead paint. Therefore I am asking the House for half a loaf instead of either the whole loaf or no bread. I am not prepared at present to give my friends of the Labour party the whole loaf in the shape of total prohibition. They have not proved to my satisfaction that it is necessary. On the other hand, I am prepared to give half a loaf and the point we have to consider to-day is not whether you shall take half a loaf or a whole loaf but whether you shall take half a loaf or no bread at all. I had hoped that Members of the party opposite would have grumbled a little bit but would have said, "Very well, the Home Secretary has brought in half a loaf, he is going to give us a Bill which will enable regulations to be made thus improving the position of the workmen in regard to lead poisoning and we will allow the Bill to pass." I understand, however, that they would like to make what soldiers call a demonstration in force. I hope, when they have made it, they will say "at all events the Conservative Government did something for us and though it is less than we expected we will accept it."

I should like to explain that the Regulations have been agreed between employers and employed—there is no dispute at all about them—so it is not a jump into the wild. I am not going to ask the House to give me power to make Regulations when no one knows what they are. They will enable substitutes to be used, and they will clearly reduce—I am not putting it higher than that—the possibility of poisoning by lead paint. It is very interesting to find that in to-day's "Times" there appears a letter on this very subject from a Mr. Obed Smith, who was one of the Canadian delegates at Geneva in 1921. I am very glad it has the support of a Canadian delegate. He tells us that he prefers the scheme I am putting forward in this Bill of regulation rather than complete prohibition. He says he heard the whole of the evidence, and shares the view in favour of regulations. He goes on to say—and I think he is right—that prohibition has not been adopted by any country of industrial importance until quite recently it was ratified by France and Belgium, who have special interests, as they produce substitutes for lead paint which are not produced here or in our Empire to the same extent. Canada, it is only fair to tell the House, is a large producer of lead and lead paint. I do not say he is biased by that fact, but I do not want to call in aid the support of anyone in favour of the proposal I am making without telling the House that he is a representative of Canada, which, as he quite frankly says, is a large producer of lead.

Australia and South Africa the same.

That is true. The British Empire, in spite of the fact that Australia has a very strong Labour Government, takes the same attitude as Canada does, and I think I am justified in asking the House, as we are supported by the rest of the Empire, to give us this Bill. I make this concession to hon. Members opposite. It is an experimental method. I am as determined as anyone on that side of the House to do all I can to reduce the evils of lead poisoning. If we find that the regulation I propose to make the enforcement of wet rubbing down and such like—I need not trouble the House with technical details—is not sufficient and that the increase in lead poisoning still goes on, I shall feel bound to come back and say the proposals I have made have not carried out all I am advised they will effect, and under those circumstances it will probably be necessary for me to ask the House to pass a Bill, which would be a very serious Bill from the point of view of the trade of the country, completely prohibiting the use of white lead, but I hope that will not be necessary. I have very great-hopes indeed that this horrible disease will be, if not completely stamped out, very largely reduced indeed by the proposals of the Bill. It is a Bill entirely in the direction of making the position of workmen in the trade better, happier and far less dangerous than it has been up to the present and I ask hon. Members opposite, I ask the hon. Gentlemen who served at the Home Office during the Labour Government, who knows almost as much as I do about the difficulties of these conventions, to say, after this preliminary grumble which I am bound to expect, "After all we believe the Government is trying to do something. We will give them the opportunity of proving whether their Regulations will have the effect the Home Secretary thinks they will. If they have not we will come and blame them up to the hilt and will say all the nasty things we can against them." If they have the result I think they will I shall ask the hon. Gentleman to come to the House in a couple of years' time and give us the bouquet I think we deserve.

1.0 P.M.

The Home Secretary commenced his speech on the Bill we have just passed in exactly the same spirit as he has opened the Debate on this Bill, but I hope he will not lose his temper on this Measure as he did on the last. He has informed the House that this Bill should not raise much controversy. I am sorry to inform him that he will be disappointed, because he knows as well as I do that it fails in one thing which is fundamental. It does not ratify the Convention passed at Geneva when the British Government was represented by a Conservative delegate, and I think a member of a Conservative Government, who voted in favour of the Convention as ft now stands. It is therefore grossly unfair of the right hon. Gentleman to ask us to pass this Bill, which in no way meets the demands of that Convention. He has told us only half the story of what transpired at Geneva; I will complete it later. There were two points of view expressed there. One was very strongly put forward by the white-lead producers, who are responsible for all the opposition to the Convention. Let me, however, give the history of the case. A Departmental Committee was appointed in 1911 to inquire and report on lead poisoning; and in spite of all the evidence against prohibition of the use of white lead in paint, that Committee reported unanimously in favour of total prohibition. It made certain definite recommendations which were issued and published in 1914, but owing to the coming of the Great War nothing was done. The next stage in the proceedings was that at Geneva in 1921, when the whole subject came forward, not only at the instigation of our own Government, but it had been a subject of considerable interest to Governments throughout the world long before then; and in that year the Convention was passed. As I said, there were two points of view at Geneva; one in favour of prohibition and one in favour of regulation, but a compromise was reached which is now embodied in the Convention. That is why I say I am a little astonished that the right hon. Gentleman does not bring a Bill forward to ratify the Convention, embodying that compromise entered into on behalf of the white lead producers, the master painters and the operatives. If it satisfied them in 1921, I fail to see why one of the parties should change its mind since. There were 90 votes in favour of the Convention, none against, and I think there was just one abstention. I am not sure that the person who abstained is not the very gentleman who has written the letter which the Home Secretary has just read to the House. He will apparently not change his mind whatever happens.

Now we come to the next stage. Another Committee was appointed by Mr. Shortt, who was the Home Secretary in the Liberal Government, with Sir Henry Norman as Chairman. It issued its Report in a very short time indeed, and its recommendations upset most of those of the original Committee. I fail to see from the evidence submitted to it why it should have altered the minds of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman was hardly fair when he said that no Government had taken any step towards bringing in a Bill of this kind, whereas in fact in 1924 I stood at that box and produced a Bill, not a Bill to regulate the use of white lead in paint, but a Measure embodying the Convention passed at Geneva, which was the Bill expected of us by the International Labour Organisation itself. I could understand, for instance, a Labour representative at Geneva holding up his hand in favour of a Convention of this kind and then a Tory Government declining to put it into operation; but what in fact happened was that a Government was represented by a Tory delegate who held up his hand in favour of the Convention, and we now have a Tory Government in power declining to put the Convention into operation. There must be something wrong, therefore, with Tory mentality. The delegate who represented the Tory Government in 1921 ought to be of the same mind as the right hon. Gentleman, but we have apparently a difference of opinion among Tories on occasions. I could understand it better if the Liberal party did that sort of thing.

It was not a Tory Government at all.

No, but the representative of that Government at Geneva was a Tory.

He was tarred with the Coalition brush.

The Government of the day always desires, I believe, to help in any way it can to bring about and continue good relationships between employer and employed.

In connection with the use of white lead in paint, both master painters and operatives are as one, not in favour of this Bill, but in favour of the full ratification of the Geneva Convention. I have here a document which gives the terms of a resolution passed by the employers and employed in June, 1925. This is a resolution, not of the operatives alone, but of the Joint Industrial Council of the trade, leaving out, of course, the white lead producers, who are opposed to any Bill. This is what the employers and employed said in June, 1925, about the present Bill: the Home Secretary is not moved by human sympathy. He thinks that regulation will do all that is required.

The hon. Member is a fair and courteous opponent, and I am sure that he does not wish to misrepresent me. I said that I wanted to try regulation first before going in for prohibition, if regulation is not successful.

The unfortunate thing is that I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will be in his place to put total prohibition into operation should regulation fail.

I may be here 10 years.

I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen the result of North Hammersmith. I will give the views of the men themselves on the proposal to regulate the use of white lead in paint. This is what they say:

"Notification of the disease in accordance with Section 73 of the Factory Act is essential in order that full and reliable data will be obtainable as to the real extent of the disease among persons engaged in the application of or in connection with paint containing lead."

I understand that the Bill provides for that. They say further that—

"We are convinced, however, that the application of Regulations to the house-painting industry is an utterly impracticable proposition, and cannot in any circumstances be calculated to eradicate the evils of lead poisoning. Our reason for saying this is based upon the nature of our industry, carried on in the main in private residences, together with the fact that the great majority of the jobs are of short duration, which would render inspection under the Factory Acts almost impossible."

Surely the right hon. Gentleman, if he carries his Bill to-day and passes it into law, will have to employ very many inspectors. There are, I believe, about 70,000 house painters and decorators in this country. These men are employed, as a rule, in couples, in threes and in fours in private houses. How can he enforce Regulations with regard to wet rubbing down, the use of overalls, the cleaning of finger-nails, washing and all that sort of thing, when these 70,000 men are distributed, probably, among 20,000 houses?

I am not going to put the country.to the expense of 70,000 inspectors to look after 70,000 workmen, but I am going to ask for more factory inspectors. There will be an additional factory staff before very long, and our experience is that, when a trade union knows of Regulations, they very quickly make their men wise in regard to the Regulations. If the Regulations are not carried out, very prompt complaint is made to the trade union, the trade union very promptly complains to the Home Office, and the thing is inspected and remedied.

The right hon. Gentleman has probably in mind factory life where 300 or 400 people are congregated together. He knows full well that this particular problem is quite different from that of a factory or workshop. Where, for instance, in a textile mill you want to control the humidity of the atmosphere, and there are 300 or 400 people within the four walls of the factory, the factory inspector can carry out his duties easily, and he knows what to do. How is the Home Office inspector going to pursue these Regulations where there may be one man in a house working for three or four days, then going on to the next street for a short time and then proceeding to a house in another street later? How the inspector can carry out his task under those conditions I do not know. The Home Secretary is very sanguine on that score but I am not.

I am sure that nothing but prohibition can avail us in this connection. The right hon. Gentleman ought to bring in a Bill to ratify the Convention. He knows that His Majesty's Office of Works do not use white lead in paint. If the chief painting department of the State can do without the use of white lead in paint, why should not the Government prohibit its use altogether? There are forces at work behind the Government—the white lead corroders of Australia and this country—who are pushing the right hon. Gentleman against prohibition, and he is afraid of them. That is, of course, saying a lot about the Home Secretary I know the argument they use. They say that unemployment would be rampant in this country if we abolished the use of white lead in paint; but surely there is another side to the account. You have, on the one hand, scores of men, hundreds of men, suffering from this disease every year. You have that on one side of the balance sheet, and probable unemployment on the other, and if I had to declare myself and decide as between 500 white lead producers being totally unemployed and 500 painters suffering from this disease, I would unhesitatingly vote in favour of unemployment, thus saving the lives of these unfortunate people. That is the right way to look at this question.

Other countries have ratified this Convention. I have a list showing the countries which have ratified it, and I understand that quite recently France has done so. Surely France cannot be regarded as an unimportant industrial country. The number of countries which have ratified this Convention is 11, and it includes, as I have indicated, France and several other important industrial countries.

I am very much concerned by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is torpedoing the Convention. He knows very well that if a Tory Government in 1926 carries a Bill into an Act of Parliament, providing for regulation, it is goodbye to prohibition for many years, probably more years than the right hon. Gentleman will see as a member of a Tory Government. But that is not the only complaint I have to make. My complaint is this. There is growing, especially among members of the Conservative party, opposition to the International Labour Organisation itself. It reflected itself in a speech of the employers' representative at Geneva when he stated at the Conference held last week that there were limitations to the title of the International Labour Organisation to legislate; that these limitations were in effect that the International Labour Organisation had no concern at all except with the workers; that the employer must be immune from all these Conventions and their consequences. In reply to a statement of that kind, I want to say that if the inactivity of the employer brings about disease and ill-health among the working people, then it is the duty of the International Labour Organisation to legislate and deal even with employers in cases of that kind.

My strongest criticism of all is not merely that the right hon. Gentleman is bringing forward a Bill to regulate the use of white paint but that he is insulting the International Labour Organisation in bringing forward a Bill of this kind, which he calls half a loaf. It means that this country, which I am proud to say is the most influential country among all the countries of the world at the International Labour Conference, is, unless we are careful, going to lose that honourable position. I had the honour of sitting there for nearly a month in 1924, and I saw then the power of this country and the influence it wielded on the legislation of other countries. I have been proud to find that this country has been in the forefront in the past in adopting social and industrial legislation in favour of the working people, and I should be sorry to see even a Conservative Government adopt the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman is now adopting by which this country will fall into the background. Instead of being the best country in the world in looking after its workpeople, it will soon fall behind little countries like Belgium.

We are determined to support the policy which we adopted when we were in office. We shall vote against this Bill to-day. If it goes upstairs, the Government, no doubt, will have sufficient numbers to carry the Bill, but we shall continue to pursue our policy with a view ultimately to adopting the recommendations of the Geneva Convention. If we become the Government in 1927 or 1928, which is very likely to be the case, we shall still pursue that policy, and we shall not be satisfied until the Convention prohibiting the use of white lead in paint is placed upon the Statute Book of this land. There is too much human suffering, which cannot be covered by Workmen's Compensation Acts, as was hinted in 1924 might be the case. I sat on the other side then, and an hon. Member said that the remedy we were proposing was too drastic. He asked why these cases could not be covered by workmen's compensation. I will repeat what I said then, that there is not sufficient money in any insurance fund in this country to compensate the pain and agony of a wife who loses her husband in death. I say again that the Home Secretary is falling far short of the Convention. We shall, however, pursue our opposition to the Bill, and carry out our policy until the Draft Convention passed in Geneva in 1921 is ultimately carried into law.

We have the pleasing prospect of these regulations being in operation until the year 1928., and then I suppose we shall have prohibition for three or four years and, at the end of that time, perhaps the Liberal party will have a chance of coming back and regulating it. I have really no party interest in this matter, but I opposed the previous Bill which was introduced with a prohibition clause. That is the reason I am speaking this afternoon. Really, when the question is looked at I do not think it is susceptible of an answer other.than giving regulation a chance. Lead painting, of course, involves danger. Many other occupations do also, and we have to consider in cases of this kind whether the danger can be mitigated and also what will be the economic consequences of prohibition. I need not go into further details, beyond saying that 90 per cent, of white lead is converted into white lead paint, and that white lead represents 20 per cent, of the total lead output of the world. Prohibition, which the hon. Member below me desires, would limit, painting to about 60 per cent, of what now takes place, and it is therefore obvious that economically it would prove very injurious and would result in considerable unemployment. Notwithstanding that, if we had to make a choice between giving disease and killing men on the one hand, and creating unemployment on the other hand, no person with any sense of proportion or of humanity would hesitate for a moment to say "Let us hive unemployment and save persons from disease and death." I understand that the Home Secretary says that if it came to that, "I would be in favour then at once of prohibition." But his case now is "Let us try regulations first and see how they will operate."

What is the history of the matter? The real danger of lead paint is in the dust of lead. It is made up of a mixture of dust with oil or benzole or some of these things. When the painter comes along he has to rub down the dry walls, dust escapes, and deleterious results follow. In factories, of course, you have 20 times the dust, and disease and death in factories were appalling at one time. But they applied regulations in the factories, and now no-one ventures to say that there is anything at all out of the ordinary in the dangerousness of working in lead factories. It is said, and quite rightly, "You cannot apply the same character of regulations to the painting of houses that has been found to be so efficacious in factories." But there may be other regulations that would be useful. Carry the matter a stage further. When, in 1911, the first Committee sat, they came to the conclusion that there should be total prohibition. Why? Because they said, first, that we now knew of another method of removing what is called the dry rubbing down, which created the dust, and we knew of a substitute that would adequately take the place of white lead. That was the report in 1914. The War came along and it was necessary then to have recourse to substitutes. It was because the public departments in many instances stated that these substitutes will not do, that they had not anything like the durability of lead, that it became necessary to have a second inquiry. That started in 1921 and it did not give its report before the Geneva Convention.

What happened at Geneva? One of the substitutes being pushed against white lead is zinc. That is peculiarly a Belgian and French industry, just as white lead is peculiarly ours. Of course, there was a natural desire, on the part of those commercially interested, in France, to shove out our white lead so that white zinc might step in, and the best method of shoving out white lead was to terrorise and exaggerate the appalling ills that were said to be attendant on the use of white lead. Anyone who has followed what occured in the Convention must admit that before ever the delegates sat to consider, there was an orgy of propaganda, the use of the cinema, leaflets, horrible pictures of poor persons with hands dropping off, etc.—all done in French interests. When it came before the general body the first decision was to refer the expert consideration of it to a body of the greatest international scientists upon this subject. What was the experts' opinion? One and all said that prohibition was unnecessary. Why? Because they had a shrewd suspicion then of what we all know now, that there had just been discovered a method, what is called wet rubbing down, that would eliminate the dust from which the whole danger came. But when it came before the General Committee, although every Australian, every Canadian, every South African, and every Indian delegate voted against prohibition, the French and the Belgian interests were so strong that they carried it by one vote. A majority by one vote is of no use for these Conventions; you must have a two-thirds majority.

There was an adjournment, and during the adjournment a compromise was reached in order to have something effective. The British delegate was persuaded by our own expert that the amount involved would be only 10 per cent. We subsequently discovered it was 40 per cent. There would be no further French propaganda, and he did not see his way to discover any means of stopping the dry rubbing down. What happened afterwards? Shortly afterwards it was found that the 10 per cent, should be 40 per cent. It was also discovered that a new method of oil sandpaper had been discovered, which could do the wet rubbing down and stop the dust. The British representative in my hearing in the House of Commons says that the Treaty of Versailles does not compel us in any way to adopt this ratification. No sovereign State would consent to subject its industrial laws and methods to what may suit other countries. All that was arranged at Versailles was that these recommendations or pious wishes of the great body of Labour people throughout the world would have the greatest attention paid to them, and at all events that these views would be placed on the Tables of their various Parliaments. That was done.

I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to misrepresent the case. When the compromise was reached and the Convention came to be voted on, there was not a single vote against it. It was not a unanimous vote. There was one abstention, but that was all.

However, it was barely carried. It was carried, but carried in the circumstances I have stated. First a Vote, was taken, and those of the hon. Member's way of thinking succeeded by only one vote. Then there were the Adjournment and the compromise. The compromisers all agreed. That was on the plea of the British delegates that there could be no effective method taken of eliminating this dust. The delegate, who was the Minister of Labour, said in this House, "I consider that in the circum- stances I am entirely free." I think the Treaty of Versailles went as far as, in reason, this or any other important nation could be expected to go. We cannot allow our industrial life to be affected by what might be to the advantage of a great number of other nations and most injurious to us. All we can agree to do, and all we have consented to do, is to pay respect to the recommendations and suggestions of this Convention, to lay them upon the Tables of our various Parliaments, and then to take action or otherwise as it suits us. There is no reason at all for supposing that the Regulations to be made under the Bill now before us will not be thoroughly effective. They have never been tried. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in giving the latest figures as to illnesses and fatalities, but there have been no Regulations. All we ask is that the Regulations should be tried, and I agree with the Home Secretary that if they are found to be ineffective, then it is time to put to ourselves the difficult question, "Is it necessary to throw thousands of persons out of employment, and cut down a very large industry in this country because it is dangerous? If so, let it be done, but before we take that course a fair chance ought to be given to these Regulations.

My right hon. Friend congratulated himself in advance that the Labour party would let this Bill go through. But I am very pleased to hear from the hon. Gentleman who spoke on behalf of the Opposition that he intends to divide against it, and all I can do is to assure him that I will give him my most hearty support. I regard this as a very unfortunate Bill. The Home Secretary said that half a loaf was better than no bread. That is a proposition to which, in this case, I cannot possibly assent. I emphatically assert that the half loaf in this instance is worse than useless. Regulation will be useless because it will be ineffective; and not only will it be ineffective, but it will prejudice the progress of reform in this matter. As the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Labour party said, it will have the effect of hindering reform.

I have said that Regulation will be absolutely useless to check.the spread of this disease. Let me give the history of this matter. The Hatch Committee in 1911 inquired most thoroughly into the subject. They went so far as to prohibit the use of white lead, not only in interior, but in exterior painting. They did so on the ground that it was quite impossible to enforce Regulations, and I think it is perfectly obvious that, when painting operations are carried on in thousands of different places such as private houses, however much you may enlarge your inspectorate, you cannot make the inspection effective. The Home Secretary said he was going to increase the number of factory inspectors. We have been promised that reform for several years, but it never seems to come off. The number of inspectors required is such that the appointment of an extra one or two would mean nothing. The additional inspectors would be more than occupied in inspecting the factories and workshops of this country. The Hatch Committee turned down Regulation. The International Labour Convention at Geneva came.to a unanimous agreement to prohibit white lead as an interior decoration for the same reason. What is more, that settlement was agreed.to by the master painters of this country, and I am glad to say they have been perfectly loyal and true to their agreement. They have never given any countenance, as far as I know, to the demand for the substitution of Regulation for prohibition. Again, the Norman Committee inquired thoroughly into this question. The Norman Committee reported after the International Labour Convention, and the effective part of their Report is as follows: question, said that since the Geneva Convention, efficient means had been found for preventing the disease, and he instanced the use of wet rubbing down I sat on one of these committees—the Hatch Committee—and I remember that it was proved that dry rubbing down is not such a potent cause of the disease as the mere fact of the paint drying on the painter's hands and clothes, and creating a dust which gets, down his throat. Wet rubbing down is an absolute fraud as an effective substitute. That is another piece of pure "eyewash." Let me read an extract from a letter from Mr. Gibson, secretary to the Operative House Painters: the question in this Parliament of a struggle between vested interests and the interests of the health and welfare of the workers, and, as far as I can see, so far the vested interests have always got the upper hand. They have got the upper hand in this case certainly. The Home Secretary said he was advised, but I should like to know who has advised him, to bring in this Bill. All that I can say is that I feel very strongly that it is the vested interests which have advised him to bring in this rotten and absolutely piffling Bill.

I do not propose to follow the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) in the way in which he described this Bill, because I think the Home Secretary, in bringing it in, has done a very wise thing. In the manufacture of white lead in the factories it is possible by Regulations to safeguard the worker, and the reason of that is that the bad effect on the workmen is due to the dust which is produced. Similar dust is produced in house painting in the dry rubbing down process, but we have now a new method, this wet rubbing down, which I believe is quite a good method and quite efficient, and that method will do away with the dust which is produced and which is the sole source of the poison. People at one time thought that as the lead paint dried it gave off a poison, but very careful investigations have been made and have proved that no poisonous gas is given off while lead paint is drying. The poisoning is invariably due to dust. It may, of course, be due to dust on the fingers put into the mouth, or dust on the clothes shaken off and breathed, but the main thing is the rubbing down of the old lead paint. I believe that the Regulations will make it possible to use lead paint safely, and, therefore, I am supporting the Home Secretary.

I am also pleased to see that he has got a Clause dealing with protective clothing, because there again there is a serious danger. If a man gets lead paint on his clothing and takes it home and it is shaken in the house, lead paint dust can be thrown all over the house, and I hope the Regulations will insist that the working overalls of the painters shall not be taken to their homes, because there I see a serious danger to the house- hold in the dust from the clothing. Otherwise, I think this Measure is a great improvement on the prohibition Measure, at any rate until we have given it a fair trial. We want to maintain all the industries that we can in this country, and lead paint is an important industry. Therefore, I support the Home Secretary, and I hope the Regulations to be brought in will prove effective.

In rising to support the rejection of this Bill, I want at the outset to emphasise one point which was made by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Clayton), who has just sat down. I noticed that he suggested that the overalls of the painters should not be taken home, because of the danger from the dust which would be likely to be disposed of in the home. But who is going to wash the overalls? That is a practical question.

In the chemical works we have overalls for the men, which are left behind and washed on the premises. It is quite possible that in the headquarters of the master painters or the painting firms the overalls could be washed, and they need not go home. The men could take them with them when they go to their work and leave them at the headquarters of the firms when they have done with them.

That reply emphasises the importance of considering these questions from a practical point of view.

These are details.

They are not details. They may appear to be details to the hon. and gallant Member on the Conservative benches, but in view of the Regulations proposed, these are proposals which will be found impracticable in the course of the conduct of the industry. I want to make my point quite clear. You have the painting trade carried on by an enormous number of small employers, employing half-a-dozen, a dozen, 18 or 20 men, and it is not a practicable proposal in any sense of the word to suggest that a painter, having completed one small job, shall take his overalls to the works and there have them cleaned before he goes on to another job. It is not a practicable proposal in the sense that it is going to eliminate the danger arising from the white lead dust, and it must be agreed that that would become an absolutely impracticable thing in this industry. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) emphasised the danger arising from the dust, but the danger does not arise from the dust in the least, and that is where the wet rubbing down process does not overcome the difficulty. The danger arises, even with the wet rubbing down process, by virtue of the fact that your wet rubbing down process creates a cream.

None of the experts says that.

But it does, and I am speaking of the experience of the man who is engaged in the process. One has only to use his common sense in, this matter, and anyone who has watched a painter at work—I am not a painter, but I have been closely associated with the industry for a great part of my life—and who uses his common sense knows that if you have a damp glass paper and use that on the paint, whether it be oil or water that emanates from the glass paper, it creates a sort of paste or cream from the dust, and that works up under the nails and thus gets into the system. Therefore, while a painter may not take it in through his nose or by breathing, it does work into the system, and all the substitutes that are advocated, such as the wet rubbing down process and so on, are defeated in that way. So much for the efficacy of the wet rubbing down process, which does not meet the point, neither does it allay the danger that arises from the use of white lead paint.

I would suggest to this House that the tables which have been compiled of the actual deaths and cases of disease recorded, in no way adequately express the dangers arising from the use of white lead paint, because the disease is transferred from the painter himself to his wife and his progeny. So that if you are going to rely on statistics, I suggest that the statistics we have at our disposal to-day in no way adequately express the dangers arising from the use of white lead. Compromises were made in respect to the Convention as to the time which should elapse before the Act was put into operation. Secondly, compromises were made as to the use of white lead for outside work and not interior work. Therefore, adequate compromises have been made, but sufficient evidence has been secured to show that the use of white lead is quite unnecessary for interior work, and the compromise as to using white lead in outside work is a compromise that should suggest itself to the common sense of this House.

I have dealt with para. ( c ) in respect to wet glass paper. I come to para, ( d ) which is going to provide for the medical examination of persons employed in painting with lead paint. What does that mean? The ordinary painter has to get a clean bill of health before he is to obtain employment. The painter as a craftsman is subject to as much unemployment to-day as any other section of the community, and your Regulations are going to make it even more difficult for him to obtain employment. Who is going to maintain the painter and his family during the period in which he cannot obtain a clean bill of health? There are no provisions in the Bill for such maintenance. That is going to impose upon the painter and his family the pauper taint. He has no other resources than those of the Poor Law authorities. I suggest that due consideration should be given to the effect of this Regulation immediately, and if the Home Office is going to impose this Regulation, at least it should have made some financial recommendations whereby the unemployed painter—unemployed because of ill-health—and his family should have some financial resources in order to maintain them, and not compel him to go to the Poor Law authority. There is no other source to which he can go for maintenance in the circumstances, and I suggest that is a serious blot upon these Regulations.

The Workmen's Compensation Act.

2.0 P.M.

I do not think the Workmen's Compensation Act makes provision for this. It is most difficult to get compensation even for those paralysed as a result of using white lead. It is a most difficult thing to win your case in the Courts to-day, and we know what the action of the compensation authorities is likely to be. They are always extremely anxious to get the man back to work. The employer will not take him, however, until he has got a clean bill of health, and no provision is made for removing the hardship which is likely to arise from a Regulation of this kind.

The next point I want to make is this. The Regulations suggested are that certain Sections in the Factory Act should be applied to those engaged in these trades. Even assuming it to be a practicable proposition, by an increase in the number of factory inspectors, is the average household going to be open at all times of the day to a factory inspector, or are the authorities going to notify the occupants of a house that it is going to be inspected at a given time on a given day, as invariably occurs in many of the factories up and down the country to-day, where you find them making the necessary arrangements two or three days before? Our factory inspection to-day is an absolute farce, and I guarantee that if these Regulations were practicable, they would be equally as much a farce, or more of a farce, than the factory Regulations in this respect. In addition to that, there may be one, two or three painters, say, working on a small job in the morning, and in the afternoon they are in another part of the town doing another job. Your Regulations are bound to be defeated, because the ordinary routine which is necessary in the conduct of the industry will not permit the Regulations to be applied.

In view of these facts, I suggest to the House that it is going to be nothing but a farce to pass this Bill, because I am convinced that the proposals here have been brought forward by those who are not conversant with the practical experience of the industry, and, in view of the substitutes which are on the market to-day to meet the situation—paint equally as durable as that made with white lead—I submit that this House would only be doing itself justice by rejecting the Bill. If this Bill be put upon the Statute Book, when the representatives of the trade come to the Government in two or three years, the reply of the Government will be such as it invariably is, namely, that legislation was passed on such and such a date, and sufficient time had not elapsed for experience to be gained of the operation of the Regulations. You are going to make it undoubtedly much more difficult to bring about prohibition in this country, and nothing short of prohibition is going to safeguard the health not only of the painter, but of those who are connected with the painter in any respect.

I should like to say a word or two in support of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has suggested, or has based his suggestions upon the fact that this Bill does not ratify the Geneva Convention. The hon. Gentleman did good service when he gave an account of the circumstances under which this Convention was agreed to in Geneva in 1921. I remember when this Bill was under discussion in this House—I think it was during the time the Labour party were in power—one hon. Member, speaking of the circumstances at Geneva in 1921. He described how much the scene impressed him, and compared it with Piccadilly on a Saturday night. In Geneva on that occasion there were delegates from all countries who came for different purposes and with different interests. Some came there interested in different matters that were to be under discussion at the Conference; only a very small number of them had any knowledge of this particular subject which came up for discussion towards the end of the Conference. The hon. Gentleman opposite spoke of the propaganda to which those delegates had been subjected before they came to Geneva. I will just give one paragraph of what was thought of this by.the New South Wales Government when it appointed a committee of inquiry to consider the legislation that ought to be passed for the ratification of the Convention. This is what that New South Wales committee thought in regard to the kind of propaganda to which the delegates were subjected. I may explain that a Memorandum had been issued by the International Labour Bureau before the Conference giving information and guidance to the different countries that were to be represented at the Conference. That Memorandum is referred to by this committee in these words:

"The Bureau proceeds to state the case in a manner which evidences but little sense of the high administrative trust with which it must be regarded as charged."

We have heard from the hon. Gentleman on the other side how this Conference first of all submitted the matter to a committee of experts. One of that committee, as the Home Secretary has already mentioned, has written a letter to the "Times" to-day giving his own view as to what transpired at that time. Here was a committee of experts, able to come to a decision on the merits of this question, and reporting unanimously in favour, not of prohibition, but of regulation.

Under these very Regulations.

As my hon. and learned Friend reminds me, under these very Regulations. For some reason—it was said because certain foreign interests were represented at Geneva—that recommendation was not carried by that committee; only by a majority of one was this Convention agreed upon which calls for prohibition.

I take it that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent the position. The Convention, as it now stands and for which we desire ratification, was carried without any vote against it whatsoever. It was carried unanimously.

I will not press that matter further. The hon. Gentleman, possibly, has greater knowledge of what transpired on that occasion than I. The point I wanted to make was simply this: That a decision come to under circumstances of that kind, affecting a great and important industry in this country, is a decision calling for examination and consideration by this House as to the circumstances under which it was made. The Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) spoke of this Bill as eyewash; and said, it had been said, wrongly, that the use of waterproof sandpaper would overcome the danger arising from dust. He quoted some authority. Let me quote this authority—the authority of the Norman Departmental Committee. They refer to the introduction of waterproof sandpaper, and to reports which they say:

"confirm its efficiency, and which provide convincing evidence that the damp method can be successfully adopted.… and it is now generally accepted by the trade.… that dry rubbing down is no longer necessary, and that this work can be done by a damp process."

The letter which I quoted is of much later date than that, and embodied experience arrived at in the last two or three years.

I can at least quote the opinion of that Committee, who are quite capable of giving an informed opinion on this waterproof sandpaper. The Master Painters' Federation and the Master Builders' Federation have issued official recommendations of waterproof sandpaper on the ground, not merely that it prevents lead dust, but on the ground that a smoother surface is got by its use, and that there is greater quickness in working. It goes on to say, this note that I have:

"The life of the paper is about eight times that of ordinary sandpapers. Its technical efficiency is therefore assured. We understand that His Majesty's Office of Works are, in their painting specifications, requiring the use of it."

These are authorities who cannot surely be ignored, and I find it very difficult to understand why the Noble Lord should speak of this waterproof sandpaper as a fraud.

The Committee recommended prohibition, notwithstanding what was said.

I have given these opinions and the authority for them, and I can leave hon. Members to form their own conclusions. With regard to the Regulations which the Noble Lord and hon. Members on the other side said were quite unable to cope with this problem. I have no doubt the Noble Lord and the hon. Member for Westhoughton have a fine record of interest in this matter, and no doubt have rendered great service, but I venture to think that the Gentleman to whom I am about to refer holds an even finer record of service in connection with this particular question. I refer to Sir Thomas Oliver, who has not only a national, but an international reputation. He was one of the pioneers, and probably has done more than most people, to bring before the country the dangers of lead paint. He is a well-known physician in Newcastle-on-Tyne, in a district where, I suppose, the manufacture of white-lead paint is carried on. In a letter that was written to the "Times" about 18 months or two years ago he gives some account of the enormous progress that has been made, not only where this paint is being manufactured, but in the Potteries and on the Continent, in the mitigation of the dangers arising from its use. He finishes up thus:

"To all thoughtful persons who will carefully review the present and contrast it with the past, the results obtained cannot but suggest that before resorting to the prohibition of white lead in paint, which, after all, is no scientific solution of the problem, the Regulations should be given a longer trial, fresh statistics gathered, and additional investigations made."

That is the opinion of a man who has rendered years of service to this country and to other countries in assisting to overcome the dangers, and it is difficult to reconcile it with the opinions so warmly expressed by the Noble Lord as to the inability of Regulations to solve this problem. The Home Secretary is to be congratulated upon bringing this Bill before the House for Second Reading. It is a Bill which will be welcomed by those who feel an interest in this matter, and the wise Regulations which if proposes will go a long way to mitigate much of the suffering which is undoubtedly resulting at the present moment from the unwise and unregulated use of lead paint.

I am very much interested in that side of the question which concerns the ratification of the Convention. I have listened to what supporters of this Bill have said in reference to what transpired at Geneva, all of which seems to go to argue that all who supported the Convention were dishonest people, and that the real honest men are those who are opposed to it. We are told of propaganda at Geneva, but those who speak of that are themselves using as much propaganda on behalf of vested interests in this country against the idea of prohibition or against the compromise of the Geneva Convention. I think the consideration of interests might very well be left out of account in this particular respect, especially as there is rather a flaw in the argument so far as the history of that Convention is concerned. If it be true that foreign countries carried out their propaganda at Geneva in the interests of their own industrial supremacy so far as the zinc oxide trade is concerned, then it is a remarkable fact that the argument is used that there was only a majority of one before the compromise was arrived at. If this were really a question of the interests of France and Belgium in.the particular substitute of white lead, why did not the powerful pull which those countries are supposed to have had have its effect upon the original vote with regard to the prohibition of white lead, because they could have succeeded in aiming a very great blow at the white lead industry in this country.

The real answer to that point is that the British Empire manufactures 18 per cent, of the zinc oxides as against 22½ per cent, of white lead, consequently there is very little difference between the two materials so far as Empire production is concerned. If it be true that the sinister efforts of foreign commerce have been at the back of the propaganda in favour of the Washington Convention, I would like to ask a subsequent speaker to explain why these foreign countries have themselves ratified the Washington Convention. If they are concerned about supporting the interests of a substitute, why have they ratified the Convention, and why have we not ratified it? Austria, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, France, Latvia, Poland, Rumania, Spain and Sweden have accepted the compromise which is the basis of the Convention. That seems to me to overthrow altogether the argument which has been used and it comes with very bad grace from those who are supporting the white-lead industry in this country to say that foreign countries are only concerned with the vested interests-of a particular kind of manufacture.

It has also been argued that if you go further than the regulations proposed in this Bill you would create a great amount of unemployment. For the life of me I cannot understand why an argument of that kind is put forward. It is argued also that you will not have as much painting done if you prohibit the use of white lead paint in exterior painting. Of course that kind of argument might be used against any new method employed in industry. For instance, it might be used in regard to the reorganisation of mines. Some trade unionists look only at the immediate consequences of certain changes, and they often take the line that new methods of industry are going to put people out of employment. It is also argued sometimes that any system which creates a higher production by the individual producer has the result of putting people out of em- ployment. As a matter of fact the whole history of our industrial progress shows this to be quite the reverse. The more you improve your system and the better methods you introduce, the more employment you find in the long run, because of those new methods.

If that be so, why not apply that argument to this question of substituting new methods in painting? Why should that cause so much additional unemployment? From an economic point of view the amount of money cannot be spent because of State regulations; that money is available for expenditure in other ways. That is an economic argument which cannot be gainsaid, and surely since the Convention agreed that there should be a matter of three years before these proposals came into effect, we might expect that a substitute method of painting the exterior of buildings could be invented which would be as durable and efficient as white lead paint. I am not expert enough to argue about the question of durability and efficiency of white lead paint, but I know that although opinions are divided, there is as much opinion in favour of the durability and efficiency of a zinc substitute as there is in favour of white lead paint. I am very much inclined to think that the question of interests loom very much larger than the real scientific facts on a question of this kind. Even if it is true that this substitute is not so good as white lead paint, have we come to the end of our progress and resource? If we were able to prohibit the use of white lead paint altogether, would it be impossible for the chemists and inventors in this country to find a substitute, for that particular method, more especially as there is at least some kind of substitute in existence now which might be improved?

If we go back through the whole history of legislation of this kind and consider all kinds of factory legislation in the past, we shall find that it was opposed upon similar grounds to the opposition which is now being put forward to the Geneva Convention. In the past when legislation of this kind was put forward the point of view which we have heard expressed this afternoon was expressed. We were told that it would never do to carry out the Regulations in favour of better conditions for the workers because it would create unemployment, and because substitutes could not be found. We were also told that the economic consequences would be deplorable to trade and the rest of it, and it is a fact that every Bill of an industrial character introduced into this House has had to run the gauntlet of objections of that kind. Take the old illustration of the use of climbing boys to sweep chimneys. When legislation was introduced to stop that practice, we were told that we were ruining the industry because there was no other way of sweeping chimneys than the sending of young boys to climb up them. It is a fact that ever since that legislation was passed, you have been able to overcome that difficulty.

The same argument will apply in regard to this Bill. We know that the zinc basis substitute is not as efficient as it might be, but the balance of advantage in preventing the loss of life is certainly on the side of the course which we are now suggesting. I do not believe it is true that the majority of vested interests and those connected with them are in favour of these regulations as against what we are standing for on this side of the House. The International Labour Conference at Geneva came to the com promise unanimously for the prohibition of the use of white lead, sulphate of lead and all products containing these things in the internal painting of buildings, except railway stations and other industrial establishments where their use is considered necessary by Governments after consulting the employers and workers. Something has been said about the percentage of white lead and there are other regulations. This Draft Convention was supported by the Chairman of the White Lead Corroders Trade Section of the London Chamber of Commerce, who was the Chairman of the Committee of the white lead makers themselves. This is what he said: We have heard the technical arguments with regard to dry rubbing down, and how, even with the wet rubbing method, you have the white lead paste forced up the finger-nails, and so forth. If there is no point in those arguments, why is it that the very Regulations embodied in this Bill propose to compel the worker to use special overalls, in order that the actual paint shall not be taken home on the clothes of the workman, and result in the dry paint distributing itself again in the form of powder? Then, again, why do these Regulations prohibit the employment of women in anything connected with white lead painting? If it is possible to regulate work so successfully that the Regulations are all that are required, and we do not need any kind of prohibition of white lead painting, why object to women? Why cannot women's labour be just as well regulated? Surely, the argument defeats itself. There is no more case in favour of women being prohibited from coming in contact with the conditions of painting with white lead paint than there is in the case of men, unless the actual necessity for prohibition does exist.

There is just one other point to which I desire to refer, and that is again with regard to the suggestion that interference with the white lead industry is going to cause considerable unemployment. I am always interested in the amount of concern shown by hon. Members opposite, when any question of vested interests comes up, as to the effects upon the employment of the working class. Mr. Miller, of the London Chamber of Commence, making a statement to the Hatch Committee on behalf of the white lead manufacturers, said that the consumption of white lead for painting purposes was approximately 50,000 tons. Since the date of the Hatch Committee, the British production of zinc oxide has increased considerably. It is now stated to be over 16,000 tons per annum, and one English company which has recently installed works in Wales, and acquired land for further works, estimates that it could ultimately produce much more than twice as much zinc oxide as would be required to offset the decreased production of lead if the Geneva Convention is ratified.

I oppose this Bill because I want protection for the workers in their employ- ment, and because I do not think that regulation is sufficient. I do not believe you can appoint sufficient inspectors to see that the Regulations are carried out. I do not believe, particularly under the conditions of this industry, that it will be possible for those inspectors to carry out their work efficiently. Just consider the conditions of decorating the interior of a house. You have provisions in regard to washing and so on, but you have two or three workmen, uninspected, without a representative of the firm with them—the firm cannot send representatives or foremen with every two or three men who go to this, that or the other house for painting work—there is nobody with them, and the only way in which they can get washing facilities is by asking for the privilege in the house itself. Men are not going to do that kind of thing. You are not going to have these Regulations efficiently operating, and that is one of the strongest objections to letting the matter rest solely upon the question of regulation.

The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken seems to have raised a number of difficulties. I am quite sure he does not want to oppose progress, but he wants progress too fast. The trouble is that in this world we cannot progress at the speed we would wish, but any step in advance is to be sought for. I have had some little experience in connection with this question of painting, and almost one of the first cases that I brought forward in this House was the case of a man in Portsmouth Dockyard. My colleague then, Lord Charles Beresford, was with me, and we managed to bring that case against the Government to a successful conclusion, although we had to take the Government into Court to do so. The particular Minister concerned was exceedingly obstinate, and it cost us £90 to get the Government into Court. On the day on which we brought them into Court, the Government paid over the £295 which was the compensation to the widow, and they also brought in a new rule which said that in future no man should be allowed to bring the Government into Court.

I have seen the steps mentioned in this Bill carried out—to a certain extent only, I admit—in the great dockyard which I have the honour to represent. The- carrying of these steps through depends, of course, upon the union and upon the model employer, who must allow the men a little more time for their meals than they would otherwise have. He must give them the 10 minutes, which they do in the dockyard, to wash their hands before they eat their food, and he must explain to them, as this Bill explains, the necessity for their so doing. This is done in the dockyard. It may be difficult outside, but still it should not be impossible, especially with the trade union behind the men. If the paint is on their fingers and under their nails, and they cut bread, or meat, or cheese, or whatever they may be eating, they are liable to swallow certain quantities of this lead paint. One of the worst cases of lead poisoning I have ever seen was in France. It was that of a Breton who had, during his harvest work, drunk a large quantity of "cider which had been clarified with sugar of lead, and he was so ill that the French doctors, when I left, said there was no hope of saving him. He did not get that through paint, but through drinking the results of clarification with a substance that was used to clarify the cider.

Under this rule the men are to have a medical examination, presumably compulsory, and presumably, also, by a panel doctor. The trouble in regard to medical examination in the dockyards—which is the only part of the subject about which I really know anything—is that, if a man complains, he is, of course, liable to be dismissed; but then he must choose between the risk of being dismissed and the almost certainty of death, and no sensible man, or sensible woman married to that man, would hesitate for one moment about taking the advice and opinion of his panel doctor that he was not a good subject for painting, and unless he gave it up, would in a certain time die an exceedingly unpleasant death. I know that, personally, if I even smell the paint for any period longer than an hour, it affects me, so that there must be something in the smell also, especially where painting is done in confined spaces; and red lead is just as bad as white. In the dockyards they wash before their meals, they wash before they go away, and they wear overalls which they leave behind them. It is very easy to have two pairs of overalls, so that, when one is at the wash or being cleaned, the other can be worn. I think the provision as to the distribution to persons so employed of instructions with regard to hygienic precautions is most valuable. It is, of course, one's tab it, in whatever profession or trade one may be employed, to think one knows all about it, but it is only the ignorant who think that, and, if instructions were given to them by those in whom they had confidence—

On a point of Order. I understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to work in shipyards, dockyards, and so on. Is a ship included in the word "building" in the Bill? If so, I am sure some of us would like to consider the question from the point of view of shipbuilding.

Perhaps I may answer the hon. Member. I am using this only as an example. Of course, shipbuilding is building; there is no question about that; but I am using it as an example of what happens in model employment, namely, in a Government yard. Of course, the Government are better able to take steps to see that their Regulations are carried out than, at any rate, a good many small employers, and I have seen at Portsmouth—

May I ask for your ruling on this, Mr. Speaker, because this Bill relates to house-building?

It does not lie with me to interpret the Bill.

May I respectfully ask—

Not in the middle of someone else's speech.

I am only using this, as I have said, as an example of what a model employer can do, and, since these Rules and Regulations have been carried out, there has certainly been much less lead poisoning than there was, and the cases are much less serious than they used to be. If that be so since the Regulations have been carried out on a comparatively small scale by a model employer, it appears to me reasonable to suppose that, if these Regulations could be extended generally, they would have the same effect throughout the whole country as they have had in a dockyard in a comparatively email space such as Portsmouth.

We have had a very interesting discussion this afternoon, and I think it will probably be for the convenience of the House if I reply to a few of the points that have been put to the Government. We all have in mind the same objective in connection with lead poisoning. We all desire to stamp out the evil of lead poisoning, but there is a difference of view as to how that should be done. We on the Government side believe that to a very large extent this disease in connection with lead poisoning could be stamped out by Regulation. On the other hand, the opponents of this Bill believe that the only way in which this disease could be stamped out would be by total prohibition. We had a very interesting speech from the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney), and really, after what he said, it seems hardly necessary for a supporter of the Government—or, shall I say, another supporter of the Government—to reply at all. I would remark in passing that a great deal has been made to-day in connection with the value or otherwise of waterproof sandpaper. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Russell) advocated the use' of waterproof sandpaper, and said that in his opinion it would do a very great deal to stamp out this evil. The point was taken up by the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck), and there appears to have been a good deal of dispute as to the value of this invention. It has hardly, up to now, had a fair trial, but I think we must take into consideration, when we are thinking about the decisions reached at Geneva, that, since the conference at Geneva, the position has been very largely modified, and procedure by Regulation has become more practicable, because of the inventions that have been made since the conference was held. Among these inventions must be classed, as one of the most important, waterproof sandpaper. The hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) said he did not know why some of the other countries had ratified this Convention. It may be that some of them ratified it before they knew anything about this invention. But I am not particularly concerned with the attitude taken up by other countries. All I am concerned with at the moment is the interest of our own country and our own people.

Does the hon. Gentleman regard that as a wise policy?

My primary duty to-day is to consider the interest of our country and our own people. Many speakers to-day have used various phrases, which have all had the same meaning, to the effect that Regulations in connection with the stamping out of this disease would be absolutely impracticable. We were told by my noble Friend the Member for Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) that half a loaf would be useless, and that Regulations would be useless and not effective.

I have two Committees and one International Convention behind me when I make that statement.

Then I am not mis-quoting him.

No, but it is not my opinion but the opinion of the Committee.

I take it that my Noble Friend shares those views:

Entirely.

Then we have the opinion of the hon. Member for Willesden, who says the Bill is a farce because it contains Regulations, and that nothing short of prohibition will safeguard the workmen. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who was in my position a short time ago, made a very powerful speech. He gave certain figures in connection with this disease which were without any connection at all with Regulation because Regulations were not then in force. He also said it was impossible to regulate. I am rather surprised to hear him make that statement. He said it would be impossible for factory inspectors to go into every home. Of course it would, but on the other hand painters are, I understand, very largely members of trade unions. They would know whether they were using lead in their paint—they are fairly expert and fairly knowledgeable—and if they were using it, they would know it was illegal and there is every possibility of their going to the headquarters of their union and reporting the fact, which would be brought to the notice of the factory inspector, who would take appropriate action. But apart from that, the hon. Gentleman wishes to adopt the Convention. He must be aware, but it is obvious the Noble Lord is not aware nor is the hon. Member for West Willesden, that the terms of the Convention clearly lay down that there should be prohibition so far as internal painting is concerned, but that there should be regulation so far as every other kind of painting is concerned. Then we are told by people who are going to oppose the Bill that regulation is an absolute farce, that nothing short of prohibition will safeguard the workman, that half a loaf would be useless, regulation would be useless and not effective and that it would be impossible to enforce regulation.

The hon. Gentleman can surely see the difference between regulating outside painting and inside painting.

I see it myself, but it is clear to me that other Members do not see it, because I am told that nothing short of prohibition will safeguard the workman—that Regulations of any kind are a fare and absolutely unworkable. I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Westhoughton has brought in a Motion to reject the Bill, because he has taken up an attitude towards his own chief when he was in office which I dare not take up in regard to mine. He may have forgotten that in 1924 the Labour party brought in a Bill giving power to make Regulations and making provision to enable the Government to ratify the Convention, and the then Home Secretary intimated that even if the provision as to prohibition of lead paint for internal painting were thrown out, we would still proceed with the rest of the Bill.

the position is quite familiar to those who were Members of the House in 1924. We were a minority Government. We could not carry the Bill as it stood without the help of other parties. The Liberal party was divided, as usual, and we had not sufficient support to carry the Measure, and that was the reason the Home Secretary had for making the declaration which I have before me.

I am quite aware of that fact, but I think the right hon. Gentleman is firm enough in his conviction, and an honest enough Member of the House, that when he says he will continue certain provisions, providing he cannot get the full loaf, he will accept the half loaf, and I think it perhaps a little beyond the mark for the hon. Gentleman to say to-day he will not accept the half loaf which would have been acceptable to his chief two years ago. He said regulations would have been absolutely unworkable, and that it would be impossible to enforce them. If he contends that it is impossible to enforce regulations, I assume that means to enforce any regulations. According to speeches we have heard from some hon. Members in accord with his own opinion, it is impossible to carry out the Convention because the Convention itself has regulations in connection with it with regard to outside painting. The hon. Gentleman said distinctly that nothing short of prohibition will safeguard the workmen.

I was speaking of the compromise arrived at in the Convention, where prohibition applied to inside work and regulation applied to outside work.

3.0 P.M.

The hon. Member agreed when I read out his statement. When I apply his statement, he disagrees with me. I accept his opinion, but what really surprises me more than anything else is that regulations of any kind, which were quite impossible were actually contained in the Bill introduced by the Labour party when they were in office with regard to outside painting. But those regulations surely are not very much more difficult to enforce by the same men belonging to the same trade union.

Not necessarily.

Trade unionists, if they are doing something which they know to be illegal, could report to the factory inspector, and the regulations would be enforced. That ought to give them some degree of satisfaction. The hon. Member for West Willesden asked me whether compensation would be paid in connection with people suffering from poisoning. The answer is that in cases where the workman was suspended from employment on the ground that he was in fact suffering from lead poisoning, he would be entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but where he was suspended as a precautionary measure only, in view of his particular state of health, he would not be entitled to compensation.

Then you will agree that he is penalised by your Regulations.

No, his health is prevented from getting worse, and you cannot say he is really being penalised.

The mere fact that he is taken away from work is in his own interests, because, as has been said to-day, unemployment is better than disease. The Home Secretary has promised that if these Regulations prove, after fair trial, to be ineffective, he will bring in a Bill in a far more drastic form which perhaps might meet the wishes of hon. Members opposite even more than this Bill does. This Bill has been correctly described as half a loaf, and as half a loaf it is better than no bread, I would ask the House to accept the Bill.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 56.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I do not think this Bill will occupy the attention of the House for more than a few moments, because it is entirely un-controversial. I do not know whether the House is familiar with the necessity for it, but I will state shortly what the Bill is. In the Industrial Assurance Act, 1923, there was a Section—Section 11—which enables the Commissioner to give exemption to juvenile societies and branches. But under that Section there was no power to give that exemption to societies and branches which were not exclusively juvenile, and it has been found very desirable to extend that exemption, under proper safeguards which are included in this Bill, to societies and branches which contain both juvenile and adult members, provided that the receipt of premiums by means of collection is limited to juvenile members. It is in order to effect that small amendment of Section 11 of the Act of 1923 that this Bill is introduced, and as far as I am aware, there is no opposition to it.

Question put, arid agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.