asked the Home Secretary if he is in a position to say how many uninsured employers have failed to meet the claims made upon them under the Workmen's Compensation Acts; how many injured workmen are affected by this; and which industry has suffered the most?

As the hon. Member knows, I made inquiries recently on this subject in the case of the coal-mining industry, and the general results of these inquiries were given in my replies to questions asked in this House on the 7th February. I regret that no information is available as regards other industries, but practically all the complaints which have recently reached me on this matter have related to the coal-mining industry.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the White Paper issued by the Government dealing with the basic and heavy industries most liable to accidents shows that 27 per cent. of the employers have not insured their workers against accident, and is it not high time that the Government took steps to put the matter right?

There is another question on that particular subject which I shall answer in a moment.

asked the Home Secretary which of the seven big industries which make returns to him under Section 42 of the Workmen's Compensation Acts has the greatest percentage of uninsured employers?

The group with the largest percentage of employers who are not insured either with an insurance company or a mutual indemnity association is the railways, who have a percentage of nearly 51.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the time has arrived when there should be compulsory insurance in order to protect injured workmen?

I have not heard of any case of any railway company defaulting in the matter of workmen's compensation. This goes to show that as far as that group is concerned there is no need for compulsory insurance.

Is it not a fact that the Balfour Committee made strong recommendations that there should be compulsory insurance for all industries where workers are liable to injury?

The Report is a rather long one, and I could not express any opinion concerning it at this time.

Is there not a definite recommendation in that Report to that effect?

I have not read the Report completely yet.

asked the Home Secretary if he will state from the returns made to him in respect of the Workmen's Compensation Acts what proportion of compensation is paid by employers who are not insured, by mutual indemnity associations, and by insurance companies?

Out of the total amount of compensation paid in the seven industrial groups covered by the returns, 52.6 per cent. was paid by mutual indemnity associations; 24.3 per cent. by insurance companies and 23.1 per cent. by uninsured employers.

asked the Home Secretary the reason for the non-ratification of the International Convention of 1925 on equality of treatment for national and foreign workers with regard to workmen's compensation; and whether any negotiations have taken place since the Convention was made?

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. This Convention has been ratified by His Majesty's Government, and the ratification was formally registered on the 6th October, 1926.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a parcel of books addressed by the Maison de Livre Francais to Messrs. Birrell and Gannett, Ltd., booksellers, of No. 30, Gerrard Street, W.1, was held up for nearly two months in the Customs on account of the presence of a book by Monsieur Jules Romain, which had previously been imported freely to this country; that this book was subsequently released by the Customs with compensation for damage caused by its frequent reading by officials; that the package containing it also contained a book on Glacial Formations in Switzerland, which was also damaged; that the consignee's solicitors were informed that this latter work was seized under the doctrine of Taint; whether the consignees were given any formal notification of the seizure; and will he explain on what grounds instructions for taking such action were given?

I have been asked to reply. I understand that the consignment of books referred to was placed under detention by the local Customs officers on importation on the 19th November last. They were held up pending consideration of the question whether a work by Monsieur Jules Romain in the consignment should not be regarded as within the scope of the prohibition in Section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, against the importation of indecencies. As the book had not previously come under the notice of the Customs Authorities it was in accordance with usual procedure submitted to headquarters for decision. It was ultimately released on the 2nd January. As regards the particular prints referred to in the question, I do not know the names of the remaining books in the consignment. No compensation was paid. The action of the Customs in detaining the package was based on the provision of the law under which the forfeiture of prohibited goods may entail the forfeiture of the package in which the same are found and the contents thereof. No notice of seizure was served on the importers as the books were not seized but merely placed under detention.

Is it not a fact that the Customs have undertaken to pay compensation for damage caused to this book?

No, Sir.

Can the hon. Gentleman say why it takes between six weeks and two months to read a book or to inspect it?

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether in handling these books the Customs would exercise, not merely the red letter and the red tape of the law, but some ordinary common sense?

Why, yes, of course, the Customs authorities deal with these matters on lines of common sense. They do the best they can to carry out their duties conveniently to the public.

Have the Customs officials among them any literary experts or officials who claim to be literary experts, and, if not, did they act in this case entirely on their own initiative or on instructions from some Government Department?

It was not a question of the literary quality of the books, but a question of seeing whether the books contained anything that was indecent, which is quite another matter.

Has any compensation been paid by the hon. Gentleman's Department, as is asked in the question, and, if so, how much?

I have replied that no compensation was given.

May I have an answer to my question as to whether it takes nearly two months to form an opinon as to whether there is an indecency in these books?

It all depends on how long it is necessary to take to examine the matter.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that His Majesty's Inspectors of Schools have reported that certain elementary schools in receipt of grant have no proper facilities for drying the clothes and boots of children who arrive at school wet, and that the children in rural schools have, in consequence, to return home after school hours in clothing still wet; and whether the absence of such facilities for drying clothes and boots has been made the subject of advice to local authorities and to managers of provided schools or of warnings that the continuance of such deficiences will entail loss of grant?

I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a Circular dealing with this subject, which I issued in March, 1925. I think everyone concerned is alive to the importance of facilities for drying clothes and boots where children come from a distance. The point always receives special attention in connection with proposals for reorganising rural schools.

Is the Noble Lord aware that hundreds of schools in the country are without drying facilities, and that children during the recent severe weather have had to remain wet during school hours, and return home wet?

Can the Noble Lord increase the grants for conveyance of children who have to travel long distances to and from school?

I have never been asked by any local education authority to increase grants for conveyance. The custom of conveyance has been largely extended during the last few years. My reply to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Richardson) is that I have already stated in my answer the steps that I am taking.

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstances of the Hyde Park prosecution conducted by the Commissioner of Police against Edward Harry West at the Marlborough Street Police Court and the Central Criminal Court in August, September, and October, 1928, at the instance of a woman whose name was suppressed by the police from publication, but who was described by the Treasury counsel for the purposes of the prosecution as Mrs. X; whether he is aware that the complainant was put forward by the police under a name which was not that under which she was registered at the Employment Exchange, as following an occupation which she was not in fact following, as living at an address at which she was not in fact residing, and as being the widow of a Frenchman, whereas she was not registered at the aliens registration department; why these facts were not disclosed to the legal advisers of the accused; and whether, in view of Mr. West's reputation and character and the fact that he served in His Majesty's Forces with distinction for the duration of the War, he proposes to grant compensation to Mr. West for the expense to which he was put in defending himself?

I am aware of the facts of this case, which are generally as stated in the question. It was, however, with the approval of the magistrate that the complainant was not referred to by name, but the other facts about her were not known to the police at the time proceedings were taken, and were only brought to notice later by the solicitor for the defence. I am satisfied that the police did not act improperly in connection with the case, and, after full consideration, I can find no ground for paying the expenses incurred by Mr. West in his defence.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say on what grounds he distinguishes this particular case, which is that of a working man, from that of Major Murray, to whom he awarded £500 compensation under precisely the same circumstances?

Each case of this kind has to be judged entirely upon the facts of the ease. These cases were quite different.

asked the President of the Board of Education what proportion of the money up to the present expended upon miners' relief has been allocated to the South Wales coalfield; and whether, in view of the Report made by Sir Arthur Lowry and Dr. James Pearse upon conditions in that area, any extension of relief is to be sanctioned?

Of the total of £484,216 paid out of the Lord Mayor's Fund up to the 11th instant, £202,961, or 42 per cent. has been allotted to the South Wales area. The Report referred to described conditions prior to the re-constitution of the Lord Mayor's Fund, since when, as the hon. Baronet is no doubt aware, the assistance given in this area has been very considerably extended.