§ Bill reported, without Amendment.
788§ Mr. SHORTTMay I make an appeal to the House? I am entirely in the hands of the House. We all know what has passed, and if any section of the House desire that we should not take the Third Reading, of course, it would cot be taken; but, if there be no objection, I would ask for the Third Reading.
§ Mr. HOGGEI am quite willing to respond to that appeal. This is an international arrangement. My right hon. Friend has assured us that there are very few points where we are not covered above the minimum, and I am quite willing to accept that.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Sir J. D. REESOn the Second Reading of this Bill, having made a few remarks, I was followed by other Members of my own side, who said that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London and myself were opposed to what we had already approved by voting for the Treaty of Peace. I do not understand that. It seems to me that, by signing the Treaty of Peace as a whole, no individual Member of this House or the Government or the nation can be committed to particular Acts carrying out particular recommendations of the Iternational Labour Organisation. I demur altogether to the idea that we are in any way committed to any such Bill as this, simply because it is recommended by the International Labour Organisation, and it does not commend itself any more to me because it is international. But, suppose that principle were conceded, there are many small nations represented on this organisation, and suppose they decided, from their own point of view, that their present rates of wages—in wealth, and not on paper—were such that wages should be reduced, then is this House going to enforce, as a matter of course, a reduction of wages because gentlemen at Geneva recommend it? The matter does not admit of argument. The hon. Gentlemen who said that the right hon. Member for the City and myself were wrong in-the attitude we took were entirely wrong themselves, and the House, the Government, and the nation do not part in any respect with their freedom in this connection by being parties to the Treaty of Peace. Of course, I understand Labour 789 Members are very much interested in the immediate passage of this Bill. One can see that by counting the Members who have flocked here. Though I confess I have no very intimate acquaintance with the subject of lead poisoning, I approve of the prohibition of the employment of women and young persons in what we know to be a dangerous occupation. I do not know anything about the details of the application, and it is not upon that that I speak. I do demur altogether to the principle—and I hope it is not in any way conceded by the passage of this Bill and the general consent to it—that this House, this Government, or this country are in the smallest degree bound to accept anything recommended by the International Labour Organisation, consisting of members of whom we know nothing, and who, possibly, even as regards our own country, do not really represent the opinion of the British people.
§ Major HILLSI would like to point out to my hon. Friend that the constitution of the International Labour Organisation forms part of the League of Nations, and the League of Nations forms part of the Treaty of Peace. This House has confirmed the Treaty of Peace, and I think my hon. Friend voted for it.
§ Major HILLSI maintain that all the Governments who signed the Treaty, and whose representatives took part, are bound, whether they approve of those recommendations or not, to submit them to Parliament, or to the proper body in their State. Of course, Parliament is supreme, but, as I read the Clauses which constitute the International Labour Organisation of the League of Nations, we are bound, when anything is carried at that Conference, to submit it to Parliament. Of course, Parliament can do what it likes. Surely there is the right of any country to decline to adjust its industrial requirements to meet the needs of the more backward countries. I submit to my hon. Friend that this, at all events, is about the worst example that he could have taken on which to attack an organisation. This Bill contains Clauses that many people have fought for for many years. I am perfectly certain that if he knew the terrible effects of lead poisoning, especially terrible on the women, and especially terrible to the race 790 —they cannot be described, they are so horrible—and I am certain he does not approve of that.
Sir J. D. REESI distinctly said that I approved of the purpose of the Bill, but I did not and cannot allow that we are bound to accept all these things.
§ Major HILLSI quite accept that explanation, but if my hon. Friend does want to fight the Labour office or organisation, I think he had better find a more favourable Bill than this. I shall be very glad when this Bill is passed, and that the House has consented to the Third Reading. I hope the Bill will very soon pass into law.
§ Mr. WIGNALLLet me say at once that if my hon. Friend opposite (Sir J. D. Rees) is under any misapprehension as to the conception we have had of the opposition submitted by him and the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), he had better clear his mind. We were clear upon the issue that they did not object to the Bill because it was a humane measure, although they knew nothing about it—according to the statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite himself! They did object to it simply because it was a Bill embodying certain of the recommendations of the Labour Convention of the League of Nations. But it is one of the most splendid evidences, to my mind, of a desire over the whole world to unite in modifying these terrible conditions which are a curse to humanity and industry. The difficulty we have had in years gone by to deal with this matter requires some recognition. Every association of employers dealing with this or kindred conditions existing in other countries which are competing with this country. They have said, "Put us on an equality, give us universal conditions, let us be equal, so far as equality can be brought about, and then we are not afraid of competition." For years some of us have been striving to bring about this better condition of affairs, and I think the first and most splendid step made in that direction is the recommendations of the Labour Section of the League of Nations. That at least gives us hope that there is a better and a brighter future. It only requires those who know, that do understand, and that have seen the terrors and horrors of it, to realise what this beneficent measure means to the people in 791 this industry. This morning I was at a general conference of this very industry of employers and workmen, and I never heard a word of complaint in regard to this Bill from the people who do know something about it. We are, therefore, the more grateful because it is a step, an international step, in bringing about an improvement in industry. If all the world stood back I would still say to ourselves, "Go on on these lines for the betterment of our own children and those who have to enter into this industry."
Lieut.-Colonel J. WARDI cannot allow a Bill like this to pass without just a word in reference to the provisions and objects which it purports to fulfil. I represent a constituency and district which is probably more interested in this subject than any other district represented in this House. In 1909, I think it was, I was appointed a member of the Lead Commission. For two years I laboured to understand this subject. We took evidence, not merely from experts in England and the kingdom generally, but from Europe. A mass of evidence was collected. On looking into this Bill I see that the Home Office have attempted, as far as possible, to impose the conditions that were finally recommended by the Committee, upon the employers engaged in British manufactures where lead was employed. It is with the greatest pleasure that one also finds that the. recommendations of that Committee relating to this industry are now practically international law. I must confess that I entirely agree with the speech of the hon. Gentleman on the opposite side of the House (Major Hills), that those who wish to oppose the Labour Department had better take a more favourable opportunity. If Labour had done nothing else but be successful in getting this Clause into the Treaty of Peace it would have done well. I believe this is the first international treaty over made where conditions of labour form part of it. In no great war hitherto, while commerce and trade and the general conditions of trade, and how it shall be conducted, have been considered, has this class of proposal ever been put forward. This is the first great step forward in international law. There are Clauses and proposals to attempt to bring up the standard to something like 792 decency in employment in different trades by that international agreement of which this Bill forms part. Those who wish to oppose the Labour Department established under the Treaty of Peace could not, I am certain, either on humanitarian grounds, or national, or political, or any other grounds have chosen a worse case than the case represented by this Bill. If the Department of Labour constituted or instituted by that Treaty of Peace does nothing else than secure this kind of legislation, it will have been worthy its institution.
I need not enter into the subject, but I wish to say this: that from the evidence taken it was apparent that this was not purely a claim on the part of the workmen, or workwomen, or children, engaged in the industry. The evidence of 1909 clearly shows that the employers themselves were as anxious as the workpeople to find some way, if it were possible, to mitigate or abate the horrible results of lead poisoning and of working amongst the lead. Much has been done. But we have always had in our minds imposing conditions on the British manufacturer in the potteries, the possibility that other countries would not adopt similar rigid regulations, and that, therefore, we would be putting our employers and our industries at a disadvantage as compared with similar classes of work in other countries. This is therefore a great step forward. May I take the opportunity of saying that it is not done exclusively on the demand of the workpeople, but equally on the demand of the employers of the potteries. They give it their blessing as much as do the workpeople whom it seeks to protect. I give the Bill all the blessing I can and I am sure every well-wisher of the community will wish that it may become law, and subsequently applied internationally.
§ Mr. SEDDONI agree with every word that the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward) has just said, but I wish to say that I think he is under a misapprehension as to what is the alleged opposition of my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees). In the last Debate I understood that my hon. Friend did not object to the proposals of this Bill, but what he did was to take exception by saying that he saw lurking within such proposals the possibility of some super-State being set up that would override the power of this 793 House. As a democrat, and believing that we should come as near as we can on labour and all classes of legislation throughout the world, I protest against this House becoming subordinate, even in a good cause, to those assemblies which are not elected by the popular franchise of the people. I agree that this is legislation that is wanted. It was admitted by the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), that in this class of legislation we are proposing to go further than the labour section set up by the League of Nations. Let us continue the good work, and let us go on in front of other nations, but I for one cannot accept a provision which even suggests that there is going to be set up a super-State outside the authority of this House.
§ Lieut-Commander KENWORTHYIt is not very often that I heartily congratulate the Government upon a Bill, but I cannot let this opportunity slip without saying how heartily my hon. Friends and I really welcome this Bill. The fact that this Government has brought it in makes our praise no less sincere. May I point out to those hon. Members who are frightened by the words "international" and "labour," that the International Labour Organisation of the League of Nations is really very bureaucratic, and I do not think there is a single person of extreme views upon it. The French representative is a patriotic French Socialist who took up a high patriotic line during the War, and he is a gentleman who is much respected in this House. Our own representatives are gentlemen who favoured the Conservative point of view during the War and since, and therefore right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite need not be alarmed at the words "international" and "labour." Those who made these recommendations constitute a very steady-going organisation, and the people who met at Washington were anything but extreme internationalists. The hon. Member who spoke last objected to any ad hoc authority calling itself a League of Nations overriding this House. I wish to say that when the next Peace Treaty comes along I propose to move an Amendment providing that the representatives of the Council and the Assembly of the League of Nations shall be approved by this honourable House. I moved an 794 Amendment to this effect when the last Treaty was before us, and that includes the organisation of the League of Nations which has given birth to this Bill. I then pointed out that the Members of this House should have a say in electing those representatives both on the Council and Assembly of the League of Nations.
§ Mr. HOHLERI would like to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if the hon. and gallant Member's remarks are in order.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall)I thought the hon. and gallant Member was giving his reasons for supporting the Third Reading, although his remarks seem rather discursive.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI was simply trying to meet the view of those who say that they did not approve of this proposal because it came from the League of Nations. I was pointing out that I gave an opportunity of putting our representatives on the Council and the Assembly of the League of Nations under the control of this House, and probably those who have been opposing this proposal did not hear my argument. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) spoke upon that subject, and I suggest when I move such an Amendment in reference to the next Peace Treaty, that all those who object to this House being overridden should support that Amendment.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREAfter the last speech and the speech of the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Seddon) I think that something should be said to emphasise the fact that the League of Nations has never aspired to be a super-State; it is not a super-State, and does not bind any member of any State. That is a constant misrepresentation made by the opponents of the League of Nations. Hon. Members like the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) frequently suggest that an organisation like the League of Nations or the labour bureau connected with it is in the nature of a super-State, but it is nothing of the kind. It is, however, the means whereby international action can take place on a subject of this kind which could never have been achieved without that organisation.
Before the War in 1913, a conference on this subject took place at Basle, at which most of the European countries were represented. It was agreed that something ought to be done, but, owing to the 795 absence of recognised machinery, nothing was done, and it was generally admitted that under the old system it would have taken between 10 and 20 years to get anything done. Now, after the very first conference, under the auspices of the League of Nations held at Washington, it has been possible to get the various nations represented at that conference to take parallel action. The significance of this Bill is that it is the first example we have had of how the machinery of the League of Nations can facilitate, and hasten, international action of a kind generally beneficial to humanity, without in any way infringing the sovereignty of the various members of the League.
§ Mr. MILLSApparently, there are some Members who have attended for a specific object and who possibly are waiting the opportunity of worshipping at the shrine of a Bill of Divinity. They want to pass on to the next Bill. May one who is generally credited with being an extremist, however, be allowed to point out one or two reasons why Members should appreciate the action of the Government, and hesitate before condemning any form of legislation because, forsooth, it may have either the word "international" or the word "labour" in it? May I point out to those damning this Bill with faint praise that the facts are exactly as the hon. Member (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) has just said? Our object in all the countries of the world would be far more quickly and effectively obtained if we could proceed upon international lines rather by the imposition of international duties and restrictions on trade, because, after all, the whole of the peril that confronts the so-called civilised countries of to-day is due to the lack of protection of those lesser civilised States already engaged in productivity. If, in Japan or any other country, we could get some measure of agreement as to the right of the workers, whether organised or not, to some decent standard of existence, that in itself would make for more amicable relations as between country and country and employer and employed.
I look forward to the time when there will be some universal code of living and of conduct as between those who work and those who dispose of the products, and this Bill, brought forward within twelve months of the meeting at Washington, shows that when people, whether 796 nominated by Governments or directly elected by Labour, who have absolute and certain knowledge of the actual conditions under which people work, get together, there is not these academic and long-drawn-out quarrels and hair-splitting which generally result when people who happen to have been elected by so many thousand votes in such and such a division insist upon discussing these questions. It is a mere accident when anyone is elected to this House who can represent as a specialist any particular point of view, but, in questions of Labour and Labour conditions, most Labour men are specialists. It is only those who have interested themselves in the uplifting of wage conditions who know that only one woman out of ninety working in the lead industries is able to bring a child into the world. We know that blindness is directly due to this labour, and that there are men in East London to-day who, within three months of starting at the lead works in Hackney, have awful sores breaking out all over their bodies, and who have had to come away from their work. Under these circumstances, it is time we seriously considered whether any industry that depends for its continuance and prosperity upon the certain manufacture of malformation is worth continuing at all.