HL Deb 12 March 1924 vol 56 cc713-6
LORD MUSKERRY

My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can indicate the nature of the main proposals to be embodied in the new Bill limiting the hours of labour in different industries which it is the intention of the Government shortly to introduce ; and to

and if we carried out their policy we should put down, in exactly the same way, the facilities by which modern science enables people to enjoy and do this thing without resort to betting places. It is not a matter to be dealt with in this rather light and easy way, as if we were talking about something which did not matter at all. It is a definite canker in the public life of this country, and I do not think we should be put on record as supporting and encouraging any measure which would increase that evil.

On Question, whether the Motion shall be agreed to ?—

Their Lordships divided :—Contents, 57 ; Not-Contents, 15.

CONTENTS
Devonshire, D. Churchill, V. Monk Bretton, L.
Wellington, D. FitzAlan of Derwent, V. Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)
Mowbray, L.
Bath, M. Muskerrv, L.
Curzon of Kedleston, M. Banbury of Southam, L. Newton, L. [Teller.]
Biddulph, L. Oriel, L. (F. Massereene.)
Carson, L. Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)
Ancaster, E. Cottesloe, L. Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Beauchamp, E. Danesfort, L.
Buxton, E. Fairfax of Cameron, L. Raglan, L.
Carlisle, E. Gage, L. (F. Gage.) Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Chichester, E. Hothfield, L. Sempill, L.
Clarendon, E. Islington, L. Shandon, L.
Eldon, E. Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.) Sinclair, L.
Liverpool, E. [Teller.] Kylsant, L. Southwark, L.
Luean, E. Lambourne, L. Stewart of Garlies, L.
Malmesbury, E. Lawrence, L. Swansea, L.
Midleton, E. Leigh, L. Teynham, L.
Morton, E. Lilford, L. Treowen, L.
Northbrook, E. Lyell, L. Wavertree, L.
Strange, E. (Atholl D.) Merthyr, L. Wharton, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Abp. Russell, E. Darling, L.
de Mauley, L.
Haidane, V. (L. Chancellor.) Southwark, L. Bp. Gorell, L.
Hemphill, L.
Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]
Dartmouth, E. Arnold, L. Shuttleworth, L.
De La Warr, E. [Teller.] Clwyd, L. Southborough, L.

call attention to the existing hours of labour of officers of the merchant service, and to ask whether the Bill referred to will cover their case and that of merchant seafarers generally, especially having regard to the proceedings at the Genoa Conference in June-July, 1920?

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, the noble Lord does a very valuable public service in bringing this matter before your Lordships' House from time to time, and, if I might venture to do so, I would like to thank him. I often think that we, as a nation who live by the sea, know extremely little of the lives and conditions of those who carry our goods and sail our ships. I have had a very slight experience of this life, and for that reason again I beg to thank the noble Lord. The purpose of the Bill which His Majesty's Government intend to introduce is simply and solely the ratification of the draft Convention on hours which was arrived at at the Washington Labour Conference. The question of merchant seamen was specifically excluded and referred to a later Conference, and this was done because it was recognised that the conditions governing the case of merchant seamen were different from those governing the hours worked by those who are employed in land industries. The Conference to which this matter was referred was held at Genoa, and no sort of agreement could be arrived at.

In view of the purpose of this Bill, it is obviously out of the question, and obviously quite outside the scope of the Bill, that any question relating to merchant seamen should be included in the measure. His Majesty's Government are introducing this Bill, I think, a little in the spirit of setting an example to the rest of the world. The Convention was agreed to almost unanimously—not quite unanimously—by an International Conference, and we are the first of the great Powers who are going to put this agreement on the Statute Book in the form of an Act. It is therefore, as I have said, quite obvious that it would be folly for His Majesty's Government to confuse the issue by introducing into this Bill a completely extraneous matter. The Government are not prepared to introduce separate legislation. Apart from the fact of their programme being so excessively loaded, they feel that, in the present state of the shipping industry, this is not the time for experiments.

It is not necessary to tell your Lord-ships of the state of this industry and the state of depression in which it has been for some time past. The alteration that would be necessary to enable our merchant vessels to increase their crews would involve enormous capital expenditure. The extra accommodation to be provided for crews would be given at the expense of the cargo and would be made at the expense of the earning power of these vessels at the very time when we are increasing the expense of running them. I have said that the conditions of labour in ships cannot be regarded in the same way as the conditions of labour employed on land. It is true that our merchant seamen have times of great stress when their work is performed under extraordinarily difficult and even dangerous conditions. It is true that they are separated from their families for long spaces of time. But it is also true that there are times when they are doing little but standing about, and when they are on land there are times when they enjoy comparative comfort.

Do not let me be misunderstood. The Government are not saying that they consider the conditions of labour in any way ideal : far from it. But they feel that the difficulties are enormous. Why did the Washington Conference refer this question to another Conference ? Because they felt that it was a very difficult problem. Why did they not reach a decision at Genoa? Again, because they could not arrive at a decision. Since then the Maritime Board, which corresponds to the Whitley Council to the British Shipping Industry, has taken it up. But there has been no Report ; they have had to drop it. Therefore His Majesty's Government feel that the opinion in the industry itself would not justify them in embarking upon legislation, but they say that with the very deepest regret, and they extend all their sympathy to the cause which has been brought forward by the noble Lord.