I wish to call attention to the very wide prevalence of the industrial disease known as silicosis and the extent of injury caused by it. I am very pleased that the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary for Mines are present this morning. They have for a very considerable time been keenly interested in the subject. I have recollections of my first visit to the Home Office back in 1925 when I made a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. I was then referred to the Secretary for Mines. Following upon that, I was able to cite a very large number of cases to the Mines Department, and an inquiry was held. It may be information to the House that that inquiry was held by the Mines Department. The Report was made to the Department in October, 1925, by Dr. Pirow, an expert who, I believe, now occupies a high position with the South African Government, and he fully confirmed our belief that silicosis in this country was identifiable with miners' phthisis which has caused such ravages among the South African miners, and for which special legislation was provided.

From 1925 there have been investigations, and references to Departmental Committees, and we had to wait with very great displeasure and disappointment until February, 1929, before a regulation appeared from the Home Department acknowledging the liability of employers to pay compensation to the victims of this awful disease. The Home Secretary will excuse me from making too detailed a reference to the orders and regulations which have been published from time to time since then. I have frequently had to refer to the Home Department in order to express our disappointment, here and in the mining industry, with the conditions under which compen- sation has become payable to the victims and dependants of the victims of the complaint.

Silicosis is spreading in an alarming extent in the mining industry. Those of us who know how cases develop observed as far back as 12 or 15 years ago the incidence of this disease, and saw men struck down. We collected particulars of cases and related them to the operation of boring machines in the rock in coal mines. We then only but dimly appreciated the possibilities of the growth and of the widespread effect of the disease. We saw strong men struck down, disabled and dying years before their time. There was a large number of cases of premature death among the strongest of my workmates in the days gone by. We did not realise that, as fresh men were put on to employment of this kind and the spread of mechanical appliances took place, a larger number of men were coming under the deadly influence of stone dust, and that in the course of time we should reap a large harvest of broken and disabled men such as we witness at the present time.

The Secretary for Mines must have been surprised at the result of the inquiries made at my instance a short time ago. He reported that during a certain period there had been certified in the mines of this country 400 people so disabled as readily to obtain certification. I believe that that figure represents only a small part of the incidence of this disease. I dread to estimate the number of people who will become certified year after year as time goes on. We recognise how serious it is becoming, and we are to-day asking the Secretary of State for the Home Department to pursue those inquiries which we know to be taking place by the medical staff of his Department, working in collaboration with a special medical man appointed by the Mines Department. We would very much like the two Ministers to expedite those investigations with all possible speed.

We know that this is a disease due to the inhalation of stone dust, and while we use the term "silicosis," we fear that it may be a misnomer. The term may be misleading. We are convinced that silica is not the only mineral which is responsible. Experts have issued reports, which are thoroughly consistent with our own experience, that in those rocks there is an element called sericite which is present in the silicious rocks, and which plays a very large part in the production of these cases of disease. We would like that special side of the inquiry to be expedited, because we are convinced that there is no stone in certain mines and in certain districts of the British coalfield which is worked upon underground which does not produce silicosis cases, while in other districts there is not the same incidence. Although the men breathe large quantities of dust when working with percussive machines on shale, sandstone and other rock, the rate of incidence of silicosis is not so high. In certain parts of those coalfields, the presence of silica and the percentage of it do not account for such widespread prevalence of the disease as in other areas. For example, the figures given by the Inspector of Mines show that, of 424 cases in the whole of Great Britain, 386 have been certified in South Wales; that is to say, in that one coalfield, where there is 25 per cent. of the mining population, 80 per cent. of the silicosis cases were found. We go further, and say that the incidence is higher in certain parts of South Wales than over the whole coalfield on an average. There are special areas where the incidence is exceptionally high, and that cannot be explained by varying degrees of contamination with silica, but must be ascribed to some other cause. Therefore, we would urge that the investigation in which sericie was discovered to be a very important element in the causation of this disease should be pursued further at the earliest opportunity, and that other minerals that may be suspected should be observed.

To-day, however, we are not taking this opportunity merely to ask that these investigations should be pursued; we have come to the conclusion that no time should be lost in adopting preventive measures. The unfortunate fact about this disease is that there is no escape from it. No person who breathes stone-dust in sufficient quantities in some parts of the British coalfield can escape contracting the disease, and, once a person has been disabled by it, his doom is pronounced. Medical science is quite helpless in this matter. No medical treatment can help these people or relieve their condition in the slightest; it is simply a case of awaiting the death which comes, sometimes quickly and sometimes less quickly, but always inevitably, years before the natural span of life has been reached. We would urge these facts upon the three Ministers who are here this morning, and who are responsible to these men who are the direct victims, who are responsible to those dependent upon them, and are responsible to the large number of people who have not yet been certified, but who certainly in due course will be certified by the medical boards, and who will die unless some medical treatment is discovered which will give them relief.

It is because there is no cure that we insist so much upon prevention. Prevention is always better than cure, but in this case it must be prevention, because there is no cure. We would like the three Ministers to put their heads together. I am not quite sure where the responsibility lies, and I gratefully acknowledge the action of the Secretary for Mines, who has always been ready to impart information and to give the widest publicity to the work done by his Department. He has consented to preside at a conference which is to be held in West Wales during the next month, and really he has earned our appreciation by his willingness to give publicity to all that he knows about this matter. But it is not so much a question of publicity regarding the work of investigation which is being carried on; we should like now to see the Department embark upon a "safety first" campaign. "Safety first" applies just as much to health matters as to preventable accidents. If it is possible to save life by warning people against the dangers of disease, that is just as important as safeguarding them against other hidden dangers in the mine.

We should like to see such a "safety first" campaign directed to known preventive measures. We believe that that would save an enormous number of people who are doomed to die unless something is done. The three Ministers know quite well what has been happening in South Africa. I well remember the time, 30 years ago, when large numbers of Cornishmen went out to the Band gold mines, and came back year after year to die. They died from silicosis—that form of phthisis which in South Africa, as in our own mines, was so fatal—and there appeared to be no possible way of escaping the heavy annual toll of lives in that industry. But a way was found in South Africa, and now they have nearly wiped out miners' phthisis. Strict regulations have been laid down that, whenever the compressed air is turned on in a pneumatic drill, water must be turned on at the same time, so that, when the drill strikes the rock and pulverises it, when the rock is being ground to dust by the rapid action of the pneumatic drill, water is turned on at the spot where pulverisation takes place, and the dust is laid at the point where it is made, so that there is no possibility of dust escaping into the air current or being breathed by the men who are working these machines.

I know that the Department, and other people in this country, think there is a possibility of another alternative. Inventors have offered various kinds of dust-traps, which they claim to be adequate and efficient in collecting the dust at the mouth of the bore-hole where it escapes, and thus preventing its circulation in the air which the workpeople breathe. But I am not satisfied that any effective dust-trap has yet been invented; I fear that no dust-trap that has yet been produced has been effective in collecting all the dust at that point. I would not say that it cannot be done, but we are not satisfied that it has been done effectively up to this moment. Another means of trying to cope with the dangers of dust is by persuading the men to wear respirators—a kind of muzzles which are said to afford protection by filtering the air which the person breathes. There again, however, we are not satisfied that an effective respirator has been invented which can be made portable and which persons can be obliged to wear.

We would like to make these measures automatic—not merely dustproof, but foolproof, with no possibility of pollution of the air taking place; and the only way in which we believe that can be done is to lay the dust at the spot where it is made, before it emerges into the atmosphere. For doing that effectively a system of wet drilling is the only one that commends itself to us, and we know of no reason why an Order should not be made by the Secretary for Mines. I hope I am not infringing the Rules of Debate by suggesting new legislation, but I believe that by regulation it would be possible to-day, in the interests of these men, to prescribe wet drilling wherever drilling is done. We believe that, if that were done, those men who have not yet contracted this disease will be immune from it so far as it is contractible by working with these compressed air machines. We believe that hundreds of lives would be saved if wet drilling were compulsorily imposed as from to-day. In the years that are to come, unless something is done, we shall see a growing list of disabled people, which, judging from my own district, will run into thousands, who in the South Wales industry alone will be doomed to die. We believe that the imposition of wet drilling would save a very large number of these people. I fear there is nothing that can be done immediately, as science has not yet come to our assistance for those who have already breathed so much stone dust as to have caused fibrosis, and who are so far gone that there is no hope of escape for them, but new men should be made immune by the adoption of the preventive measure which is so simple, so cheap and so direct of application.

I should like again to urge that the work of investigation should be expedited. I do not think for a minute that further investigation is necessary in regard to men employed on pneumatic drills. We know enough. That employment in the end is always fatal. I do not know of any case of a man who has worked with a pneumatic drilling machine who has escaped disablement from silicosis. The thing to do is to adopt the preventive measures which we offer to the Minister to-day. In regard to other elements responsible for causation, such as trampling on some dust laid for a certain purpose in every coal mine, it has to be remembered that the stone dust, which has been prescribed by the regulations, it itself a safety provision to prevent the spread of explosion caused by gas. It may be responsible for a certain proportion of so-called silicosis cases.

We should like investigation into that matter to be pursued, and we should like Ministers to search still further for causes of silicosis not yet fully ascertained. But will they please come at the earliest possible moment to cases where causation is known, and where disablement and death always ensue upon the employment. We urge them to take their responsibilities seriously in this matter, which means death and disablement and which causes great apprehension. Unless something is done very soon we shall see large numbers of men in the South Wales coalfield refusing to work. They see around them neighbours who have been struck down, and they see the ever-increasing number who have been disabled, and they fear for themselves. We should like the Government to take immediate action to deal with this disease as far as it is caused directly by boring with the pneumatic drill and, while dealing with that independently, they can pursue other investigations with perhaps more leisure and more care into other possible causes of the disease which are not directly connected with rock drilling. Thousands of men are using pneumatic machines on stone in the mines. Everyone of them working in certain areas in South Wales is expected to break down in the employment. We urge Ministers to take very serious note of what we have said and to adopt compulsory preventive measures at the earliest possible moment in order to save life.

I should like to direct attention to the difficulties experienced in securing compensation where a miner has been permanently disabled. The regulations stipulate that a man who has become disabled has to prove that he has been working in the process on rocks which contain 50 per cent. of free silica, and it is exceedingly difficult to prove that. While I am all in favour of wet drilling and of using scientific inventions which can be obtained to end this thing, and while I appreciate the difficulty of adding water in drilling, particularly in mines with a high temperature, I think it is inevitable, whatever instrument you may adopt, that we shall have men suffering from this disability. While a man may escape in the drilling and filling processes, there is the unloading process, in which he is compelled to inhale dust, because in the filling of the old roads you invariably find that there is no ventilation at all, and the atmosphere is charged with dust. Having inhaled enough to cause permanent dis- ability, he may later on become a collier and then, as he is not working in the process, he is unable to secure compensation. I want particularly to direct attention to stone dusting. That is a subject upon which there are a variety of opinions. I have made a few observations since I came into this House. I found, first of all, that the temperature was fairly decent and the air was subjected to some kind of process that was unfamiliar to me. Pursuing my investigation, I found that the people who made provision for the ventilation of this historic edifice had some regard to the health of Members. The air goes through a process of heating and moisture and dust extraction. It comes through cotton wool, which extracts all the dust and practically all the moisture. To-day, while the temperature of London is probably 100 per cent. saturated, the little instrument behind Mr. Speaker's Chair indicates 10 degrees of difference between the wet and dry bulb.

The great scientists of to-day, among them Professor Haldane, suggest that a man can inhale as much dust as he likes, if it is silica free, without causing any discomfort. There are three diseases, anthrocosis, fibrosis and silicosis. The first two do not come in for compensation at all. The Secretary for Mines was asked the other day what was the minimum quantity of coal dust necessary to cause a coal dust explosion, and he replied one-tenth of an ounce per cubic foot. I have made a slight calculation. If there is an ounce of dust present, there must be an ounce, or at least an equivalent percentage, of stone dust, so that we must multiply by two if we are to get the right proportions. If we get a heading 12 feet wide and 10 feet high, and taking a yard run, there is the equivalent of 4 lbs. of dust from that yard run of the mine. I want the House to imagine that if by some turbulent means that dust is raised into the atmosphere, there will be a dense cloud of smoke, and one would be unable to see the illumination of a lamp a foot away. A man has constantly to inhale that dust when passing, perhaps, for 3,000 yards along the main airway. These main airways are high velocities, and when horses are travelling, or when the "journeys" are travelling, they disturb the air in the atmosphere, and a man is compelled to inhale dust. The dust is raised into the atmosphere and the man has to inhale it over the whole distance along which he travels. The collier at the face cannot escape it. I am not accepting the dictum of the scientists that inhaling such a large quantity of dust does not eventually disable a man. I say that it does.

I asked the Secretary for Mines the other day if he could tell me when those samples of stone dust were taken, and how often, in order to secure that the content did not include any silica, and the reply was excedingly disappointing. If the public authorities acted upon that dictum, it would be a bad thing for the health of this country. We are to assume, from the reply given, that once having examined any such rock and finding no silica, the rocks were to be considered free from that condition. The reply was that the inspectors in the area having taken samples of the rocks which were to be used for grinding for stone dusting, found that they were free from silica, and they were satisfied. Surely, if I take a test of London water to-day and find it all right I cannot assume that it will be all right next week. These samples ought to be taken more often, because it is our experience that, while you might get a pit suitable for stone dusting, geological disturbances make it impossible, but still they go on with the stone dusting. I want particularly to stress that point. I admit straight away that the presence of stone dust, in the event of a fire damp ignition, acts as a neutralising agent in preventing the projection of flame; at the same time, that is a remote possibility, because an explosion of firedamp can be prevented if the first law of mining—which is ventilation—is observed. Therefore, we introduce an added danger into the mine, and subject the miner to this insidious enemy. Notwithstanding all our efforts to prevent his having inflicted upon him any violence from falls of roof and other dangers, we introduce this danger in addition to the others with which he has to contend. I would add to the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) that all investigations which can take place should be pursued, but I hope that it will not be concluded that the presence of stone dust used for the purpose of preventing explosions is not a danger.

In our area, where men are paying specific attention to this complaint, we are convinced that the presence of stone dust is producing disability. In view of the fact that stone dust is not necessary if the Mines Act is carried out properly, our men ought not to be subjected to that added danger. As long as mining continues they will always be subjected to the danger of the dust in the working of the mines. You cannot escape it. But in that connection, I hope that the Home Office will try to make preparation for providing compensation for the men who fail to prove that they have had their disability produced as a result of working in a pit with a 50 per cent. silica dust content rock, or working in connection with the various processes. It is a duty due to the miners that this House should take some cognisance of this important matter. I know that the Home Office has expressed sympathy with the miner on many occasions in consequence of the effects of the disabling condition through inhaling stone dust, but I want it to go further. While it is no consolation to a man to have compensation if his wife becomes a widow, it is some consolation, while he is alive, to have the limited amount of compensation to which we think he is entitled. I hope-that the Home Office will give special regard to that matter.

I intervene at this stage as it may be thought that because the two previous speakers; are South Wales Members this is a disease confined to South Wales. It is true that the ravages of the disease are better known in South Wales than in any other part of the British coalfield, but we in Lancashire have also experienced its ravages, although, I am pleased to say, not to as large an extent as have those hon. Members. I want at once to confirm what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. D. Davies). Some 18 months ago I had the unpleasant experience of descending into a mine immediately after an explosion. I was very much impressed by the manner in which the explosion had been confined within exceedingly narrow limits. I was surprised to find how near I could get to the seat of the explosion without any sign of the explosion or of any indication whatever of an explosion. I found that the main reason was because of the exceedingly heavy stone dusting which had been carried on for months. There is no doubt that the colliery company, know- ing the danger in case an explosion should take place, had done all they could to confine it. I feel, however, that stone dusting can be carried on so exceedingly well that there is a possibility of endangering the health of the miner from another point of view, and that something ought to be done in the matter.

I want also to add to the appreciation of the activities of the Secretary for Mines. His boundless energy has enabled him to take much action in this direction, and I should like, at the same time, to express appreciation of the interest shown by the Home Office. We do realise the difficulty of the situation in dealing with this most difficult of diseases. I know that there is much to be said on both sides of the question of stone dusting in mines. In so far as it saves life when an explosion takes place, one must appreciate the need for stone dusting. But in so far as the quantity required for safeguarding life endangers health, we want investigations to be made into the matter. I leave the matter for the Secretary for Mines and his two colleagues to attend to, as I know they will attend to it in the near future.

I want to emphasise to the Home Secretary especially the difficulty experienced in getting compensation for men who have been subject to the effects of the dust. We experience great difficulty in regard to the delays in the matter. We find it difficult to get a decision as to whether a man has a compensation case or not. I was wondering whether the Home Office could do something to make it easier to decide the question by having some quicker method of enabling a man to qualify for compensation. I do not wish a man to be able to qualify if not entitled to do so, but I desire, where it is thought that a man may qualify, that the decision should be facilitated by the quickest way possible. We have had cases standing over for months. That is very unfair. At the end, it is true, the man has qualified, but it must be realised that a working man with a large family cannot afford to wait for months; the anxiety and worry are too much for him.

I wonder whether the Home Office can find some method of ascertaining sooner than is the case now, whether a man has a compensation case or not? There is no need to tell us how difficult it is; we know. But we think that it should be possible to arrange machinery to enable decisions to be taken sooner. In the case of death, where the man has not been before the board and his case has not been decided—we have had this question to deal with in Lancashire—the Home Secretary will appreciate how difficult it is for the employer then to agree that it is a compensation case, because the liability is more serious. We have succeeded in Lancashire. When a firm of Lancashire employers have accepted the evidence of a specialist that silicosis was the cause of death, we have not experienced much difficulty. I would, however, ask the Home Secretary to do what he can to facilitate an earlier decision and to make it possible for the man who may not be able to prove the 50 per cent. which is necessary at the present time, to get a fair deal. It is very difficult in this machine age when men's jobs change and their minds change, to deal with this matter but I do ask for a fair deal for the man who is suffering from this terrible disease. As the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. G. Grenfell) said, there is only one cure in this case and that is prevention. I ask the Home Office and the Minister for Mines to take all steps possible to make the burden of this hapless number of men much easier, and to bring about quicker decisions.

The House will agree with me when I say that it is very fitting that this human problem should be discussed on an occasion like this. I cannot claim to speak with really expert knowledge of some of these matters, but all my life I have lived on the edge of a large coalfield and I have been down coal pits. I realise the difficulties of some of these problems and all of us are anxious to do what we can to help in the matter. One of the great administrative difficulties in dealing with them is to find absolutely sure and certain ground upon which we can work. As we have heard to-day, opinions are held by some that the use of water in dealing with drills or laying dust is considered to be a solution. If it were so simple as that we could at once feel that we could take a step forward, but as I am informed by those who have studied the problem while there may be much to be said for using part of this system it is really not conclusive. We have had some experience with this problem in other industries where we have taken some effective steps to deal with it by preventive measures, and special Regulations have been brought into force, for example, for the Refractories Industries and certain processes in the Pottery Industry.

It is I believe true to say that we are only working on the fringe of these problems, but I understand that the scientists have been working with a common purpose and with all possible expedition to try if possible to improve matters. I understand, for instance, that there is a mask or respirator which shortly will be available for trial. I appreciate what the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) said. He would like to have these things made compulsory, but every one of us knows the difficulties of getting a workman unaccustomed to these appliances to make use of them consistently. We know tow necessary it is that the beneficial results of such appliances should be explained to the workmen, so that he will realise that they are provided for his benefit if he has to work under unpleasant conditions.

It is often more uncomfortable to work with respirators than to work without them in the dust.

That is what I am trying to say. It is so difficult to convince a man on this subject. Perhaps he has been brought up from boyhood in the mines and has not realised the real difficulties and dangers of the work. Therefore, if we are to make progress it must be by a close educative process on the part of his fellow workers and those in whom he has confidence. We realise that there are difficulties in the width of the source from which infection can come. Reference has been made to sericite. I have asked about that and I understand from those who have investigated it that while it is true that sericite is found in certain cases to have deleterious results it has never, I understand, been established that any case has been proved in which at the same time silica has not been present. If I am right, while sericite may be a contributory cause of the disease, it is not a primary cause. The hon. Member for Gower said, this particular trouble is confined largely to an area in South Wales. I can assure hon. Members opposite that we are endeavouring to investigate the problem. The Minister for Mines is going down into that area, and every effort is going to be made to see what can be done. Undoubtedly, better ventilation in the mines is, and must be, of immense importance. In regard to the problem of dust in mines, methods for limiting the range of the explosion are being investigated from all practical sides, and I can assure the House that we are doing everything we can in the matter.

With regard to delay, if there is anything which one can do to lessen the period of time within which it is possible to decide whether compensation is payable, we should look upon it with the greatest sympathy. Hon. Members who are concerned with this matter must know that we have to depend upon those who are experts in the problem. Although knowledge of the problem is increasing and more people may be coming into the arena to whom we can apply for help, the fact remains that this question can only be decided by those who are really conversant with the problem. We have had no very recent complaints of delay but if hon. Members have cases and choose to communicate with me on the subject I should be very happy to look into them. I will only add that we are at the present moment in communication with the mineowners upon this problem, and that we are actively discussing the aspects—some of them new aspects—upon which quite clearly there are divisions of opinion on which science has not yet definitely come to a conclusion. I can assure those who have raised this very interesting subject—

May I be excused for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman to ask whether he will be prepared also to accept representations from the Miners' Federation?

Undoubtedly. We are not sleeping. We are moving in the matter, and we are in fact in direct negotiation and communication with those who represent the mine-owners in this country at the present time, and I hope perhaps at a later stage in this Session I may be in a position to say something further upon this matter.

I desire to call the attention of the House before it adjourns to another matter which I regard as of great gravity to the great mass of industrial workers in this country. I refer to the question of industrial insurance on which we have had a report from the committee set up on 2nd April, 1931, by Viscount Snowden—he was then Mr. Snowden, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—which was presided over by Sir Benjamin Cohen, K.C. That Committee on Industrial Insurance reported in July of last year, and the report as a whole is one of striking condemnation of the present system as it is worked by the great companies and societies as far as the interests of the working-classes are concerned. I have asked questions from time to time on this subject. I asked one on 15th November last year in which I set out the outline of the principal findings of the committee and asked what the Government were going to do about this report. I asked another question on the 7th of this month. On both occasions I was informed that the report was under examination, but that no action had yet been decided upon. I understand from the Financial Secretary, who I have no doubt will be here in a few moments, that he is not yet in a position to give me any very definite statement with regard to the Government's intentions. Be that as it may, and however long it may take the Government to decide upon their course of action, I have thought it my duty, Mr. Speaker, to bring this matter to the attention of the House.

This report commences with a very admirable statement of the size and growth of the business of industrial insurance since 1920 during the years of prolonged industrial depression. Premium income has increased from £36,000,000 per annum to £54,000,000 per annum. It now exceeds the whole of the contributions of employers and workers to national health insurance and State pensions combined. That statement alone will show the magnitude of this business of industrial insurance. The business, the report tells us, is conducted by 16 companies and 153 collecting societies, employing 52,000 whole-time collectors, 16,000 spare time agents, and 2,650 canvassers. At the end of 1930—the last year for which the committee had accounts and statements before them—there were 80,000,000 policies in force in Great Britain and Ireland, that is nearly two policies per head of the whole population, man, woman and child. That is an extraordinary statement, and it shows the enormous pressure exercised on the working-classes to take out more and more of these policies.

I turn to the question of how this £54,000,000 of annual premium income, extracted in most cases from the wives of working men, on policies for burial benefits and such matters as that, is spent. £18,400,000, or 34 per cent. of it, goes in commissions and expenses of management. That is stated in paragraph 28 of the Report. The amount paid in claims absorbed only £22,400,000 out of the £54,000,000. It does not look as if the working-classes as a whole have got a very good proposition when they pay £54,000,000 in premiums and only get £22,400,000 back in claims paid. It is the nature of the business that it consists of an enormous number of petty transactions. The average amount assured under whole life policies which number 67,000,000 out of 80,000,000 is only £14 8s. and the average premium payment per week is 2¾d. It must be a small business in individual cases—although enormous in the aggregate—because there is a statutory maximum for insurances taken out by parents and others in the ease of children. It is £6 at death under the age of three years, £10 at death between the ages of three years and six years, and £15 at death between the ages of six years and 10 years. Turning to the latest figures which the Committee had before them on the question of lapses, I find that the new policies taken out in 1929 numbered 10,000,000. Of that number, 6,000,000 were discontinued, 4,750,000 of those policies lapsed altogether, and 1,250,000 had surrender values or free paid-up policies granted. That was in 1929, a year of comparative prosperity. What must it have been in 1931? One can only come to the conclusion that the worse the position of the industrial population the greater is the amount of profit annually derived from this business. That is a state of affairs that, using a classic phrase, "brooks no delay" on the part of the Government in dealing with it. As to the value of these free paid-up policies, in paragraph 56 of the Report the Committee say:

"An estimate which has been prepared for us leads us to the conclusion that the owners of the policies lapsing in each year pay in the aggregate not less than £1,000,000 in premiums in excess of the cost of the insurance 'cover' which they received."

And they go on to say:

"What is certain is that those who have taken policies which have lapsed within a short time, and the vast majority of whom have entered into the contract under the pressure of the agent or other canvasser, have had in assurance cover the value of not more than one-fifth of the premiums they have paid."

I apologise to the House for stressing this point, but we have passed a good deal of legislation in order to get these free-paid-up policies for the industrial insured, and we thought we had done something of value to them. The report of the committee says that we have not. In paragraph 57 they say:

"After paying say 2d. a week for two years on a whole life policy effected on a life aged 40 the owner on discontinuing his payment will receive a free policy of 6s. or 7s. payable on the death of the life assured. Even if we disregard the probability of the loss or destruction of this 'policy' during the many years which, on average, must elapse before it can be encashed, it is clear that an assurance of such an amount is of no real service to its owner…. The free policy granted in compensation for premiums paid in the past on a discontinued policy can only be regarded as having a real value if its amount is fairly substantial. In the great number of cases in which a free policy is issued on the discontinuance of premiums within a few years after the original policy is effected, its amount is necessarily trifling and the payer of the premium is, for all practical purposes, no better off than if his policy had lapsed without consideration. From the point of the public, therefore, such policies must be grouped with those which of actual lapse as representing a direct waste of economic effort."

The House, therefore, cannot take a complacent view, because this report says that this free policy is of no value to the vast majority of people to whom it is given. The principal recommendations in the report are that policy owners should be allotted the sum of not less than two-thirds of the profits. That is in paragraph 138, and in paragraph 137 they say that the expenses of management should be limited to 30 per cent. of the premium income. How high is the percentage of these expenses of management is indicated in paragraphs 33 and 34. Apart from the Prudential and the Pearl the average is now 39 per cent. Before 1920 it was 43 per cent. of the whole premium income. The Royal London Mutual Assurance Society still pays its collectors 25s. of the weekly premiums and substantial fees for new business. In 1930 the commissions to agents and the salaries of superintendents absorbed 31 per cent. of the premiums; new business charges 5½ per cent., and head office charges 6½ per cent., making 43 per cent. of the premiums going in expenses.

That was as recently as 1930. The expense ratio of the five large collecting societies is over 41 per cent. and their agents receive on new business the whole of the premiums which are paid during the first 13 to 16 weeks, and in some cases a bonus on increased premiums is also collected.

In these societies, and also in the Royal London and Co-operative Insurance Society, agents obtain a vested interest in the business. That is a very important fact. They have a right in the event of death to nominate their successor, which means that they can sell their position as an agent or collector, and normally a sum equivalent to 30 times the amount of the weekly premiums collected is paid. For example, if an agent has £15 of premiums to collect on his book every week he can sell his book on the appointment of his successor for £450. That is brought out in paragraph 37. The Committee, however, were not satisfied with these major recommendations. They make a very significant statement in paragraph 5 to which I want to refer. They say:

"Arising out of the evidence, we have in Part II of this Report made certain recommendations for the amendment of the law, but as the inquiry has proceeded we have been gradually led to the conclusion that while improvements of varying degree may be expected from the adoption of these proposals, the defects of the business, and their consequences to the assuring public, call for remedial measures of a much more substantial character than can be secured by the changes in the statutory provisions which have been submitted to us."

In the light of that statement I have considered what might be the more drastic remedial measures which the committee had in mind. I recall the time when National Health Insurance was first before this House in 1911, and I have been wondering why this business of industrial insurance by workers for these trivial sums for burial was not included in the National Health scheme. My recollection is that it was originally included in the Bill presented to the House, but as it was necessary to get insurance companies and societies favourable to the scheme of National Health Insurance as a whole, and to get their co-operation in working it, they were left with a free run to continue their lucrative business of insuring industrial workers in order to secure a decent burial—

Do I understand that the hon. Member is asking the Government to legislate on the report of the committee?

I am asking the Government what they are going to do about it.

Is it not the case that the Government cannot do anything without legislation?

I hope we shall hear from the Financial Secretary that they are going to investigate the matter.

Before the Debate proceeds further, I think we had better find out at once whether it will require legislation; otherwise, the Debate is quite out of order.

I do not object at all to the pressure being put upon us to legislate, but it is the fact that absolutely nothing can be done by the Government except by the presentation of a Bill.

With great deference to the Financial Secretary, I do not think that is so. I agree that many of the points raised by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) cannot be dealt with except by legislation, but there are other matters which could be dealt with by administrative changes without the introduction of legislation.

I do not in the least resist the pressure that is being put upon us. It is a fact, however, that none of these recommendations could be put into force without legislation.

I agree that that is probably so on the report of the committee, but that does not bar us from recommending changes of an administra- tive character on which the Debate could proceed.

The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) raised a question which appeared to me to involve legislation. If hon. Members are asking the Government to do something that could be done without legislation, that would be in order.

Many of the points that have been raised by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) might be dealt with if, without further legislation, pressure were brought to bear upon those who are in control, so that the law as it stands at present is properly administered and so that action is taken against those who infringe the law.

The two principal recommendations to which I have referred clearly only involve the necessity of other companies working up their practice to the level now attained by the Prudential Company, and no legislation whatever will be needed. If the Government would bring pressure to bear on the other companies so as to make their practice as satisfactory as that of the Prudential Company there would be no need for legislation at all.

I cannot possibly be a judge as to what the Government can or cannot do, but if the representative of the Government tells me that they can do nothing without legislation I am bound to believe him.

The Government are actually in negotiation with the companies now.

I do not know whether it would be of any assistance, but I can say that if the purpose of the hon. Member's remarks is to urge all the other companies to work up to the high standard of the Prudential, of course that is not a matter which concerns me at all. I can only hope that the other companies will take notice of what my hon. Friend has said. As far as the Government are concerned, we have no power under the law to compel the other companies.

I do not think any useful purpose would be served by proceeding with the discussion on the point of Order. It is quite clear that the Government can do nothing without legislation, and therefore to continue the Debate would be out of order.

Would not the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) bring his remarks within the Rules of Order if he addressed them to the point of asking for further inquiry into the matter?

That would be a very roundabout way of doing something that is out of order.

I rise to draw the attention of the House to an entirely different matter.

On a point of Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but I did not understand from what you said, Mr. Speaker, that the whole discussion on the question raised by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) would automatically close. There are innumerable things not contained in the Committee's Report which can be raised on this question. All that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said is that the recommendations of the report cannot be carried out without legislation. It is not denied that there are administrative actions which can be taken to improve the practice and the administration of industrial assurance. For example, there is the point, already raised, that the actual administration of the law can be tightened up. I am sure the Financial Secretary would not maintain for a moment that administratively the functions of the Commissioner could not be extended without any legislation whatever.

I was relying on the speech that was made by the hon. Member who introduced this subject. I did not know there were other points to be raised. We must leave them till later.

I rise to direct the attention of the House to an entirely different but very important matter. It will be within the recollection of the House that this morning the Home Secretary answered a question relating to the circumstances that surrounded the arrest of Mr. Cope Morgan. Those who listened to that reply must have felt that the anxiety concerning this case was somewhat disarmed by the frank and conciliatory nature of the reply. In every part of the House I think there will be a desire not to add further to the publicity which has already surrounded this unfortunate citizen. On the other hand, although one might be influenced by those considerations, it is my view and the view of some of my hon. Friends that there was conduct on the part of certain high officials of so reprehensible a character that we cannot possibly allow the matter to remain where it is. I am not going to ask the House for a moment to consider any of the evidence given in the course of the proceedings at the court, nor the decision of the court itself. We are not concerned at all about that; we are concerned only with the events that occurred before the case came for trial.

The incident around which the trial occurred took place at about 12.20 a.m. on 1st March. Mr. Cope Morgan was taken to Tottenham Court Road police station, there charged, and freed on bail. It transpired, as the Home Secretary admitted, that he was on friendly terms with the Secretary at Scotland Yard, and he rang up or called upon the Secretary, and because of the intervention of the Secretary no proceedings were taken on charge. There was nothing unusual about the charge, for such charges occur in the ordinary life of a policeman in London. The only unusual thing about this case was that Mr. Cope Morgan knew the Secretary at Scotland Yard and the Secretary was on friendly terms with him. The assumption is that if Mr. Cope Morgan had not known the Secretary no one would have intervened; Mr. Cope Morgan would not have been able to obtain access to the Secretary and no steps would have been taken.

I want to emphasise that point. That is why anxiety has been aroused—one citizen is able to exert an influence from which other citizens are debarred. Were it not for the fact that this citizen had a friend and influence in high places the normal course of justice would have been proceeded with, and Mr. Cope Morgan would have been called upon to surrender to his bail at 10.30 the following morning. Because of this fact, because that is the only unusual feature of the case, because he was known to a high official, the machinery of Scotland Yard is set in motion and the course of justice is obstructed. In other words a high official is guilty of a gross misdemeanour. That official is escaping unscathed. No steps at all have been taken to deal with him. There are two persons culpable. There is, first, the station officer who did not proceed with the case. I am not going to over-emphasise that aspect of the matter. It is true that, in law, he ought not to have surrendered the charge sheet. He ought not to have permitted himself to be interfered with by anybody at all. It is true that he ought to have said to his superior officer, "I am responsible in law for seeing to it that this man appears on his bail to-morrow morning and I am going to see that he does so." That is the law of the matter. The report of the Royal Commission on Police Powers and Procedure of 1929 states:

"Some account of the relationship between the individual policeman and the force to which he belongs is necessary for an understanding of the manner in which police powers are exercised. The essential feature which distinguishes police organisation from most other organised bodies is that the policeman's powers are not delegated to him by superior authority…. Modern conditions have led to the development of highly organised police forces the members of which are graded in different ranks. But these ranks have for the most part only an administrative as distinct from a legal significance and the responsibility of the superior officers consists ultimately in ensuring that their subordinates properly discharge the duties of their office as constables. These duties are imposed upon every constable by law and they cannot be widened or restricted by any superior officer or administrative authority. A constable is not an 'agent' but is personally liable for any misuse of his powers or any acts in excess of his authority—

It would almost appear as if the language of this report were written in preparation for the case which we are discussing—

"and he cannot plead that he is obeying the orders of his superior officer or of his police authority."

Nothing could be clearer than that. The station sergeant has imposed on him by statute the obligation of seeing that any charge made against a person is entered in the charge sheet and if bail is imposed he is responsible for seeing that the person charged is released only by a magistrate. I am not asking that steps should be taken against the station officer although I would point out that a very important protection of civilian rights is involved in this matter. I understand that the legal status of policemen and soldiers is such that they cannot claim immunity from legal action on the ground that they have carried out an illegal act on the instruction of a superior officer. Indeed, if we are to retain our civilian rights that must be so, because if that plea could be urged in extenuation of illegal acts, a policeman or a soldier might shoot a civilian on the instruction of a superior officer and claim immunity. There is always another superior officer above the superior officer concerned, and so there would be no one at all who could take proceedings against the Government, which is the most superior officer of all, except the Government itself. Obviously, if civilian rights are to be adequately protected the Home Secretary in the administration of the police force must insist that policemen who, presumably, know the law or at any rate this part of the law, should not plead as an excuse for breaking the law the instructions of some higher power.

As I say, however, I do not insist on that aspect of the matter. But I do insist that if the station officer should escape with verbal censure that should not be the position of the Secretary of Scotland Yard. He surely knows the law. Here he attempts to secure protection for a friend and he diverts the normal course of justice in order to do so. It was not that he was not satisfied that sufficient evidence existed for the arrest. The station officer was the person who had to be satisfied of that and he had satisfied himself on that point. But here is a man who uses his office for the purpose of protecting a friend from the machinery of justice. There can be no offence more heinous than that. The fact that that man is a high official of Scotland Yard is no reason why he should escape. If I saw a "pal" being carried off by a policeman to the police station and if I interfered, the policeman would arrest me. Here is a man who does precisely the same thing. He tries to prevent a friend being brought to trial. If high officials can break the law and claim immunity then the law is going to be brought into grave disrepute in Great Britain. An hon. Friend reminds me that this man to whom I refer was not himself a policeman. If these are the first fruits of the policy of bringing people from outside into the police force, the Home Secretary had better reverse that policy immediately. In this case we are to understand that this man is either so ignorant of an elementary law, a law which is known to almost every citizen, that he interferes where he ought not to do so, or else that he knowingly broke the law and interfered to protect a friend.

This incident occurred on 1st March and proceedings were not instituted, as the Home Secretary told us, until 5th March. But on 5th March a national newspaper contained information about the case. The assumption therefore arises that if the information had not leaked out to the public no proceedings would have been taken. I am not making a charge, but it is a very serious matter, and we must remember that four days elapsed before proceedings were taken. I am speaking with only a layman's knowledge and the Solicitor-General will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that if a charge is not proceeded with inside four days it lapses. I believe that the Home Secretary in this case had to take action under special powers conferred by a certain Act. But people outside are entitled to put two and two together and make four. Here a charge is made against a man. It is illegally interfered with and nothing happens until the information leaks out in the newspaper but on the day on which it is printed the Home Secretary decides to prosecute. I do not wish to use exaggerated language but I suggest that incidents of this kind undermine public confidence in the impartiality and dispassionate character of our police administration. It is not desirable that any citizen should feel that prominent citizens are better able to escape the consequences of their misdoings, or alleged misdoings, than less prominent people, and I suggest that public anxiety will not be allayed unless steps are taken to deal with the person who tried to use the powers reposed in him by his high position to obstruct the course of justice on behalf of a private citizen. In conclusion, I think the sympathy of everybody should be extended to this unfortunate person who finds himself put in a floodlight of publicity by the misguided efforts of his friends.

I have really very little to add to what I think was the very full statement of the circumstances of this case which I made at Question Time to-day. I observe that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), who has just brought this question up again, deprecates the unhappy effect which inevitably comes from continued discussion and advertisement of a problem of this kind upon the individual concerned. I should have thought that what was said at the court made amply clear what the court, on investigation of this question, thought of the matter, and the decision should, I think, be accepted by the general public without doubt. With regard to the other matters, all that I have to add is that it has been a very regrettable circumstance, but that at no stage of it beyond the first initial mistake, has there been irregularity or any question of giving any particular or peculiar advantage to anyone because of any position which he may have held. With regard to the other part of the problem, as I said in answer to questions to-day, so far as the station officer is concerned, I thought he acted in difficult circumstances, and I am sure the sympathy of the House will go out to him in those circumstances. With regard to the civilian Secretary at Scotland Yard, there has always been a civilian Secretary, and it is one of the unfortunate circumstances that any idea should be put about—for what reason, can best be judged by this House—that, because of some new reform, some change has taken place in this Department. Quite the contrary. There has always been a civilian Secretary, and the present secretary was there long before either I or Lord Trenchard had anything to do with the reorganisation of Scotland Yard. I have considered this matter with the Commissioner. The fault has been fully acknowledged, and regret has been expressed. It is one of those things to which, after all, we are all liable in human life, and I am satisfied, and I am sure the public can be satisfied without any question, that the proper procedure has been always pursued at Scotland Yard in this matter, with this one exception, and that it will be pursued in future. I can assure the House and the country that there will be no question of there being any doubt as to the fairness and proper administration of the law as long as I have anything to do with it.

I should like to refer for a moment to the subject upon which you, Mr. Speaker, found the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) out of order, namely, the subject of industrial assurance. My hon. Friend made a sufficiently long speech to make clear to the House the gravity of the problem involved, but it was made equally clear that the recommendations of the committee which inquired into this problem could not be discussed to-day because they would infallibly involve legislation. There is, on the other hand, a small field of administrative endeavour which we might explore and to which I should like to draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I do not think that anyone who has made any investigation of this problem can fail to be aware of the hardship suffered by numbers of the working classes who are insured, on account, first of all, of illegal policies into which they are induced to enter, and, secondly, on account of under-payments offered to them—indeed, forced upon them very often—when their claims become due.

It is true that there is in London a commissioner, with an office, to whom an appeal may be made, but it is not unreasonable to suppose—indeed, it is undoubtedly the fact—that the functions of the commissioner are not anything like sufficiently widely known. He has no branch office, and I should doubt if 10 per cent. of insured persons under industrial assurance policies know of his existence. It would be impossible for him to deal with the whole volume of complaints, if such volume of complaints reached him. I believe it is a fact that in one of his latest reports he says that approximately 15,000 letters of complaint reached him during the year. Administratively, under the Act as it stands, I think there would be no difficulty in setting up branch offices, in providing for very much greater publicity for the work of the commissioner, and indeed in generally informing insured persons that they have a right of appeal, and that they may expect to have to appeal in a very great many cases.

It is a very remarkable thing, but I happen to be acquainted, as are some of my hon. Friends, with a Mr. Mashford, who resides in Hull, and there, apparently from a benevolent point of view, acts as a sort of prisoner's friend, in an honorary capacity, taking only a very small percentage on the total claims to meet, expenses, and acting on behalf of insured persons who complain to him that they think they are being ill-treated by companies or societies. In a letter dated the 1st March he states:

"As proof of my assertion that large sums of money are due to policyholders all over the country, I may say that quite apart from the large amount of outside work I have had to do this year, I have, since the 1st January recovered moneys for 57 Hull families amounting to approximately £560, and I am quite sure that I am not touching even the outer fringe of the question in this City."

He goes on to say:

"What indeed must be the position in other parts of the country where the people have had no one to assist them in past years in the same manner as I have."

That is the point which I wish to make. It ought not to be left to the private endeavours of public-spirited men like this to bring home to the companies and societies the just claims upon them, and I think there would be no difficulty—there should be, at any rate, no difficulty—in extending the work of the Commissioner's office to cover at any rate great centres of population and at the same time to make it known, widely known, persistently known, that these offices are there in charge of responsible persons to see that insured people get their rights.

The gravity and extent of what I can only call the organised swindle that goes on under the name of industrial insurance calls for immediate action. Nobody can read the annual report of the Commissioner of Industrial Insurance without being aware that the state of things constitutes a very grave scandal indeed. Although I am unable to refer to the recommendations of the committee or to press on the Government in this Debate their enforcement by legislation, I can ask them to take what steps are in their power to enforce the law as it stands with what rigour they can, and to see that the very welcome, useful and necessary functions of the Commissioner are extended throughout the large centres of population in this country. That is an administrative action of which the whole House will approve, and it would be an enormous blessing to the vast mass of the working classes.

The Financial Secretary has expressed such gratification at being subjected to pressure, that I have no hesitation in continuing the process which he, apparently, appreciates. I wish to draw his attention, as the Minister in charge of the Stationery Office, to the very unsatisfactory circumstances which have attended the issue of this Report of the Committee on Industrial Insurance. It was placed in dummy on the Table on 5th July last, and was not available in the Vote Office until 22nd July, although it had been sent to the press 10 days earlier and received only one-quarter of a column notice in the "Times." I have been an attentive reader of Blue Books all my life, and I do not think that any Blue Book has left more serious impression on my mind than this; yet I found only a quarter of a column in the "Times" about it. When I went to the Vote Office to endeavour to obtain a copy, I found no copy was available. There was not one in the Library until 20th July, although the papers had had it 10 days earlier. The effect of a document of this importance coming at the fag-end of a long Session just before the Adjournment, and not being available for 10 days after it had been reviewed in the Press, was undoubtedly very unfortunate. It did not receive the publicity it should have had either inside or outside the House. In fact, I do not think that I am exaggerating in saying that not one Member in 10 has ever received the report or read it until quite recently, when a certain amount of interest was vouchsafed to it in consequence of questions being asked.

I want to ask the Financial Secretary to consider re-issuing this exceedingly important report—a report of far greater importance from the point of view of the people of this country than the Simon Report—in an abbreviated form at 3d., in the same way that the Simon Report was issued. There are 30,000,000 people in this country who have a direct or indirect responsibility for policies on their lives or on the lives of others. There are 80,000,000 policies in force, 10,000,000 are annually issued, and 4,750,000 lapse every year—a complete loss, for all practical purposes, to the insured person. There are a body of men, insurance agents, not one in a hundred of whom has ever seen or even heard of this report. They are an honourable and useful body of men. The report shows that they are subject to ruthless and relentless pressure from their head offices to obtain new business by fair means or foul. The report shows without any reservation whatever that certain companies which are named actually threaten the agents with deprivation of their posts or pensions unless they not only maintain business, but add a minimum of so much a week to the premium income. That is a very serious state of affairs, and, as far as I can make out, it is not one that would be sustained by the courts were it to be made a matter of test.

I do not think that legislation is in all respects essential to give effect to many of the recommendations in the report. What is wanted is publicity for the benefit of the agents, so that they can know the extent to which they have some recourse to the Industrial Insurance Commissioner, who is one of the greatest and most useful public servants we have ever had. The insured persons themselves might well, I think, receive a leaflet to show what recourse they have and what the real conditions are. I suggest to the Financial Secretary that there could be, if not a lucrative, at any rate an exceedingly educative market for a cheap edition of this report, as in the case of the Simon and certain other reports. We are dealing with the most important financial question outside the Budget that interests this country. The annual premium income is 25 per cent. greater than the whole sum received by the Treasury by way of National Savings Certificates every year. The amount of that premium income is nearly £60,000,000. Of that not more than £30,000,000 ever gets back to those who contribute. If that money were placed in National Savings Certificates, it would have a profound effect upon the Budget and on our whole financial position.

There are certain other aspects of this problem, and I do not wish to pursue them all. I will merely suggest once more that the Financial Secretary, as the Minister in charge of the Stationery Office, has a definite responsibility when he publishes such documents to see that they get the maximum publicity. For a document of this sort to be published at the very end of a long Session immediately before the Adjournment, to be kept back from the House for 10 days after it has been reviewed in the "Times" exceedingly briefly, and practically ignored by every other national paper, is a dereliction of duty on the part of the Stationery Office and perhaps inevitable in the circumstances. If a fresh, abbreviated and cheap report were issued, I should hope that the great insurance companies would be only too glad to send it to every one of their policy-holders.

I know a little about this insurance question. The troubles are not the fault of the agents or even of the head office. There is an enormous expenditure in collecting the premiums. The agents keep books which are sold and almost passed from hand to hand, and the overhead costs are colossal—at least 65 per cent. I was interviewed in the Lobby by somebody who wanted to reduce it to 45 per cent. I said I would not help him, because I took the view that it would be far better for this money to be put into a stocking instead of in this wasteful form of insurance. The true remedy is for employers of labour to have bulk insurance. I knew a firm in Edinburgh with 600 employés, and the chairman of the firm paid the premium for their insurance out of his own pocket. He paid 12s. a year for each man, and at death the widow received £50. The same amount collected by weekly instalments would have given only £10. Of the £50, £10 would be spent on funeral expenses, leaving the widow with £40. The cost was much less than would have been the case if the men were individually insured under industrial insurance.

The enormous amount of insurance that is engaged in with these agents is evidence of an extraordinary desire for thrift and the fear of every working-class family that the breadwinner may be taken away without leaving a shilling in the house. That fear is played upon, I do not say unjustly; but until firms realise how cheaply they can undertake bulk insurance, the troubles associated with industrial insurance will persist. As I said, that employer insured 600 men for 12s. each a year. When a death took place a note was sent in to say simply "So-and-so; number so-and-so has died," and back came a cheque for £50. There was no trouble, no delay. No medical examination was required; there were no collecting expenses. It was worked through one of the big insurance companies. It is what is done in the United States. That is the new remedy for this problem of industrial insurance. Until we can get rid of this silly process of the tally-man going up and down the stairs week after week collecting twopences and threepences, we shall never make progress. It would be as foolish to sell postage stamps by special messenger; that would be as costly.

I cannot understand why this Report has not been published, and why the Press has not taken more notice of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Advertisements"] Yes, there may be something in that. I notice that if any of the big combines have something to put across to the public the papers are always full of their advertisements; otherwise, we do not hear a word from it. The Press is becoming a public danger in some respects, because of this god of advertisements. But some form of publicity for this matter will have to be secured. I do not suppose much notice will be taken by the Press of what the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) has said to-day, but I hope that the advice which he has tendered will be considered, and that a pamphlet will be issued, so that the public will be able to read it. The first thing to do is to secure publicity. Publicity is far better than an insistence on legal rights. They are far too difficult and far too expensive to enforce, and spread far too much money among a very deserving class of the community. Publicity is the thing to put it right. In that way we may get the remedy, which is bulk insurance of the workers, under which the whole of the money that is paid in is net instead of being subject to enormous deductions.

I rise to support what has been said by the previous speakers on this subject, because I feel that in the main the trouble, particularly among the poorer classes, does not arise from the fact that legislation is not sufficiently strong to protect them, which is frequently the case, but from the fact that they do not know what the legislation is and the remedies which exist. On previous occasions I have referred to other phases of this important question. Some time ago we were discussing a question in which Poor Persons Rules were involved. I pointed out at that time Chat while facilities exist for poor persons to get legal assistance the chief trouble is that they do not know how to go about it or do not know that the facilities are there. They do not know that lawyers are prepared to give assistance under these rules in an unlimited and generous manner.

In this question of industrial insurance we have a tremendously important problem to deal with. I have some facts here which have been collated by the same gentlemen to whom my hon. Friend has referred. During the past 14 years the policies which have lapsed number nearly 100,000,000 and the owners of them lost upwards of £100,000,000. The income of companies and societies was £772,468,183; the management expenses and dividends to shareholders amounted to £314,981,597. The policy holders received in return only £271,599,864. The invested funds increased by £215,000,000. The dividends to shareholders have more than doubled in that period. Therefore, this is a most important problem, and we who are accustomed to meet from time to time constituents of ours who have been troubled by these matters know that very often when the individual is persuaded to take out a policy he really does not understand what it is all about. The proposal form is on occasions not properly filled in by him, and he has to rely upon the agent, the man who, as we have heard to-day, is frequently forced from a higher quarter to take action, is forced to this because pressure is brought to bear upon him to get business which assures him a livelihood. Sometimes it is the only means he has of obtaining a livelihood. The whole thing has in certain directions resolved itself into a very serious scandal.

What can be done? To suggest legislation would be out of order to-day, but we ought to make known to the people who take up policies, which means a very large percentage of the poor people of this country, what legislation already exists for their protection. Instead of the insurance commissioner having, as at present, only one office, there is no reason why offices should not be opened in other parts of the country, particularly in the bigger cities. There is no reason why, as suggested by my hon. Friend, the report should not be published, or an abbreviated form of it be issued at a popular price. I see every reason why this question should be aired as much as possible, so that the man in the street may know the remedies which are available for him and understand the kind of contract he is entering into.

A large number of illegal policies have been issued. I do not say they are fraudulently illegal, though no doubt there are a number of these. I refer to those which are illegal because of the fact that there is no insurable interest vested in the policy holder. The companies receive vast sums of money from the policy holders. It may be that the individual sums are small, say, £5 or £10, but that represents a tremendous fortune to the poor man who has been induced to take out a policy. The companies receive that sum and in some cases the policy holders get back no more than £2 or £3, and in many cases nobody receives back anything. These facts should be made known, and the methods of dealing with the problem should be made known. There should be, as I have said, offices of the insurance commissioner in the bigger towns, so that they may be more easily accessible to policy holders. Until further legislation is passed, which must of course be considered at a later stage, the question of acquainting policy holders with their rights under existing legislation ought to be in the minds of the officials of the Department. The fullest publicity should be afforded, so that policy holders and others may know what the position actually is.

I would like to support what has been said by the three previous speakers as to the possibility of something being done through administrative action to cure this really stupendous evil. Like a previous speaker, I very much regret that we cannot discuss the further legislative action which is so obviously necessary. Much might be done even without legislation. I am particularly struck by the suggestion made by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Johnstone) that there should be local offices of the Insurance Commissioner. Such offices should be in the various districts of London and in provincial cities, and might be of immense value in warning people of the possible snags, and making it less likely that they will become victims of the swindles of insurance societies by putting information before them as to the operations of those societies.

No one who reads this most deeply interesting report will doubt that a great deal of illegal insurance goes on which is not done contumaciously, but is largely the result of the ignorance of the policy-holders. One page of the report contains the statement that the committee estimated that in 1929 at least 200,000 children were over-insured in England. The hardship of over-insurance is that children are insured for a larger amount than is legally claimable, and such over-insurance may be made intentionally by a person who is given an interest in the child's death, but also innocently, and the unfortunate policy-holders lose the benefit of the insurance. A curious case is given in the report where a child had been insured first by its grandmother, and secondly by its mother. The grandmother claimed first and got the insurance, and the mother, although she had borne the whole of the expenses of the funeral and had put in her claim, was unable to receive a penny because the child had been over-insured.

It is not unduly harsh to the insurance societies to say it is obvious that they are not likely to be anxious to draw attention to, or to remedy, a form of over-insurance which is so highly profitable to themselves. All the premiums goes to them, when payments are limited to the legal amount of the insurance. The proposed local office could warn insured persons so that they might know that they were risking a penalty and probably the loss of the money by which they were over-insured. It is necessary to guard working people against the illegal action or unjust administration of the insurance societies. What can be done in that matter is strikingly illustrated by the work of Mr. W. E. Mashford, of Hull, who was alluded to by an hon. Member who spoke previously. Here was this man, not a wealthy man, working from enthusiasm for the subject. Testimony was paid to him by the committee of inquiry, because they gave up two and a half days to hearing his evidence. They were not able to adopt all his recommendations, but they expressed their belief in his sincerity and in the value of his work. The Industrial Assurance Commissioner visited Hull for the purpose of dealing with cases of dispute, and Mr. Mashford brought before the Commissioner, or assisted the policy-holders to bring, 36 cases, of which 21 were won, eight were lost, and six were adjourned. One was not dealt with. Only eight of the 36 were lost.

Here are a few particulars which he gave of the cases: For a widow, whose husband had been killed a short time previously, and whose child had been subsequently born, he reclaimed £30 13s. For another widow he reclaimed 19s. and for another 17s. 6d. For another poor woman who had six children to maintain, he reclaimed £15. For a man whose wife had disappeared, leaving him in charge of three children, he reclaimed £15. For another man, he secured £14, which is the fifth amount, according to Mr. Mashford, secured for this family this year. That is an interesting illustration of the point made in the report that some families hold a very large number of policies. In another case the husband had committed suicide and the widow was a physical wreck. How many people circumstanced as these people are, with burdens of very large young families, are likely to have the legal knowledge to enable them to know when they are being swindled? Why should their protection be left to a private agency? I do not know any counterpart of Mr. Mash-ford in any city, but I hope that some more organisations of the sort will be set up by private enterprise, although this is a thing which ought to be done by the community as a whole.

We are proud of the great mass of our social legislation, but in this respect the ordinary working man or woman has a very poor chance of knowing or enforcing a legal right without the advice and the constant assistance of some authority. Even in such a matter as housing, a provision was recently put into a Bill that local authorities might give advice to persons. That is the kind of thing which occurs only very rarely, but in the case which we are discussing there are 80,000,000 policies operating in this country, a number nearly double the figure of the entire population. The vast majority of those policies involve payments of about 2d. per week, and the average premium is £14 8s. Millions of weekly transactions are involved. Men come round and talk to the woman, because the man is out at work; and they are able to put up any sort of a tall story as to the benefits which she will get out of insurance. If ever there was a case where the ordinary individual needed the protection which only an agent of the community can give, here is such a case.

It is possible for local offices to be set up without any further legislation. Their cost would be recovered over and over again. Who can doubt that the appalling strain upon the resources of the working class involved in this grossly wasteful system of insurance results in large burdens upon the community and upon public assistance and unemployment authorities, hospitals and charities of every kind? It never pays in the long run to allow the resources of the community to be frittered away. Nobody can read this document without feeling a burning shame. I have seldom read a blue book which went more to the heart than this one does. There is an ugly side to it. When we meet again after the Adjournment we shall be considering a Betting Bill. I doubt whether even in that rather sordid and ugly subject there is anything uglier and more sinister than the form of betting upon human life which is dealt with in the report. Where you have people insuring their relatives, sometimes fairly distant relatives, or young men and women getting married and insuring their aged parents, who are already amply insured for purposes of funeral benefit, in a sort of gamble on the possibility of their death, it has a very ugly and sinister sound. A great deal could be done, simply by publicity, to bring the light of public knowledge on to this subject and to deter people from being inveigled into the appalling waste of their resources which takes place through these wasteful, and in many cases illegal, forms of insurance.

I think it is necessary that we should try to view this question from, if I may say so without disrespect, a sane plane. After all, while the Report does contain a great many things which I admit are undesirable, those undesirable things are of comparatively a small order when one considers the vastness of the problem, involving, as it does, some 80,000,000 policies. That undesirable portion has, however, been used to cover the whole, though my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has said that he was not prepared to allege that the cases were all bad, and that there were examples which might well be followed by others. I think that to-day we have been led away by some statements which, if I had the time and the opportunity, which I do not propose to take at this moment, could be very largely refuted. I am not denying the work that Mr. Mashford may have done, but I think it is very desirable that the House should take note of what is said by the committee in paragraph 3 on page 2 of their report. After referring to the nature of Mr. Mashford's work, they say:

"In the course of this work Mr. Mashford has formed strong opinions as to the need for reforms, and as a consequence of the large number of points which he submitted to us it was found necessary to devote 2½ days to his evidence. It is proper to say that while, for a variety of reasons, he failed to convince us in regard to a number of his submissions, we were much impressed by his sincerity and by his desire to protect the policy owners, especially those who are ignorant of their rights."

They do not, I think, give an approval of the statements which have been made here to-day, and which, as I have said, could in many instances have been refuted. After all, this is a comparatively small part of the problem. It may be argued that tins state of affairs must exist in very large proportions all over the country, but let us see what the Committee said with regard to it. May I here ask the House clearly to understand, with regard to the opportunity that insured persons have of laying their complaints before the proper authority, that, since 1923, it has been a statutory condition that, upon every policy issued after that date, there should appear the name and address of the Commissioner, to whom any questions of dispute or trouble could be referred? It may be, of course, that the insured people do not read their policies, but that was an attempt on the part of the Legislature—

Has my hon. Friend seen any of these policies, and does he think he could read that notice with ordinary eyesight? I suggest that not even a highly educated person could read it, or even understand what it was.

At all events, whatever form has been adopted, these persons have the opportunity of knowing where they may apply. With regard to the duties of the Commissioner, the Committee say:

"We are informed, however, that immediately after the Act of 1923 was passed policyowners began to write placing their troubles before the Commissioner and seeking his advice…. It was his intention to adjudicate personally, at any rate in the early years of the new system, and it was essential on this ground, as well as in the general interest, that the formal procedure should not be invoked in a multitude of trivial cases where no real dispute existed."

They go on to say:

"The success of this procedure is indicated by the fact that, while in the year 1930 the number of cases submitted was 15,758 (the number of letters received in this connection being 46,350), the number of formal disputes arising out of these cases was only 1,522 "—

that is to say, only 10 per cent. of the cases which came before him. The report goes on:

"We recognise the difficulty by which the Commissioner is continually faced when, having his judicial functions in view, he is besought by policyowners for help in their troubles (sometimes real but often fancied)."

Therefore, although there are some 80,000,000 policies, and when, the policyowners having received an intimation that any dispute or complaint can be referred to the Commissioners, some 15,000 cases are submitted, only 1,500 are found to involve questions of dispute; and the Committee say that they include a number of complaints which are sometimes real but often fancied. I submit that we need to deal with a matter of this sort in a quiet and proper manner, and not be led away by exaggerated statements. I can say, on behalf of some of the largest and best companies, that they have every desire to see that this business is conducted cleanly, and I think it would be very desirable if, instead of forcing legislation upon them, we were to endeavour to encourage them in the great improvement which has been made in the past 25 years. Some reference has been made to the average figure for expenses. It has come down to 34 per cent. from over 40 per cent., but in some of the larger organisations it is only in the neighbourhood of 25 per cent. Many of the recommendations contained in this report are in operation to-day. It has been stated that this is a matter which requires legislation, and in the meantime the request is put forward that the Commissioner himself should be placed in a better position for putting himself in communication with those persons who have complaints to make, and that other offices should be set up. I see no objection to that at all. In the main this insurance is conducted on proper lines. There are millions of policies against which nothing can be said, and many offices in the case of which no question can be raised as to their conduct or that of their agents, and their example might be followed. If the Commissioner's offices could be extended, I am sure that many of the exaggerated complaints which have been referred to would be found to be non-existent, and that we should in a very short time arrive at that ideal state which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple desires.

I was not aware that this matter was going to be raised in the House this afternoon, or I should have armed myself with a copy of the report, with the contents of which I am acquainted; but I think that those who have raised the matter have rendered a service to the House and to the policy-holders. I should not have risen to deal with the matter, beyond joining in the protest at this state of things, had it not been for the speech of the hon. Member for Mitcham (Sir R. Meller). It may be true that there is an instruction on the back of each policy as to the name of the Commissioner and the address to which applications may be sent, but, as has been pointed out, it is not very noticeable. It may be pointed out, however, that, as those who have had to deal with the people concerned know very well, they often require a great amount of aid in explaining their own case, and the reluctance of people who are afflicted in this way is very well known, I am sure, to every Member of Parliament who has had such cases put before him. Hon. Members also know quite well that there are very bad cases.

I question whether anything can be effectively done with the matter outside very drastic legislation, but, within those limits, the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Harcourt Johnstone) might well be considered. The functions of the Commissioner's Office might be extended so as to enable people to come readily into contact with those who will be able to give them advice, if necessary. It has been well said that the attempts that people will make to meet their obligations in the form of thrift are almost pathetic, and those who have come in contact with some of these cases must have been struck by the gallant attempts that people make to fulfil their obligations. I trust that the Government will not only give serious consideration to the suggestion of extending the functions of the Commissioner so that people can be sure of getting ready, sympathetic and understanding help, but will also seriously consider drastic legislation.

I approach the subject from a rather different point of view from that of hon. Members who have spoken. It is my fortune, or misfortune, to have a good deal of practice in this branch of the law, and I should like to say one or two things to the House in regard to some of the statements which have been made. I think the House ought to realise, first of all, the very large figures of policy holders in industrial insurance generally. There is now £30,000,000 in the funds of various societies definitely allocated to policy holders in addition to the sums assured on their policies, and year by year the proportion of profits which the policy holders are getting from this form of investment is rapidly going up, thanks to the improvement in the management of the bulk of the companies and societies. The expenses which some years ago ate up 60 per cent. of the premium income, are now down in very many cases below 40 per cent. and, as the matter is better organised, no doubt will be brought down to some lower figure. The report speaks of the vast issue of illegal insurances. Since 1923 it has been an offence knowingly to issue any form of illegal assurance and, if it comes to the notice of the Commissioner that any company or society is doing it as a matter of practice, it results in an inquiry and the Commissioner is entitled to apply very drastic remedies, even going to the length, if necessary, of winding up the company. In practice, those who manage these associations are bound by these provisions, and, if they knowingly break the law, they are liable to have their whole business investigated and, if necessary, very drastic steps taken.

In these circumstances they are bound, if they can, to find the persons entitled to money under the policies; otherwise, again they commit an offence under the Act and are liable to penalties. It is not an easy job very often to find the persons entitled to be paid. I agree that one of the great difficulties is that very often the person does not know what his rights are. Statutes have laid down that the back of the policy has to be plastered with all sorts of Sections and Sub-sections out of the Act stating their rights, but to the ordinary working man or woman it is perfectly impossible to understand them. I certainly do not know what certain Sections of the Act of 1923 which have to be put on the back mean. On the other hand, there is a statutory provision, and a good one, that the name and address of the Commissioner has to be on the back of the policy with an invitation, in case of difficulty or dispute, to write to him. I agree that it is to the advantage of the community as a whole that it should be made easier for them to get the requisite advice from the Commissioner, but he already gets something like 50,000 letters a year from policy-holders and he would, no doubt, get twice as many if other offices were opened elsewhere. If a policy-holder takes his policy to anyone who can read it intelligently and has good eyesight—some have it in large print, while others vary—he can immediately get the address of the Commissioner, and he will communicate with the company and, if necessary, carry out an investigation.

On the general question, there is no doubt that greater facilities for getting advice would be to the advantage of policy-holders as a whole. There are Members who are against the system of industrial assurance altogether. They say it is unthrifty and bad. But you would never get the savings out of these people at all otherwise than by a system of collection, except in the cases which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) suggested. This system is universal in this country, and it has grown enormously during recent years here and in the United States. There have been exactly the same suggestions made against companies carrying on this business in the United States as have been made here. I believe in the common sense of the working man. If it were true that the bulk of these policies were not obtained and people were swindled, no matter how pressing the agents are and no matter what statements they make, I do not believe the business would continue to grow unless the bulk of the people are satisfied that they get their money back ultimately and get their fair share of the profits.

This is a huge financial business which I am convinced, in spite of all the scandals that have occurred, is doing a very great deal of good to the working classes. I do not believe it would have grown to the extent it has grown under any other system than that which has been adopted. But that is not to say for a moment that administratively the Commissioner is not to be encouraged in every way possible to exercise his functions and to see that companies do not issue illegal policies or commit other offences. I agree in substance with the suggestion that the extension of his offices to some of the other big towns would enable people in the North of England and Scotland and elsewhere to get into direct touch with one of his officers more easily than they can at present.

Although the discussion which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barn-staple (Sir B. Peto) would appear to have been so promptly terminated on a point of Order, he must derive great satisfaction from the fact that a means has been found of resurrecting it. It is a most important subject, and those who are now in the House appreciated the fact, for it is remarkable that there is only one hon. Member in the House, apart from those now sitting upon the Treasury Bench, who has not spoken in the Debate to which we have just listened. It is important from many points of view. It affects the lives of people in all kinds of contingencies, and it has, as we have learned to-day, a great human interest. Any discussion of future legislation is out of order, and I therefore confine myself to making an observation or two upon the few concrete suggestions which have fallen from hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Johnstone) thought that there ought to be wider publicity of the activities and powers of the Industrial Insurance Commission. I gather that that is the view of other hon. Members who have spoken.

In connection with any legislation which may be undertaken, it will have to be seen what practical effect can be given to my hon. Friend's suggestion. In the meantime, hon. Members themselves can render great services in their constituencies by calling the notice of the public to the existence of this most important officer whom the law has established in order to protect the weak. His existence must be more widely known than some hon. Members have thought, for although his main office is in London he does, in fact, go on circuit. It was only yesterday that I was speaking to him, and in the course of asking him where he was going to spend his Easter vacation, he told me that he was going on circuit in Scotland for the purpose of dealing with complaints. Therefore, his activities are not confined to London, as some persons may imagine. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) thought—wrongly, as I think—that there had been some conspiracy to suppress this report.

I suggest no conspiracy.

The phrase was "a grave dereliction of duty" in regard to this report. The complaint evidently means that the report was published sometime in July before the House went into Recess.

My complaint is that it reached the papers 10 days before it reached any Members of Parliament, and thus became stale.

I am very sorry to hear that that is the case. I have just made inquiries at the Vote Office—I agree that they are very cursory inquiries, and that I have not gone very deeply into the matter—and I learn that the report was ordered to be printed on 5th July, and was in fact printed and in the Vote Office by the 25th, so that there had not been left much of an interval for the actual printing. However, I was in- terested in the complaint, and, as I am responsible, I will inquire into it. But the hon. and gallant Member cannot place upon us any complaint that the newspapers have not given this matter the display which he thinks it merits. They are the judges of what interests their readers, and it is indeed regrettable that they do not think this subject worthy of greater prominence, but for that I am not responsible, and I can take no steps to remedy it. My hon. and gallant Friend told us that he made a great study of these publications, and I am very interested to know it. But, having the blood of so many Blue Books in his veins, he is perhaps prejudiced, for it is not everybody who desires to read these publications, and even if they were given away "free, gratis and for nothing" and distributed in the streets, a great many people who were vitally concerned with them would never bother to peruse them.

That is my point. They ought to be published, in a case like this, in a form which is more palatable to the general public.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) said that he would not be satisfied until they were on every bookstall. I was going to say in that connection, that until the day comes when these publications can be written with that lively sense of humour which my hon. and learned Friend can command, they will not be read, even if they are displayed on every bookstall, and anything which I can do to assist in that direction I shall most happily do. The time to consider this matter in an operative form will be when legislation comes before the House, but I may perhaps be permitted to say that the matter is engaging our most active consideration at the moment. Everyone who has spoken has realised that progress cannot be hastened. It is an extremely complicated subject. I am at this moment in consultation with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General as to what best can be done, but the matter is not in a form in which it can be presented usefully to the Cabinet. We have no desire to delay progress, and I hope that this discussion will have served a very useful purpose in calling even wider public attention to what is a most vital matter.

May I ask my hon. Friend if he will indicate to the Cabinet, that if they would back up this matter more vigorously, it would be more popular than going on with the Betting Bill?