§ 5. Mr. James Hallasked the Minister of Labour why it is not proposed to ratify before September, 1940, the draft 372 convention fixing the minimum age for the admission of children to employment at sea?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThe provisions in the Education Acts, 1936, providing for the raising of the school-leaving age to 15 do not apply to children who reach the age of 14 in the year ending 1st September, 1939. Accordingly, until a year has elapsed from that date the law in this country will not be in accordance with the requirements of the convention referred to by the hon. Member, and consequently will not permit of ratification.
§ Mr. HallDoes not the hon. Gentleman think that this is a very necessary protection for young people and that it ought to be put into operation as rapidly as possible?
§ Mr. Benjamin SmithWill the hon. Gentleman introduce legislation to deal with this matter?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI cannot give any assurance of that kind at this stage, but I think the question is fully answered in my reply.
§ Mr. SmithWill the hon. Gentleman consider sympathetically the question of suggesting to the Cabinet that legislation might be introduced to get over this difficulty?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydAnything the hon. Member suggests will be considered.
§ Mr. ShinwellIs this not an exceptional case in which legislation might be introduced?
§ Mr. LeachWill this not mean that other countries are delaying as well, and will have to delay, because of our inaction?
§ 6. Mr. J. Hallasked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to issue a White Paper on the action proposed by His Majesty's Government regarding the draft conventions and recommendations adopted by the International Labour Conference at Geneva in June, 1937?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydYes, sir. According to the normal practice, my right hon. Friend proposes, in due course, to issue a White Paper on this subject.
§ 7. Mr. Hallasked the Minister of Labour what are the technical difficulties which have arisen with regard to 373 the interpretation of the draft Convention concerning the marking of the weight of packages transported by vessels; what progress has been made since last December with regard to their removal; and whether it is possible for His Majesty's Government to ratify the Convention in spite of these difficulties?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydIn reply to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 1st May, 1936, of which I am sending him a copy. As regards the second part of the question, the International Labour Office has not yet reported to the Governing Body the result of its inquiries into the matter. Meanwhile, as ratification of the Convention would involve legislation, it is clearly inexpedient to consider this while questions of interpretation are still in doubt.
§ Mr. HallDoes not the hon. Gentleman know that the Minister of Labour did make a statement that this Convention had been ratified, and does he not realise that it is a matter of vital importance to waterside workers that the matter should be put into operation at an early date?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThe sympathetic attitude of my right hon. Friend to this Convention is known, but at the present moment certain inquiries are being conducted by the International Labour Office, and the speed of those inquiries is not a matter that is under the control of His Majesty's Government.
§ Mr. Benjamin SmithAs the Convention has been accepted, why cannot it be put into operation?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydBecause of the technical difficulties which I have explained.
§ Mr. ShinwellCan the hon. Gentleman explain why it is that the representatives of His Majesty's Government at Geneva append their signatures to Conventions and then fail to ratify them?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydAs the hon. Member knows, this is an exceptionally difficult and technical case, and the difficulties concern the definition of many of the terms, as, for instance, the terms "package" and "object," in the Convention, but as speedily as possible attempts are being made to get over these difficulties.