§ COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTwished to move—
That, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of the Government in all Government Contracts to make provision against the evils of sweating, and to insert such conditions as may prevent the abuses arising from sub-letting, and to make every effort to secure the payment of such wages as are generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen.This subject was so well-known to hon. Members that it would not be necessary for him to make a speech in recommending the Motion to the House. It was fully dealt with in the late Parliament by the Under Secretary for the Colonies, who proposed a Resolution on the subject. The Resolution he (Colonel Howard Vincent) was now moving was practically the one agreed to unanimously in the late Parliament. It was accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), who was at that time First Commissioner of Works. The House, it was to be hoped, would re-affirm it to-night. It would not have been necessary for him (Colonel Howard Vincent) to have moved the Resolution if doubts had not arisen in the minds of some right hon. Members as to whether a Resolution of the last Parliament was binding on the present Parliament.
§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)seconded the Resolution. He said that, seeing that it was accepted in the last Parliament, there was not likely to be any difference of opinion about it now. It was desirable that the present Parliament should emphasise the Resolution passed in the last Parliament. It was surely well that in all Government con- 766 tracts the spirit of this Resolution should be observed; and he desired to know how far it would apply to foreign goods?
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of the Government in all Government Contracts to make provision against the evils of sweating, and to insert such conditions as may prevent the abuses arising from sub-letting, and to make every effort to secure the payment of such wages as are generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen."—(Colonel Howard Vincent.)
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,) Tower Hamlets, PoplarThis Resolution was passed by the late House of Commons, and it may be as well that the present House of Commons should affirm it. I should like to add, however, that, as far as the present Government are concerned, it is a work of supererogation to pass it, inasmuch as they have not only done all that in them lies to carry out its spirit, but have gone even beyond the spirit of the Resolution. As regards Public Departments, the working out of the Resolution is fraught with many difficulties, although it seems simple enough in itself. Many of the Departments have met the principle of this Resolution in a very friendly spirit, and have carried it out in a way that the House of Commons desires that it should be carried out. The hon. Member has moved the Resolution in the terms in which it was accepted by the late House of Commons, but those terms might, in my opinion, be improved, and I would ask the House, in agreeing to the Resolution, to accept the spirit rather than the exact wording of it. And here I may say that the hon. Member touched upon a rather difficult question. He asked how far the Resolution applies to foreign goods. Coming as the question does from the hon. Member opposite, I must regard it as emanating from a suspicious quarter. I cannot, on this occasion, go into the question of how the Resolution can apply to foreign goods, but I would ask hon. Members to remember that in regard to matters of this kind you cannot supply absolutely rigidly the terms of a Resolution of this character. There must be some elasticity of working. This Resolution cannot put our own workpeople in any worse 767 position as regards foreign competition, and I am sure the Government in carrying it out will take care that they are in no way prejudiced. I would ask the hon. Member to put at the beginning of the Resolution these words—namely, "That this House affirms the Resolution unanimously passed on February 13, 1891." This will show that this is no new Resolution that the House is agreeing to.
§ COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTI have no objection to that addition.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, the hon. Member for Sheffield had raised a most difficult and dangerous point of Parliamentary practice. The hon. Member's view seemed to be that because a Resolution had been carried in a previous Parliament that therefore it should be re-affirmed in the present Parliament. If this were so, they ought to go a little further, and confirm every Resolution, not only at the beginning of each new Parliament, but at the commencement of each Session, as they did certain Standing Orders, for in no two Sessions was the House constituted exactly of the same Members. In fact, it would be necessary to re-affirm every Resolution every time a new Member entered the House. It seemed to him (Mr. T. M. Healy) that the hon. Member for Sheffield, instead of strengthening the former Resolution, was weakening its effect. The former Resolution affirmed the view of the Government, and they knew it had been laid down in the highest quarters that there was continuity, as it were, in government, each succeeding Administration being bound by the acts of its predecessor, unless those acts were formally repudiated. Take, for instance, the question of Swedish matches. The Conservative Government affirmed that it was intended to use Swedish in the Government Offices. Charges of sweating were made.
§ It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
§ COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTThe hon. Member does not oppose the Resolution, I presume?
§ Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday next.