§ 2. Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour if he is now able to state the policy of the Government with reference to the ratification of the Washington Eight-hours Convention; and if any statement on this point was made at the meeting of the International Labour Office at Geneva this week?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson)My right hon. Friend dealt with this matter in the course of a speech which he made on 23rd April at the International Labour Conference now in Session. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of the passage relating to the Washington. Hours Convention.
§ Mr. MANDERDid the right hon. Gentleman make any statement of the definite policy of the Government in regard to this matter?
§ Mr. HUDSONPerhaps the hon. Member will look at the statement.
§ Mr. MANDERIf I put down a question this day twelve months, am I likely to receive a definite answer?
§ Mr. HUDSONI am afraid that is a hypothetical question.
§ Following is the passage:
§ "In other portions of his report, the director makes reference again to the Washington Hours Convention. He says that 'the office is powerless at present to direct the attention of the Government, or even of opinion among the workers, to the Hours Convention or other important measures which were previously regarded as the best means of preventing unfair competition.' I will not take up time with discussing the question whether the limitation of hours irrespective of the protection of wages is really of great value, except to say that wages constitute the most important factor in determining the standard of life. I will address myself only to the subject of the Hours Convention.
§ "That Convention was drafted and settled within limits of time in which no national legislature would attempt to draft and pass finally a law on an important subject except in a case of great emergency. As early as 1921 the British Government indicated that it could not ratify the Convention owing, inter alia, to difficulties which would be caused in respect of certain collective agreements and established conditions of a favourable character which the ratification of the Convention would have endangered or made impossible to maintain. Great Britain indicated that she would be prepared to enter into discussions for the purpose of revising the Convention. To this there was no response. In 1924 the first Labour Government prepared a Bill but could make no progress doubtless by reason of similar difficulties to those encountered earlier. In 1926 the Government of which I was a member called a conference in London to discuss questions of interpretation. Certain conclusions were reached as to how the countries concerned could secure uniformity of administration but it was clear that, even so, revision of the Convention or some additional international agreement would be necessary, if ratification was to be secured. I myself, as a member of the governing body, made proposals for revision without success. The last Labour Government prepared legislation with, no doubt, every intention of endeavouring to take definite action. But they also were unable to make progress and it is common knowledge that closer examination disclosed dangers to trade union agreements of great value to certain classes of workers if the provisions of the Convention without amendment were made law. In any case it is obvious that practical difficulties and not lack of sympathy have prevented the ratification of the Convention in a country which, in spite of long depression, maintains in practice a normal working week of 48 hours or less. The present Government will give 551 the matter further consideration when other more urgent matters have been disposed of but it would be folly to ignore the serious practical difficulties."